The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-08-03 CC Packet 1 City of Southlake,Texas MEMORANDUM July 30, 1999 ! 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 August 3, 1999. 1. Agenda Item No. 5A. Approval of minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held July 20, 1999. If you have any changes to the minutes, please discuss these at the work session or notify Sandy LeGrand prior to the meeting. She will bring the amended minutes to the meeting for your consideration. 2. Agenda Item No. 5B. Authorize the Mayor to execute the second amendment of the Trinity River Authority of Texas, City of Southlake Interim Diversionary Agreement. Simply stated, this amendment provides us a little more time to complete the Denton Creek Pressure System (DCPS) and transfer the diverted wastewater to that system. The memo from Ron Harper provides the details to fully understand the issues with the DCPS, the historical and current efforts to get that system on line and the need for this amendment. Although the TRA is granting us an extension until 2003, there will be additional costs if we cannot end the diversion of wastewater flows from the Denton Creek Basin to the Big Bear Creek basin by November 30, 2000. At this point, we anticipate that the DCPS will be completed by the end of 2000. As such, it is critical that we continue to push forward with the construction of the system so that we do not incur the obligation of paying TRA as if the sewage is being treated at both facilities, as described in Ron's memo. Please let Ron know if you have any questions about this item. a Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 2 of 12 3. Agenda Item No. 5C. Authorize the Mayor to execute a NETS Scope of Services agreement. The packet memo provides the background information for this item. We did not seek your approval of this agreement earlier in the fiscal year, as we did the other services agreements, at the request of NETS because, at that time, they were unsure of the status of receiving federal funding. All of their issues have now been resolved and we are ready to proceed. Your adopted budget includes the $8,425 requested by NETS for the services they provide. Note that, although no agreement was in place, NETS has provided service to Southlake residents throughout the fiscal year. Please contact Deputy Director of Community Services Steve Polasek with questions about this item. 4. Agenda Item No. 5D. Request for approval to purchase software and radio equipment for the upgrade of the SCADA System. The SCADA system will be used to electronically control the lift station while gathering statistical data. Funding for this equipment was included in your budget, as noted in the staff memo. Note that formal bidding was not required since the unique requirements for compatibility with our SCADA system have resulted in only one vendor being able to meet our specifications. Although the equipment will be purchased under a sole source situation, its cost exceeds $15,000 and therefore requires Council approval. Please let John Knight know if you have questions about this item. 5. Agenda Item No. 5E. Award of bid for elevators for Town Hall; and Agenda Item No. 5F. Award of bid for structural steel for Town Hall. Both items came in under the construction estimates prepared by the Beck Company. Note that the funding for these projects will be fronted by the city until such time as the TIF bonds are sold. Please let Ron Harper know if you have any questions about this item. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 3 of 12 6. Agenda Item No. 5G. Authorize staff to negotiate a consultant contract for the Traffic Management Bond program with HNTB. As noted in the staff memo from Ron Harper, three firms were interviewed to manage this construction program. With the help of Councilmembers Kendall and DuPre, HNTB was selected to take to Council as the recommended consultant on the project. Your packet contains materials from their presentation to the selection committee, illustrating the extensive experience and commitment this firm will bring to the job. Once you approve this item, staff will begin negotiating with HNTB on fees (see Ron Harper's memo for an explanation of how the process works) and the resulting contract will be submitted to Council for approval at a future date. 7. Agenda item No. 5H. Award of bid to Pate Brothers Construction, Inc. for the construction of a sanitary sewer force main along Dove Street from Lonesome Dove Avenue to Kirkwood Boulevard. Although the total cost of this project (coupled with the related gravity line and lift station) exceeds the amount budgeted in the CIP, the bids for the force main are competitive. Eight bids were received for the construction of the force main, ranging from the low bid of $1,110,278.30 to the highest of $2,203,616.70. Staff recommends awarding the bid to the low bidder, Pate Brothers Construction, Inc. Two other points are worth noting. First, it is critical that we continue to move forward with the construction of the components of the Denton Creek Pressure System so that we can meet the requirements of our diversionary agreement with the TRA as described above. Secondly, the additional costs for completing this portion of the DCPS project are largely attributable to easement acquisition. (You will recall the extensive negotiations undertaken with the three holdouts discussed with Council at a previous meeting.) The costs of the project can be absorbed in Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 4 of 12 the funds available from budgeted CEP projects that came in below our estimates. This project is shown on line 11 of the CEP Project Cost worksheet attached to Shawn Poe's memo. As you can see, funds are available for the project. Please let Shawn know if you have questions about this item. 8. Agenda Item No. 51. Award of bid to Sunmount Corporation for the reconstruction of Dove Street from SH 114 to North White Chapel Boulevard and the reconstruction of Highland Street from Shady Oaks Drive to North White Chapel Boulevard. There are several important points to note about this item. First, of course, is cost. As pointed out in the memo from Shawn Poe, right-of-way acquisition has been more costly than anticipated when the budget for these projects was determined. As he notes, our decision to purchase both entire tracts, rather than simply acquiring the necessary right-of-way for this job, makes the outlay for land higher than expected. Of course, upon completion of the realignment the city may choose to sell the remainder of the tracts, recognizing that the net result will be lots that are less than one acre and do not have sewer. This does not mean that the land won't be marketable, but it likely reduces its market value. Nonetheless, it is possible we will recoup some of our funds should we decide to sell. As you will note, we can fund this project using money available from budgeted projects that came in below our estimates (the project is shown as item #12 on the list). The other issue is trees. Your packet contains a memo produced by Landscape Administrator Keith Martin outlining the tree issues, and the realignment exhibits show the trees that will need to be removed. Many of the trees in question are large oaks. While this is not an ideal situation, there are no feasible realignment options due to the nature of the offset and existing conditions at each intersection. At Highland, saving trees would require swinging the alignment to the south, which would significantly impact the Assembly of God church on the corner. At Dove, Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 5 of 12 the offset is greater than Highland and swinging the alignment to the south would impact more trees. We are already encroaching on the water tower to the north. We will have detailed exhibits to review with you during work session for both intersections, and will be ready to discuss this issue with you in detail at that time. We have very few options; however, if you do not feel comfortable leaving this item on consent after discussing in work session, we can pull it and discuss further as a regular agenda item. Please let Shawn Poe know if you have any questions about this item. 9. Agenda Item No. 6B. Report from Freese & Nichols on South Kirkwood Branch drainage. Your packet contains the draft final report from Freese & Nichols. You will recall discussing this study when we were working with Mr. Runyan on his drainage issues. The consultants will be prepared to highlight their recommendations for needed public improvements, and these issues are discussed in detail in the report. Please contact Ron Harper with questions about this report. 10. Agenda Item No. 8A. Ordinance No. 480-316, 1 st Reading, (ZA 99-036), Rezoning and Site Plan for Proposed Office Building — Miron Addition. This request is for a change of Zoning from `B-1" to "S-P-l" with "O-l" uses and Site Plan on Lot 3R3, Block 1, Miron Addition. The property is located on the east side of Miron Drive, west of the Woodland Heights residential neighborhood, approximately 700' south of Southlake Boulevard. The plan proposes a one-story, 5,904-square-foot office building that includes a two-car garage for vehicle parking, file storage and/or possible office use. The primary reason for the zoning change request to "S-P-l" was to address some ,,, issues related to the building and site design. The building was designed to take Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 6 of 12 advantage of the lot width rather than depth in an effort to limit the removal of trees primarily located on the west portion of the lot. This forced the building beyond the minimum 25' rear building line of the existing `B-l" and proposed "0-1" Zoning Districts, as well as the 4:1 slope line required under the "Residential Adjacency Standards." Since the intended use of the property fell within "0-1" uses only, staff recommended that the"S-P-1" rezoning request be limited to"0-1"uses. The variances proposed include a 20' rear building setback, a reduction in the required number of parking spaces and an alternate surface material for parking spaces (crushed stone or grass-crete type surface) to aid in tree preservation. Other variances requested are dumpster location (forward of the structure) and building articulation. .. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0) subject to the Plan Review, allowing the requested variances and adding the following: 1) Requiring the garage to be for personal auto use only (cars, small trucks, SUV's), with no vehicle washing or repairs permitted; 2) Requiring back porch to be made of wood as depicted, allowing leeway in the layout but no larger in size; 3) The 8' fence be constructed with the smooth side facing the residential properties (no posts or rails facing residences); 4) Requiring applicant to save trees as shown on the new plan; 5) Maintain landscaping in perpetuity; 6) Allowing the City Landscape Administrator leeway in evaluating irrigation requirements in order to address any concerns affecting existing tree preservation, and requiring the applicant to only maintain plants they are putting in place keeping in mind preservation issues. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 7 of 12 There were several concerned residents of Woodland Heights present at the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings held for this item. The applicant tabled this request at the first meeting in order to meet with the residents. Based on residents' commentary at the meeting, it is staffs understanding that the majority of their concerns have been resolved. However, opposition from the property owners within the 200' notification area exceeds 20%. No opposition has been officially rescinded in writing. If the opposition remains 20% or more, a super majority vote to approve (6 of 7) shall be required in order to approve the zoning change request. Feel free to contact Karen Gandy or Dennis Killough regarding this request. 11.Agenda Item No.9A. Resolution No. 99-60, urging the Texas Transportation Commission to fund local transportation improvements. As the memo from Greg Last points out, this resolution is a continuance of our active participation with Metroport Cities Partnership in its attempt to secure state funding for transportation projects in this "region." This particular resolution endorses efforts to secure funding for SH 114 west of Kirkwood and US 377. If you are comfortable making this endorsement, you may wish to consider moving it to the consent agenda. 12. Agenda Item No. 9B. Resolution No. 99-61, in support of widening and improvements to SH 26 at the request of the City of Colleyville. This item is on the agenda at the request of the City of Colleyville. It has been the standard operating procedure of the cities in the Metroport Cities Partnership to support the requests for TxDOT funding by Metroport cities. The Colleyville City Council has submitted a request for funding of the widening of SH 26 and related improvements, and has asked us to pass a resolution supporting their request. The City of Colleyville has supported every request we have made to TxDOT regarding Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 8 of 12 our projects. Please let me know if you have any questions. As with the previous item, this could be moved to the consent agenda. 13.Agenda Item No. 10A. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a commercial developer agreement with the developer of Gateway Plaza. This developer agreement contains a few provisions that are out of the ordinary, as discussed in your packet memo from Charlie Thomas. The following are highlights: • Roadways - As noted in the memo from Charlie Thomas, the developer has requested that the city pay the "oversizing" cost in the amount of $52,000 for the construction of Gateway Drive. The street will be constructed to 48 feet (four lane, undivided arterial as an extension of Northwest Highway) as required by the City rather than the 36 feet (two travel lanes and a center turn lane) needed for the commercial development. The $52,000 figure is a rough estimate calculated by staff, and thus has not been incorporated into the agreement at this time. The developer is still working to finalize costs and will present his proposal to you during the meeting. The final developer agreement will include any cost participation to which you agree. You can, according to our attorneys, credit the amount against the roadway impact or inspection fees required for the development. • Sewer - The developer has also requested City participation in the sewer main extension. He would like to be reimbursed for the FM 1709 bore in the amount of $33,250. Note that the City is accelerating the construction of the lift station needed to handle the wastewater due to the development of Gateway Plaza. • Traffic Signal - The developer will pay for one-half of the cost of the traffic signal now being installed at Commerce Street and FM 1709. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 9 of 12 • Park Fees - The Park Board granted full credit of park dedication fees based upon the developer's commitment to build a trail along FM 1709, preservation of some open space, and preservation/improvements of a cemetery. Please contact Charlie Thomas if you have any questions about this item. 14. Agenda Item No. 10B. Commercial developer agreement for The Remington Addition. This agreement calls for reimbursing the developer his oversizing costs for the sewer line in accordance with city policy, and provides that the park dedication fees have been satisfied based upon maintaining 1.5 acres of open space, development of three courtyard areas, a trail, gazebos and benches. The unusual aspect of the agreement is the request by the developer for the City to reimburse him for a portion of the street cost and the deceleration lane on FM 1709. Should the city agree to participate as delineated in the developer agreement (total of $72,815), the cost could be offset through credits against the required roadway impact and inspection fees. Please contact Charlie Thomas with questions about this item. 15. Agenda Item No. 10C. Sanitary sewer service and sewer mains for Countryside Bible Church, Barton House and Christian Men's Network. The details of the agreement have been finalized with all participants and Charlie has secured the signatures. Council is being asked to participate in this project at $24,000 that, although not specifically budgeted, would be available through the sewer fund. Please let Charlie Thomas know if you have questions about this item. 16. Agenda Item No. 10D. Accepting the Planning and Zoning Commissions' recommendation to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision of substantial Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 10 of 12 conformance to the Board of Adjustment. This item is before you per the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission following their hearing on a revised concept plan for The Shops of Southlake. The background information leading up to this recommendation is succinctly addressed in the memorandum from Karen Gandy, Interim Planning Director/Zoning Administrator. Please be aware that there are some time constraints associated with the Board of Adjustment appeal process. Section 44.8 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that "such appeals shall be taken within a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days . . . " The 60-day period would begin on June 9, 1999 (the day after issuance of the opinion) and continues through Saturday, August 7,1999. This deadline would then be extended until Monday, August 9`h due to the 60" day falling on a weekend). Any application for appeal would then have to be received by the city no later than 5:00 p.m. August 9, 1999. This issue will be discussed in Executive Session. 17. Agenda Item No. IIA. "All-America City" Award. This item has been placed on the agenda as a discussion item at the request of Councilmember Potter. Please let him know if you have questions prior to the meeting. Other Items of Interest 18.TIRZ Board meeting. We are trying to schedule a TIRZ Board meeting and Special City Council meeting prior to the Budget work sessions on Tuesday, August 10, 1999. The TIRZ Board meeting will be scheduled at 4:30 p.m. in order to consider the amendments to the Finance and Project Plan. Immediately after the TIRZ Board meeting, the City Council will need to hold a Special City Council meeting to consider the amendments approved by the TIRZ Board. This will be the first reading of the ordinance, with the second reading of the ordinance scheduled for August 17. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 11 of 12 19.Trinity Waste Services. The City Manager's Office received a letter of request from Trinity Waste Services for a rate increase to be effective October 1, 1999. Trinity has provided this request and supporting information in the time frame established by our current collection agreement. Staff is reviewing the documents submitted by Trinity and will bring the item to a City Council for consideration in the near future. Please call Valerie Bradley with any questions you may have regarding this topic. 20. Student Delegation to Japan. A delegation of nine high school students and one representative each from the City of Southlake and the Carroll Independent School District traveled to our Sister City of Toyoma, Japan from July 13 through July 22. During a short stay in Tokyo, the delegation toured the Japanese Capitol Building and discussed the changing global environment with the Honorable Mr. Hiroaki Kameya. Mr. Kameya represents the Miyagi Prefecture in the upper body House of Councillors, and serves as the State Secretary for Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries for Japan. During their stay in Toyoma, Southlake students attended classes with their host students at Toyoma High School, and City and CISD representatives toured the facilities at Toyoma Elementary School. The delegates received an invaluable experience in being exposed to the Japanese culture and interacting with their host families, providing them all with experiences and insight that will undoubtedly serve them well in their futures. 21. Also included with my memo: ■ Update on Traffic Improvements for FM 1709 and SH 114 ■ Firefighter Olympics - memo from City Manager Billy Campbell 0 Year 2000 Update - memo from Manager of Technical Services John Knight • Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest August 30, 1999 Page 12 of 12 i C Staff Extension Numbers: Campbell, Billy, City Manager, ext. 701 Gandy, Karen, Zoning Administrator, ext. 743 Harper, Ron, Director of Engineering Services, ext. 779 Henry, Ben, Parks Planning and Construction Superintendent, ext. 824 Hugman, Kevin, Director of Community Services, ext. 757 Jackson, Malcolm, Administrative Operations Coordinator, ext. 726 Killough, Dennis, Senior Planner, ext. 787 Last, Greg, Director of Economic Development, ext. 750 LeGrand, Sandra, City Secretary, ext. 704 Martinson, Lynn, Chief Accountant, ext. 833 Polasek, Steve, Deputy Director Community Services, ext. 772 Queen, Courtney, Community Services Coordinator, ext. 827 Safranek, Lauren, Director of Human Resources, ext. 836 Siemer, Shelli, Assistant to the City Manager, ext. 806 Thomas, Charlie, Deputy Director of Public Works, ext. 814 Ward, Paul, Chief Building Official, ext. 755 Whitehead, Bob, Director of Public Works, ext. 740 Wilson, Garland, Director of Public Safety, ext. 735 Yelverton, Shana, Assistant City Manager, ext. 705 M:\WD-FILES\CEH\MEEIINGS\4mat-mtg.doc City of Southiake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 23, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shawn Poe, Capital Projects Engineer SUBJECT: Update on Traffic Improvements for FM 1709 & SH 114 i I met with Mr. Roy Parikh and Mr. Abed Abukar of the TxDOT Ft. Worth District Traffic Division on July 9, 1999. The purpose of the meeting was to evaluate the traffic during the morning peak time at N. Kimball and SH 114 and to discuss several potential improvements along FM 1709 as specified in Resolution No. 99-33, which was approved by City Council on May 18, 1999. These potential improvements include dual right turn lanes for northbound traffic on N. Kimball turning eastbound on SH 114, dual left lanes for eastbound traffic on FM 1709 turning northbound onto N. Kimball, and permissive left turns at signalized FM 1709 intersections. Mr. Parikh and Mr. Abukar were very receptive to allowing the City to install the improvements for the dual right turn lanes for northbound traffic on N. Kimball turning eastbound on SH 114 (see attached letter from TxDOT). However, the dual right turn lanes will only be available during the morning peak hours. Furthermore, the City would be responsible for the cost and installation of a neon on sign on the mast arm that indicates dual right turning movements during the morning peak hours (similar to the neon sign installed at W.D. Tate/SH 114). The cost for the neon sign and installation is estimated to be between $10,000412,000. Staff recommends the concept of the dual right turn lanes in the morning peak hour only since traffic counts indicate minor right turning movements compared to through and left turning movements at the intersection during the afternoon and evening peak times. As for the dual left turning lanes for eastbound traffic on FM 1709 turning northbound onto N. Kimball, TxDOT would be willing to allow these improvements as they are warranted. Signal timing improvements were made to the traffic light at FM 1709 and Kimball. The protected left turn arrow for traffic eastbound on FM 1709 turning left onto Kimball operates twice during each phase rather than once. This allows more left turning movements onto Kimball during each phase. Field observations indicate that the signal timing changes to the traffic light adequately handle the morning peak traffic turning left onto Kimball from eastbound FM 1709. TxDOT indicated that as traffic turning left onto Kimball from eastbound FM 1709 increases because more emphasis is placed on this route to SH 114 rather than continuing to the Wall Street bridge, the dual left tun lanes on FM 1709 will be a evaluated further. Staff concurs with TxDOT's rationale since the capacity is being met now with the recent signal timing changes. I discussed the possibility of TxDOT allowing the permissive left-turn movement at the signalized intersections along FM 1709. Mr. Abukar and Mr. Parikh informed that TxDOT will be performing field observations within the next few weeks during various times of the day to City of Southlake,Texas evaluate the need for the permissive left-turn movement. I suggested that the only intersection that should remain as a protected left-turn intersection is Davis and FM 1709 due to the skewed intersection and high rate of accidents that have occurred in the past at the intersection. The two representatives mentioned conducting a travel speed study along FM 1709 to determine the average speed of 85% of the vehicles that travel along FM 1709, i.e., the 85`h percentile. Typically, if the 85 h percentile speed is above 45 mph, TxDOT frowns upon allowing permissive left-turns. They also suggested that if TxDOT allows the permissive left turns, the City would be required to submit to TxDOT a monthly report documenting the amount of accidents that have occurred at the signalized intersections following the signal change. These reports will be compared with the existing data that the City has on past accidents at the intersections. If the accident rate increases substantially and can be attributed to the permissive left-turning movement, TxDOT would then change the left-turn signal to protected. They informed to me that TxDOT plans to respond in writing to the letter that was sent by the City addressing these issues within the next few weeks. If you have any questions, please call me at exten i 46. SEP/sep • :....�..i..•.---rsr+r . _ .. - .-Cw_�e_.� .. .. -'yC+a�t' _#' '. aAP..�a91C -. - . Texas Department of Trans .. Yatim` P.O. BOX 6868•FORT WORTH, TEXAS 761154M•(817)370-6500 July 16, 1999 CONTACT: Tmffic Engineering Dual Right Turns Mr. Shawn Poe, P.E. Capital Projects Engineer City of Southlake 11950 East Continental Southlake, Texas 76092 Dear Mr. Poe: This letter is in reference to your request to allow dual right turns from northbound Kimball Avenue on to east bound SH 114. After reviewing the turning movement counts for this intersection provided by the Lee Engineering consultant, the demand for the north bound movement justifies dual right turn only on the morning peak hours. The Texas Department of Transportation is in agreement with this improvement when it is warranted. As we discussed in our site visit, please submit the design for the installation of a diagrammatic lane assignment sign (fiber optic). Once approved by TxDOT, the City may proceed with the installation. If you should have any questions concerning this matter or need additional information, please contact me at (817) 370-6617. Sincerely, Rohit T. Parikh, P.E. Senior Traffic Engineer Fort Worth District RTP:blb - cc: Abed A. Abukar, P.E. An Equal Opportunity Employer City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 29, 1999 TO: Cliff Altom, Scott Estes, Jerry Kovar, Vickie Hess-Miller, Tony Peyton, Jeff Powell, Mike Scamardo, Clayton Skinner, Mike Starr, and Marshall Urbanosky, FROM: Billy Campbell, City Manager SUBJECT: Firefighter Olympics I understand that each of you spent some of your vacation time at the Firefighter's Olympics in Abilene representing the Southlake Fire Department. I wanted to write and congratulate each of you for your outstanding accomplishments in this event. Special congratulations to Jeff Powell, Mike Starr, Cliff Altom, Clayton Skinner, and Marshall Urbanosky on winning the GOLD! And special congratulations to Scott Estes, Vickie Hess-Miller, Tony Peyton, Mike Scamardo and Jerry Kovar on winning the BRONZE! It appears that the City of Southlake was represented in grand fashion - something to which we strive to accomplish in every endeavor we undertake. I look forward to being able to attend the event next year when it will be held in Lewisville (merely as a spectator and fan!). Congratulations. 16"6 BC City of Southlake,Texas MEMORANDUM July 26, 1999 To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: John Knight,Manager of Technical Services Subject: Year 2000 Update We started our Y2K issue with three phases. First and foremost was to evaluate our water monitoring system. This task has been completed and an upgrade of all of this equipment has been installed. The equipment is now compliant. Also,the meter reading equipment for the water meters has proven to be an exposure. This was budgeted for replacement in this fiscal year. The equipment has been installed and tested. A certificate of compliance has been issued from I & C Sales. We are also in the process of tying the Sewer Lift Stations into the same system. Our second major project dealt with the replacement of all city software with a vendor that provided Y2K compliance. We have purchased the software and order the two AS 400's from the state for installation. We have developed a plan with New World Systems for the implementation of Finance, Utility Billing, Code Enforcement, and Building Inspections to be completed prior to October 1, 1999. The remainder of the software packages either does not exist or are compliant. Thus far we have had training on the Payroll system, Utility Billing System, and some of the Public Safety Software. Training and implementation appears to be on schedule. The only holdbacks in the project may be the conversion of data from the old systems to New World. The third area was to attempt to verify with all of our providers their compliance or efforts to become compliant. The finance staff provided us with a list of all known service and equipment providers to the city. We now have mailed 4,716 letters requesting compliance. We have received 1066 responses indicating the companies are compliant. We have a list of 61 vendors who are not compliant but state they will be during the next 3 to 4 months. We have verified an additional 764 listed vendors that provide no Y2K threat or issue because of the product or service provided. We have received 571 returned mailings stating the vendor no longer exists. During this process we have determined another two major areas of non-compliance. First is the city's phone system. The in-house system is not compliant. There is equipment and software to fix this problem. It has been ordered and partially installed. This project is scheduled to be compliant by the V of September. Secondly is the Mobil Data Terminals used in Police Services. Approximately 16 of the devices Y' - have been determined by Chief Gregg to be non-compliant. The replacement of these devices is scheduled in the Fiscal Year 99-00 budget. Also,we have received information on the school zone lights,which belong to the city. The manufacture has sent documentation indicating what changes are to be made should the lights fail to function. We are scheduling time with the street department to test prior to the beginning of the school year. Please advise if I can be of further assistance. JK/jk cc: Shana Yelverton,Assistant City Manager ®siN� CitY g Mana er s Re ort � �► p - July 30, 1999 Upcoming Meetings City Council Meeting Agenda August 3, 1999 August 3, 1999 The following items will be addressed at the August 3 Regular City Council Meeting. City Council Consent Agenda: 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers A) Approval of minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held July 20, 1999. B) Second amendment of the TRA of Texas,Interim Divisionary Agreement. C) NETS Scope of Services agreement. August 4, 1999 D) Request for approval to purchase software and radio equipment for the upgrade of the Crime Control SCADA System. 7:00 p.m.Council Chambers E) Award of bid for elevators for Town Hall. F7 Award of bid for structural steel for Town Hall. G) Negotiate a consultant contract for the Traffic Management Bond program with HNTB. August 5, 1999 H) Award of bid for the construction of a sanitary sewer force main along Dove St.from Planning& Zoning Commission Lonesome Dove Ave.to Kirkwood Blvd. 7:00 p.m.Council Chambers 1) Award of bid for the reconstruction of Dove St.from SH 114 to N.White Chapel Blvd. and the reconstruction of Highland St.from Shady Oaks Dr.to N.White Chapel Blvd. Ordinances,second readings,public hearings,and related items: August 9, 1999 No items on this agenda. Park Board Ordinances,first readings,and related items: 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers A) Ord.No.480-316,Rezoning and Site Plan for a proposed office building on Miron Dr. (#8) August 10, 1999 Resolutions: c A) Res.No.99-60,Urging the Texas Transportation Commission to fund local transportation �r Advisory Committee improvements(SH 114 and US 377)to continue work with Metroport Transportation l`'r►n p.m. Senior Activity Center Partnership to ensure the timely development of these improvements. B) Res.No.99-61,In support of widening and improvements to SH26,at the request of the Drug&Alcohol Committee City of Colleyville. 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Other items for consideration: A) Commercial developer agreement with the developer of Gateway Plaza. B) Commercial developer agreement for The Remington Addition retirement center,located TIRZ Board Meeting across FM 1709 from Jellico Estates subdivision. 4:30 p.m. Council Chambers C) Sanitary sewer service and sewer mains for Countryside Bible Church,Barton House,and Christian Men's Network. Special City Council Meeting D) Accepting the Planing and Zoning Commi ssions'recommendation to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision of substantial conformance to the Board of Adjustment. 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers Other items for discussion: A) "All America City" Budget Work Session 6:00 p.m.Council Chambers Planning & Zoning Comm. Meeting Agenda August 11, 1999 August 5, 1999 Mayor's Advisory Committee The following items will be addressed at the August 5 Planning&Zoning Commission Meeting. 12:00 p.m. Senior Activity Center Regular Agenda: Amendment to the Master Thoroughfare Plan.to provide for a connecting street between White August 12, 1999 Chapel Blvd.and N.Peytonville Ave. (#2) Joint Utilization Comm. ZA 99-053,Development plan for Kirkwood Hollow,Phase II. (#2) 7:00 p.m. Administrative Building ZA 99-054,Preliminary plat for Kirkwood Hollow,Phase II. (#2) ZA 99-055,Development plan for Kirkwood Hollow,Phase Ill. (#2) ZA 99-059,Site plan for Carroll I.S.D.Addition No.3. (#3) ZA 99-066,Revised site plan for Southridge Executive Suites. (#13) ZA 99-058,Revised preliminary plat for Eagle Bend Estates,Phase II. (#9W) Ord.No.480-HH,Revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No.480,regarding regulations on outside storage,ou,Ade display,and screening. Ord.No.480-GG,Revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No.480,regarding regulations on lighting and glare. TOYOMA, JAPAN A delegation of nine high school students and one representative each from the City of Southlake and the Carroll Independent School District traveled to our Sister City of Toyoma, Japan from July 13 through July 22. During a short stay in Tokyo, the delegation tourer{ the Japanese Capitol Building and discussed the changing U global environment with the Honorable Mr. Hiroaki Kameya. Mr. Kameya 4 represents the Miyagi Prefecture in the upper body House of o Councilors, and serves as the State SecretaryAgriculture, for A 9 Forestry, and Fisheries for Japan. o During their stay in Toyoma, Southlake students attended classes with their host students at Toyoma '® High School, and City and CISD representatives toured the facilities at Toyoma Elementary School. The delegates received an invaluable experience in being exposed to the Japanese culture and interacting with their host families, providing them all with experiences and insight that will undoubtedly serve them well in their # futures. For more information about the Sister Cities organization,please contact Community Services Coordinator Courtney Queen at 8171481-5581, ext. 827. Upcoming Calendar of Events at Town Square August 1 - Sunday, 7:00 p.m. Southlake Master Works presents L/ZZ, a local blues vocalist August 3 - Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. Willams-Sonoma Summer Cooking Class: The Guerrilla Gourmet Healthy Southwestern ($35 fee) August 7 - Saturday, 7:30 p.m. The Rankin perform a variety of rock and roll from the 50's and 60's August 10 - Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. Willams-Sonoma Summer Cooking Class: La Cucina, Pasta, Pizza, and Herbs ($35 fee) -� City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 30, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Ron Harper, Director of Engineering SUBJECT: Authorization for the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment of the Trinity River Authority of Texas, City of Southlake Interim Diversionary Agreement. Action Requested: Authorize the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment of the Trinity River Authority of Texas, City of Southlake Interim Diversionary Agreement, allowing Southlake to divert wastewater from the Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System service area to the Central Regional Wastewater service are. Background Information: • Trinity River Authority of Texas (TRA) provides wastewater treatment service for the City of Southlake. • Southlake is in two drainage basins, with each basin being served by separate wastewater treatment facilities. They are: ➢ Central Treatment Plant in Grand prairie serves the Big Bear Creek drainage basin, which encompasses the south one-third of Southlake ➢ Denton Creek Treatment Plant north of Roanoke serves the Denton Creek basin, which encompasses the north two-thirds of Southlake • In the late 1980's, the Southlake City Council decided to contract with TRA to utilize the two TRA treatment plants. • Southlake contracted with TRA for the construction of the Big Bear Interceptor, which was built in 1989/1990, resulting in subdivision developments with gravity sewers from the Big Bear Interceptor. • Because the Denton Creek System (northern portion of Southlake) requires a series of lift stations and force mains, the construction of the system was delayed until the last couple of years. 5B-1 Billy Campbell, City Manager July 30, 1999 Page 2 of 3 • In the interim, Carroll schools in the Denton Creek Basin, i.e., Carroll Middle School, Johnston Elementary, and Carroll Intermediate School, experienced septic system problems. The City and TRA entered into the Interim Diversionary Agreement to allow specifically the city to divert the wastewater from the schools from the Denton Creek Basin to Big Bear. • The original agreement called for the City to be off the diversion by November 30, 1996. By working with TRA, they did not construct the Denton Creek Wastewater Interceptor System (lift stations and force mains) until fall of 1996; therefore, the first amendment to the interim agreement was approved extending the agreement to November 30, 1998. • Due to a number of conditions, its change of alignment of the force main along Dove Street, funding and acquisition of easements, Southlake was unable to complete the Denton Creek Basin System before November 30, 1998. • Currently, easements have been obtained to construct the force main along Dove Street. The force main has been bid out and the two lift stations are under construction. However, easements are currently being obtained for the force main that extends from the Shady Lane area to the Lonesome Dove lift station. Easements are also being acquired for a gravity line that will extend from the existing Dove Creek lift station to the N-3 gravity line. This gravity line is necessary to eliminate the Dove Creek lift station. The Denton Creek Basin trunkline system should be complete by the end of 2000. The major changes in the second amendment of the Trinity River Authority, City of Southlake Interim Diversionary Agreement are: 1. Article I, Section 1&2 Change date for completion form November 30, 1998 to November 30, 2003. 2. Article III, Section f The addition of maximum flow rates for the following years: Daily Average Flow (MGD) FY 99 0.93 FY 00 0.98 FY 01 1.03 FY 02 1.08 FY 03 1.13 FY 04 0.00 5 B-2 Billy Campbell, City Manager July 30, 1999 Page 3 of 3 3. Article IV The addition of the requirement that after November 30, 2000, if Southlake is still diverting wastewater to the Central Regional Wastewater System to the Denton Creek Wastewater System, Southlake shall pay as if the sewage is being treated at both facilities. Financial Considerations: The financial considerations of this amendment are: 1) If the City of Southlake continues diverting wastewater per the amended agreement, Southlake shall pay each facility as if they were both treating the diverted waste. 2) If the City of Southlake exceeds as daily average flow as outlined in the amendment, Southlake shall pay TRA excess flow surcharges. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Contingent upon approval of this agreement by the Central Regional Wastewater System Advisory Committee, TRA staff will then submit it to the TRA Board of Directors for approval on August 25, 1999. TRA requests that the City of Southlake approve the agreement prior to the TRA Board meeting. Legal Review: The agreement has been sent to the city attorney for review. Alternatives: None. Supporting Documents: Letter from TRA dated June 28, 1999 Agreement Map Staff Recommendation: Place the aforementioned agreement on the August 3, 1999 City Council Agenda for Council review and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. VB/vb Approved for Submittal to City Council: it anager's Office 5 B-3 ` 1 Trinity River Authority of Texas Northern Region Office 3110.620.054/3828.935 June 28, 1999 Mr. Robert Whitehead Director of Public Works City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 Dear Mr. Whitehead: Subject: Central Regional Wastewater System Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System Interim Diversion Agreement Amendment Based upon action taken on April 1, 1999 by the Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System Advisory Committee, the Authority has prepared the Second Amendment to the Interim Diversion Agreement between the Authority and the City of Southlake. Enclosed you will find a draft of this Agreement which is tentatively planned to be submitted to the Central Regional Wastewater System (CRWS)Advisory Committee the second week of August, 1999. Contingent upon approval of this Agreement by the Authority's CRWS Advisory Committee, the Authority will then submit it to the Board of Directors for approval. The next scheduled meeting of the Authority's Board of Directors is August 25, 1999. The Authority requests that the City of Southlake be prepared to approve this Agreement prior to the Authority's Board meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, lz- �- BILL R. SMITH Manager, Development, Northern Region /spb Enclosures cc: Patricia M. Cleveland, Manager, Operations, Northern Region Mike Millegan, Manager, Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System Bill Cyrus, Manager, Technical Services, Central Regional Wastewater System P.O. Box 240 Arlington, Texas 76004-0240 �� (817) 493-5100 IF.WIG Recycled Pape, 5 B-4 DRAFT SECOND AMENDMENT TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS CITY OF SOUTHLAKE INTERIM DIVERSION AGREEMENT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TARRANT § WHEREAS, the TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS (hereinafter called "AUTHORITY") has duly executed and entered into an AGREEMENT dated the 61h day of December 1989, as amended by FIRST AMENDMENT dated October 23, 1996, with the CITY OF SOUTHLAKE (hereinafter called "City") providing for City's temporary diversion of City's wastewater from the AUTHORITY'S Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System service area to the AUTHORITY'S Central Regional Wastewater System service area to which AGREEMENT reference is hereby made for all purposes; and WHEREAS, the FIRST AMENDMENT was executed, in part, to allow the City's temporary diversion to continue through November 30, 1998; and WHEREAS, City has diligently pursued financing, design, and construction of improvements necessary to eliminate the temporary diversion but lack additional time in its plan to cease diverting wastewater flows; and WHEREAS, AUTHORITY has considered City's request for an extension of the term of the diversion; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein, the AUTHORITY and City agree as follows: ARTICLE I That Section 3.02, TEMPORARY DISCHARGE, 1st paragraph, which reads as follows: Entry,FFoFn the effeGtive date heFeof until NevembeF 30, 1998 the City shall have the pFivilege to diSGhaFge iRtG the System, and Authority agFees to aGGept at the TemperaFy Paint of eligible ante +ter from the interim diversion fa Gility s �bier`t to: a �7 the teFms of the Trinity River Autherity of Texas Gity of Southlake Regional L2I flow limitations and the paymeRts te beemade unZ this Agreement. be OMITTED and DELETED in it entirety, and the following be substituted in its place: 5B-5 From the effective gate hereof until November 30, 003 the City shall have the prr�r iege to discharge into the System, arld Authority agrees to accept at the Temparary;Point ofrtttr}}�, eligible wastewater from the interim diversion facility subject to (1? temts.......... the'trinity River Authority of'Texas City of Southl e FAgionil ' seawater System Contract dated February 25, 1987: and (2) the terms and cant bns contained herein including but not limited to the rate;. :.......:.. flow limitations and the payments to be made under this Agreement. ARTICLE II That Section 3.04, QUANTITY AT TEMPORARY POINT OF ENTRY, paragraph (a) which reads as follows: �a) The City shall be peFM;tted and the City agrees to 6613harge from the diver faGility tG the Temporary Point of ERt '' m rate of flow Gernmensurate InteMepter, as established by Authority management. The ma i nt-of eligible wastewater flow allowable at aRy torne defined as a rate in MGD iR of the seven yeaFs beginning with FisGal YeaF 1991 shall be deteFrnined aRnually by Autherity management and the Gity shall be notified Of 66IGh deteFFRination at least forty (40) days pFieF to the beginning of eaGh fiSGal year. SUGh upper liFnit shall be based UPOR Authority management judgment at that tome, of the arnoun faGt that the AutheFity shall, in advanGe of eaGh fisGal year, furnish to the G#" pred'Gated allowable uppeF flow defined as a rate in MGD foF the next eRS i yeaF, if, duFing the GGUrse of that eRSiAiRg fisoal year, other wastewater flo be made by Authority management duFiRg that period of tiFne, the Gity notified o Authority, the City agrees- to irnmedi-aiely red6lGe its volurne of diSGhaFge to a level which is Fedetarmined by Authority management to be aGGentablc be OMITTED and DELETED in its entirety, and the following be substituted in its place: The Ctty sKati be permh3d'and the City agrees to discharge from the diversion facility to the Temporary Point of Entry, a maximum rate of flow commensurate with the amount of surplus downstream capacity in the Big Bear Creek Interceptor, as established by Authority management. The maximum amount of eligible wastewater flo. allowable at any time defined as a rate in MGD in each of the twelve years begffi with Fiscal Year 1991 shall be determined annually by Authority management end the City shall ibe notified of such determination at least forty (40) days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year. Such upper limit shall be based upon Authority management judgment at that time, of the amount of surplus capacity existing in downstream System facilfties. Notwithstanding the ® fact that the Authority shall, in advance of each fiscal yetit,fumishto the City a 2 5 B-6 predicated allowable upper flow defined as a rate in MGD for the next ensuing year, if, during the course of that ensuing fiscal year, other wastewater flows exceed that which was originally projected by the Authority, a redetermination will be made by Authority management during that period of time, the City notified of such redetermined rate of flow, and upon receiving such notice from the Authority, the City agrees to i .medieWly reduce its volume of discharge tb a level which is redetermine by,A�athMW man@9#rnent to be acceptable, ARTICLE III That Section 5.03, PAYMENTS by CITY, Paragraph (f), 15' paragraph, which reads as follows: (f) In addition to all payments Fequ'Fed to be made by the Gity URdeF this AgFeeFnent, the City agrees and shall be URGenditionally obligated to pay to the Autherity wastewater eXGess of the rate of flow for the yeaF6 set foFth in the following table: _rn FY 1990 0.07 Fy 1A92 017 FY 1995) 0.33 FX I aa6 Q 2R FY 1997 0.61 FY I ooa 0 61 FX I ooa g 00 be OMITTED and DELETED in its entirety, and the following be substituted in its place: M In addition to all payments required to be made by the City under this Agreement, the City agrees and shall be uncond€#ionally obligated to pay to the Authont during each Fiscal year an excess flow surcharge for a rate of delivery of wastewater in excess of the rate of floww fort a y rs set artf€..n the fG1flt�wC1 ta .................. ..................ble:. .................. Da`tlVA"ral={ FY 1990 0.07 FY 1991 0.12 FY 1992 0.17 FY 1993 0.22 FY 1994 0.28 FY 1995 0.33 3 5 B-7 F 1 0.38 FY 1997 0.61 FY 1998 0.61 FY 1999 0.93 FY 2000 0.98 FY 2001 1.03 FY 2002 1.08 FY 2003 1.13 FY 2004 0.00 ARTICLE IV That ARTICLE V, Section 5.03 ANNUAL REQUIREMENT be supplemented with the addition of item (k), which reads as follows: (k) If CITY'S diversion is continued beyond November 30, 2000, CITY shall make additional payment to the AUTHORITY for the volume of wastewater being diverted to the Central Regional Wastewater System as if it were being discharged into the Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System. Payments must be made to the Central Regional Wastewater System for flow being diverted based on Annual Payment requirements to the Central Regional Wastewater System and also to the Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System based on Annual Payment requirements for wastewater as if it were discharged into the Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System. ARTICLE V That Section 6.06, FORCE MAJEURE, which reads as follows: „ GF part tG Garry out its obligatiORS U ee ent, then if SLIGh papty shall give RGti heFeof, shall be suspended dUF!Rg the GGRtinuanGe of the inability then Glaimed, but fGF PG make the payments required in SeGtlon 5.03(� hereof, the eXGePtiGR ef the obligation of the Gity water supply and iRability OR the part of Gity to provide wateF ReGessaFy for operatioR G GGmb'Red water and sanitary sewer system heFeunder, or of Authority to FeGeive wastewater an floods, washouts, droughts, arFests, FestFa!RtS of government and people, Givil disturbaRGes, 5 B-8 within the diSGFetien of the party haViRg the diffiGUIty, and that the above FequiFeFnents that ally "FGFGe MajeuFe" shall be remedied with all rease-inable dispatGh shall Rot require the settlemeR be OMITTED and DELETED in its entirety, and the following be substituted in its place: In case by reason of"Farce MafaureH either party hereto shW be r06, J't arts wholly or In part to carry out its obligations under this Agreement,then if �st[IOtue notice and full particulars or such "Force Majeure" in writing to the other ;mil reasonable time after occurrence of the event or cause relied on, the obligation of the party grr# t such no#ice so far as it is affected by such "Force Majeure", with the exception of 1AW61916M&of City f make the payments required in Section 5.03(f) hereof, the exception of the obligation of the City to discontinue the interim diversion of wastewater no late.0W,November 30, 2003 and the ............................ obligation of City to limit the volume of discharge of E#.g bi e S Mstewater required in Section �1 hereof, shall be suspended during the continuance of the rnabrl[ty then claimed, but for no longer periods, and any such party shall endeavor to rerridve or overcome such inability with all reasonable dispatch. The term "Force Majeure" as employed herein, shall mean Act of God, strikes, lockouts or other industrial disturbances, acts of public enemy,orders of any kind of the Government of the United States or the States of Texas of any civil pr ili afy authority, insurrections, riots, epidemics, landslides, lightning, earthquakes,';fi9s, tturri+ ries'storms, floods, washouts, droughts, arrests, restraints of government and people, civil disturbances, explosions, breakage or accident to machinery, pipelines or canals, partial or entire failure of water supply and inability on the part of City to provide water necessary for pp,pration of its combined water and sanitary sewer system hereunder, or of Authority to reoai.te wastewater on account of any other causes not reasonably within the control f e suo gch inability. It is understood and agreed that the settlement of stti<as i€' kt�stall be e within the discretion of the party having the difficulty, and that tha' 3 �r+ lFaq ��ter�t t aril Nrl "Force Majeure" shall be remedied with all reasonable dispatch shall not r UW the settle of strikes artd ockouts by acceding to the demands of the opposing party of settlement is unfavoraht 1 ft# the tufgmt of Ity ARTICLE VI That Section 8.02, TERMINATION OF SERVICE, 2"d which reads as follows: hereiR should the Gity� W ; Seotiea 3.04. No .'-;;ter than Nevembei:30, 1998, the wastewater being diverted to the Autherity'&-Biq BeaF C;Feek inteFGeptor pipeline under the terms of this Interim D;VeFS;GR AgreerneRt shall be terminated and the 4,ithority shall have no further recnr+ncihility for the aGGentaRGe 5 5 B-9 tFaRspertation, naF#eatmeRt of the wastewater being diverted to the Autherity's Bug Bear Gree InteFGeptor pipeline as provided herein-. be OMITTED and DELETED in its entirety, and the following be substituted in its place: It Shall be en#cause ve for trU t r� est�ewt a pro�ride herein should the1ty Fatl tar make payments due Authonty; or Ex> d thenarttm rate of flow e �agement undet Section 3.0414. No later than NovernW 30;2t03, the waiWWfi6FfiWg diverted t ftt iffi6 ::i leg Bear Creek Interceptor pipeline under the terms of this Interim Diversion A§regiment shal #ermina#ed and the Authority shall have no further responsibility for the act: tnce, transportation, nor treatment of the wastewater beat r€vented the Aurr €' g r reek Interceptor pipeline as provided herein, ARTICLE VII That Section 8.03, INDEMNITY, which reads as follows: Section 8.03. INDEMNITY Basin of the City shall rernain "R the City and the City agrees to save and hold A' ' 11 ", itNR the Big Bear C;FeeL- Basin of th be OMITTED and DELETED in its entirety, and the following be substituted in its place: From and after November 30, 2003, liability for damages arising from the reception, transportation, delivery and disposal of au wa eewater gen rated w�thin tn+s Sid Bear Creek Basin of the City shallnt8tlt f .# dllii lidi i�X air tc save arts[Inc ld the Authority harmte s from all claims, demands and causes o .8 cart tleh r:ti y be ssert+d by anyone on a m Im # e reception, transportation, dee � I r generated wiihrn gig;Bear Creek:Basin of the City. ARTICLE VIII This SECOND AMENDMENT, to the extent of any conflict with the original AGREEMENT shall supersede the terms and provisions of the original AGREEMENT and FIRST AMENDMENT. However, it is the express intention of AUTHORITY and City that this SECOND AMENDMENT and the original AGREEMENT shall be completely integrated and be construed in harmony and congruity as a single instrument. 6 5B-10 EXECUTED on the day of 1999, which shall be the effective date of the FIRST AMENDMENT to the AGREEMENT. TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS DANNY F. VANCE, General Manager ATTEST: JAMES L. MURPHY, Secretary Board of Directors (SEAL) CITY OF SOUTHLAKE THE HONORABLE RICK STACY, MAYOR ATTEST: (SEAL) 7 5B-11 iCiY _ I�Oj I r 1All �■IF'■NC ■.r 3RE v,-J a�# a ax Now x 11� r �111 ■ o "; .._ SO INl:tlIN, _flN. 91 k -' pf�gE Y • ■��■ 5 - m ■mr� 1 t#F �Ix ee�H1&ma<�� w _ TIm2a GYi� - _ �.i sms��$�1• Lad n!�'Y L �■ •� � �` .N m■4i1�� lium C = S#.1I�!<�� mm m., S'c LF-s r RSpP�\�x a1 _. dam . ■�fN�fH ss °� ■ s :• :.nIS _ sa�y.S �iwi..j + saW�mmae eal€a u S..y4■r= ,�g� I sue. a� ys �►n`��°�"�.��;%R•�' � ,+' � m' , 1111: "r d��N:..-..- � ..;-;1.1-� 1��i�i'�i�'`3iy •9p 9b`I I 1 �� 1��'l��r a�Fo>sasu��a� & �8� Ix�_ UP. r_ E �$ v+I.yc 'S I' +-I�ati i E r �— f�►�'d�•o •■■n -,�:k�: �S�i.�1 '- � M im� 1.^ ��. �- �,. •N I-I�..N ��iigl '�c�s��N,Ts �``�is ,• ■d�y14� Ei �I � City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 26, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Kevin Ilugman, Director of Community Services SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a scope of services agreement with the YMCA of Metropolitan Fort Worth to provide on-call transportation through the Northeast Transportation Service (NETS) Action Requested: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a scope of services agreement with the YMCA of Metropolitan Fort Worth to provide on-call transportation through the Northeast Transportation Service (NETS). Background Information: The YMCA of Metropolitan Fort Worth, through the Northeast "Transportation Service (NETS), provides on-call transportation service for Southlake residents who are disabled, are senior citizens, or otherwise qualify for the service as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act and/or Section 9 of the Federal and State funding guidelines. Due to issues involving the availability of Federal and State finding, the YMCA through NETS was previously unable to enter into a scope of services agreement with the City. These funding issues have since been resolved, and an agreement between the City and the YMCA has recently been developed. NETS has continued to provide transportation service to the City throughout the year. The City, with the understanding from NETS that a signed agreement between the two parties was necessary, has withheld further payment for services. The City has funded NETS service in previous years. The proposed agreement provides for transportation service for disabled residents, seniott citizens, and other qualifying residents. NETS will provide service, in priority order, to and from health care providers, human service agencies, recreational centers (Southlake Senior Activity Center, nursing care centers), and work, in addition to limited home and personal need transportation to the grocery store, bank, drug store, etc. Transportation service beyond medical needs are limited due to a finite operating budget. NETS also agrees to provide to the City a seat on the NETS Advisory Committee, quarterly ridership reports, and proof of insurance. YC City Manager Billy Campbell July 26, 1999 Page Two Financial Considerations: The cost of service as proposed by NETS is $8,425 ($.50 per capita per resident based on population figures provided by NETS) for service beginning October 1, 1998 and ending September 30, 1999. Funding in the amount of$8,425 is allocated in the fiscal year 1998/99 Community Services Department General Fund operating budget. Citizen Input/ Board Review: No citizen input or board review necessary, however, the Senior Advisory Commission (SAC) is familiar with NETS services. As mentioned previously, due to NETS limited resources their transportation services are typically narrow in scope. Thus, as you are aware the SAC also recommended the establishment of a senior transportation service that could accommodate more general users. Legal Review: The city attorney has reviewed the contract document. Alternatives: Direct staff to either amend the scope of services agreement or cease transportation services with NETS. Supporting Documents: Scope of services agreement. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into a scope of services agreement with the YMCA of Metropolitan Fort Worth to provide on-call transportation through the Northeast Transportation Service (NETS). Please place this item on the August 3, 1999, Regular City Council Agenda for review and approval. KH Approved for Submittal to City Council: City Manager's Office SC - Z AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TARRANT § THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the City of Southlake, Texas, a home rule municipal corporation located in Tarrant County and Denton County, Texas, acting by and through its duly authorized City Manager(hereinafter referred to as "City"), and YMCA of Metropolitan Fort Worth, through the Northeast Transportation Service(hereinafter referred to as "NETS") a transportation service operated in Northeast Tarrant County by the YMCA of Metropolitan Fort Worth, an organization described in section 501 (c) 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. WHEREAS, the purpose of NETS is to provide on-call transportation for certain residents of the City requesting service, as identified below, to the fullest extent practical and permissible under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 9 Federal and State funding guidelines. (1) Qualifying disabled individuals; (2) Senior citizens (over the age of 60); and j I (3) Other qualifying residents as defined by the laws and funding guidelines referred to above; and r WHEREAS, City and NETS desire to enter into an Agreement whereby NETS will provide transportation to the elderly and disabled of the Southlake Community and others as referred by City; r NOW, THEREFORE, KNOWN BY ALL THESE PRESENT: That City and NETS do hereby covenant and agree as follows: SECTION 1 TRANSPORTATION SERVICE NETS will provide transportation to the persons identified in the preamble above according to the following trip priorities, to the fullest extent practical and permissible HIldvi tll(: A111cricaiis With 1)isabiliti42s :kLA illid Se-CAIA-1tl 9 I-,-dent! _-jjd S€Utr. funding - i �- �$"-.x 4 .r-. .` `` sue ' sa m .r•„ �+ 3':w"c"�_ .. ' { - '+ £ ��. - � -r.5' .r"�*' ... ,• .. ��c .any„ �k;� �_`"t� k,;,�,-�i (1) Medical transportation to and from health care providers; (2) Human services transportation, such as to and from Northeast Human Services Center, United Way Services and private human services agencies and programs; (3) Recreational transportation to and from the Southlake Senior Activity Center, nursing care centers, and Community Center. (4) Transportation to and from work. (5) Limited home and personal need transportation, including necessary essentials, i.e., to and from the grocery store, drug store, bank, etc.; SECTION 2 REPORTING NETS agrees to generate quarterly reports which shall include Southlake ridership information showing the number of Southlake riders and the types of trips. City shall have access to NETS operational records and all budget reports, during normal business hours. City shall be provided information, if requested, necessary to conduct an annual performance evaluation containing the following: (1) Ridership audits including response time; (2) On-time analysis; and -i (3) Customer satisfaction survey. NETS agrees to provide City a membership seat on the NETS Advisory i Committee. SECTION 3 INSURANCE NETS shall provide City, if requested, proof of liability insurance with minimum limits of$250,000/$500,000, with City as an additional named insured, and NETS agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless for all activities conducted by NETS under this program. City agrees to indemnify NETS and to hold it harmless for all activities conducted by City under this contract. i nAparks&recreation\contract\net.doc 2 SECTION 4 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NETS is acting as an independent contractor, and City shall have no power to direct or supervise its activities in carrying out its responsibilities under this contract. SECTION 5 PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Service shall begin October 1, 1998 and ending September 30, 1999. City agrees to pay NETS $8,425 per annum ($.50 per capita per resident) beginning October 1, 1998 for the foregoing services. This rate may be increased after one year only if ridership demand within City and/or grant requirements of Federal and/or State agencies require such increase. No such rate increase shall become effective unless and until City receives written notice of intent to increase rates at least 90, but not more that 180 days prior to the effective date of any such increase. Payment for services will be no less than quarterly. Failure by the City to accept the new rate within 45 days following notice would indicate the City's intention that the agreement terminate immediately upon the effective date of the increase without further obligation of the parties except for the payment of amounts due and owing for services which have been provided. SECTION 6 TERM OF AGREEMENT '�- This contract shall be in full force and effect for a period ending September 30, 1999. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, either party may terminate this contract upon 45 days written notice to the other. Upon termination, NETS may cease transportation services, and City shall be entitled to receive a rebate or cancellation of that proportionate part of the consideration it was required to pay under this contract based on the remaining portion of the year for which such payment was made. NETS will also recover all amounts owing for services rendered to the date of termination. This contract sets forth all the agreements between the parties and no modification shall be effective unless reduced to writing and signed by the party to be changed therewith. .: . _ •III'' - jof I Approved as to legal form: City Attorney Mayor, City of Southlake Jerry Pipes, President YMCA of Metropolitan Fort Worth - ------- ------ pi n:\parks&recreation\contract\net.doc 4 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: John Knight, Technical Services Manager SUBJECT: Approval to purchase software and radio equipment for the upgrade of the SCADA system Action Requested: Council approval of purchase of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system for the City's Sewer Lift Stations. Background Information: During the budget process of fiscal year 98-99 we requested to upgrade this computer monitoring and control equipment to provide efficient and effective control of this vital operation. The request was approved in that process. Through research of this project it was determined that for the cost effectiveness and functionality of the system, it would be best to integrate this system with the water monitoring system. This equipment is proprietary in nature and is sole source from our present vendor. Financial Considerations: Cost of Implementation is $55,000. Funds were included in the FY 98-99 budget ($56,000). Citizen Input/ Board Review: N/A Legal Review: Council action required since the cost exceeds $15,000. Alternatives: None Supporting Documents: Price quote from vendor. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the purchase and installation of the equipment. Approve for Submittal to City Council: QW City Manag 's Office &7Z) I & C �j 1411 LW",Sts.207•CarroObn,TX 76W7 INSTRUWNTA17ON& CONTROLS Phone 972-245-4350* Fax 972-245-6460 July 1, 1999 To: City of Southlake 1950 East Continental Southlake, TX. 76092 Attn: Mr. Mike Patterson Fax: 817-421-5782 Ref. Lift Station Additions to SCADA I & C Letter: SLS070199 Mike, As the maintenance and service provider for the City's SCADA system, I & C Sales is pleased to offer the following quote to implement additional Lift Stations onto the existing SCADA system. All work is to be complete utilizing the programming and installation standards put in place by the City of Southlake and I & C Sales. Included in pricing are all the required material and labor to successfully supply the City with a lum-key' solution in implementing the additional sites. Pricing is based on the availability to tie in to an existing local control panel at each Lift Station to obtain status points. 1 C Sales scope of work is as follows: MATERIAL PROVIDED I. MOSCAD-L RTU w/900Mhz radio. 2. (1) Mixed 1/0 module. 3. Enclosure w/required terminal blocks, relays, etc.. 4. RF equipment. SERVICES PROVIDED 5. Program MOSCAD RTU. 6. Program Lookout HMI package. 7. Panel Fabrication 8. Install RTU Panel, Antenna, and coax. 9. Perform on-site start-up services for above configuration. 10.Documentation of all work *Items not included in our scope of work include installation of any field devices (transmitters, valves, J-B boxes, etc.) or any other electrical equipment outside the RTU Cabinet. All 1/0 should be available to obtain from an existing local control cabinet. sv-a Pricing is based on (5)fire lift stations to be retrofitted at the same cost. PRICING: 11,000.00 PER SITE x(5) FIVE SITES =$55,000.00 Warranty shall be for a period of one (1) year from system acceptance and shall include cost to repair or replace returned damaged products which are found to be defective due to a manufacturing defect and/or improper workmanship. As to all goods sold, no implied statutory warranty of merchantability or of fitness for particular purpose shall apply. I &C Sales shall only be liable for repair/replacement of defective products and/or work provided by I & C Sales and in no event shall 1 & C Sales be liable for consequential, incidental, or liquidated damages. I & C Sales shall not be responsible for any equipment failure or malfunction resulting from uncontrollable outside sources including but not limited to lightning, vandalism, etc.. We appreciate this opportunity and look forward to working with the City of Southlake. Please notify us upon approval with a notice to proceed. We trust you shall not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, I & ES, NC. ace c City of Southlake, Texas i MEMORANDUM July 30, 1999 To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Ron Harper, Director of Engineering Services I I Subject: Award of bid for elevators for Town Hall i I Action Requested: Award of bid for elevators at Southlake Town Hall. Background Information: This portion of the Town Hall project was advertised on July 11 and 18, 1999. Bids were received and publicly opened on Wednesday, July 28, 1999. Three bids were received. One bid was declared non-responsive since a bid bond was not provided. The low bidder for the elevators is Dover in the total amount of $131,100.00. The estimate prepared by our Construction Management consultant (the Beck Company) was $148,920.00. Financial Considerations: Funding for this portion of the project will be available through the TIF once bonds are sold. Until that time there are funds available in the CIP program to "borrow". Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: None. Alternatives: None. Supporting Documents: Bid Tabulation 5E-1 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the contract for elevators be awarded to Dover in the amount of$131,100.00. J f�• i Ron Harper, P.E. Director of Engineering Services Approved for Submittal to City Council: ity ager's Office 5E-2 Southlake Town Hall - Elevator Bid Tabulation 7/28/99 BIDS DOVER OTIS MONTGOMERY PASSENGER ELEVATOR#1 $ 41,876.00 ! $ 64,000.00 $ 65,000.00 PASSENGER ELEVATOR#2 $ 41,876.00 $ 64,000.00 11 $ 65,000.00 ACCESS DOORS/HATCHES N/A INCL NIC SILL SUPPORT ANGLES/SHIMS $ 200.00 NA N/A LOUVERS,VENTS, GRILLES $ 800.00 BYO NI_C CONTRACTORS USE $ 1,360.00 $ 1,780.00 $ 2,700.00 1 YEAR MAINTENANCE $ 2,400.00 INCL INCL 5 YEAR MAINTENANCE $ 17,400.00 1 N/A $ 21,000.00 OVERHEAD $ 14,960.00 N/A 10% FEE $ 10,088.00 INCL 10% SALES TAX N/A N/A i N/A BOND $ 140.00 INCL $ 241.31 SUBTOTAL $ 131,100.00 $ 129,780.00 $ 153,941.51 BID DEEMED NON RESPONSIVE --" 'DUE TO: NO BID BOND 5E-3 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 30, 1999 To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Ron Harper, Director of Engineering Services Subject: Award of bid for structural steel for Town Hall i I Action Requested: Award of bid for structural steel at Southlake Town Hall. Background Information: This portion of the Town Hall project was advertised on July 11 and 18, 1999. Bids were received and publicly opened on Wednesday, July 28, 1999. Four bids were received. i The low bidder for the structural steel is Irwin Steel in the total amount of $933,845.98. The estimate prepared by our Construction Management consultant (the Beck Company) was $1,063,313.28. Financial Considerations: Funding for this portion of the project is available through the TIF. i Separate bids were received for fabrication and erection. The low bidder for each of these items could reduce the cost by approximately $23,000; however, staff feels that the potential coordination problem that could result from having a different fabricator and erector could cost at least $23,000 in "finger- pointing". Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: None. Alternatives: None. 5F-1 Supporting Documents: Bid Tabulation Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the contract for structural steel be awarded to Irwin Steel in the amount of$933,845.98. Ron Harper, P.E. Director of Engineering Services Approved for Submittal to City Council: ity anager's Office 5F-2 Southlake Town Hall - Structural Steel And Miscellaneous Metals Bid Tabulation STRUCTURAL STEEL IRWIN ALPHA ENNIS N.TEXAS STEEL BOSS FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL $ 442,650.00 $ 458,220.00 NO BID $ 627,126.00 $ 537,040.00 METAL DECKING $ 54,744.00 $ 55,650.00 NO BID $ 81,378.00 $ 54,342.00 MEP HOLES $ 4,000.00 $ 6,000.00 NO BID $ 3,000.00 $ 4,000.00 SHOP DRAWINGS $ 50,000.00 INCL. NO BID $ 66,000.00 $ 75,000.00 MISC. METALS INCL. $ - NO BID $ 245.00 INCL. ELEVATOR PIT LADDERS $ 300.00 $ 600.00 NO BID $ 1,023.00 $ 300.00 ROOF ACCESS LADDER $ 400.00 $ 500.00 NO BID $ 1,123.00 $ 450.00 OVERHEAD INCL. INCL. NO BID INCL. INCL. FEE $ 25,000.00 INCL NO BID INCL INCL. SALES TAX NONE NONE NO BID INCL. N/A BOND PREMIUM $ 5,500.00 $ 7,725.00' NO BID $ 6,143.00 NIC. FAB. SUBTOTAL $ 582,594.00 $ 528,695.00 NO BID $ 786,038.00 $ 671,132.00 MISC. FABRICATION EXTERIOR FAQADE SUPPT $ 105,300.00 $ 105,300.00 NO BID $ 188,487.00 $ 78,975.00 TOILET PARTITION SUPP. $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 NO BID ! $ 2,400.00 ! $ 2,400.00 INTERIOR MISC. METALS $ 20,869.50 $ 20,869.50 NO BID $ 20,869.50 $ 20,869.50 BACK STAIRS $ 12,000.00 $ 40,000.00 NO BID $ 27,552.00 $ 17,208.00 COOLING TOWER STAIRS $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 NO BID $ 11,737.00 $ 6,290.00 BOND COST $ 2,371.39 $ 3,491.39 Sir' $ 5,020.91 $ 2,514.85 MISC. FAB. SUBTOTAL $ 146,440.89 $ 178,060.89 NO BID $ 256,066.41 $ 128,257.35 ERECTION IRWIN ALPHA ENNIS N.TEXAS STEEL BOSS STRUCTURAL STEEL $ 99,880.00 $ 178,500.00 NO BID INCL. NO BID METAL DECKING $ 18,929.00 $ 20,370.00 NO BID INCL NO BID CRANE/HOISTING INCL. INCL. NO BID INCL. NO BID ELEVATOR PIT LADDERS $ 200.00 $ 300.00 ! NO BID INCL NO BID ROOF ACCESS LADDER $ 150.00 $ 300.00 NO BID INCL, NO BID OVERHEAD INCL. INCL. NO BID INCL NO BID FEE $ 12,000.00 INCL. NO BID INCL. NO BID SALES TAX NONE NONE NO BID INCL. NO BID BOND PREMIUM $ 1,500.00 $ 3,275.00 NO BID INCL. NO BID ERECTION SUBTOTAL $ 132,659.00 $ 202,745.00 NO BID INCL NO BID MISC. ERECTION IRWIN ALPHA ENNIS I N. TEXAS STEEL BOSS _ALTERNATES: _EXTERIOR FAQADE SUPPT $ 21,060.00 $ 68,445.00 NO BID INCL. IN FAB NO BID ELEVATOR SILL ANGLES $ 400.00 $ 400.00 NO BID $ _ 400.00 NO BID _TOILET PARTITION SUPP. $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 NO BID $ 3,000.00 NO BID INTERIOR MISC. METALS $ 20,869.50 $ 20,869.50 NO BID $ 20,869.50 NO BID _ BACK STAIRS $ 4,800.00 $ 8,400.00 NO BID INCL. IN FAB ! NO BID COOLING TOWER STAIRS $ 1,000.00 $ 2,100.00 NO BID INCL. IN FAB NO BID BOND COST $ 1,022.59 $ 2,064.29 NO BID $ 485.39 ! NO BID MISC. ERECTION SUB. $ 52,152.09 $ 105,278.79 NO BID $ 24,754.89 NO BID SUBTOTALS $ 913,845.98 $1,014,779.68 NO BID $1,066,859.30 FAB. ONLY FIELD PAINTING $ 20,000.00 NO BID NO BID NO BID NO BID BID TOTALS $ 933,845.98 $1,014,779.68 NO BID $1,066,859.30 ! FAB. ONLY 5F-3 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 30, 1999 To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Ron Harper, Director of Engineering Services Subject: Authorize staff to negotiate a consultant contract for the Traffic Management Bond program with HNTB Action Requested: Authorize staff to negotiate a consultant contract for the Traffic Management Bond program with HNTB. Background Information: On May 1, 1999 the voters of the City approved a $24.17 million bond program for traffic, intersection, SH 114 enhancement and trail projects. On May 26, 1999 staff sent out Requests for Proposals (RFP) to twelve consulting engineers. The purpose of the RFP was to seek the most qualified consultants to perform the engineering services for the 1709 intersection improvements and the trail construction. Nine proposals were received by the City on June 18. Staff short listed the responses on June 25. Presentations were made to a selection committee on July 22, 1999. The committee consisted of Councilmembers Kendall and Dupree, Deputy Director Thomas and Director Harper. The committee met after the presentations and selected HNTB as the most qualified firm based on specific experience in this type of program. As discussed previously with Council, staff is recommending that the City contract with a single consultant for all aspects of all projects involved in the intersection improvements and trail construction. Staff feels that the continuity of one consultant will be critical to the success of this project. In addition, by retaining a consultant that can handle all aspects of the project, the City will not need to retain additional staff for the purpose of managing this project. 5G-1 Financial Considerations: Engineering fees were included in this bond package. As you are aware, the City cannot bid out professional services. Part of this negotiation will be to set the fee and services. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Two City Council members participated in the final consultant interview and selection process. Legal Review: None. Alternatives: None. Supporting Documents: HNTB Power Point Presentation Staff Recommendation: Authorize staff to negotiate a consultant contract for the Traffic Management Bond program with HNTB. Ron Harper Director of Engineering Services Approved for Submittal to City Council: +ityana8er's Office 5G-2 4 •. U • H � II 5G-3 a 1 F t o � L i t c .O V k._ -*ME) . 5G-4 •may V r••i O V � � 0 PEA O V � V ENO 5G-5 s W wj d Im La La fah � J . a o J d I 'jQ b y o W � dd � d � f ` � I � W 5G-6 CD Lc) N N I N N 4� C� r L �� •m 0 4� ,= s CL L. v N C� •— O sm -w w w V Q 5G •^" V1 v 42 s ,a.. 6 a�'''W ' • C� C� O 5G-11 O �i O 4� 2 N 4� ~ •~ •PMIO •may 0 POO hn �PO �..i WU PEMO •'"� ,Poo c♦.� d W 5G-12 ` City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 30, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shawn Poe, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Award of bid to Pate Brothers Construction, Inc. for the construction of a sanitary sewer force main along Dove Street from Lonesome Dove Avenue to Kirkwood Boulevard Action Requested: Award the bid to Pate Brothers Construction, Inc. for the construction of a sanitary sewer force main along Dove St. from Lonesome Dove Ave. to Kirkwood Blvd. Background Information: The installation of a lift station on Lonesome Dove Ave. and the construction of a sanitary sewer force main from the lift station to Kirkwood Blvd. is included in the City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. The lift station and force main is required to pump the sanitary sewer, which is generated from the northeast region of the City, to Kirkwood Blvd. The sanitary sewer then flows in a gravity sewer line along Kirkwood Blvd. to the Trinity River Authority (TRA) lift station on N. White Chapel Blvd. This gravity sanitary sewer line was previously constructed under a separate contract. The lift station at Lonesome Dove Ave. is also being constructed under a separate contract. The construction of the lift station and force main is a key component to eliminate the current diversion of sanitary sewer from the Denton Creek drainage basin to the Bear Creek drainage basin. The City is required to eliminate the diversion of the sanitary sewer between drainage basins per the City of Southlake Interim Diversionary Agreement. The timeline set forth in the Interim Diversionary Agreement to cease diversion of the sanitary sewer was November 1998. However, the City will propose to amend the agreement with TRA to extend the date to November 2003. The force main project along Dove has been delayed due to the acquisition of utility easements along Dove Street. Therefore, the lift station at Lonesome Dove and the gravity sewer line along Kirkwood were bid out separately. Financial Considerations: This project was originally estimated in the FY1996-97. Each year the project was delayed, the construction cost increased. However, during the budget in subsequent years, the estimated construction of the project was 5H- 1 City of Southlake, Texas adjusted to reflect the anticipated increase in cost due to inflation and the construction market. Currently, the estimated engineering and construction cost shown in the CIP budget is $1,747,500, of which $627,700 plans to be allocated in the FY99-00 budget. The estimated $1,747,500 included the cost to engineer and construct the lift station at Lonesome Dove, the force main along Dove St. and the gravity sewer line along Kirkwood Blvd. The City had the necessary right-of-way and easements to construct the lift station at Lonesome Dove and the gravity sewer line along Kirkwood Blvd. Therefore, with Council approval, Staff proceeded to bid out and construct those projects separately from the force main along Dove Street. The construction cost for the lift station at Lonesome Dove and the gravity sewer line along Kirkwood Blvd. totals $782,278.00. The engineering for all three projects totals $160,576.21. Eight bids were received for the construction of the force main with the low bid being from Pate Brothers Construction, Inc. of Fort Worth in the amount of $1,110,278,30 (see attached bid tabulation). In negotiating with the property owners along Dove Street, the City purchased several easements. The total cost of these easements was $27,185. Therefore the entire engineering, right-of-way, and construction cost for all three projects totals $2,080,317.51, which is $332,817.51 over the budgeted amount. The project cost overrun is attributed to several reasons. There are storm drain improvements, which total $43,116.70, that were not included as part of the original estimate. The storm drain improvements were added to the scope of the project as a result of the easement negotiation with several residents. The cost of the easements, which total $27,185, was not anticipated in the original estimate either. The City had intended to just waive the sewer participation fee for the residents granting the easements. There were also several feet of bored sewer pipe added to the project to avoid conflicts such as trees and driveways, etc. Furthermore, bidding the project as three separate projects reduced the economy of scale. The additional $332,817.51 required to construct the force main along Dove Street can be funded by either adding the amount to the FY99-00 budget or using available funds that exist from projects that were below budget (see attached CIP Project Cost Ledger). Citizen Input/ Board Review: None Legal Review: Not applicable Alternatives: Eight bids were received for the force main along Dove St. and were reasonable and very competitive. As stated previously, this project is 5H - 2 City of Southlake, Texas essential to eliminate the diversion of sanitary sewer and comply with the Interim Diversionary Agreement, therefore Staff recommends to accept the low bid and proceed with construction of the project. Supporting Documents: Bid tabulation CIP Project Cost Ledger Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council award the bid to Pate Brothers Construction, Inc. of Fort Worth in the amount of $1,110,278.30 for the construction of a sanitary sewer force main along Dove Street from Lonesome Dove Ave. to Kirkwood Blvd. Please place this item on the August 3, 1999 Regular City Council Agenda for review and consideration. a1Q. SEP/sep _ Approved for Submittal to City Council: Ik Cif) nager's Office 5H- 3 n IC OI0 0 O'rn'C O C OIC I n j o o c o o n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl n i C., h Of 7 I 1 (OIOIO 0 In Ln aIO 0lo c O O b n O NI I I O N O O C n 0 N n 00 co 0 0 C C o o N N p aJ 7 nI0 O N �0 JO T m 7 I I O!rd N CO aO O?M II- (n O C I O b W b O O o 6s O ('7 O C I�W, of (' N ^ 1 cf I 17 7 R r) n I�- N I V7 N (D 0 (D of N aJ: n M N N 11 C- Nf 7 H(.9 fil M N N CD I n (D (D N H © j M (Pl H H H ;H b (+'f N U 'AIMfI IMI71N'll dij aij e9159 Yf H H ICI Nfj 1 I I (NI N 0 m � at (M I n X o'o 0 0 o n o 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 LL C 0 0 0 0 C 0 1 0 C ' a OC C O�C N O C CI O O O o Ili O C ' 000000 C I r m vi m IF' UI " N OOI(7 N7000 N!b Om — O I 1 ! I OMOON - 0 L aO m0X ,^ ? �! IA In (DNN V In000ccnnccr o0 I ntn (oi (on 0 W (L I M 7 b N N M W - N O O O IO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I 10 N 0 0 0 0 0 b b 0 7 V7 C 0170000000010 .I O m (n O r b N - M n 7 N 'I0 0 1n N O O c o o 0000 M co 0 0 V7 m t b O c0 N O 10 O 7 0 M O O 0 n 7 0 O I j(" — O N CO O C m N i0 CT N n IM VJ n C,C (D O nitn V7 O In N m O b, ! :O M o CO n M In n CIMINIM ti - - —IM w 0 N n M 0 �I 17 M M --H N m al 't , C Vi1tr9�s9IeH O — N — C7i O In (O 7 aJ iM H H H H IHI Q C'f U� X 7 7 (`I :JI iH QHid3 HIH 1Hl I I IH I N D I N S a ^ I I^IOO'OO o o OIO OIO C O O C O NIV) o OIO OC W V W IC' N n'0 O N (O O O,<n to V) b b b O IN N C C bIb CI O1 NI V7 QJ10 C O b O O Q c0 n 7 N -- O ? 7 0 Ic7 O O I O ^ z 7;7 7 C O IM 7 0 QfIO 7 (OObp I - ' 11 I .y T X m I ICJ O m O 0 a0 In ! ! 1 NI i M MI CL 0 a � ¢ - - I ^ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Io o n n 0 o C o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rav 1 Cn 'D rioccc0000 � c cq Icc000r� o ( e DJ b V) O N Of b O O O O O O O N O aJ O V) O O b — O N In MO I F M V] NNtDN (DNN 00747NOO Of jo mn00bac at at WI I V h N N 0 0 0 M 0 n 7 M N b 0 n O n MIN W VI C7 I jOiNl—IM MIHI7I (D IO CO O n n n b .0 V 7 H H H 7 n IO 10 m - �i 3inX ^ z "� O U 3 m p wI O'0I0!0 0'C CIO 0'0Ia a 0Ia 0 0 ^'0 0 0 0I0'0 I I 0 c c o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 CIO 0 0 0 0 0 OI +� m ►- I Ir; 7cicic! v' ccr-- oioo (o - cl nloc0 c c 12 U !N w nlc c-4 T c a n n Cl) N M OI I O M O o 0 O ,CfO O Q t� di. MI—I N M N N N ! 1 I, nl� ca 1— 7 Z O o I !0 0 0 0 0_ n o 0 0l0!01010 o n o! IoI I i Io!oIo 0 0 oI01 �o) o H, Q goo0 n - 000000lnve m 00000n �l ti M riclo 0tna0c001- n0 C O b W M O 0 O j cc c ^ J 01 OJ n Il F M 7 N 0 N n 0 V) I S Ja I 1 O cc N n(C I n b V] (O N b b O b b (D b O b I 'n N N 7 7 H N e9 O O L O M M — N H H H n n N H!1'J V) b b M `7 (a N to).H H H H 7 . T ? U 69H NH MM H H H NHHHH H) I H H A/ Q N LL 0 � �C= ^ y H m loco'oolnM000c000Lno 0000000 p m Q wi O OIO C C (D m O C C!O O (A n M O I OIO 0 0 a0 - O ��YY11 m U 7 C m to N -T 7 rn O (D (D N O 7 In o I In (O O O N — O t W m D Z Z In nln J CD M 7 0 Initn n (D N O I !tn M O O O �D C C %C �- ,� m Ito M N O a: N N N N N N I i � Ya ¢i ¢ I I 0o 0 n - n - Non I I O O O b r7 N I I a n IQ �: 'NiNI I ! 10 7 IOIO M M 7 0 I I N Ifnl(DI ' is00 am C71 I I I I IOI I�i- (� I I I i i �i IJ JIJ WII I W> JIB UJ (J Z ILLILLILLIaIW J IJ IJ J J J I II I I LJL WJ W.-d.<..' LJ ILLJ <. 1 1 Jo ZI m F (r Fr e0 WI 1 J U.z z O O F W tN- o I fJ vli0 1 Z J y 7 N I W o 7 - 7� oNI? LU mz I QQ f- � I Qz LL 0 Wz WLLLL (L � � I UU O � NMM W O W J > m zW000 I gw ww j waa m m � �I U E az of i- oaaal x (nm > u~i (nz `�' Womn ww � o O ? Y � Q 0. ix �I z0azzoQw > � � � w U) a m �Q U �zzz (n ?zro > aQ `'' ("w mmm (n0 ^ J W V) ' J w W = N -- - - LL Q Q ^ w m 2 0 coo A - x rn J 1 F � U F w W w w w p 2 2 W W w z z Q 2 (j (n � z X a I p H LL w m � W a a a y o U 'l -i m m U O W w z Ow a z W N I U) } _ w ,� rn (n (nwammmW00aam U aaaaap Q LL. �mv N t: In (n (nJw00 mu. (L z pp w Q � Y N - } 00 (LLL � � '7 ;06 ;r Q � () ww j } 2 Q I } Zad � J QMM � ZQbCOm � — �ww W wQ � mm � � Q W = I a � W � �mmmQ � " " C9U �- � mmM "_ J 0 - =ooyLL � z 0 a a (xwz 00 W QJ zz Q = H ~ ! z w w � oo � > zzUVQ (nQ u~iU) cr, dNU (n a) f t- w Q W J O F-I I UUU (nI� UULLm �aaa �amaxo _ aQ (nrn > x ^ Q W z g Q » > Q (n » LLmwwwwUZm - JJ � QpZ (n (6w = 13 F p 'F-Iaaaozaa , Qmmmm ¢ ww � UL) 2wz O (n -' a� z9cD 2o _ O 'ccc - , 00002wm z � Q - wm0 U) V 0 m - - 7U - � UNmmmmxF- a � MNcemF- U a F_ zl NMVIn w n 5H-4 ^ pp .� la 000101010'O OO C O O O ni i 10100 000of IO n O In O O N OOI O O O I O O O N O o1 I I O I 0 n O ff 1�� O co O O O O O O O O Q' I IQ N O O CD O bn( n^i 0 0 OI?I-1 CD :m:c o rn ^! NIN N !NI(nININ INICA P- AN N O'. (DiN�N N N. Ni (Of O X T o ^! NIN., N _ ^! N-,0, NI 4NdfN N' I N LL + o 0 r l0 0 0 O10 olOI010l O O O O O of O O O O O C O c f ! 1 N i m aW wl 00000 c lolcloc000 u� ^ c o 0000cc � Z I. UI o no o m -roolo o looc (Qol I j 0000co o I I IZ 1 Im OI- 0 O /I CD In IO C G1,n 7 N CO O. i N C.) O O .-I^IC� f- CO m = C I� �a 1 t -1- N b �f ; to oI-1N In An Iio W j I�i�I W 1 I = J I j0000 co lCIA= 0100 0 0 0 0 0 of 1 000000Ci o 0 lool000ci0000cco00o o: 0oo0oocl 0 0 I N -� 1�l010 0 0 0 0 0 o v c ui! IT o 0 0 o v of ICi 00 C1 ;�n ^il Cn O aO NIQOI C C O CD CD I!] C!'fOI I01 iN 1n 00 M "nC 1. Ol U CO O A ~ -1 C O O CO CAI Q 1 In C o n - ^ 0 0 b C n 0 0 If` N n I N fb Cn C"1 .! OI I�il-I?10 ?IC]IC IOICI-? O (A n O In -O 10 (^.1C, ?,? - ni ICV NI Cn :n - - N N N�(`I -�ln' N cn�n CO CA I. NIN NI Ni NI N• CO r I 1 Ices) NINI^f-IN N N uvINI v_I CIC OfOIC�fOlClo cicl0 O O O O O p WI IO!O O O OOIOIOIOIC!CIC O O O OI f IOIO O ODIC IO '•InIC4 CV o O11141010Pi'^ P! N r N of ^! O O o o NC? In O O NCn O O M O N 0 0 f� tojOk 2 I I 0 - � � - N - 0 1 00U `L m = e a I N z 1n ! in � aAnQ. o 0000000000000000 A. l o000000110 01 I!7 I I O N0000 0000000000 CA! V <r00001n 0 01 b H Ca O n I Cn 0 b O In v n O O O O o 0 o v O CA 'IT n I I CD O O O O 1n O I n Cn to co CD N n m (n O O O O O b O Q n 1A N NIN O C. It . U CO CD N I Cn Cn Cn Cn (7 CA T O v O O CA N Cn O C Q! I N O N CA o c l CA N w 0 1 CA CO An (D N n 0 0 n 0 0 Co M O b to N O N cn 1n - N I O N ` tt) .� .� 1 N N N N N cn CD cn N- N Cn 1n N CA: Q N N N I N I N i CD N n N �! fn U 1 1 ;•7 ? N' ^I- N N N N N �! 1 j (N' ( I i i N i M O Cn ,, �C \ \ I c> ti o o I I cc000loN000000000 l0coo 0o I I !I O w Iniolo 0 o v o 010 c o 0 0 0 o ry D o 0 o�An C a02 O ~ C) IInImNO nIN00000 nO QNO ? CAOOn! - Z I (") CnIV rnn ? CnIOn N :n V ^ O In .; to CDI CI � �, Y O k � � I CnI I 1 CIA "�i O z o 4 2 e I CL I v,NI I In ! I Cn�NI !n! Z1 o 2cnJ � �Le l I I I l ( I ' I I H� H U 0 I I Io o o o o o o C Ctolo o AM AM oI I I 00 0 0I0I0I01 0 o Q oC0000000;olooCou� o b o000000 o b UI b n v I 1^_ICo Cn o 0 :n 0 a clO O O pp o P o 0 0 010!0 V: o Q 1 �„j N T F N O O P7 0 0 C 000000 0 0 Cl O Q' 0 0 0 0 In O b Wi = jl al ea T7 Nf I - Oln0a 000000 f1NNO -'r cAn otnOtnOO � CIA OI uiviocor� ri(nvrnoonn (uvui riI I nv0 rq 0 b O M T CA 1 N N N N N N NCO O N Q (7 N fD O N N N N r Qf N N cn C N N^ N N N N N N N �/ 1] T Cn N N N `I N L� y 0 a a N I I NI I N a. ° � � 1 1 1 � I �_ x 101010000 o0000001 s � wI 000000ooa0000 I 0000000U � UI cn 12 M 000Oolo o o 0 An o o ! o 00o CA ^ ofcZ21 .O - Q 0 Cn Cn C CIJ O_ N N N O 1 I NI2,0 OpY _ ' - -) I lC cn CI 1 1 cn I- ? �I I �I i I I i i IZ }I on ' NI^rj'n �r olni:n ClO coo 00o uoi ! -I ! II^I-INICIn f .a �I NINI iol?I I Ic-�O (n (n Q IN O An j I I I I 2�1I II J J IJ.I.W i I I LL LL `LL LLLL LLILL ILL ILL ILL I¢ LL LLILL ILL: LL LL U) I I I IO > J F J J W W/A ¢ I Z ! I ( V I 1 1 I I I IZ IF n e! WIr_ U. J U. ~ W F- of I� Q D Uf I ZZ 00 ¢ 0ui z W cl ��ONv uj Yzl ¢ ¢ F � HZo UL p •~• W Zi IW OOO W �I I JJ OFF ~ zz m OW Q I Q ' > ml zWxxx � W I WW m z - - J m � F al s 1n O-�I O > HI- t- ¢ U W LHI- of � � � ¢ N 0 w � ¢ I � d 0 0 0 IN z LL Q z z o Q W > m 2 J m ~ i w- - > - - N 0 m m w ¢ I 1U � zzz u> QQcow � � w m0OCn0 � J W to F 3U � Wwww 00 � � oaQwwzzQ grj �pLUZ Q 3 Q W2a m p df1LL J J ¢ X 0 > U. gw CLCL 0U ^ _5wmUULL W zwwz � W o L11 otS ! ti > _ x w (� rnrnmU) z- WOO >> U aLLa. LLw a LL 2co U N t u1CnCnJw000LL' LLLLaa � z � aapp0 w 0 FAY N � u� u� 1nOOLLLL0MQCD 'aocZ } ¢ 0 V V � � >} x z � r a (� (n (� Z ¢ mmy � - � � � wW3 � � � ooJW ¢ i ►_- a � w 0 F mzm ¢ � ^ � Oo � � ww �LLp m —a0yLL ^ U NFU C) 2000 � F- C �( U (� (� � � W¢ J 0 = = 2Z ¢ _ Q a (n fn (n xC0 - a ZZ ¢ ¢ > CA ¢ ~ fn fn ¢ ¢ °d u) Q I R IL 1Y wt rn W H > - - V UaSO I I N m mi-- I- w = U w c7 >- UUU � UU — a� aa � aleaa ¢ acn (n > Z W ; z �- g al — » > Qrn » `LYW WwwUZm ! ! = JJ QQp Z � aaaozaa � Qa: www ww I I HUUxx � Wz i 0 m O� z �oioco _ 04rco - - OOOOMmz I I ZiDc _ wm0 U) V 1 O 0 m 0 - ? U - ^ U �, mmmmxF- a ZMC-4 vYFU LL l I (^ ! ¢N ¢ ~ zl 1W lvn (n Q Cn I I I 1 1 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ CD n 5H-5 CIP PROJECT COSTS A B C D 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' BUDGETED AMOUNT BID/FINAL COST DIFFERENCE 2 1.5 MOD MIRON ELEVATED TOWER* $1,860,000 $1,832,000 $28,000 3 20"WATERLINE ALONG FM 1709 $641,000 $638,408 S2,592 4 24"WATER LINE ALONG N.WHITE CHAPEL S850,000 S826,455 S23,545 5 BRUMLOW $112,700 $111,000 $1,700 6 BURNEY LN.-REHAB CUL-DE-SAC $57,000 $64,523 ($7,523) 7 BYRON NELSON STOP LIGHT j S40,000 $65,000 (S25,000) 8 BYRON NELSON STRIPING $65,000 $74,163 (S9,163) 9 COMMERCE TRAFFIC LIGHT*@ $100,000 S48,4051 S51,595 10 DIAMOND CIRCLE STREETS&SEWER $1,286,000 S990,1611 $295,839 11 DOVE FORCE MAIN* S 1,747,5001 S2,053,133i (S305,633) 12 DOVE;HIGHLAND PAVING* j $611,480 S778,5331 (S167,053) 13 FLORENCE TOWER TANK PAINTING* S105,000 S152,200 (S47.200) 14 FM 1709 TRAFFIC SEQUENCING* ( $120,000 $42,0001 S78,000 15 HILLWOOD SEWER* $95,000 $82,415 S12,586 16 HUNTWICK ESTATES SEWER $200,000 $276,123 (S76,123) 17 JELLICO SEWER* $500,000 S419,723 $80,277 18 KIRKWOOD WATER LINE 1 S326,0001 S266,159 S59,841 19 LAKE DRIVE WATER,SEWER,PAVING* 1 $364,5001 $376,991 (S12,491) 20 LILAC-LN.WATER,SEWER STREET~ i $234,600 $286,7821 (S52,182) 21 MISSION HILL SEWER S430,000 S489,099 i (S59,099) 22 N.WHITE CHAPEL-COUNTY LINE TO LAKE* S340,000 S470,970 1 (S130,970) 23 N.WHITE CHAPEL-DOVE TO COUNTY LINE $181,850 $177,010 i S4,840 24 N-3&N-4 LIFT STATIONS* $1,000,000 S1,009,500 (S9,500) 25 PEARSON GROUND STORAGE TANK NO.2* $1,687,400 $1,545,2471 S142,153 26 PINE SEWER* $200,000 $183,3681 S16,632 27 PLANTATION SEWER* $110,400 $84,676 S25,724 28 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER IMPROVEMENTS* S405,600 S472,580 (S66,980) 29 PUMP STATION NO.2* $3,110,000 S3,146,8001 (S36,800) 30 RAINTREE SHADY LN WATER,SEWER,PAVING* $1,925,9951 S1,615,029 i S310,966 31 RIDGECREST* S355,5761 S370,640, (S15,064) 32 SABRE SEWER CONNECTION-SOLANA I $25,000 S21,700 1 S3,300 33 SHADY OAKS TRAFFIC LIGHT* $100,000 S91,000 1 S9,000 34 SOUTHLAKE/KELLER PUMP STATION MOD.* $300,000 $294,000 S6,000 35 TIMARRON-BENT CREEK REPAIR* $726,986 $699,315 S27,671 36 TROPHY CLUB 24"WATER LINE* $1,511,000 $1,440,693 S70,307 37 W.CONTINENTAL RECON.-PHASE 1 * $640,424 $640,096 S328 38 W.DOVE RECON.-PEYTONVILLE TO SHADY OAKS $259,680 $298,397 (S38,717) 39 WATER&SEWER TO MIRON ADDITION $196,781 $262,535 (S65,754) 40 TOTAL $22,822,472 S22,696,828 1 41 TOTAL(OVER)fUNDER BUDGET $125,644 42 43 *Project not yet complete. Cost shown reflects contract bid price&engineering,surveying costs 44 (a Assumes devloper of Gateway Plaza will pay half of$96,809 project 45 46 5H-6 7/29/99 R City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 30, 1999 I TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shawn Poe, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Award of bid to Sunmount Corporation for the reconstruction of W. Dove Street from SH 114 to North White Chapel Boulevard and the reconstruction of W. Highland Street from Shady Oaks to North White Chapel Boulevard I Action Requested: Award the bid to Sunmount Corporation for the reconstruction of W. Dove St. from SH 114 to N. White Chapel Blvd. and the reconstruction of W. Highland St. from Shady Oaks to N. White Chapel Blvd. Background Information: The reconstruction of Dove St. and Highland St. was initially part of the 1992 Interim Street Bond Program. The projects have been delayed due to the acquisition of right-of-way at the intersection of Highland St. and N. White Chapel Blvd. The right-of-way was required to align W. Highland St. with E. Highland St. The realignment of this intersection is crucial to provide safe turning movements and improve sight distance. Right-of- way was also purchased at the intersection of Dove St. and N. White Chapel in order to align W. Dove St. with E. Dove St. Realigning this intersection would provide safer turning movements and improve the overall function of the intersection, especially since there will be a future i DPS facility constructed in the area that would use Dove St. extensively. Dove St. will inevitably become an alternate route for motorists when SH 114 construction begins. i Attached is a memorandum from the Landscape Administrator Keith i Martin, which outlines the impact of tree removal required to realign each intersection. Financial Considerations: These projects were originally estimated in the FY1996-97. However, during the budget in subsequent years, the estimated construction of the project was adjusted to reflect the anticipated increase in cost due to inflation and the construction market. Currently, the estimated engineering and construction cost shown in the CIP budget is $611,480. The estimated $611,480 included the cost to engineer and reconstruct W. Dove from SH 114 to N. White Chapel and W. Highland from Shady Oaks to N. White Chapel. This amount also included the estimated cost to I i 51 - 1 l t f City of Southlake, Texas acquire the right-of-way in order to align each roadway at the intersection of N. White Chapel. The engineering for both projects totals $43,278. Six bids were received for the reconstruction of W. Dove St. and W. Highland St. with the low bid being from Sunmount Corporation of Roanoke in the amount of $539,137 (see attached bid tabulation). The City paid $196,118 for the required right-of-way. Therefore, the entire engineering, right-of-way, and construction cost for both projects totals $778,533, which is $167,053 over the budgeted amount. The project cost overrun is mainly attributed to the cost of the right-of- way. The amount budgeted for right-of-way was $50,000. This estimate was based on just the amount of property required to construct the road improvements. The City paid over triple that amount because at each intersection, the City purchased the entire lot or property instead of just the amount needed for the right-of-way. This was due to the encumbrance of the right-of-way to the properties. The additional $167,053 required to reconstruct W. Dove and W. Highland can be funded by either adding the amount to the FY99-00 budget or using available funds that exist from projects that were below budget (see attached CIP Project Cost Ledger). The City has purchased the right-of-way at the intersection of Highland and N. White Chapel. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None Legal Review: Not applicable Alternatives: None Supporting Documents: Memo from Keith Martin Bid tabulation and letter of recommendation CIP Project Cost Ledger Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council award the bid to Sunmount Corporation of Roanoke in the amount of$539,137 for the reconstruction of W. Dove St. from SH 114 to N. White Chapel and W. Highland from Shady Oaks to N. White Chapel. Please place this item on the August 3, 1999 Regular City Council Agenda for review and consideration. 5I - 2 City of Southlake, Texas SEP/sep i Approved for Submittal to City Council: -A/, I ity anager's Office 5I - 3 City of Southlake, Texas i i MEMORANDUM i TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager I FROM: Keith Martin, Landscape Administrator SUBJECT: The removal of trees for the realignments of Highland at N. White Chapel and Dove Road at N. White Chapel. i i With the assistance of Shawn Poe, Senior Civil Engineer for the City, we conducted a review of the both the Highland Street realignment at North White Chapel and the Dove Road realignment project at North White Chapel. The purpose was to determine the j safest realignment design while minimizing the adverse impact on the adjacent trees. To provide the realignment at Highland Street and N. White Chapel approximately nineteen (19) existing trees ranging from 6" dia. to 20" dia. would have to be removed. Please see the attached exhibit for exact locations of the trees. To realign Dove Road at N. White Chapel approximately seven (7) existing trees ranging from 6" dia. To 24" dia. would need to be removed. Please see the attached exhibit for the exact locations of the trees. The proposed realignments of the two roads are the safest possible routes that could be taken without the removal of more existing trees. To mitigate the removal of the trees and to provide a more aesthetic atmosphere for the projects, trees from the Volunteer Tree Farms can be planted along the R.O.W.'s and within any medians at a future date. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at extension 848. KM Attached: Highland Road Realignment Exhibit Dove Road Realignment Exhibit Cc: Shana Yelverton, Assistant City Manager Malcolm Jackson, Administrative Operations Coordinator 51-4 EL COL \ I I 173AV&DI 15 MA07149H f \— — — —M tt— — —I ---^— MHO— — \ 3NN0 \ 1�A 7-I 3AJa� ,,�i o t •y.. ,;I j 4r-CrQ CL V) Cc ti- ¢cr0zo< \.< \•o r c0<, _j O U ^^VV OU i \ I?x ! Lu� ti � ti � 2 P,q' Qom ? Z`_ Z� � .- `` .'p � � �•J_ . u n st n v� sn 4i c3 P ;D •' i W= v} �; � at 3Z 41 talWQ- LL Lu CO En � t 7 _ ESIN 1 z 'Iuunac Lj z 51-5 c v Q nz N ^N 1�.J 7 '•':r., 3Q I JW�HW0 WW ZU V¢ II f / 3 �QH JQa� ZZ —� �V vW a a + m�`� N p a p Z rl 1 N F p dam zF=w I a ¢ N N aNf--d +o� mx¢ oz�' ¢w3? C z / cal¢¢ �'/ }.% ,_.{ 8 1 w j z LVLO+IZ d1S Od \ OF > U N WW1 > n W W J z } �` .;eYr-F `•iS'� i! '\ ape <o z X / JO WZ CnZ...I0 W U ; �:D z a s N Q {/ L) CL Q rn LJ co I� ti a r Lu Ji i 'mow �J ,W �. ( t•{ OZ_ _`• r' 3 z ck: w g •! ,ll� U Q 17 Zzcr of ti 7 iI L , a} �Z �j i it •-O c a Fw � W LLJQ /r l �t\l•\ W W Jcrp FQ1- z f y S N a p ,r, 1, �1 p F •9w J /J 77 �� r p z � w <... % z z Z / 2 / U Z i w \1 (` / `. d O to CY CL- }U X z �� w W T W W • Y..___fYU K U r.' ( / 7 Z ..-'��U NifS OLLJ + ..f / 7t;! 7 /l• In Z. 1 (: w f.. z a� I w _ / F m U Q Z L 7 / i 1 ;%� to o / / �f_O ( 1 t W W Abl- 46•ZS+SI TiS Id Z ��; /%/ V) o LL c� I oa w �� .1 l il �3l 51-6 a 4 ,iAWAY ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS • PIANNERS • SURVEYORS DAI No. 9610501 July 26, 1999 Mr. Shawn Poe City of Southlake 1950 E. Continental Southlake, Texas 76092 Reference: Bid Recommendation for Paving Reconstruction of Dove Road (from Highway 114 to North White Chapel Boulevard) to West Highland Street (from Shady Oaks to White Chapel) Dear Mr. Poe: This letter is to recommend award of the above-referenced contract to the lowest bidder, as follows: Sunmount Corporation—$539,137.00 Attached is a bid tabulation summary of the bids received in hardcopy format. Sincerely, DUNAWAY ASSOCIATES, INC. Daniel Ochinciuc DO/do 9610501_Ltr_SPoe_072699_D0.doc Enclosure L 1501 MERRIMAC CIRCLE • SUITE 100 • FORT WORTH,TEXAS 76107-6572 • (817)335-1121 • METRO(817)429-2135 • FAX(817)335-7437 51-7 »= m 8�888880888888888888888888888888 00088888$ 0,00000090 pp O of 0 0000 po p pp 0 0 O Q K 0. Q -j Z C OOONOInQNtOMOtD� OOtgNN�fpQ�N800SQ m O mN0888p z wm QNtO QOCO O) tD t0Nt0 to- t0'n �rtOO O �- O r QOf r 0� N'- � n— MM C .--—— O N� rnNrCV Q r In m (7/1 X fa Q M w M i R M!A M M w'A M w M w w w w w w w M w w w w w N w w w M M M M w w w w w N i W i • H y O o O o O V)rn O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u) O C O O O O O O O 2 O� O T O r 10 u)O O O"O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O r n O O O O O O O O O t 0 O Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 t n O O K Q 0 0 0 0 N I Y Q O O ^ ^r O O N 0 m NK N O O t 0 0 0 O m ,n 0 r n O O O Q 10 to In rn Irol� O N m t0 N .- 0 0 N �z MM M wwMwwwwM M Mwww wwww w M M M MMwww N V 0000 pp o 0 0 o rn o 0 0 o O O o 0 o O o O o o O O o O O o O 0 000000010 m 0 0 0 0 0 t0 N O t0 Om O O u)0101000.000010000000 O O O O O O O O O W • OOOONtn rnm N to m N NNOOOOOOOOOO OO OO N N 0 O r0 u',00,000 nj O to r rn N K m00 NO O u)o 000000 NOr r to m Q K ONNOON ¢ _ > h mN OON h mm h m to to m mr •-r Q_QOO K Mme7 to Nl0 O?QNtp' Q K Q Q e7 rn N N N m V)N r - --- N— 2 M w M M w w M M w M M w M w w w w =Z; O �W"• V y OOOOQ WQ > Or•N� -, N.: Q O - m� 00 00000� Oc O0 00 Orn 0 a C') )-0o0vi0oo0 00 o 8c00cInc 000000oo0 a 0o :- O^O r T ^ m t00 C IQ M Cl M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M w M M w M M M M M M M M w w w C O O O O CDo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 p J O O(D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�')O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O ��n 0 0 0 0 0 p•j Q C O rrn00 "r NO)mN rO�0 h to m m0O N0 0 Nr 0 O rn m? N 02 Q Q M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M w M M M M M M w M w w M M M M M M w w w w N m a y o�n000v)tn000 00000000000000000000 0 0 000000o J O K O O O N h m m 0 O to O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O �C O N K m ? to^O N m O r 0 0 0 0 0 N O m K 0 0 0 0 0 0 to O O ,n m O o O N >- 7 N m O O Q Q O I N Oo0000 r t') u)m 000 m?m r IC r r�to O O m w w w w w w M M M M w w w w w w 9 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0080000010 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000$o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 0(V 0 0 1 D N(V t 0 N t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o o O O O 8 C j O C 00 Qm0 rnOtp Nr r 00 MO Q t0 t0 r QtDO mNmOm Cr0 m t0 m N rOOO OOO � O O m rmNO r 0m r0 to�r0 Q N mm Nt0 t0 QmtDNrAr m OOO V)tD� M O N .- tD N N M)N to .- N fD m n N Q E N e- In to N e9 Cd M M M M w w M M w M M M M M M w w w w w M M M M M w w w w N Z y O O O o t0 O m N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O 0 O r N-- .- rn O rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O r 0 0 0 0 �, O N tnm r ? ? - --,0 — O u)O O O O m O Q 00,000000 N Cl O O O 0 O O O O m m u) in 000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0,3 0 0 0 0 m O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O p a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q m 0!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N p' C OO Q OO N Q Nm r r0 t0 to rn OOOON Om OOO o 0000 Q N N OOOOO oO a O m N.rn m O) N m e7 N M m N �m Cn m N K O r fD m O N Q th U M<')0 0 0 0 O) O ui N O)to 0)O rn Mtn O ,0 N m m Ot t0 M M M M M w M w w M M M M M M w M N w w N Z O O O O O O O u",O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O j 0 0 0 0 0 O m('�O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 tp O to O ^ ? Q n '- N NO tnN 0000 N O r r00000000 O O O O O O O otO Z � in N0000 Q i0 ? N000000 rn u) OO OOO� Z. N to tnm� N Or m O)00 to to cn U OOO En M M w w 1A M M M M M M w w M w M w w M w w w M w w w w w w M M M M M M w w w w w 00000000000000000000o00ooOO0000 00000000o [D O O O O O N N m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m N N Q O)N O m m t 0 0 0 O O O O M O O C O a)m m N N�O?,co:; Of O OOINCI OQ QOm Q tTOtO t0r mu')N ONNln ID Nm Q r'N(n to O m N N ul Q m m N N r Q N O)O O r Q, O r0 N U')N m 0 m t') ~ Q M M M w w M M M M M M M M M w M M M M M M M M M w w w w w M M M M M M w w w w N W OtD O Q mO)rn r tD O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O� O O O O N 0 0 0 0 m 0motnmrnrn �r)omtntn0000000tn00000000 0 0 oar0000 o �r)w cvaK �orov+o 7riorn uimcaoc-iooi vioorci vio� rci rn 0000vio t� O N In m M 4.1 V)N 0 O O to W O)mN C w w w w M M M M M w w w w w z E E o c 0 E E° > z = a s o O m E m m a 4 ; A L U y m r a o 4 m u - t UO Ei M p L E C Z ° c o ° q L t $ M O Q a nn w o m >o >> o o o m ¢ n a ; r2 c E JA Q C U rS ° u U N a Y A S rp J C a L N N c o n H A W C n� � U V m .) d A m 2 n v a C v U ; ° > o ° � � ¢ t - cC m 3 m U N > U Q o n o o c N u v a N c o E H i i a o °u o >o - c ° _ o> a s > u o } u m a _ - o c ; s U O).`�- m ; o v 9 g' s T v o e u E - N m q '° m m6' E e _ r 5 es o a " 0 9 0 9 0 2 v 3 a o 0 A a a V ? o N a o v •b o ¢ 5 3 - tr = - to v V v Q m i to a f E m$ a > z > > > > LL a a a > a a a a a a z > > > > > c w m > J to N � W W W V W J J W W W O H D O Z m11 0 O O n 0 - - - - - p Oto ozTTI, a W A A O O R C7 ro °1 V = O Z g Op ~ Q W a`0 4 c m a ~ �'^ 51-8 u� m SSSSoSSSaI�Ioo'SSSSB00 S00 Cm o $ SSo ZOO' 00SSSo 0050000NOOCSS O O OSS S SSA W :_ Z C O N N M N (D u) O O O N aD .K — 7 CO m N O O O) K O (D r r` r• O to W O (D u] a0 (n O O O M fD O O t` O CO O)N (O , (O N (D O O N V e- M K - M O K n N r- N (n:° Q Q MwwMMMMM v)MM Mviw vi(AM M(A M vi vi NA vi (A of Go X • Fa) coo 000000000000 O 0 00 O O O O O O ((] O (n O (O Q) u) O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O O u) O O O O O O (n O u) N �n K K N O O ? O N O O O O u) O O O "'N O u ?,,', Q p p I r• u] O (D N r• O O O K ((� O O 0 (D O C N (D O O O M Co z Q C N V f• M M MMMM M M M M MM MM MMdi diMM M MM M M (A y){nN n o O p O o O o O O o O O O O O O O o O 0 0 0 0 O o • m 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S S S o rn O O O 0 0 (D O N (A T O o 0 (D O O O O O O O O O O O S O p C K O) O N O r- r N (`') N O O O O aD O O O O O c7 O c GJ cc Z > f• u] u) (n O K u) - � M N u] K N K N O (0 Co O K aD u) N N h O N N O M K V a0 N (D N M t M N M (D (n N C Q) M r N ZZ._ i E o Q Mtl9vi(AM MMMfAEA A M(A/AIAMfA»M M Mvivi (n (Aviw a Cw�.; w 00000 (no (n0000000000o 0 0coo 0 080 O r• O N O N �- r` (n 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 O O N o O O O Q . p .= uj Co K K u] r' K O O O N O N o 0 0 O o (n O O () d N u)O O r• O N O O) co a) too O N S 1 W ' O O N N N O C r Q) M MMMMM M M M M MM M M MfANM MM M M M M M Mv)v)N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O m o 0 0 0 0 o o' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 O o 0 0 o O O O O U o 0 (O o 0 o 0 to o (n m 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o O 0 0 0 O C o N a0 N o M 0 O O) O O O V K K O V (n O a0 o o O O O O N N > O r- (� O n (0 ti M (D N N n K K (D K O a0 r• O O O o C R N O N t` m C7 N N O) N 01 N ('�) M ? M r` K M (D M Q K K N 'o Q M M M N M M M M M M M M M M di M M M M M M M b9 M M fn M Z N O o 00000 (n O OO OO o 000 00 O o 0 0 O O O O O N O O aD O M .- O ) O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O r` O O O O O )- A p0 N O r` r• K M u'+ O O O O O (D O m O M O O O O 0 0 0 F, > i N ID 10 Ln (D O M K (D O O _ O N N C-i (D C M � M M M M M M M M M M M VI M M M M M M M M M M M M b!N fn N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J (j� 000 00000000 o 0000 00 0 O 000 O 0000 kn Q 00 aD O O u] u) O N (n O O O (DO O O O (n O 000 O o C o C Ou) O oo - u) (n OO OOr joo 't - O KOO O OCDO = 7 O t` O -O K O M O o O M M N N K o (D O K o O r N 7 0 N no � M O N N K K O o K N c M M •- M (n V o D r• (D N Q Q ViM Mfn MMMMM MMMMMMMMMM M MM fn fA of vA N Q m o00oo nu] 000000000000 0 000 0 000 J O O u) o O . N r` O (D 0 00000000 O O O O O O O O O O N Y CD C 7. — O C O N O O o r- a i — O O O N O _ } ] O 0 0 K K O O O Of U u) r Op) (f7.- O W .0 n O r M MMMM fA MM MM MMM(A M(A fA MM M M M vi vn M vi to 64 In 2 o O O o O o o O ( O O O O o O O o o 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 (� OOOOO o 0 0 '- (O o 0 (D(D O cOOOO O OOO O 000 O N (D N N M M m K 0 0 rr o co O (n O 0 o 0 O 0 0 0 ci C O N M(n u) Q) O O M u7 u) 1� O m M O m O a) O O u) O N(D O CO(D K In M M M u) In O) (D N c0 O M O aD O (D N V oa u) (n N Q o Mm K M M N .- m — •' " D)N M N M u] K - O) O r: M - E N N !n U') K N r �• Q MMbi ViM MfAMM69 viMMHi vi fAMMM M I.I.I. M fANvi M W m N OOO N c0 '7)O) (� O K 00000 r` O O O O O N O O O O O C. co O aD D) )) O O cD O O h 0 O O O O O O r` O O 0 0 0 J jp O M (D N Y K O (n u1 (n r` (D O(D (n O O co O O O O M o p O ci M (D c"0 (D Ln couo7 tD It C 7 MMMM MMMM MMM M M(A of In fn MM M M MM M N/H(AN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O cc", O O O O o 0 0 o o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O p a o0o0000Loo00oo000000 o oo0 o 000 �j c OO N 000 cD V m N 00 V 00000 m o o 00 O 000 O O u) (D O (D c0 (D K (D K O O K M N(D (n N C O O o O(D O M U O 'd a0 (D M N O K aD M N kn N " N N N u] N o O) 7 M r- co K K M N F- Q MMM MM MN)A M M M MMMM MM M Y) MM M M M(nM Z d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u) O 0 0 C: o 0 0 0 o 0 0 O O O O O O O o O � O O O O O O m M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O n O O O O O �p O M O O K K M u) O O O o 0 (n O u) K N O O O O O (n O Z u) 0 0 u) (n u) (n O () (� N K O o o •- O N M u� (n co O O O O N O o Q C M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M •n M M M M fn Ni(A N 0 D N A d V 7 v O v m ^ a v c rn y c a.a A m O v E L n U V H 10 u H oa «_ D .c t U c n U < o n 3 o w u) a a e L W WO o C m m m r v u c = m 2 c Q ZA y `o (n o $ .- v v' 3 3 ; c F- G v E > c > > H _v E P N o _ m g _ 8 O 3 0 N = v ; m m o = = o E c v c m c _ _ c _ c m c a e a o U ° E % c c m ° N d J ° m ° , ° o m v A a I (1 .1 o N N a o �A m � � f (� i c7 K n O. H C d ¢ E ` i M } r z r r r r r �� r (` (l� ul N n q N v (n O 7 Z I- 'n U (� (n �n N v) N u y ZO='v m ". moo g oo a C, uj z >xa a ~ } T 7 n N Q0 a F Z m n rD r N N a o - - m 51-9 CIP PROJECT COSTS A B C D 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION BUDGETED AMOUNT BID/FINAL COST DIFFERENCE 2 1.5 MGD MIRON ELEVATED TOWER* $1,860,000 $1,832,000 $28,000 3 20"WATERLINE ALONG FM 1709 $641,000 S638,408I $2,592 4 24"WATER LINE ALONG N.WHITE CHAPEL S850,000 $826,455 S23,545 5 BRUMLOW $112,700 S111,0001 $1,700 6 BURNEY LN.-REHAB CUL-DE-SAC $57,000 $64,523 (S7,523) 7 BYRON NELSON STOP LIGHT S40,000 $65,000 (S25,000) 8 BYRON NELSON STRIPING S65,000 $74,163, (S9,163) 9 COMMERCE TRAFFIC LIGHT* $100,000 S48,4051 $51,595 10 DIAMOND CIRCLE STREETS&SEWER $1,296,000 $990,161 S295.839 11 DOVE FORCE MAIN* S1,747,500 S2,053,133 (S305,633) 12 DOVE/HIGHLAND PAVING* S611,4801 $778,533 (S167,053) 13 FLORENCE TOWER TANK PAINTING* S105,000 S152,200 (S47,200) 14 FM 1709 TRAFFIC SEQUENCING* S120,000 S42,000 578,000 15 HILLWOOD SEWER* $95,000 S82,415 S12,586 16 HUNTWICK ESTATES SEWER $200,000 $276,123 (S76,123) 17 JELLICO SEWER* $500,000 S419,723 $80,277 18 KIRKWOOD WATER LINE $326,000 S266,159 $59,841 19 LAKE DRIVE WATER SEWER,PAVING* S364,500 S376,991 j (S12,491) 20 LILAC LN.WATER SEWER,STREET* $234,600 $286,782 - (S52,182) 21 MISSION HILL SEWER S430,000 S489,099; (S59,099) 22 N.WHITE CHAPEL-COUNTY LINE TO LAKE* S340,000 S470,970: (S 130,970) 23 N.WHITE CHAPEL-DOVE TO COUNTY LINE $181,850 S177,010 S4,840 24 N-3&N4 LIFT STATIONS* S1,000,000 S1,009,500 (S9.500) 25 PEARSON GROUND STORAGE TANK NO.2* $1,687,400 S1,545,2471 S142,153 26 PINE SEWER* $200,0001 $183,368 $16,632 27 PLANTATION SEWER* S110,400 S84,676 $25,724 28 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER IMPROVEMENTS* S405,600 S472,580 (S66,980) 29 PUMP STATION NO.2* $3,110,000 $3,146,8001 (S36,800) 30 RAINTREE/SHADY LN WATER,SEWER,PAVING* $1,925,995 S1,615,0291 $310,966 31 RIDGECREST* S355,576 $370,640; (S15,064) 32 SABRE SEWER CONNECTION-SOLANA $25,000 $21,7001 S3,300 33 SHADY OAKS TRAFFIC LIGHT* $100,000 $91,000' $9,000 34 SOUTHLAKE/KELLER PUMP STATION MOD.* $300,000 S294,000 S6,000 35 TIMARRON-BENT CREEK REPAIR* $726,986 $699,315( S27,671 36 TROPHY CLUB 24"WATER LINE* S1,511,000 S1,440,693 L S70,307 37 W.CONTINENTAL RECON.-PHASE 1 * $640,424 $640,096 $328 38 W.DOVE RECON.-PEYTONVILLE TO SHADY OAKS $259,680 S298,397 (S38,717) 39 WATER&SEWER TO MIRON ADDITION $196,781 $262,535 (S65,754) 40 TOTAL $22,822,472 $22,696,828 41 TOTAL(OVER)fUNDER BUDGET $125,644 42 43 *Project not yet complete. Cost shown reflects contract bid price&engineering,surveying costs 44 @@i Assumes devloper of Gateway Plaza will pay half of$96,809 project 45 46 51-10 7/29/99 - Th ,City of Gull".,.._ �4� :-�- OUT K IRKW6E D BRANCH ASF 2 i MASTE RAINAG E PLAN A GUST 1999 w Ail 3 � r i - _ = FR!ES OLS - S'ubmitt d b -q AND NIO ousL Executive Summary Vol In the City of Southlake's Phase 1 Master Drainage Plan,an inventory ofthe major streams within the City of Southlake was developed and the streams were prioritized for study in greater detail. This Phase 2 Master Drainage Plan provides a detailed study ofthe South Fork Kirkwood Branch,including an evaluation ofthe watershed hydrology,stream hydraulic characteristics,flood hazar is to existing roadway crossings and inhabitable structures,and erosion and water quali . s along the stream. Recommendations for stream improvements and stream man_. "` nt appro been developed to address the problems identified in each of these areas The Federal Emergency Management Agency reco g the 100-year ent as the primary basis for evaluating flood hazards along a stream. To ed to enlarge drainage systems in the future,the proposed plans were based on the Ultim 'I eve .< ditions ofthe watershed. By comparing the surveyed finished floor elevation g near the :.:` th the flood elevations during the 100-year Ultimate Development Sto a t no i itable structures along the stream are inundated. However,the West : and, ena aks,West Dove,State Highway 114,and North White Chapel Crossin all ove. pped d s event. Beyond minor sedimentation and flow obstructions, one additi ` ` 'floodin:. ncern' cated upstream of West Highland where localized nu' ce flooding i . g. In ad ed areas of stream bank erosion were identified. reco or public Improvements proceeding from this study are to upgrade existing road s at We .> ` venaux,Shady Oaks,West Dove Road,and North White Chapel Road - ear Aate Development storm, construct a small earthen channel upstrea .0ti est Hig g Elementary,provide additional storage capacity at the Durham Ele tary detention fac' ' ove minor sedimentation and flow obstructions,and provide stream bank e: n protection at iso ed areas. The Opinion ofProbable Construction Cost for the recommended anageme .fan is provided in Table 5. Inundation mapping for the stream will be provided once s made available and should become a valuable planning tool for the City. The plan proposes to obtain the limits ofthe 100-Year Ultimate Development Floodplain within an easement and provides guidance for pursuing this objective. ""' i L South Fork Kirkwood Branch Phase 2 Master Drainage Plan 17 AUGUST 1999 Prepared for: City of Southlake Draft Final Report CURTlS Bl.At�BFJTEl . ...09.,� ' . . 83213 ass/UNAL by Freese and Nichols, Inc. 4055 International Plaza Suite 200 Fort Worth, TX 76109 817/735-7300 SOL98523 6 Table of Contents Page r 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Description of Watershed 1 A11— AF 1.3 Problem Description 2 :. 2.0 WATERSHED ANALYSIS <m` 3 r Hydrology 2.1 Watershed H s Y <�.... 2.2 Stream Hydraulics ''-SH _ 6 y x::H.. 2.3 Bridge Hydraulic Analysis `" 7 2.4 Opinions of Probable Construction. cist fON" r$rdges 9 ..::» . 3.0 STREAM MANAGEMENT MASTIZYLANNr 3.1 Stream Management A•p"f-iji ZZZg 3.2 Improvements Inde"` dent o � fft ement Approach 13 p ..meµ 3.3 Proposed Stream2m, anagethEnt Plans :µ" 13 .;-%::•� >% tipµ; ��• KH:,:;::. 3.4 Opinions o � able d structio host for Plans 16 3.5 Recommended Strew ement Plan 18 >s k $ �ETAII S n ades 19 r si U w Cos .ri ritiz :H= ad way��` �>�' o ft•� .»�.».; y g Pam' �:s i3si3iis'si' Nx tizatiorr lrainage Improvements 21 : H=gym;. ........ 4.3 »»tVlapping of Stream 24 •'szsia�'rs:3;;;•sue;• 4.4 Drtitri basement Acquisition 24 4.5 1 ntenance Recommendations 28 '% -1 ••••rX"A Existing Conditions Profiles A =w----, "Appendix B Proposed Conditions Without Detention Profiles B-1 Appendix C Proposed Conditions With Detention Profiles C-1 .. Appendix D Hydrologic Parameters D-1 1r T City of Southlake South Fork Kirkwood Branch Yr Phase 2 Master Drainage Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION f' 1.1 Background %t The City of Southlake(City)recently completed Phase e a Plan,a city-wide evaluation of Southlake's drainage infrastructure. This analy so includ <an a fthe exi g streams and channels in the city,prioritizing them based on hi offlo> <' g,number ` . ed, public safety,and potential for development criteria. Thro ocess,the South or` Kirkwood Branch watershed was identified as the fourth highest r the city. This Phase 2 study is a detailed analysis of each watershed which develo. tream Ian to provide flood protection ofinhabitable structures and citizen crossin s well as address erosion control and water quality concerns. Three g al approadn anagement were developed, and three stream management plans re. .: ntmg a >`tnbinatio ,r cse approaches were developed for the South Fork Kirkwood Branch. ::`yxxeral, a no inhabd le structures are flooded bythe 100-year ultimate flood event,the Ph 2 dy foc : w:` :. ving the level of protection at the roadway FA crossing ventin from be rx nstructed in the floodplain. 1.2 Descrip�� tershe' T outh Fo Branch watershed originates in Southlake and flows approximately 2.6 miles hward to its co th Kirkwood Branch,just north ofNorth White Chapel Road,about 0. les before Kirkwo ".Branch flows into Lake Grapevine. The stream is predominantly a natural l with very fe .<< provements within its banks. The upper half ofthe watershed consists ofmainly �r ium density residential,most of which has been developed. The lower half of the 6 w�atiC ow State Highway 114 is just beginning to experience development,although none ofthe development is encroaching on the stream. The land along State Highway 114 is zoned for mixed use, office, and retail, none of which has been developed. � � 1 �r 1.3 Problem Description Four recurring drainage problems in the South Fork Kirkwood Branch watershed were identified in Phase 1 ofthe Master Drainage Plan. The existing box culverts at N.White Chapel,West Dove Street, Shady Oaks Drive are undersized,resulting in possible flooding ofthe roadways.The single 36"RCP under West Highland Street is also undersized. ya' 21 During the site visit,a number of obstructions to flow in the:stream w . <teied. Just upstream of N.White Chapel,in an electric utility easement,there is a sm across ' wit a 3 6"CMS u:.:: outlet which has been completely clogged. This has forced f ,. around nd o : channel. Several small beaver dams were also found from[ww, M, way 114 to N. pel. In addition,there is a sizeable dam on the property immediately State Highway 114,the outlet ofwhich has not been maintained. Durham Elementary and `ir stadi <.: y F. tunior high school have been 3 constructed in the headwaters of South Fork Kirkvst .;.;;ranch. The'<::::`.::;::. lerwline elevation of the detention pond at the elementary school is at t ame a Wit'.:„ some:.; the overbank downstream, resulting in some nuisance flooding ofbac ds.Th... is ag ant embankment that is located ,,. one lot downstream of the detentio r%�d at D am Elematary and likely has a backwater effect : upstream. The Ravenaux crossing experiexed sedimation with a significant growth of cattails W. downstream> the crossing. ,3:p:.:.;. ofthe >. shrive Crossing,erosion ofthe stream bank has occurred threafiei tural integrity of an existing steel fence. In addition,the borrow ditches along-11:.;: :. " are not'. ; : ttl h to convey the runofffrom relatively frequent storms and N `=''' `8'box culverts under S.H. 114 is silted u the lower 2 f �>` `� .� two '�. p dition to the drainage problems in the watershed,TxDOT is currently in the design .0. W proc5s of widening S.H. l Hugh Southlake. Construction ofthis project is scheduled to begin in the sptfg of 2000,and will he an impact on the South Fork Kirkwood Branch watershed. Theenlargement of xisting two 8' 8'box culverts to four 8'by 8'box culverts will allow more flow to pass under g 5� the detention effects of the existing drainage s g stem.g Y 2 ib 2.0 ANALYSIS OF WATERSHED 2.1 Watershed Hydrology The South Fork Kirkwood Branch watershed was divided into 10 subbasins in order to estimate the discharges at several points along the creek, as shown in Figure 1. Two subbasins were delineated k f.} upstream of West Highland Street,with additional subbasins for local runoff own to tglvenaux,Shady Oaks,Garden Court,West Dove, S.H. 114,Future Kirkwood Boulevard .r: eChapel,and down to the confluence with the Kirkwood Branch. ,<,. The hydrologic methods used in the original FEMAFfCOd Insuran `` dy theitial and Uniform loss method and Snyder's unit hydrograph. $soil loss paramet "< the FIS for sand and clay soils were also used in this study. Determi+A a sand and clay content of soils were based on the SCS Soil Survey ofTarrant County,andere u t the values for initial and uniform losses for each subbasin.The land use fore cin,for exir : j : :. ultimate development conditions,was estimated using the City s existin field <' at on,and the City s Land Use Plan adopted in January of 1998. Th ; 'rcent im ivio '; anization values were estimated using recommendations from the SC " 'chnica , er 55 guidance from the Corps o n ineers. p Lag times for the subbasins wereA ated the ur, .""zation curves originally used in the FIS. „�.. Snyder'spe gcoefficie t::.<;'°: :>alueswer ::: :.: ; `: sthose used in the original FIS. Theparameters �. used ford IN pfthe df es maybe viewed in Appendix D. The COE program HEC-1 was V *' h subbasin, and these results are shown in Table 1. used to deve''t i13 „hydrogr :. . The u. ::. + a"' ...nt des 'ischarges will also depend on whether improvements are made to the a �i ng detentiorit� ':.° ham Elementary. A four lane(64 feet)collector street is proposed $ X alongie northern edge of ntion pond. During construction ofthis roadway,the storage capacity otli8 pond could be mcred through additional excavation ofthe pond and modifications to the outlet e. The low eischarges coming from the pond would lead to a reduction in the size of drainage ed along South Fork Kirkwood Branch, as shown in Table 1. In proposing improvements along South Fork Kirkwood Branch,two alternatives have been provided: an"as-is" condition which proposes structure sizing based upon no detention enhancements at the school site,and another which assumes improvements to the detention facility at the school have taken place. e .ow, 3 �r i JyTT • tt r/ Iv i, } ✓t' JA. �R iv ` \ \ N._. 'f, 1 ••, w•' \\�1'��' i f it f t F /..; �,. t ♦ 7 1 \1 , pp �`�s,•tt ,� . \ i ;:/ tf r � 1 � // '�:�, +�t �I! ;��tt 1+��`'— _ / f J' NNNNNN NN ` \ Z' i!,1 i• e,. •`r""✓ a t t j i :y 1 ..tt , L ' \ f r ( f ,_ ri ) r �`'�,'�l�✓ � �1 1! f \w` € "''r,• � X,t r i t 1 E� �a r`/9 t �)1 f � `�°�'+4\�,;i / i s r t((sJ °�^+�* t /' (( J, `R� �� a '�•1,�Cj ' •t._;�?.�-•. /t� •r!i -i-c ! ! �f I it / /.l~✓r1t f r "rM1.ibois f, .. ^ `1 t � j J A i. ..1� \R t '1 S t `\ / "•s / f�'r.•-\ ..�, ��-� \t �..1: i•.,. . ! � . . { ?i � e�. � +ate.k l 1 i� , \,,• tf I {ii: r. 1 1 'i f",k,l o K f f s/ ✓, ,c�.• /''o� ` ..,✓/.° ti � �'• °� ` ! � i ' ' � � \ tt �4 T o. ".�° r Gum+ Imo§ ji C wV"-1 i{ ��/�/ €� � - i r' � ✓/ ._ I�, .- '• f• \ A o%- ' 1�.. III t I�41��r / '�' t ,a': - -6ti2�.., ` i ,`.` € ° s � t+ .�.. '•,��V 45 !1. s^t i I �-•�t 7. � s i ,. l i n t i ,r I t;. I f�% It ` t ,1 a /-\ `, � a � � ;. % /l ✓ I I /^t . d / ° %� � t 1 :.,�t r a<5Y. r Lei { , .._r✓ 76/�/' /� n/// R •4� \\ ! \\.-Eu'r, la'. �"'+ ',J y : rst•y '_ ...Y✓✓ r717� 1 /f ! h \ f� �s ^'•—..r � /ter• 0 Al ry n a TEXAS ) O o•39 24 ILS i1•�� 0 2000 1TwiL3 $m Figure 1 ri)8 Feet QUADRANGLE LOCATION Drainage Area Map �O D UTN GRID AND 1981 MAGNETIC NURTH Colleyville, TX DECLINATICN AT CENTER OF SHEET c. 6 Table 1 - South Fork Kirkwood Branch Summary of Peak Flows At Highland At Ravenaux IF *Mri , .......... M M . ...... 2 YEAR 108 113 113 2 YEAR 232 255 255 5 YEAR 217 217 191 5 YEAR 595 631 626 10 YEAR 298 296 217 10 YEAR 810 827 781 25 YEAR 386 385 266 25 YEAR 1 1024 1067 954 50 YEAR 443 451 336 50 YEAR 1 1185 1233 1111 100 YEAR 500 507 407 100 YEAR 1 1331 1 1379 1268 At Shady Oaks At Garden Court ifs 2 YEAR 257 282 282 2 YEAR 335 382 382 5 YEAR 650 665 658 5 YEAR 961 989 989 10 YEAR 1 855 1 878 821 10 YEAR 1190 1217 1207 25 YEAR 1107 1 1123 1'020 25 YEAR 1458 1496 1458 50 YEAR 1 1289 1305 1189 50 YEAR 1689 1737 1664 100 YEAR 1 1455 1466 1361 100 YEAR 1924 1 1973 1879 At W. Dove Road At SH 114 2 YEAR 366 423 423 2 YEAR 323 429 429 5 YEAR 1065 1095 1094 5 YEAR 956 979 973 10 YEAR 1364 1383 1375 10 YEAR 1282 1302 1273 25 YEAR 1679 1699 1675 25 YEAR 1636 1641 1590 50 YEAR 1935 1956 1907 50 YEAR 2004 1990 1 9 11 100 YEAR 2219 2245 2166 100 YEAR 2330 9*118 E E22 3E7 At Future Kirkwood Blvd. At N.White Chapel T. 2 YEAR 582 850 850 2 YEAR 542 867 867 5 YEAR 1067 1150 1150 5 YEAR 1098 1263 1263 10 YEAR 1503 1 1545 1545 10 YEAR 1573 1533 1510 25 YEAR 1933 2078 2078 25 YEAR 2186 2289 2289 50 YEAR 2410 2361 2337 50 YEAR 2644 2824 2824 100 YEAR 2561 2557 2557 1100 YEAR I 3013 1 3192 1 3191 [SOL98232]YALanduse 7/27/99 or 2.2 Stream Hydraulics The existing 1995 FIS model for the South Fork Kirkwood Branch extends from its confluence with Kirkwood Branch up to the Garden Court culverts. To extend the hydraulic model upstream to Durham Elementary,30 cross sections were surveyed from Garden Court to the Durham Elementary,as well as 10 cross sections downstream of Garden Court. The existing 1995 F S hydr model ofthe Kirkwood Branch was used as the downstream boundary conditio for the a peak discharges calculated by HEC-1 were entered at the appropriate points t `. the stre ' ion,the existi ff culverts at West Highland,Ravenaux,Shady Oaks,Gardetf; ourt,Doy,:` oad, d N White Chapel were modeled. The resulting profiles are shown in "; By comp arin ed floor elevations ofinhabitable structures along the stream with the 1 ^#.: ate water surface elevations, as shown in Table 2, there are no structures flooded u 100 ate Development conditions. Table 2 - Inventory of St ear the .:......... Address Finished Floor El. 'on 100 Year Ultimate Elev. 1816 Shady Oaks Dr. 625.59 „ ;. 620.36 r� 1740 Shady Oaks Dr. 62 935 622.25 1285 Shady Oaks Dr. AV.32 ,; 20+32 640.51 f. 1275 Shady WDr. z45.32 122+12 640.79 ................. 1265 S ' : 6.25 124+86 642.28 ''�65 SNOM '� 126+41 644.25 1255 Shady . 1049 Shady Oaks :" ., x, 133+91 649.36 1029 Sha Dr." 656 6 136+16 651.10 979§0ay Oaks Dr. 655.68 137+47 651.92 venaux 632.69 109+50 630.73 107+03 avenaux 632.46 629.60 law 01. 635.63 109+50 630.73 631.78 107+03 629.60 545 W.Highland St. 654.29 133+91 649.36 r601 W.Hi and St. 649.58 129+35 648.04 6 2.3 Bridge Hydraulic Analysis Once the existing conditions model was prepared,the West Highland,Ravenaux, Shady Oaks, to West Dove,and N.White Chapel box culverts were sized to provide 100-year protection with one foot offreeboard,in accordance with the current City of Southlake criteria. The culvert at Garden Court was found to be sufficient to pass the 100-year ultimate development discharge. To de 100-year protection at West Highland,it is necessary to enlarge the culve o two 9' ., : culverts and raise a�' M. the road approximately 1.5 feet. To provide 100-year protect. lt1 Ravena pessary to add one 16 additional 10'by 6'box culvert to the three 10'by 6'box cute;:.rts alrew, plac r he road approximately one foot. To provide 100-year prote dy Oaks Drive, ssary to enlarge the culvert to four 10'by 8'box culverts,and to raise t oximately 0.75 feet. To provide 100-year protection at West Dove, it is necessary to add;M. a 10 ulvert, in addition to the 611 existing three 10'by 6'boxes. The road must also be ra': ::` roximat To provide 100-year protection at North White Chapel,it is necess aW 0'bo.> lverts. The State Highway 114 crossing was modeled using a config a ion of 'b $#.:` ::averts, as proposed by the Texas Department of Transportation. Th `odific : s are su arized in Table 3: Table<:!: Inven of Str. :.'fin Crossings Nto Detention With Detention Stream Crossing °q. ting li ing 4. en: < ��,,': <•' ;�, �,• Proposed Culverts Road Elev Proposed Culverts Road Elev Increase Increase wk . IMMI West Highland fi">"': a '. <2 y g 2-9'x T 1.5' 2-8'x 5' 1.5' Ravenaux .. 3-10'x 6'Boxa; `"" Fear 3-10'x 6'and 1-10'x 6' 1.0' 3-10'x 6'and 1-10'x 6' 0.75' � ..\: lr Shady Oaks: ,: 1-8'x 8'Box 25 Year 4-10'x 8' 0.75' 4-10'x 8' 0.5' Garden Cp 4-10'x 8'Box...`: No Overtopping No Change — No Change — West D':<;:. 3-10'x 6.' b�ces 10 Year 3-10'x G and 1-10'x 6' 1.5' 3-10'x 6'and 1-9'x 6' 1.5' 4-8'x 8' State I� ? Boxes 25 Year 4-8'x 8' — — N.White Ch '"` 1-10'x 8'Box 5 Year 1-10 x 8 and 5-10 x 10 1-10 x 8 and 5-10 x 10 �s r ✓ 7 Whenever possible,the size of proposed crossings and the amount ofroadway reconstruction necessary was minimized. However,in some situations,such as where tailwater conditions were the controlling hydraulic factor,it was necessary to raise the grade ofthe existing roadway. In addition to increasing conveyance at the crossing. As described in Section 2.2,if detention enhancements are made to the Durham A entary pond, the peak discharges could be significantly reduced. The improvements r ded in Table 3 are intended to reflect Ultimate Development flow conditions,bAffilt" th an tream detention enhancements at the Durham Elementary site. With the detoi >'on enhan.>:.' `ents _ chaff es could be made to the proposed improvements. The West Ili'::. h d a ossing would o ';•.;`:. ` > o 8 x 5 box culverts as opposed to two 9'x T box culverts,and the si vements required upstream of the crossing would be reduced. Ravenaux would need to aisIely 0.75 feet instead of 1.0 foot. Shady Oaks would need to be raised only ab >. et instea : eet. The Dove Road crossing would only require the addition of ;:' . ert instead of one 10'by 6'box culvert. There are several private crossing < bng the M . .k been evaluated in the hydraulic models. It does not appear that the pr ce oft h crossing 'reates any existing threats to insurable structures,however all ofthese cr : logs are opped tier 100-Year Ultimate Development flow conditions. recommen :::. vebeen dirt::: 'ading any ofthe private crossings. Attention f' is directed; . ion 4.` :: rt addre ing drainage easement acquisition for a more detailed recommendac . :<: xiaging "` `Q;ssings along the stream. Y: Once <:: :: r::; .x culy were sized,modifications were made to the channel to model Stream attagement Pi:`:, :: ..: :..d 3. The Manning's n-value of the existing stream channel was esti. 1~ed to be 0.050,w of a gabion lined channel is about 0.03 5 and that of a grass lined channel is ? 0. The width ofth annel was adjusted to ensure that the flow velocities were less than 8 feet per for Pec-Matti grass lined channels,and less than 12 feet per second for gabion walled channels. s for proposed improvements,with and without detention enhancements at Durham Elemerifary,are shown in Appendices Band C. The output profile tables for the base model and the two proposed improvement models are also included in these appendices. 8 2.4 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for Bridges oe The following summary of recommended improvements and associated opinions of probable construction costs assume that enhancements have been made to the Durham Elementary detention facility. All costs include 25%contingencies and 15%for engineering and technical services. Recommendations for adjustment of road elevations will require detail study during the project..design and iffound impractical, additional culvert capacity will be required to meet City of "e criteria. 2.4.1 Enlarging the West Highland Crossing Improvements include removal of the existing crcS:: ::. .: . Bring the flown :'; rossing approximately 2 feet,installation of two 8'x 5'box culvert , huation of an earthen channel for approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the crossing. Th tttprov call for raising Highland approximately 1.5 feet which in turn requires reconst V<.. proxim x:. mear feet of roadway. The proposed culvert length and roadway recon <" on .M: assum match existing conditions. The Opinion of Probable Construction C ." for the imp is $185,000. 2.4.2 Enlanzing the Ravenaux W.- sin rs` . Imprements includ�` c...:. :Ition of oL �€ fix culvert and installation of concrete interlocking pavers f a ` ': : > tely 1 '`" " : :>`> stream o Y e crossing. For freeboard requirements,improvements would also ink t.v` :::; Raven3`;tt ?ately 0.75 feet. Reconstruction ofRavenaux would include ;.,. a roximatel froad a proposed culvert length and roadway reconstruction width PP "' were asked to mate'' .:4::' `:::: :`;:':: nditions. The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for these im " ements is $245,0 :,... " nlar in ::.. ,- ady Oaks Crossing tints include removal ofthe existing crossing and installation offour 10'x 8'box culverts. The improvements also call for raising Shady Oaks approximately 0.5 feet which in turn requires reconstruction ofapproximately 210 linear feet ofroadway. The proposed culvert length and roadway reconstruction width were assumed to match existing conditions. The Opinion ofProbable Construction L mow" Cost for these improvements is $260,000. 9 I i6 r 2.4.4 Enlarging_the Dove Road Crossing Improvements include installation of one 9'x 6'box culvert in addition to the existing three 10'x 6' box culverts currently in place. Recommended improvements anticipate raising Dove Road approximately 1.5 feet which in turn requires reconstruction of approximately 425 linear feet ofroadway. The proposed culvert length and roadway reconstruction width were assumed to match g conditions. The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for these improve ents is 2.4.5 Enlarging the North White Chapel Crossing Improvements include installation offive 10'x 10' ">`" :: " in addition to t ` 0'by 8' box culvert currently n place.lace. The improvements do not an `'My. ing North White Chapel Road, however approximately 70 linear feet of roadway re stru be required for culvert reconstruction. The Opinion of Probable Construet :>' ':":.:at for the ;.» :;; : >. ements is $250,000. fik ;< �w ............. L moo, 10 3.0 STREAM MANAGEMENT MASTER PLANNING ' 3.1 Stream Management Approaches The impacts of urbanization along South Fork Kirkwood Branch can be classified into three categories:increased flooding,increased erosion,and environmental impacts. Although in many areas,the increased flooding would be of primary concern,the increased erosion is currently of OkonceM along the South Fork Kirkwood Branch. The environmental impact of the i . : :: is will need to be avoided,minimized,or mitigated during their design,and the rns w addressed d the Corps of Engineers 404 permitting process. Three stream management approaches were develc :;;, . o . a South Fork ::` ranch, representing three ways of addressing the flooding and erosi : <: .`.;;'': Approach 1 is a nonstructural approach,in which the City would obtain a drainage eases " t wi " " contain both the 100-year Ultimate Development floodplain and any erosion o . which ly occur in the future. Approach 2 consists of obtaining the drainage n ear Ul : ate Development floodplain ,epaand constructing localized erosion protect* need . <alon ' Approach 3 involves channel improvements along the stream which. Id allo «foie City to tain a more narrow drainage easement to contain the 100-year Ultimate D opment:., dplain.,.:.:' stream management approaches include crossing im :._:vement rec4.: :::.... ations. >f f S na eni R ch 1 This .< " .. dressed= .` > :'k' concern by containing the 100-year Ultimate Development floodplain in awlui✓ 1. ...ohibits the construction of additional buildings in the floodplain, and prove. s for contiu ' .. zz : _eep by obtaining additional drainage easement. Any debris or fences witAlthe stream channel .: 'e removed,and the drainage easement would allow the City to maintain t :: : eam's flow capaci... t y periodically removing debris. Buildings which are currently in the floodplain geed to pus °se flood insurance policies from FEMA. This approach also has the largest since it includes the largest amount of drainage easement. e nonstructural approach of Approach 1 has the least direct impact on the environment. However,this approach does not include erosion protection for the existing habitat along the stream,but rather simply accepts the negative environmental impacts resulting from higher urbanized discharges. Since the channel banks are not stabilized,they would continue to erode,trees along the banks may be lost due i 11 to bank undercutting,and the sediment load of the stream would continue to be high. Since it does not involve the construction ofimprovements along the stream,the 404 permitting process should be negligible. Stream Management Approach 2 Approach 2 uses several types of soft structural improvements to stabilize the channel and reduce the amount of bank erosion. For long stretches of channel,the channel bank would . aded to a 3:1 slope,fertilized,seeded,and protected with erosion control matting, owing w through the mat and establish a stable grass lined channel. Some trees along t)xW. ' s wou " :::;>. s process. Fa F localized erosion control at sharp bends in the channel,a s..,p gabion a ioen i 1 a19 e outside of the bend can be used to prevent the bank fro el ;:: "`rther. Less UIre banks reduces the sediment load in the stream,prevents tree loss s,and reduces the amount of deposition in the downstream reaches of the stream. In general, construction of the spot erosio ">' ';::.y ion will n e channel enough to significantly reduce the 100-year flood elevati. .h' o ;' ildingtt'ed to be removed from the floodplain. The approach addresses th,;'°' oodin >oncer , :.; airing the 100-year Ultimate Development floodplain in a drainage eidsolri'ient,andt�dresses .` erosion concern with"soft"structural improvements. Any debris or fe ...""Wit hin th tream 41. el would be removed and the drainage x :... >, easement w.;....ld allow the od"'aintain tltl".:. : ow capacity by periodically removing debris. Improv <:> > s kind : ' _`: > require a�Q4`permit from the Corps ofEngineers. However,these es ofim roar :. ve noun l a less stringent form of ermittin process,thereby requiring types p P g P Y q g less time and Y The b 1`abilization work should be able to be covered b one or more L. of the c... < ently availabl':<'.2 . ide 404 Permits. Stream Mana errs f : ' roach 3 Approach 3 see <::to stabilize the channel and reduce the 100-year Ultimate Development flood ajtns throughat` ombination of improvements to improve the flow capacity of the stream. The s :: included in this category range from gabion lining and riprap to bioengineering. 0' . Concrete rning ofthe channel has been excluded as not being environmentally viable,or acceptable to the City of Southlake,except under extreme conditions. Gabion walls can be worked around the existing trees along the banks to protect almost all of the trees along the channel, resulting in a minimal loss of trees. This approach addresses both the flooding and erosion concerns with structural improvements,and 12 I a reduced amount of drainage easement would be required. This approach has the lowest maintenance cost, due to the smaller amount of drainage easement and the low maintenance of the structural improvements. However,due to the larger amount of channel improvements,the improvements may require the more complex Individual 404 Permit. ' ' ' 3.2 Improvements Independent of Stream Manageme t Appro.¢ Regardless ofwhat approach or combination ofapprQ. `is use ""';'`" -the development ofthe stream,some structural improvements to the drainage tem along : suth od B: 'ch are required. These structural improvements are required :;< e. .: `'e safety cone " :.;. <. ave been identified at some ofthe roadway crossings in the watershed, Ej Table 3. Conceptual opinions of probable construction costs for these improvements e give V 2.4 of this report. 3.3 Proposed Stream Management PI In general,the South Fork Kirk- anchters .::;:tvely undeveloped,and the most effective means of reducing flood d s to r:: the co ruction of structures in the floodplain by ✓ g p ff obtaining drainage easement. How .: :.µ. the impt >ements gpg South Fork Kirkwood Branch will most f likely consis,.; f a combinatierent 5 >.;:;;: : :Bement Approaches for several reaches ofthe stream. >;.: anage ety.nsists o'FIE' a mbination of approaches for each reach ofthe stream. SAµ..Three stream „{ ... ant plan' ;:: :loped for South Fork Kirkwood Branch,as summarized in E Table 4. Based on the ch `s'`:�:..... .<; .ofthe stream and watershed,the South Fork Kirkwood Branch has IF bee vided into seven eW. s for this study. The characteristics of each reach were analyzed to d.' ' a which a PP road may be appropriate for that reach.The following sections describe each reach ,. : . Y :. t i A Fork Kir od Branch, and the approaches which were considered for each reach. 13 P.> Table 4 - Proposed Stream Management Plans for South Fork Kirkwood Branch Reach Proposed Stream Management Approach Description Reach S.M. Plan 1 S.M. Plan 2 S.M. Plan 3 No. Headwaters to West Highland 1 1 3 West Highland to Ravenaux Drive 2 1 3 Ravenaux Drive to Shady Oaks 3 1 2 Shady Oaks to West Dove 4 2 West Dove to S.H. 114 5 1 `% 2 3 S.H. 114 to N. White Chapel 6 1 2 2 N. White Chapel to Kirkwood Br. 7 1 S.M.Approach 1-Non-Structural,S.M.Approach 2 M -Appro Capacity Improvements 3.3.1 Reach 1 -Headwaters to Wet l*g' hlnd < The detention facility at D lem . :.:dry is for ,practical purposes the headwaters of the RSouth Fork Kirkwood Branc si above t l ..Q".. the runoffis shallow sheet flow which is not contained;:'::" '° ned str ":.."`: . Plan 1 son s the minimum that needs to be done through this reach,whic suitab <.: : :>easements. The channel through this reach is very shallow and undefined at time ;.:w;..'"` < :e amo erosion that would justify Approach 2. For this reason,both Plan 2 and R cot ::.' roach for this reach, described in more detail in Section 4.2 of this repoor . . 3 i Reach 2 - We Wand to Ravenaux Drive ghland downstream to RavenauxDrive,the stream is more clearly defined,averaging ab ..::' lde with 3 to 5 foot banks. Since the stream divides many ofthe properties,homeowners have constructed several crossings to access the other side of their property. Plan 1 represents the minimum that needs to be done throughthis reach,which is obtaining suitable drainage easements. Given h, g g the possibility of some bank erosion through this reach,Plan 2 represents some erosion protection at select 14 r locations, as well as a short section of improved channel downstream of West Highland to lower the tailwater conditions at the culvert. Plan 3 consists of more significant channel improvements,which may provide improved access to the other side of the creek for homeowners. 3.3.3 Reach 3 -Ravenaux Drive to Shady Oaks Ah The short reach from Ravenaux Drive to Shady Oaks averages a wide,with gently sloping banks. Plan 1 represents the minimum that needs to beethrough T hich is obtainit additional drainage easements downstream ofthe lots alon �venaux.,S'ce the" of ank erosion .x along this reach just upstream of Shady Oaks,Plan 2 and 3. t went some era i : .;.:>action at select locations,as described in Section4.2 ofthis report. Cap t.`:>: pvements,or Approach 3,does not appear to be necessary for this reach due to the lac : nee . he stream. 3.3.4 Reach 4 - Shady Oaks to West Dove'00 % ' The long reach from Shady Oaks to Wiest Doveclud` �a `:; cant culvert crossing at Garden Court as well as numerous driveway cry,. gs do t earn toreek runs downstream parallel to Shady Oaks. Plan 1 represents the mi ..:.ism that news to be . e through this reach, which is obtaining appropriate :. ;ainage ease .. : " '::ng the re ta 4.A and 3 for this reach would include minor erosion control `"r':" ts. 3.3.5 Reach ::z.>:: to S. .. .. ei"Ich from to State Highway 114 is currently undeveloped, but is zoned for commercial and retail use <: upstream half ofthe reach is controlled by a large earthen dam,while the .. b; along the downst half range in height from 4 to 10 feet. Plan 1 represents the minimum that tt o be donet h ;: gh this reach,which is obtaining drainage easements along the reach during the an 2 represents some erosion protection along the taller banks ofthe downstream half, with some improvements to the earthen dam. Given the highly desirable highway frontage along this reach, it is likely that the developer will seek to modify the stream significantly,trying to maximize the amount of developable land. For this reason, Plan 3 represents capacity improvements through this reach. tr 15 3.3.6 Reach 6 - S.H. 114 to N. White Chapel The reach from State lEghway 114 down to N.White Chapel is also currently undeveloped,but is zoned for commercial and retail use along the upper third and medium density residential along the lower two thirds ofthe reach. Plan 1 represents the minimum that needs to be done through this reach,which is obtaining suitable drainage easements along the reach during the platting process. The.—: ` el alongthis reach has numerous meanders and averages about 10 feet in wid h,with 4 _:° ' t3 y gh banks. Plan 2 represents some erosion protection along the stream at variou. I s. Sinc . > improveme to maximize the amount of developable land will likely be Iiij..ed to the `er tlur am _ 3 is also represented by Approach 2. 3.3.7 Reach 7 -N. White Chapel to confluence with o The reach from N. White Chapel down to ence wi ood Branch is also undeveloped,and the stream is totally contain. gine owage easement for Lake Grapevine. As such,the City does not have oppo y to ignificant improvements along this reach,and Plan 1,Plan 2, and PI I reflect a same roach to the stream,which is to let the Corps maintain their flowage eas W, t. 3.4 <'"` t a1 Opint'< 3:9bable nstruction Costs for Plans The c inion € a construction costs for each Stream Management Plan are summarized to est ' .. the potential cost of obtaining drainage easement,an average cost of$:;;.. ; 00 per acr ed. This cost will vary widely depending on the circumstances under whiff l e drainage easem` ..=i' aired,ranging from donation ofthe easement to fair market value ofthe he City can minim this cost by obtaining most ofthe drainage easement as opportunities become e in the builg permit and platting processes,as described in Section 4.4 of this report. It should costs in Table 5 are for the entire implementation of each plan,not a one-time capital expen ure. 16 �r 3.5 Recommended Stream Management Plan Three plans have been developed to modify the South Fork Kirkwood Branch channel to allow it to safely pass the increased discharges with minimal impacts on the stream habitat. Although Plan 1 represents the least amount of structural improvements and 404 permitting,it does not prevent continued erosion ofthe stream,which has indirect negative impacts to the environment. On t er hand,the -EV, channelization of Plan 3 would be more appropriate for a highl urban e At this time,we proceeding g �f structural recommend roceedin with Stream Management Plan 2 w .T nsists d non-structural approaches. Recommendations based upon g of: In are ext ,; on ofthis report for Stream Management Plan 2. This approac e City of Sout oritize improvements throughout the City as other drainage basi ed and rankings established. ,k 6 18 l 4.0 DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Prioritization of Roadway Crossing Upgrades One ofthe primary issues addressed by this report is the evaluation ofthe roadway crossings along the stream.In order to determine the city-wide ranking for each recommended upgrade,as shown in Table 6 the numeric ranking system developed in the Phase 1 Master Drainage Plan was m ed to include several additional factors for roadway crossings,as shown in Table.7. The a `:`; .. . .., ofthe box culverts at State Highway 114 was not included,since TxDOT already . 'iris to co ".'_' "' '. . improvemen In evaluating the Total City-Wide Rating applied to differ:""projects; Ci a th` ; `''<".:. the _:''ng � number, the greater priority assigned to that project. f... Table 6 - Priority of Roadway Cr rades Rating Score West Rave West N.White Category Range 1%ft Dove Chapel Calculated Depth of Overtopping I to 5 3 3 4 Observed Overtopping Frequency 1 t ..< 2 2 2 Historical Incidents 5 .+.:: E>::: O Guardrail Type/Condition 1 to 5All ;; 4 1 5 3 3 Channel Ve at CrossingAM 1 to 3 3 4 2 Rio too-Y ed to 5 5 2 4 4 5 • Damage PotentiaWta! rty2 2 2 2 2 _ .. Y Damage Po Into 10 2 2 2 2 2 Impa f Loss of Access 1 to 10 4 4 8 8 6 g Condition of Structur 1 to 10 8 4 6 6 6 .� Volume of Road..: 1 to 5 3 1 3 4 3 cts 1 to 5 3 3 3 3 3 Stag of Need 1 to 10 10 1 3 3 3 Public Opinion of Need 1 to 10 10 1 3 3 3 Total City-Wide Rating 15 to 100 61 28 48 48 45 19 E TABLE 7. RATING SYSTEM FOR PRIORITIZATION OF ROADWAY CROSSING UPGRADES Rating Category Relative Score Public Safety 1 2 3 4 5 Calculated Depth of Overtopping <0.5' 0.5'to 1.0' 1.0'to 2.0' 2.0'to 3.0' >3.0' Observed Overtopping Frequency Rare Greater Than Once a Year Historical Incidents Minor and/or Severe and/or Infrequent Frequent Guardrail Type/Condition Excellent Good Fair Poor Deficient Channel Velocity at Crossing <2.0 fps 2.0 to 4.0 fps 4.0 to 8.0 fps 8.0 to 12.0 fps >12.0 fps %100-Yr Storm Passed >95% 85 70 60 <50% 2 4 6 8 10 Damage Potential to <$10,000 $10,000- $50,000- $100,000- >$200,000 Public Property $50,000 $100,000 $200,000 Damage Potential to <$10,000 $10,000- $50,000- $100,000- >$200,000 Private Property $50,000 $100,000 $200,000 Impacts of Loss of Access Low Medium High Existing Structural Condition Excellent Good Fair Poor Deficient 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic Volumes Residential Minor Major Arterial Highway Collector Collector Utility Conflicts High Medium Low 2 6 10 Staff Opinion of Need Low Medium High Public Opinion of Need Low Medium High 4.2 Prioritization of Drainage Improvements To accomplish Stream Management Plan 2,two drainage projects have been identified along the South Fork Kirkwood Branch to alleviate existing problem conditions. The first project is the drainage improvements from West Highland to Durham Elementary, and the second project is a short erosion protection project just upstream of Shady Oaks. Several smaller items which w. re identware contained " .& in Section 4.5,Maintenance Recommendations. In order to d&.11-i7rig ne tho. a ranking for each recommended drainage project,as shown in Table 8,the nume. sy o ed in the Phases 1 Master Drainage Plan was modified to include several add9nal factors r dr t`i . eme as shown in Table 9. y Table 8 - Priority of Drainage Iprove` ibttFn,.;r 'ects Rating Score est Highlalt# k Shady Oaks Category rj iaet: leapt tary Erosion Protection .: .,History of Flooding '.' to 20 3:; 4AN ` Number of Residents Benefitting 1 to 6 2 Erosion Threat to Exist. Structures 1 ::.... � � 3 3 t#� :. ML --70 Threat to : and Eas 1 t 2 2 Potential fo " . velopme` s;:.... ...... 1to5 5 5 Potential for Down opment �x to 5 5 5 Staff Op' Need 1 to 10 10 1 P.4. inion of Need 1 to 10 10 1 onmental Permitting I s 1 to 5 3 5 otal City-Ail.# ting 10 to 100 60 28 v.4 yFih�, t . .err' �1 21 ,IF TABLE 9. RATING SYSTEM FOR PRIORITIZATION OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Rating Category Relative Score 4 8 12 16 20 History of Flooding None Rarely Occasionally Often Frequently Number of Residents Benefitting 1 -3 4-8 9-12 13-20 >20 From Improvements 3 6 9 12 1s Erosion Threat to <$25,000 $25,000- $50,000- $100,000- >$200,000 Existing Structures $50,000 $100,000 $200,000 2 4 6 8 10 Threat to Erode Beyond Easement >20' 16'-20' 11'-15' 6'-10' 0'-5' (shortest distance to easement) Opinion of Probable Construction >$400,000 $300,000- $200,000- $100,000- <$100,000 Cost for Proposed Improvements $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 1 2 3 4 5 Potential for Upstream Low Medium High IP Development Potential for Downstream Low Medium High Development rz Staff Opinion of Need Low Medium High Public Opinion of Need Low Medium High Environmental Permitting Issues High Medium Low El F, im r 6 k WWI t= �r 4.2.1 West Highland to Durham Elementary Drainage Improvements Assuming that the Durham Elementary detention facility is enhanced,the following improvements are recommended for the Highland Road Crossing and the stream reach between West Highland and Durham Elementary. The existing 3 6"CMP at the West Highland crossing should be replaced with two 8'x 5'box culverts,the flowline ofthe crossing should be lowered about 2 feetand We and should be raised approximately 1.5 feet. In general,the flowline ofthe stream sho . gyred approximately 2 feet for the entire reach of the stream,with the outfall of t) i'aposed� f of the Durham ... :. Elementary detention pond being approximately 2 feet to than the;etstingi ._:.. .k ndslfall structure. This reach would also require construction of aa?Io `...de earthen chaff . :1 side slopes. These improvements would limit the 100-Year Ultimate :: ::. ent floodplain width in the upper portion of this stream reach to 60 feet. If no enhancements are made to the Durham Eli,.:`., ":`.;x. detentio .. ollowing improvements are recommended for the stream reach extendin .,," V. `end to D ; "am Elementary. Similar to est the preceding recommendation,the existir Hig e should be lowered about 2 nd + wlin feet and West Highland should be rais .,.: ., roximat . 1.5 feet;:.. t the proposed crossing should include .✓ A two 9'x 7'box culverts. The flow' e str ould be 1. ered approximately 2 feet along the entire Although this alternative does not consider reach ofthe st�aeam from We �� to ° '. uP�:.:.:.' d Duna >:::::;:Mary, d storage v»> ..: .:: is to to '`_s facility,n would still be necessary to provide minor pond outlet modification €t':,j:': o lower f the pond. An 18-foot wide earthen channel with 3:1 side slopes would tthis reactgi der to limit 100-Year Ultimate Development floodplain widths in the upf portions o : '::: :;'`::,,;:..: reach to 60 feet. 4� Erosion Protect# U stream of Shady Oaks Crossing �v. Pp roximat. '200 feet upstream from the Shady Oaks crossing,there is bank erosion which ..r. ': `the integrity of an existing steel fence constructed along the stream. The recommended lrr� alternative for minimizing erosion at this location would include minor excavation to reroute the stream and establish a maintainable slope, in addition to vegetative stabilization of the stream bank along the bend. r 23 r 4.3 Inundation Mapping of Stream Once two-foot contour topography is made available, inundation mapping for South Fork Kirkwood Branch can be prepared. Inundation mapping will include delineating the limits ofthe 100-year Ultimate Development floodplain along South Fork Kirkwood Branch from its confluence with Kirkwood Branch up to the detention facility located at Durham Elementary. The inundation mapp'. provide the City with the information necessary to manage future developZent within �¢` ain,in addition to of proposed drainage limn},•, .f<: providing a basis for determinationp p g A fF w YER Z> 4.4 Drainage Easement Acquisition r" n detailed inundation mapping has been provide .k dam it is recommended that the Once pp g p , limits ofthe 100-year Ultimate Development floodplain be ' as efining drainage easement boundaries. There are two critical dimensions in eff 10 d lain man hich can be addressed through drainage easement acquisition. They a „.:; nstruczn in flood-prone areas,and maintaining adequate conveyance throu a flood>;ain ' ' :. :.. .;. There are other mechanisms,b :: zi drain easemcquisition,which can work in effectively y limiting construction in the floodpl . t may b>.:: ssible fa the City to enact ordinances which require resolution o:floodplain-rel --d `: ,s priorK of a building permit. The advantages of this approao'n lative hick it co" d be incorporated into existing City building permit procedures, at3 mal t=`: 'effort required to enact, as opposed to drainage easement acquisition. Ht roach"::":Mires a vigilant effort to ensure that floodplain-related issues are fully and:aequately ad to issuance ofthe building permit. In addition,the City will assume £ : the :.:j;" a.ry burden fora A '` the location of structures in relation to the floodplain. Once a building p".:. pe` t is issued, it is u rtain what recourse the City may have if a mistake has been made. , , y .` The City w > ' 'also be advised to enact floodplain fill ordinances which would require a permit -of fill within a floodplain area is allowed,or to exclude placement of fill in floodplain areas. acement of fill would not necessarily be limited to placement of soils,but would need to be extended to placement of any other materials,including debris,garbage,sheds,and fences. The primary disadvantage ofthis approach is that the City has little ability to perform maintenance within floodplain areas to remove debris and obstructions. During large storm events,most streams operate under backwater 24 conditions,which means that appropriate hydraulic performance of one portion ofthe stream is influenced by the characteristics ofthe stream at a downstream location. This"interrelatedness"ofthe various parts of a stream means that debris obstruction on one property along the stream may have a significant negative impact on other properties along the stream. It therefore becomes important that proper conveyance along the stream be maintained. The City serves as the best and most likely candidate for thi ;,,i in managing ` tainin floo lain floodplain areas,however this role is diminished ifthe City has little legal cl 6 ai >> g d p areas. > The primary advantage of obtaining the I00-year.,timatZ a raina a easement,over other alternatives for floodplain n : '.gymthat the Ci ' 'f ;: ensible, drainage legal,property claim for performing and limiting certain drain activities within the area defined as the drainage easement. The City would have greater abi to ad' . '>. dplain area, maintain and iib improve the area,and minimize activities whichwo ;> ely imps <_ .;.,: . A recorded easement Ir is a publicly accessible document with clearly a S. With asement language limiting construction and fill placement within the drnage eas lit, effectively shift a portion ofthe s burden for floodplain management to thd.'�;° : operty pier. The : :perty owner have clear limitations on construction taking place within se easem F` <w ounda If construction or fill activities took place the Cit shot` allenge the activities,there would be a strong easement within the boundar .., . bra case fors` .0 rse. A dr . ':. ent wot ' the City the right to maintain floodplain areas. Maintenance within a flood >. en er to the City clearing major obstructions to flow,when initiated by a citiet3`report. Unlstitae agreed to by the City,maintenance would not include mowing, clearg of small obstrucctio'. >: health or sanitation concerns,or periodic inspections ofthe floodplain y .. ar ;�;The City's commitent to maintenance would extend solely to removing obstructions whi chhave :..ant impacts .:'conveyance through the floodplain area and which cannot be feasibly removed by : . It is important that indivi owners. dual citizens understand that the still will be required top t ese regular maintenance efforts along the stream,and that any concerns regarding obstructions will need to be reported to the City in order for action to be taken. In addition,an easement does not transfer the title ofthe property. The easement would still remain } the property of the individual property owner and still extend to the property owner all basic property 25 rights,except for those specifically excluded in the easement language. The easement simply gives the City the right to convey the 100-year Ultimate Development floodplain,access the property and perform those activities necessary to provide that conveyance,and to construct future flood conveyance improvements. These activities are those and only those which are specifically defined in the easement document and agreed to by the owner, which would include the following: 1. Limit construction in the Easement-The grope tier wou wed to build it place fill in the easement,unless approved by th ;sty. This .:1,;tt d in j t be ., ed to building pools,walls,fences,and placing sto he City woul y allow activities which do not present significant obstruct like minor landscaping features, gardens,etc. It the City requested a feature W remo ;< e easement,the property owner would be required to comply, . . could h cture removed. 2. Provide Limited Maintenance ...I he Eas :: ant- >:" ould have the right to enter the F drainage easement in or.... < p remo bstructi,,- to flow. 16 3. instruct Drai "rovemei . .:.:`.. .: ssary-The City would be allowed to construct ainag ' ':;4: is whic ould be necessary to alleviate flooding problems. These s may' r. „ading,stone or gabion wall construction,erosion protection o ding p° c bridges. .......... Ally �:<. N'tity activities out` hose clearly defined in the Easement document would not be allowed. F, ample,the City we d not be allowed to construct a sanitary sewer within the drainage easement, a easemen .. ument included verbage covering utility construction. The easement would not be ui property or Right-of-Way. The general public would not be allowed access to the properly. he only people allowed access to the easement would be those individuals performing work specifically covered in the easement document for the City of Southlake. Any other activities performed ` within the easement could be considered trespassing,with the individual property owner retaining the right for legal protection and action under the law. s 26 r L r An issue that needs to be addressed ifthe City chooses to pursue acquiring drainage easements, is the City s responsibility for the private crossings along South Fork Kirkwood Branch. All of the private crossings are overtopped by the 100-year Ultimate Development storm. However, under existing geometric conditions and ultimate flow conditions for the stream,it does not appear that any ofthe private crossings create backwater effects which endanger any homes. Given this. nside on, and that it appears that several of these crossings provide access to ho es and ': .;!"`. .' roperty, it is not recommended that the crossings be removed or upgraded. " giver the ' " i -'early define obligations in terms ofthese private crossings. It would be."' . .-ble fqr.i City ` `".'y.'':: ` :... . ate.. ;'at it will assume no responsibility or liability for the hydraulic p t.k. or structural int "any ofthe private crossings,though they would be located within theement. The individual property owners would be wholly responsible for maintaining the pri 'e Gros V:`; ty would most likely want to remove obstructions caused by the private crossin " r,the horiq.;: ."` should understand that they would be responsible for any damages to ' own > <. clud'.: amages resulting from the City attempting to remove obstructions. Exi g prival6bross s i be effectively"grandfathered", r however,construction of new crossin " :. ithin t amage ment should be limited. Ifhomeowners a wish to construct new crossings,i A. ld be r.; ;tnmend d��at the City follow the appropriate FEMA permitting : edures co he cons' ``A :. structures in the floodplain. J'S 611 27 4.5 Maintenance Recommendations Maintenance recommendations include specific recommendations for existing problems,in addition to providing generalized recommendations for an ongoing maintenance program for the South Fork Kirkwood Branch. 4.5.1 Remove 36" CMP and Embankment at Utilily Easement As noted previously,a 36"CMP has been installed fo, i road i utility easernpet, i6 approximately 200'upstream ofthe North White Chapel ad crossi he co ly clogged with sediment and debris,forcing water around th .t11 auls road and sion of the stream banks around the crossing. The haul road is located PH area and creates no apparent backwater problems for any structures or crossings. it ' . eco wever,that the pipe and embankment be removed and the channel banks bq,, out to st s to minimize erosion. 4.5.2 Remove Sediment at Crossings -W err The Ravenaux and existing S 9h .w 4 crossings have notable sedimentation which can reduce the conveyance and proper ration a crossin Sediment should be removed from these crossings. In val and eupstrearn and downstream approach conditions .4 dition,sedim .............maybe ensure Mr. drainage ay from the crossing. .......% W.M.M 4.5.3 yVoe-.4 from T. hen chant ...parn ofthe Ravenaux crossing has a significant amount ofvegetation gro which may hinder raulic performance ofthe channel in this area. Increased backwater due ""er localized nu to., condition may tri nuisance flooding,and may lead to overtopping ofthe Ravenaux .......... R. trier at a greaterAency. It is recommended that the channel be cleared ofvegetation and lined with ... ... ...... e interlocking pavers such as Tri-Lock or a comparable product to prevent growth of ... ........... b nuisance vegetation in the future. This lining would facilitate maintenance and would allow growth of grasses and other desirable vegetation while limiting the establishment of unwanted vegetation. 28 i . Appendix A M 2-Yr, 5-Yr, 10-Yr, 25-Yr, 50-Yr, r Profiles for ' Existing Stream Conditions and Ultim De ydrology (No Detention Enhanceme ham E } ; > Y I } � off $ 1VI616 0 N v C t : N C NN I U I ' > S*------ -------------•r------ -------.----------------�-------r------- ----- ----- --------- - zZ6 U01 a -X_ \1r , -•--- -------- ------ •---- - ---- ---- ----- ---- - ---- ----- ------ ----- ------- ------ -- - 11r, �$$U01j0aS X- -�s eL9�( eolpaS-X a enu d MI O P 4S OO6l ZLZS UOIPOS-X❑❑ZLZ9 uolpaS-X wo4 paldo0-09z9 uogoaS-X ------ ------- }- ----' ------- ------- - NO 3 SI -_0808 110 S-X � r• , r , ------ -------=------ \�--- -=------ -- -- ---- --- -- ------ ----- -- ----- ----- =. .- -; TP aslnaa pggL uolloag-X wok paldo� Og/1 uo1-aS X O£SL uolpaS-X OW9 NO11O3S-X SH ------,----- ------- ----- ' - ---- --- - -- . \\ 09L9 NO11O3S-X Sid OOq uolpaS-X Q o o +------ -- - -` --- --------- ------- ------ ----- ---- ------ ...... •--• + -OOl9 NO1103S-X Sld_ z i i \ OO69 NO1103S-X Sld a) N -- -- - ----- ------ -- --- --- - --- - CC LL : ; ; ` O9SS U01pa$-X L CL obss NOI1O3S-i Sid - - , sE -------!------- i F ----- --- ---------- ------------- ❑❑j7 l AenngB aIe3S d m _----- ----•-•----- -------•-------•-- --- ---•- � � - `-' - - -- --- OOSti NO1103S-X SIB � 0 w \ \ OSSb UO!3oaS-X❑❑OSSti OS -X o = i ! i \�� S U S U Y o------ -------•--------------•-------•--------------•--- = -- --- ------ - --- ------------ ----- ---- -•-- LOb o11oa -X_ `O c I .. ---------- -- -- -- ------ -- - --- ----- ---- --- ------- --- ----- w 09b£NO11O3S-X Sld ----- ------•-•-----•------- ---------------------- - = ------ -, uolpaS-XO❑OOZE UO!3�aS-X 0 ; ------ -------=-------------- --••----I----- -------!------------ = + \ 1 OLZZ NO11O3S-X SIB 1 I ----- ----------•----------+ --'------ ------- ----- ---- ------ -- - -- _ 000Z NO 3 - SI -' 1 110 S X 3 i I !i� OOSL N01103S-XSId ------ X �L -+--09ZL NO11O3S- Sld- , OLOL NO1103S-X SI3 ------ ----------------------------------- � g ()I)u013enal3 r Io' � ICCIW W W r N 0 lf) N '0 F- � I E— CM I > DiDiD Jnea --•--- ------ ---- - s e we ; (s�le0 Pe S 6L610 a ISUMod)91+9£l- , �I : 6£ uoi a - X ---- ----- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- ----- -- ------ --- ----- ---- --- ---- ----- -- ;6ZuopaS- - of a it -- -•- -- -- --- -- -•• ----� 'aS- , `��-r (pue146iH'AA Jo uJoeipumoo,OL) lb+9Zl (pue1461H•M;o 11IMPUM00,SZZ)98+bZ L R LM U01paS-X ----- •- •- ------;...... -------- ------ ----- ---- ---- ------ ----- ••- ------- ------ --- ----- uogoaS 1 ;Z£OZl -X- �1 9181l U013o, -- ---=•-•---- ------ ------ ---- \ - - ' I bZ9l l uo!paS-X wok pal £8S L L uo!paS X U01paS-x , p ;OS601 Uo!paS-X , N Z 4\ �l ;£OLOI uolpaS-X i E0) BbOI UolpaS-X to ILL �' I , d ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- a ;6LLOl uolpaS-X E , r ;1'rcc I £LLS uolpaS-X coi co �O ------ ------- -------=-- ---- ----- ------- - -0Z96 N01103S-X Sld c m U- 5 S£b6 01paS-X 0 0 _, c - ---- ------ ----- , , : Fr- 3 r- ------'----------------- ZZ6 Uo1paS-X c , , , Y o -- ----- ----- ---- 8 Uo!paS ,-------•------ ----- --- ----- ---- --- �\�C — - -ems -x o OL98 Uo!paS X u_ y �� a;enud-sNe0 APe4S 0061 w a;enud-sNe0 APe4S 696l 0D, 0 E - , tn • ---- ---- ------ , , , , ��;- -0808 NOI 3S X SI�- (7 : - ----- '----- - -------T - OS8L N01103S X Sld , 0£SL uogoaS-X OL£L N O169 N01103S-X SIJ 09L9 N01iO3S-X SIJ 00£9 uolpaS-X ----- -OOl9 N01103S X Sld- OI S I , , 1 d,. , : , - - 09SS uolpaS X, , , � Ob£S N01103S X SIB i i L , ---- --• ---- ----- --- --- ----- -- "' (4)uollen913 HEC-RAS Plm Exist Geom- River:S Fork Kirkwood Reach:SF Kirkwood t...867.00 ......... 4780 555.68 553.45 556.03 0.005007 4.74 1,)63 nn 54780 556.58 554.49, 556.94 0.005 ...... ....... 547.80 557.07 2289-00 547.80 558.04 556.461 556-4,11 0.005002 2824.00 547.80 558.55 556.901 558.96 0.005008 5.42 1 rRO )R I n nn,,nn7l 5.551 3192.00 547.80 558.87 557.32 867.00 550.67 556.82 3.00 550.67 557.6 10970 71 0.70 1533.00 550.67 558.0791 04 25 135.81O�69 3M 550.671 558.9477 0.70 4.00 550.67 559.39 888 36 0.72 550.67 559.67 867.00 553.53 559.00 559.68 0.011619 6.71 138.43 1263.00 553.53 559.61 560.54 0.01 1533.00 553.53 559.91 2289.00 553.53 560.79 2824.00 553.531 561.26 3192.00 553.53 561.55 563.38 0.0-11 867.00 556.40 561.77 561.77 563. 1963.00 556-40 563.34 563.34 564.. im 556.40 563.63 3.00 556.40 4.00 556.40 564.32 565.56 0.013978 12.33 541.97 259.96 0.82 2.00 556.40 564.78 565.75 c 11.41 668.88 277.70 0.73 .00 556.90 563.75 563.86 0.001372 3.26 457.82 171.97 0.25 564.64 0.001622 3.86 600.20 211.40 0.27 1533.00 556.90 564.82 564.99 0.001870 4.28 671.74 228.69 0.30 2289.00 556.90 565.57 0.002407 5.23 26:10 0.34 566.105.62 72 79 0.3 566.23 867.001 556.80 563. 1263.00 I E 1531!0 DMAJU Doo. 502 362.76 0.12 0 568.24 0.000724 362.76 0.15 2824.0026 001102 362.76 0.17 2.00 Culvert --- 867.00 55680 567-71 561-02 567.72 0.000141 0.97 1459.61 346.02 0.05 1263.00 556.80 569.57 561-51 569.58 0.000100 0.91 2150.66 391.61 0.05 --- 1533.00 556.80 569.77 561.76 569.78 0.000133 1.06 2227.80 396.25 0.05 2289.00 556.80 570-22 562-43 570.23 0. 2824.00 556.80 570.49 562-96 570.51 0 3192.00 556.80 570.68 563.18 570.71 0 867.00 556.80 56' 1263.00 006.80 UUMUO 569.59 .......... 569.79 0.000095 1.21 2310.38 396.47 0.06 1;13.00 556.80 569.78 2289.00 556.80 570.24 570.25 0.000172 1.67 2493.63 407.27 0.09 4.00 556.80 570.51 570.54 0.000232 1.97 2605.95 413.79 0.10 3192.00 556.80 570.71 570.74 0.000272 2.16 2688.42 418.45 0,11 - .000766 2.7 1 867.00 557.80 567.73 567.80 1 0.17 1263.00 557.80 569.58 569.64 .000541 2.67 935..81 9 0.1 1533.00 557.80 569.78 569.86 0.00 713 3.10 98)7A I )40 nn 1 0.17 2289.00 557.80 570.24 570.37 0.001232 2824.00 557.80 570.52 570.69 0.001609 3192.00 557.80 570.72 570.92 0.001843 5.29 1224.97 867.00 559.40 568-16 56830 0-001282 1263.00 559.40 569-88 569.99 1533.00 559.40 570.17 r LHEC-RAS Plan: Exist Geom - River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) 59.40 570.88 571.09 0.001-4 59.40 571.32 571.58 0.001 5940 571.62 7.00 561.80 6.64 13064 47.72 0.71 3.00 561.80 5.97 217.32 69.22 0.55 3.00 561.80 6.57 242.32 74.63 0.59 9.00 561.80 7.82 311.8 4.00 561.80 3192.00 561.80 572.21 573.36 0.0161881 8.82 407.16 131.38 867.00 566.73 573.77 574.37 0.009155 7.03 179.31 73.06 0.54 - 1263.00 566.73 574.41 575.24 0.011593 8.54 230.11 87.92 0.62 575.8 8.84 285.51 104.01 0.61 1533.00 566.73 574.98 577.07 0.009813 9.41 436.76 138.74 0.60 2289*00 56633 576.23 A77 0009333 9.72 539.44 158.03 0.59 92 6 2824.00 566�73 :5:7�6 3192001 566.731 867.00 570.78 577.53 577.68 0.004558 3.16 2 1263.00 570.78 578.48 578.66 0.004106 3.49 1533.00 570.78 578.97 579.17 0.004115 2289.00 570.78 580.06 580.31 0.004269 ......... .. 2824.00 570.78 -;Rn AR 3192.00 570.78 581.07 581.37 0.004438 4.135 01 - 0.98 579.84 0.056753 7.67 867.00 573.99 578.93 578.93 11448 6839 1263.00 573.99 579.51 579.51 580.58 0.047589 8.39 158.59 83.22 0.94 1533.00 573.99 W 0.92 579.86 579.86 581.01 0.043472 8.76 189.37 92.16--2289.00 573.99 580.66 580.66 582.0 2824.00 573.99 581.14 582.5 3192.00 573.99 581.53 867.00 57720 1263.00 Of I.zu 000.142 584.11 0.017180 0.72 1533.00 577.20 583.73 584.49 4 .78 127.84 2289.00 577.20 584.47 585.38 0.018341 364.66 153.12 0.74 2824.00 577.20-584.91 585.90 0.018460:: - 435.42 2� 168.18 0-7 �3192.00 577.20 585.11 r0a on nn9713�961 46995 17506 U�I 850.00 578.81 586.59 586.76 0.0 'n.97 11004 03l 1- 1150.00 578.81 587.37 587.55 34 1545.00-578.81 587.91 588.14 0.003117 4.86 571.33- 23�9.47 0.34 2078.00 578.81 588.72 588.93 0.002778 4.97 788.14 289.691 0.331 2361.00 578.81 589.14 589.34 0.002495 4.89 913.29 304.40 0.31 0. 30 85 13M."NOWUNVO W'IPA*- 2557.00 578.81 589.43 589.61 ........... J 0.00 583.51 588.82 9 1150.00 583.51 589.491 1±7 0.016159 �9 34�202�64 11�11 111 0.76 9 iAr nn 583.511590.24 0.70 2078 583.51 590.62 2361 583.51 591.04 0.013686 433.9 !200 591.98 10.38 2557.00 583.51 591.19 592.16 0.013899 429.00 584.52 590.89 588.90 590. 979.00 584.52 ral 70 rAQ 1302.00 584.52 592.34 592.45 0.00243 1641.00 584.52 592.94 590123 593.06 0.002335 3.07 606.54 222.66 .24 - 3.41 660.40 240.45 E 593.43 0.002651, 1990.00 584.52 593.28 590.53 0.26 2316.00 584.52 593.51 590.68 593.71 0.003028 3.75 698.07 249.68 0.2 ................ -1.A. 429.00 584.80 590-93 587.53 591.20 97900 584.80 591.75 589.53 592.86 0.007339 8.43 116.11 593.90 9 122.92 202.55 0.69 114 592.16 590.52 0.010735 10 0.80 592.56 591.49 595.05 0.014302 12.66 129.59 212.9 164 --- - 592.65 592.41 596.23 0.020227 15.18 131.11 215.27 0.95 593.22 593.22 597.43 0.021658 16.46 140.69 238.45 1.00 HEC-RAS Plan: Exist Geom - River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) 591.73 0.006209 5.76 74 979.00 586.76 594.38 591.49 595.30 0.005- k6000, 2.00 586.76 595.98 592.48 597.09 90:202EOZ881 2639.40 478 0.06 .-Lo-58676 598.63 593.45 -5-9-664 2449.68 457.09 0.08 .00 586.76 598.23 594.35 598.24 0.000155 .10 0.08 .:LO 586.76 599.47 595.16 599.48 0.000150 .00 586.70 592.02 590.14 592.16 0.003908 -1.00 586.70 595.47 591.79 595.53 0.000842 1.91 1302.00 586.70 597.24 592.231 1641.00 586.70 598.63 592.611 1990.00 586.70 598. 2316.00 I 00 590.50 593.60 3.00 590.50 595.711 2.00 590.50 3.00 590.50 599.55 - 158.09 95.41 9.00 591.82 595.78 595.94 1.004405 3.48-298.96 156.32- 0.37 979.00 591.82 597.00 597.27 0.005203 4.84-- 0.43 - 47709 221.58 2.00 591.82 597.94 0.36 .1.00 1990.00 231( 3.00 592.50 597.64 597.88 0.007433 ... ... ... 9.00 592.50 598.96 599.31 0.006703 5.23 266.50 142.71 0.47 -- 2.00 592.50 599.45 599.85 0.007033 5.80 346.65 186.01 0.49 --- 1.00 592.50 599.96 600.36 0.006541 6. - 592.50 rnn 9 600.71 0 2316.00 562.501 600.78 601.14 0 429.00 rQA An IQ 979.00 594.40 600.71 601.49 62 90 59 0.71 .00 594.40 601.23 601.91 94 0.70 1641.00 594.40 601.61 602.28 58 0.69 1990.00 594.40 601-96 602.61 0.71 2316.00 -59-440 60220 602.88 429.00 596.48 601.59 601.71 0.01,103306 3.39 210.60 596.48 602.77 602.92 0.0035971 4.3 1302.00 596.48 603.17-- 603.34 0.0039031 4.7 596.48 603-53 603-72 001 1990.00 596.48 603.86 2316.00 596.48 604.14 604.36 0.00428 1 -- 0-008181 4.88 171.49 189.71 0.524 4 429.00 59930 60386 --- 0. - 375.69 243.96 979.00 599.30 60479 604.94 0.005420 4.82- - 478.53 263.61 0.43 1302.00 599.30 60520 605.35 0,004927 4.92 164100 59930 605.56 605.71 0004593 5.02 574.98 274.71 0.42 1990.00 599.30 605.88 606.04 0.004397 5.15 664.46 282.49 0.41 2316.00 599.30 606.15 606.33 0.004293 5.27 429.00 599.78 .07 601.49 604.20 0.001435 79.00 599.78 604-91 602-74 605.41 02.00 599.78 605-26 603.36. .. 1.00 599.78 605.55 603.96 U'UU"U' 71 0.00 599.78 605.78 607!�2. 0.010083 9.85 202.06 280.03 0. - 5.00 599.78 605.94 605.04 607.57 0.012454 11.15 207.73 284.11 0.79 Culvert H 600,281 604.19 601.97 ............. ...... ..... ::,.......... HEC-RAS Plan: Exist Geom - River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) .......... 6C ------ Mr, 1383.00 600.28 607.19 ............. 1699.00 600.28 607.86 60 6 195600 00.28 224500 600.28 608.56 605.44 608.59 0.000232 423.00 600.00 604.39 604.69 0.011977 5.95 131.97 134.07 058 1095.00 600.00-606.48-- 606.57 0.002576 3.82 51-375 22132 0.29 1�81 00.00 607.19 607.27 0.001939 3.60 15 251.62 0.26 1699.00 600.00 607.86 607.93 0.001577 3.48 859.71 280.79 0.24 19,,6 nn 600.00 607.99 608.08 0.001877 3.85 2245.00 600.00 608.56 608.64 0.00 423.00 602.30 607-85 1095.00 rng an 608.21 1383.00 602.30 608.86 608.86 609.69 U.014847 10.09 ........ - 609.15 609.15 610.03 0.015604 10.71 310.62 149.38 0.78 602.30 - 1699.00 - 1956.00 602.30 609.21 610.31 0.019297 11.99 319.78 151.60 0.87 --- 2245.00 602.30 609.50 610.60 0.019100 12.31 365.53 170.90 0.87 423.00 602.70 608.59 606.46- 608.99 0.004285 5.12 82-54 45.10 0.41 1095.00 602.70 61062 60962 610.86 0.002802 4.92 415.88 202.60 0.35 1383.00 602.70 610.68 609.95 611.04 0.004190 6.05 428.04 205.97 0.43 1699.00 602.70 611.07 610.28 611.43 0.004216 6.32 512.48 228.02 0.43 1956.00 602.70 611.50 610.44 611.85 0.003982 6.40 618.44 269.44 0.42 2245.00 602.70 611.78 610.65 612.14 0.003982 6.57 697.31 285.55 0.43 Bridge 423.00 602.60 609.06 606.93 609.40 0.005071 109500 602.60 1 610.971 609.92 611.1 1383!00 602.601 611,211 610.211 611.. 1699.001 602.601 611. loll 2245.00 602.60 612.27 610.89 6145 0.35 --- 0.003230 93.39 423.00 603-35 610.04_608.02_610-24 3-93 147-00- 1095.00 603.35 611.54 610.38 611.79 1383.00 603.35 611.87 1699.00 603.35 612.28 195E.00 6::03::3:5�61, 2245 OFF 423.00 603.35 610.56 608.02 610.67 0. L1095.00 603.35 611.54 610.38 1383.00 1699.00 603.35 612.53 611.27. 612.74 0.002860 5.22 657.69 35 244.10 0.35 1956.00 603.35 612.83 611.48 -- 2245.00 603.35 613.10 611.69 613.33 0.002890 5.42 729.22 272.5 . ..... 610.86� 0.004211 .4.29 1 WM 423.00- 604.90 610.66 -- 1 n mr,17.5 1095.00 604.90 611.77 612.06 1383. 00 604.90 .612.32 612.57 0.004325 5.53 409.97 181.98 1691.00 604.90 612.69 612.95 0.004311 5.77 479.76 192.96 0.42 1956 612.98 613.25 0.004227 5.90 537.41 201.58 0.42 2245 613.25 61354 0.004293 6.12 592.52 209.49 0.43 423.00 606.10 611.42-- 611.61 0.002697 3.80 194 AQ 1095.00 606.10 612.76 613.041 0.003692 5.31 373.37 606.10 613 13.481 0.003809 5.65 465.80 ........ ...... 606.10 613 613.85 0.003775 5.85 563.45 269.98 0.40 614.12 0.003689 5.95 640.97 283.40 0.40 .12 614.40 0.003636 6.07 722.52 5 0.0243231 9 53.38 431 611.39 612 .10 423.00 606.10 611. ... ........ ................ 1095.00 606.10 613.64 613.64 614.37 00112531 1383.00 ang in HEC-RAS Plan: Exist Geom - River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) ........... .. ........ 1699.00 606.10 614.21 614.21 615.051 0.012741 . ........ 1956.00606.10 614.38 614.38 615.3 614.54 3.00 606.08 613.27 610.88 613.40 0.002039 3.19 200.64-- 2130.5700.13 0.2 0.269 5.00 606.08 614.81 613.24 614.97 0.002373 4.15 466.26_ 3.00 606.08 615.19 613.58 615.37 0.002602 4.52 544.98 212.18 0.31 1699.00 6 -- 62009 223.07 0.32 06.08 615.54 614.01 615.74 0.002858 4.90 1956.00 606.08 615.83 614.22 616.04 0.002942 5.10 686.08 232.22 0.33 0.34 2245.00 606.08 616.13 614.43 616.35 0.003020 5.31 757.33 241.71 Bridge 0.001643 613.45 610.88 613.55 - 2.94 225.21 141.49 0.23 423.00 606.08 --- 1095.00 606.08 614.94 613.24 615.08 0.002075 3.93 493.32 204.35 0.27 1383.00 606.08 615.33 613.58 615.49 0.002277 4.29 575.55 216.68 0.29 1699.00 606.08 615.69 614.01 615.87 0.002495 4.64 654.79 227.93 0.30 .......... 1956.00 606.08 615.98 614.22 616.17 0.002582 4.85 72260 23713 031 2245.00 606.08 616.28 614.44 616.48 0.002663 5.05 795.76 246.67 0.32 56.91 614.69 0.014051 6.48 76.09 423.00 608.93 614.06 612.37 0.52 1095.00 608.93 615.70 615.39 616.18 0.011574 7.12 269.55 153.21 0.49 1383.00 608.93 616.14 615.70 616.59 0.010701 7.15 340.79 168.33 0.48 1699.00 608.93 616.55 615.97 616.98 0.010160 7.24 412.51 182.28 0.47 1956.00 608.93 616.86 616.17 617.27 0.009743 7.28 469.90 192.72 0.46 2245.00 608.93 617.17 616.36 617.58 0.009373 7.34 532.74 209.37 0.46 Culvert 423.00 609.79 613.84 613.44 614.92 0.028404 8.39 55.12 39.77 0.75 1095.00 609.79 615-98 615-51 1383.00 609.79 616-37 615-77 1699.00 609.79 616. 1956.00 609.79 616. 423.00 609.43 615.58 615.. 1095.00 609.43 616.89 617.1 1383.00 609.43 617.29 ..... ..... 609.43 61767 1956.00 2245.00 609.43 618.23 618.53 .... 423.00 611.441 615.85 612.90 615. 13 0.000983 1095.00 611.44 617.32 614.19 617.62 0.002531 1383.00 8 0.003158 1699.00 611.44 618.19 615.12 618.74 0.003842 1956.00 611.44 - �- 615.49 619.17 0.004396 6.59 296.92 80.84 0.44 ---: --- 2245.00 611.44 618.80 615.88 619.62 0.005022 7.24 309.89 88.60 0.47 CUWrt -4- 382.00 611.60 615.91 612.96 615 989.00 611-60 617.53 614.17 617. 1217.00 611.60 618.07 1496.00 611.60 197300 611.60 619. 611.92 616.30 616.77 0.009887 989.00 611.92 618.39 619.14 611.92 619.04 ria An im 611.92 -.AK 1737.00 611.92 620.24 UufOUU . ...... 1973.00 611.92 620.36 621.321 0.008978 9.13 315.01 85.94 0.59 -- 382.00 612.31 618.05 618.331 0.005492 4.70 111.17 55.66 0.41 620.571 0.004951 5.95 252.94 79.83 042 m i. .......... 989.00 612.31 620.201 HEC-RAS Plan: Exist Geom - River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) ............... ...... ...................................I... ..... .... ............... 1....., 1217.00 612.31 620.77 621.17 0.004918 6.29 301.40 89.19 0.43 1496.00 612.31 621.39 621.81 0.004860 6.63 359.32 99.23 0.43 1737.00 612.31 621.86 622.31 0.004803 6.87 408.39 107.01 0.43 TWO, 1973.00 612.31 622.25 622.72 0.004875 7.15 450.71 113.28 0.44 382.00 614.60 619.43 619.89 0.013429 5.43 70.29 29.10 0.62 989.00 614.60 621.36 622.16 0.014954 7.18 137.79 40.75 0.69 1217.00 614.60 621.89 622.79 0.015194 7.61 160.02 43.91 0.70 1496.00 614.60 622.44 623.45 0.015542 8.08 185.24 47.25 0.72, 1737.00 614.60 622.86 623.97 0.015850 8.45 205.68 49.79 0.73. .... ........ ........ 1973.00 614.60 623.22 624.43 0.016266 8.80 224.11 51.97 0.75 382.00 616.03 620.63 618.48 620.98 0.004060 4.75 80.40 47.39 0.39 989.00 616.03 622.84 620.65 623.91 0.007348 8.31 119.07 63.83 0.56 1217.00 616.03 623.44 621.33 624.81 0.008394 9.39 129.58 68.84 0.611 1496.00 616.03 624.07 622.11 625.82 0.009664 10.64 140.59 74.20 0.66 1737.00 616.03 624.96 624.77 625.22 0.002707 4.11 422.13 81.79 0.32 1973.00 616.03 625.45 624.77, 625.73 0.002736 4.26 463.32 85.97 0.32 Culvert 282 620.91 665 878.00 1123.00 616.421 026.3* 621.64 626.42 0.000552 2.08 548.76 116.99 .... 15 1305.00 616.42 626.68 622.21 626.76 0.000623 2.29 589.11 131.74 0.16 1466.00 616.42 627.04 622.67 627.13 0.000645 2.42 640.53 148.43 0.16 282.00 618.25 622.35 622.81 0.009722 5.80 60.25 29.30 0.54 665.00 618.25 625.07 625.33 0.003525 5.12 234.36 108.15 0.36 878.00 618.25 625.54 625.82 0.003849 5.61 285.701 112,63 0.38 1123.00 618.25 626.59 626.79 0.002518 5.00 412.241 135.61 0.32 1305.00 618.25 626.95 627.16 0.002576 5.21 463.45 151.01 0.32 1466.00 618.25 627.32 627.56 0.002765 5.56 522.75 165.60 0.34 282.00 621,14, 625.01 625.17 0.006273 3.17 89.10 40.32. 0.38 665.00 621.14 626.49 626.77 0.006842 4.24 159-03 54.84 0.42 878.00 621.14 627.05 627.39 0.007206 4.72 190.94 60.67 0.44 1123.00 621.14 627.65 628.04 0.007178 5.09 229.54 67.06 0.45 1305.00 621.14 628.01 628.45 0.007358 5.37 254.60 70.89 0.46 1466.00 621.14 628.41 628.86 0.006800 5.47 285.08 84.41 0.45 282.00 622.76 625.88 624.11 626.01 0.002484 2.88 98.04 50.07 0.29 665.00 622.76 627.52 625.16 627.83 0.003389 4.45 149.45 57.64 0.36 878.00 622.76 628.16 625.65 628.58 0.003870 5.18 169.65 60.61 0.39 1123.00 622.76 628.82 1305.00, 622.76 629.23 J: 1466.001 622.76 629.60 Culvert 255.00 622.78 625.98 624.05 626.08 0.001878 2.54 100.37 49.36 0.25 631.00 622.78 627.73 625.10 627.99 0.002669 4.06 155.57 58.41 0.32 827.00 622.78 628.47 625.55 628.80 0.002888 4.63 178.70 64.26 0.34 HIM 1067.00 622.78 629.26 626.07 629.69 0.003122 5.25 203.41 86.09 0.36 1233.00 622.78 630.15 626.40 630.31 0.001368 3.19 425.08 127.59 0.23 1379.00 622.78 630.55 626.681. 630.71 0.001350 3.31 480.57, 164.43 0.23 E! 1 1 255.00 623.80 626,68 626.68 627.36 0.035528 6.99 40.49 29.21 0.96 631.00 623.80 628.49 629.09 0.016068 6.68 105.53 42.50_0.70 827.00 623.80 629.28 629.85 0.012535 6.53 141.41 48.29 0.64 ................................................. ............... ...... 1067.00 623.80 630.13 ------ 0.010154 6.45 184.88 54.48, 0.58 1233.00 623.80 630.36 631.01 0.011244 7.01 198.07 57.52 0.62 1379.00 623.80 63073 631.41 0.010512 7.19 220.36 63.39 0.61 L255.00 627.84 631.19 631.50 0.010814 4.52 59.40 32.72 0.55 631.00 627.84 632.27 632.96 0.017633 6.86 100,38 43.48 0.73 827.00, 627.84 632.65, 633.52 0.020180 7.72 117.931 47.35, 0.791 r HEC-RAS Plan: Exist Geom - River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) NMI .V.VWth .......... ON Y, 1067.00 627.84 633.08 634.13 0.022260 8.54 139.46 53.02 0.84 1233.00 627.84 633.48 634.54 0.020748 8.62 161.67 58.46 OM 1379.00 627.84 633.72 634.84 0.021155 8.93 175.86 61.69 0.84 255.00 629.72 633.62 633.98 0.011283 5.08 57.98 29.73 0.57 631.00 629.72 635.41 635.89 0.010346 6.13 123.82 43.96 0.58 827.00 62972 636.06 636.60 0.010174 6.49 154.38 49.18 0.58 1067.00 629.72 636.73 637.27 0.009758 6.75 216.77 169.70 0.58 1233.00 629.72 637.13 637.78 0.010876, 7.44 305.05 272.69 0.62 1379.00 629.72 637.35 637.93 0.009920 7.34 370.94. 319.41 0.59 ................. ...... 255.00 630.58 635.52 635.52 635.58 0.001532 2.59 145.33 53.76 0.22 631.00 630.58 636.79 635.52 636.96 0.003617 4.75 269.15 135.37 0.36 .. ............. 827.00 630.58 637.44 635.52 637.59 0.003068 4.72 367.27 165.20 0.34 1067.00 630.58 638.05 635.52 638.20 0.0027801 4.79 476.64 193.70 0.33 1233.00 630.58 638.58 636.42 638.70 0.002280 4.57 586.56, 220.55 0.30 L1379.001 630.58 638.71 636.61 638.85 0.002547 4.88 615.11 227.01 0.32 Culvert W 255.00 630.58 636,99 635.52 637.02 0.000472 1.76 297.60 144.65 0.13 . ........ 631.00 630.58, 637.86 635,52 637,92 0,001174 3,05 439,57 184,12 0,21 827.00 630.58 6- 10 635.52 638.18 0.001594 3.65 486.25 196.19 0.25 1067.001 630.58 111 231 638.51 10.001997 1 4.20 549.05 211.77 0.28 1233.00 630.58 638 342 i� 81 000� 4.38 612.89 226.51 0.29 1171 630.58 638.791 636.641 638.921 0.0024091 4.781 632.581 233.371 0.31 255.00 631.66 637.13 637.1 631.00 631.66 638.19 638.4 827.00 631.66 638.54 1067.00 631.66 AIR Q 123300 1379.00 63 1.66 639.40 639.88 0.006698 5.66 280 Bridge . ..... .... . ......... ....... 255.00 631.66 637.23 634.32 637.30 0.001321 2.04 125.01 40.07 0.20 631.00 631.66 638.57 635.74 638.75 0.002872 3.34 195.92 84.22, 0.31 827.00 631.66 639.06 636.28, 639.28 0.003227. 3.77 241.73 104.14 0.33 1067.00 631.66 639.73 636.841 639.96 0.003069 3.97 320.47 131.51 0.33 1233.00 631.66 639.81 637.18 640.10 0.003846 4.49 330.85 134.70 0.37 1379.00 631.66 639.88 637.48 640.23 0.004537 4.91 340.71 137.67 0.40 255.00 632.73 637.45 637.48. 0.000841 1.46 184.86 90.48 0.16 ...... , 631.00 632.73 638.97, 639.03 0.000951 2.02 354.51 131.98 0.18 827.00 632.73 639.50 639.58 0.000988 2.25 428.00 141.32 0.19 1067.00 632.73 640.17 640.25 0.000953 2.43 525.12 152.79 0.19 1233.00 632.73 640.34 640.44 0.001110 2.68 552.85 155.91 0.21 1379.00 632.73 640-51 640.62 0.001233 2.89 578.17, 158.71 0.22 .......... ........... 255.00 633.40 637.67 637.78 0.003682 3.25 120.28 84.82. 0.33 631.00 633.40, 639.20 639.32 0.002767 3.72 284.89 126.62 0.31 827.00 633.40 639.74 639.87 0.002634 3.91 356.65 137.59 0.31 1067.00 633.40 640.39 640.52 0.002364 4.02 450.30 150.71 0.30 1233.00 633.40 640.60 640.75 0.002619. 4.34 483.13 155.05 0.31 1379.00 633.40 640.79 640.95 0.002798 4.58 512.67 158.85 0.33 ........... 255.00 635.02, 638.34 638.34 638.83 0.022303 6.19 58.45 _73.88 0.77- ..... ........ ........... 631.00 635.02 639.56 639.87 0.010445 5.84 186.93 131.60 0.57 827.00 635.02 640.08 640.34 0.007823 5.58 260.68 151.60 0.511 1067.00 635.02 640.69 640.90 0.005648. 5.24 359.34 170.73 0.44 ................ ....................... 1233.00 635.02 640.94 641.15 0.005581 5.41 401.68 176.67 0.441 1379.00 635.02 641.14 641.37 0.005491 5.52 438.82 181.73 0.4 255.00 637.25 640.39 640.50 0.005624 3.11 101.60 57.41 0.39 631.00 637.25 641.26 641.54 0.010378 4.89 154.89 65.82 0.55 827.00 637.25 641.56 641.93 0,012563 5.62 175.27 68.76 0.62 W, 1067.00 637.25 641.87 642.36 0,014980, 6.40, 197.26 71.80 0.68 r HEC-RAS Plan: Exist Geom - River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) .............I.......... 1233.00 637.25 642.10 642.65 0.015995 6.81 213.57 73.97 0.71 1379.00 637.25 642.28 642.89 0.016836 7.14 227.10 75.73 0.73 255.00 638.85 641.58 641.86 0.014395 4.29 59:56 40.62 0.61 631.00 638.85 642.85 643.27 0.011591 5.29 129.06 69.561 0.59 827.00 638.85 643.29 643.76 0.010965 5.73 162.19 82.84 0.59 1067.00 638.85 643.74 644.28 0.010474 6.17 202.96 96.70 0.59 1233.00 638.85 644.02 644.59 0.010215 6.42 231.37 105.92 0.59 1379.00 638.85 644.25 644.85 0.010019 6.63, 256.43 113.60 0.59 255.00 640.48 646.46 646.461 646.47 0.000124 0.72 393.69 141.32 0.07 631.00 640.48 646.47 646.471 646.51 0.000754 1.77 394.74 141.60 0.16 827.00 640.48 646.47 646.471 646.55 0.001295 2.32 394.74 141.60 0.21 1067.00 640.48 646.47 646.47 646.60 0.002155 2.99 394.74 141.60 0.27 ...... 1233.00 640.48 646.47 646.47 646.64 0.002878 3.46 394.74 141.60 0.32 1379.00 640.48 646.47 646.47 646.68 0.003600 3.86 394.74 141.60 0.35 ............. Culvert . ....... ...... 113.00 641.20 647.13 644.74 647.13 0.000046 0.55 376.10 164.61 0.04 217.00 641.20 647.41 646.46 647.42 0.000128 0.94 424.62. 177.27 0.07 296.00 641.20 647.62 646.47 647.63 0.000194 1.19 463.351 186.76 0.09 385.00 641.20 647.77 646.47 647.78 0.000286 1.47 490.83 193.21 0.11 400.00 641.20 647.80 646.47 647.82 0.000300 1.51 497.20 194.67 0.111 507.00 641.20 647.97 646.47 647.99 0.000412 1.80 530.86 202.24 0.13 N 113.00 641.66 647.14 647.14 0.000073 0.57 301.30 157.28 0.05 217.00 641.66 647,43 647.44 0.000189 0.97 350.24, 170.55 0.08 296.00 641.66 647.66 647.67 0.000273 1.20 389.681 180.86. 0.10 385.00 641.66 647.82 647.84 0.000388 1.47 419.35 188.25 0.12 400.00 641.66 647.85 647.88 0.000403 1.50 425.97 189.86 0.12 507.00 641.66 648.04 648.07 0.000532 1.77 462.60 198.53 113.00 643.04 647.15 647.16 0.000333 0.98 176.68 149.62 0.10 217.00 643.04 647.47 647.49 0.000701 1.52 227.98 171.63 0.15 296.00 643.04 64771 647.74 0.000881 1.79 270.771 186.36 0.17 385.00 643.04 647.89 647.93 0-001127 2.09 305.371 197.46 0.19 400.00 643.04 647.92 647.97 0.001149 2.13 312.84 199.78 0.20 507.00 643.04 648.13 648.19 0.001362 2.41 356.13 213.10 0.22 113.00 645.03 647.22 647.32 0.008553 3.00_55.03 99.51 0.46 217.00 645.03 647.65 647.75 0.0-07053 3.28 107.14 141.11 0.43 296.00 645.03 647.93 648.02 0.005708 3.25 149.15 158.72 0.40 385.00 645.03 648.15 648.25 0.005388 3.39 187.20 173.13 0.40 400.00 645.03 648.20 648.30 0.005281 3.40 194.33 175.71 0.39 507.00 645.03 648.44 648.54 0.004951 3.52 239.21. 191.09 0.39 81.37 140.35 0.37 .00 646.73 648.49 0.006150 2.12 113 648.46 217.00 646.73 648.77 648.82 0.006364 2.58 129.74 168.12 0.39 296.00 646.73 648.93 649.00 0.006862 2.90 158.45 180.04 0.42 385.00 646.73 649.13 649.20 0.006789 3.13 194.78 197.50 0.42 400.00 646.73 649.16 649.23 0.006798 3.16 200.61. 200.39 0.43 507.00 646.73 649.36 649.44 0.006710 3.38 242.651 220.11 0.43 IT, 113.00 647.00 649.25-648.99 649.33 0.014157 2.64 54.73 86.67 0.46 r 217.00 647.00 649.60 649.69 0.015735 3.10 97.82 160.64 0.50 . ..... 296.00 647.00 649.77 649.87 0.014717 3.22 127.36 184.50 0.50 .................... 385.00-647.00 649.93 650.03 0.013739 3.35 157.19 200.12 0.49 400.00-647.00 649.96 650.06 0.013430 3.36 162.86 202.97 0.48 507.00 647.00 650.12 650.24 0.012568 3.48 197.67 217.68 0.48 113.00 647.27647.27 649.96 649.99 0.004373 1.64 81.41 92.11 0.28 0.261 217.00 647.27 650.38 650.43, 0.004993 1.83 124.24 108.71 -- 147.21 116.69 0.31 29600 647.27 650.59 650.65 0.005805 2.04 -- 0.33 123.87 38500 647.27 650.77 650.85 0.006672 2.25 169.28 400.00 64727 650.80 650.88 0.006823 2.29 172.62 124.92 0.34 507.00 647.27 651.10 651.19 0.009468 2.88. 215.69, 209.40 0.40 ib HEC-RAS Plan: Exist Geom - River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) M vvm M. ........... ........ ....... 113.00 648.99 650.67 650.81 0.010228 3.14 43.68 83.53 0.50 217.00 648.99 651.10 651.26 0.009010 3.57 87.99 124.68 0.49 296.00 648.99 651.34 651.50 0.008327 3.76 120.97 148.91 0.48 385.00 648.99 651.56 651.72 0.007782, 3.90_155.311 164.83 0.47 400.00 648.99 651.59 651.751 0.0077161 3.931 160.881 167.26 0.47 507.00 648.991 651.921 652.051 0.0058221 3.751 219.021 190.871 042 Rp &*awl rM r. r 1 ' Appendix B ' 2-Yr, 5-Yr, 10-Yr,25-Yr, 50-Yr, a Profiles ' for Proposed Stream Improvements an a Deve ydrology ' (No Detention Enhanc Ele tary) `r CA a Ig }o 'I �ni0 0 } to d I t— If- I � IJ J d I I D I >D I >� _? cn co co In co \`•� ----- z - -- -- ----- --- ----- -- ------�- Z6 uol}oaS X- 1•` �U ' --------------- ---------------------- I - --- g uol}oaS ---- 1OL99 U01}�as-x a;enud-Si 1?0 Ape4s ow co i S- I ZLZS uolPag-x❑❑ZLZ8 uol}�ag x wa;Pal oo-09Z8 uoipaS-X _ _0808 NO 1�3 S 3 \'X paslnaa-!OSSL uo1 as-x wa;paldo�-09LL uo1PaS-X -- --- ---- -- - ---- -- --- --- -- --- --- ---- -- \t' OESL U01 aS-x- IA i \ - ----- -- -- i. ------- '--- OLE L N011�3S-X S _OL69 N011�3S-X SIA ------ -------------------- - ----- ----- ---- -- - -- ------ L 1103S-X SIJ r• 09 9 NO ZIFF o '•� OOEg UO13oas-X co N ; o ;\\, OOL9 N01103S-X SIi- =— - -- ---- --- ----- rn --- �. I S-X SI3 cu 5 ;\ OO6S NO 1�3 CL L ° 9SSUSXSX U � ,� `0 Pas - d ' U p \ _ _ ___ ____ ___ ___ _ ____ ___ ____ _ ____ ____ ____ N OBES N011�3 13 �i ;❑❑bL1L AemgBIH BIBIS 0 d o ' 0 I _ I 3 z --- - ---- .� 9 Lb U013oaS X Y L Uo1PaS-X❑❑OSSB U01P. -X c i E 0 0 ; \,1 LC9 ---- ----- --- -'..SLOB uolpaS-X_ ------------ ------ ------- -- oFL ! �\ ------ ------ ------ ---- ----- -- --- ' � ------ i S E _ --- ---- --- - --- ----- � ,�- _..'".."—"Z uot�aS�p❑OOZ£uolpaS-X --- - OLZZ N01103S-X SI3 S \�� -"'-"000Z NO 103 X S d RIP ----- ----- --- ----- _ L N011O3S-X SIB �OOS -- --- --- --- --- -- -- --- ----- -- -- - N (8)uopen913 it >7 r V 18 0 t o to N 'U J J p i � i I U (Pue!y6!H-M;o weajlsumo ,OL) lb+9Zl (PUel46iH*AA; wealisunnoa,SZZ)98+bZ1 $ i� 04 Z LZZ L uolpag-X - - -- - Z£OZ l uoiPaS X \ 9181 L uo!pag-X ------ ---- ----- - �� l uoipaS-X wou Pa!do0- L uo!paS �; bZ9l £9SL -X VOb l L uo!PaS-X l - --• -- - \' 6LL l uoiPaS X s 09601 uo!pag-X ----- --'--- - ---- --- ---- ---- -- - ,----- r--- ------ --- uoi a c £OLOI P S-X ° \ Z8b01 uo!pag-X p � 6L LO L uo!pag-X o o ----- ----- ------- --- -------------- --- ---- Z '------ _ --- --- ---- --- ------ ------ ------;-- o , 6L-o uo!pag-X ---- - --- -- ---- ---- -X Sld- --•-- - 0110 N d OZ96 N 3S ;� —Sc"uo!paS-X o E i ------- --- ---- ---- --- --- - OZZ6 uolPaS-X- ------- ----•------ ------ ------ -- � --Sb88 uo!pag-X- ---- ------•............ U OL98 uo!paS-X m m � a;enud-s)!e0 APe4S 006L $ o o o alenud-s�!e0 APe4S O96 L $ o i i _ z ---- ------ ----- --- ---- = '------ - --' \\ 0808 NO 103S X SI3 1° t OS8L N01103S-X SI3 5 ` E -------------- �`\\ 0 0 ---- --- --- 3S-X Sld d --- --- -- OL£L NO 0 ---- ---- ---- - --- ------ ---- - ---- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Ir a OL69 N01103S-X SI3 •-- -- ---- •- --- ---- -- - - - --- o - ----- \�y 09L9 N01103S-X SI3 N ^\\ \ uo! a •\ 00£9 P S-X i \ OOL9 N01103S-X SI3_ S Il NO 03S-X SI3 !�� ---- ------ 9 ---- ----- ------ Qb£S N01103S-X SI3 \� ❑ObIL�(eeny6!H aleiS --- ----- ---- ----- ------ --- L P gg b uoi aS-X -- ----- -- ---- ---- -- SLOB uo!pas-X- 04 (U)uol;en913 Yllr HEC-RAS Plan:pg-nd River:S Fork Kirkwood Reach SF Kirkwood ........... ............... 867.00 547.80 555.68 553.45 556.03 0.005007 4.74 183.22 81.70 0.55 26100 547.80 556.58 554.45 556.94 0.005002 4.82 268.15 107.85 0.51 1533.00 547.80 557.07 555.61 557.44 0.005003 4.90 329.88 162.65 0.49 s 545.36, 255.49 0.46 547.80 558.04 556A6 558.43, 0.005002 5.21 2289.00 556.94 558.961 0.005009 5.42 683.961 283.26 0.45 . . .. 2824.00 547.80 558.55 ... ........ ...........". 3192.00 547.80 558.87 557.32 559.28 0.005007 5.55 775.15 300.14 0.44 ................... ... . .. ............ ....................... 079 867. 00 550.67 556.82 557.49 0.012798 6.55 133.12 66.13 1263.00 550.67 557.63 558.32 0.010970 6.71 193.94 84.84 0.73 153300 550.67 558.07 558.80 0.010392 6.91 235.04 102.04 0.70 .. 2289.00 550.67 558.94 559.84 0.010522 7.77 338.25 135.81 0.69 ... ....... 2824.00 550.67 559.39 560.41 0.010888 8.36 402.31 144.61 0.70 3192.00 550.67 559.67 560.76 0.011182 8.75 442.55 149.88 0.72 559.68 0.011619 6.71 138.43 62.55 0.69 867.00, 553.53 559.00 ............. 1263.00 553.53 559.61 560.54 0.013026 7.89 180.33 73.69 0.74 1533.00 553.53 559.96 561.04 0.013806 8.58 207.23 80.02 0.77 2289.00 553.53 560.79 562.24 0.015235 10.11 280.10 95.66 0.82 , 2824.00 553.53 561.26 562.94 0.016155 11.03 327.02 103.98 0.85 �.............. ...... .. ... 3192.00 553.53 561.55 563.38 0.016684 11.60. 358.09 109.14 0.87 MEN=alum M.." 867.00 556.40 561.77 561.77 563.25 0.018635 10.58 112.96 51.36 0.87 Am.........W 0.. 1263.00 556.40. 563.34 563.34 564.13 0.008546 8.73 311.72 210.24 0.62 1533.00 556.40 563.63 563.63 564.44 0.008820 9.15 375.86 225.20 0.64 2289.00 556.40 564.20 564.20 565.12. 0.010354 10.50 512.78 254.19 0.70 2824.00 556.40 564.32 565.56 0.013979 12.33. 541.95 259.95 0.82 3192.00 556.40 564.78 565.75 0.011000 11.411 668.88 277.70 0.73 867.00 556.90 563.75 563.86 0.001372 3.26 457.82 171.97 0.25 1263.00 556.90 564.50 564.64 0.001622 3.86 600.20 211.40 0.27 ............ 1533.00 556.90 564.82 564.99 0.001870 4.28 671.74 228.69 0.30 2289.00 556.90 565.57 565.81 0.002407 5.23 858.16 266.60 0.34 . ..... ..... 2824.00 556.90 566.10 566.35 0.002536 5.62 1003.72 288.79 0.35 3192.00 556.90. 566.23 566.53 0.002958 6.14 1042.72 293.77 0.38 ..... ... .. W, 867.00 556.80 563.90, 558.56 563.96 0.000749 1.88 461.64 173.39 0.12 1263.00 556.80 564.66 559.07 564.75 0.001134 2.47 510.84 215.88 0.16 ............. L 1533.00 556.80 565.00 559.38 565.12 0.001453 2.88 532.71 235.061 0.18 t'p%�WWIWOMNIIIfl 2289.00 556.80 565.73 560.17 565.98 0.002429 3.94 580.76 272.861 0,23 2824.00 556.80 566.26 560.67 566.59 0.003051 4.59 615.16 295.04 0.26. $ 3192.00 556.80 566.42 561.01 566.83 0.003687 5.10 625.54 300.97 0.29 Cutverl "low. 556.80 563.95 558.56 564.00 0.000347 1.87, 464.50 175.86 0.1 #&�"Mmm .... ............ 1263.00 556.80, 564.74 559.07 564.83 0.000519 2.45 515.81_ 220.18 0.15 .... ....... 1533.00 556.80 565.10 559.38 565.23 0.000658 2.84 539.62 241.19 0.17 X 2289.00 556.80 565.95 560.171 566.18 0.001061 3.85 594.72 282.88 0.22, SF. 2824.00 556.80 566.57 560.67 566.88 0.001297 4.45 635.00 306.37 0.25 3192.00 556.80 566.81 561.01 567.18 0.001529 4.91 650.53 315.22 0.27 86700, 55680 56399 .......... . . . 564.06 0.001108 2.71 519.101 184.27 0.20 1263.00 556.80 564.81 564.90 0.001291 3.13 689.00 228.03 0.22 .. ........[SFt .. ::: .,N: .......... 785.22 250.00 0.23 . ...... 1533.00 556M 565.21 565.32 0.001435 3.40 fSRYVCtf <sfi >Y 2289.00 556.80 566.19 566.32 0.001629 3.88 1050.22 292.18 0.25 2824.00 556.80 566.90 567.03 0.001558 4.03 1267.88 318.33 0.25 "Sp mO"M 42f#,,,MM 3. 192.00, 556.80 567.22 567.36 0.001636 4.23 1370.30 329.08 0.25 .............. 565.131 0.020291 9.45 105.37 61.69 0.78 867.00 557.80 563.83. 563.37 1263.00 557.80 564.661 566.09 0.019556 10.39 173.67 87.25 0.79 1533.00 557.80 565.12 566.55 0.018788 10.76 215.46 95.85 0.79 SF .. ....... 2289.00 557.80 566.16 567.61 0.017422 11.57 333.52 130.93 0.78 568.20 0.015097 11.51 437.08 155.31 0.74 'S ;F., 2824.00. 557.80 566.89 ......... ..0, d.,*.*.*i-.*--'.-�'�**.. ...... ...... 3192.00 557.80 567.26 568.57 0.014786 11.76 495.33 159.63 0.74 . SF. rf 000 867,00 559.40 567.43 567.641 0,002094 3.90 292.00 97.63 0.28-1263.00- 559.40 568.461 1 568.721 0.002272 4.51 411.28 154.63 0.30 1533.00 559.40 568.961 569.251 0.002374, 4.83 494.60 172.70 0.31 illb n: p -nd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) ... ....... HEC-RAS Pla . .. .... ......... 2289.00 559.40 570.07 570.40 0.002589 5.53 703.61 204.92 0.33 2824.00 55940 57064 571 0-002799-6 911 00 825.01 221.62 49 0.35 --- -- -- 01 3192.00 559.40 571.02 571.41 0.002870 6.24 .77 232. 0.36 .............. 0.83 867.00 561.80 568.32 569.19 0.024887 7.51 115.41 45.06 -- 570.26 0.019929 7.50 57.44 0.74 1263.00 561.80 569.39 --- .............. 570.83 0.019278 7.79 200.46 65.32 0.73 ....... 1533.00 561.80 569.90 2289.00 561.80 570.99 572.11 0.019034 8.57 281.63 82.43 0.74 - 61.80 571.60 572.83 0.019347 9.06 334.38 91.93 0.75 2824.00 5 - - - 3192.00 561.80 571.97 573.27 0.019126 9.36 376.21 122.55 0.74 js ..............Y. 867.00 566.73 573.90 574.44 0.008084 6.72 189.48 74.79 0.51 M 126300 566.73 574.74 575.41 0.008941 7.78 261.30 97.30 0.55 566.73 575.24 575.95 0.009041 00 566.73 576.38 577.15 0.0 -00 566.73 577.05 577.83 0. 00 566.73 577-44 � 4 004732 20 3.00 570.78 578.41 126.99 0.29 578.92 579.12 137.61 0.29 580.03635.07 164.12 0.31 4.00 570.78 580.66 2.00 570.78 581.05 EL 867.00 573.99 578.861 578.86 579.70 0.0654951 263.00 573.99 579401 579.40 1 533.00 573.99 579.70 579.68 580.74 0.055713 8.19 188.41 289.00 573.99 580.74 581.72 0.032030 8.06 300.46 121.31 0.79 E, 573.99 581.34 582.32 0.026078 8.16 377.89 136.45 0.74 3192.00 573.99 581.71 582.70 0.023450 8.24 430.91 145.91 0.71 577.20 582.93 583.33 0.015262 5.10 169.86 100.62 0.69 1263.00 577.20 583.50 583.97 0.015367 5.50 577.20 583.7958433 0-01 577.20 584.28 98507 0.02 2824.00 577.20 L 3192.00 577.20 584.7 41 416.93 ... ---- 3.99 319.38 125.83 0.31 850.00 578.81 586.53 586.71 0.002906--- 1150.00 578.81 587.28 587.47 0.002943 4.40 435.21 186.64 0.32 E 1545.00 578.81 587.82 588.06 -0.003385 5.01 548.18 231.34 0.35 2078.00 578.81 588.67 588.89 0.002907 5.06 773.62 287.94 0.33 --- 903.98 303.33 0.32 2361.00 578.81 589-11 589.31 0.002560 4.94 - 2557.00 578.81 589.39 589.58 0.002395 4.89 989.49 313.01 0.31 E 850.00 583.51 588.84 589.70 0.015977 8.43 146.70 70.34 0.73 1150.00 583.51 589.53 590.48 0.015412 9.19 208.01 113.64 0.74 1545.00 583.51 590.28 591.10 E 2078.00 583.51 590.84 591..0 2361.00 583.51 591.05 591. 591.21, E ).00 585.60 Ovy.tz 587.10 9.00 585.60 591.67 588.20 591.91 0.001919 2.00 585.60 592.20 588.75 592.56 0.002568 1.00 585.60-592-83 589-26 593-31 0.002999 100 585.60-593-12 589.77 593.76 5.00 585.60 593.24 iss Culvert 0.0 2.41 178.34 429.00 586.52 590.87 588.02 590.96 01116 ........... 979.00 586.52 592.23 589.12 592.50 0.002345 4.11 1302.00 586.52 593.06 589.67 593.43 0.002640 1641.00 586.52 593.97 590.18 594,421 0.0027181 5.37 30 1990.00 5 594.70 590.69 24 0.002931�5 94 3325i22 29146 0.37 2316.00 586.52 595,361 591.13 596 0.38 ............ .......... HEC-RAS River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) ......... ...... ........ .... . ..... E".......... ... ........ ............... ..... 429.00 586.70 590.66 590.12 591.38 0.01977 979.00 586.70 592.47 591.70 592.92 I 586.70 593.42 592.23 593.16 U.UU?j 4.80 1302.00 1 - 0.005832221 402.62 289.06 592.62 594.73 4.24 1641.00 586.701 594.46 0.40 962 4.06 530.17 323.10 0.34 . ......... 1990.00 586.70 595.30 592.95 595.54 0.003 - 2316.00 586.70 596.06 593.29 596.28 0.003089 3.90 661.47 353.94 0.30 429.00 590.50 594.18 594.41 0.009235 979.00 590,50 595.25 595.6 1 1302.00 590.50 595.65 596.2 ............. ........... 1641.00 590.50 595.99 . ............. ............. ............ 1990.00 ;Qn m I 2316.00 R 590.50 3.65 149.53 93.37 040 979.00 591.82 597.02 429.00 591.82 595.68 595.86 0.005066 597.29 0.005094 4.81 302.13 157.71 043 ............ 5.23 399.75 195.93 043 . ..... 1302.00 591.82 597.57 597.87 0.005059 .14 043 ............ 598.38 0.004873 5.50 505.02 230 1641.00 591.82 598.06 1990.00 591.82 598.49 598.81 0.004688 5.69 609.33 254.91 0.43 2316.00 591.82 598.86 599.18 0.004465 5.81 707.27 272.77 0.42 592.50 597.67 597.91 0.007069 4.08 12458 83-31 045 .... 592.50 598.96 599.30 0.006727 5.24 266.02 142.41 0.47 ............------------.... 1302.00 592.50 599.50 599.881 0.006691 5.70 355.40 190.14 0.48 1641.00 592.50 599-94 600.34 0.006678 6.07 447.25 229.05 -Mn�- 1990.00 592.50 600.31 600.72 0.006544 6.31 537.23 250.50 0.49 WHO 2316.00 592.50 600.61 601.04 0.006486 6.53 615.40 266.01 0.49 429.00 594.4 599.63 600.34 0.019001 7 ............... ........... . ......... 979.00 594.40 600.71 601.49 m 1302.00 594.40 601.21 601.91 015921 8.69 282.30 175.49 0.72 . ...... - 1641.00 594.40 601.62 602.28 0.014606 8.82 359.52 197.26 0.70 1990.00 594..40 601.95 602.61 9.09 427.17 212.25 0.70 0.014219 488.73 225.48 0.69 602.89 0.013896 9.30 SFI.�Xv 2316.00 594.40 602.23 006d,04 SF ............... 429.00 596.48 601.59 601.71 0.003305 3.39 145.93 210.62 0.3 237.27 03 602.92 0.003600 4.32 435.58 79.00 596.48 602.77 4 603.17 603.35 0.003876 .74 536.58 261.86 0.3 596.48 1302.00 .......................�� 1641.00 596.48 603.53 603.72 0.004099 5.11 634.21 283.62 0.3 1990.00 596.48 603.86 604.06 0.004224 5.40 7 2316.00 596.48 604.13 604.351 ................ 429.00 599.30 603.E P" to 979.00 ';QQ 101 604.1 1302.00 599.30 605.20 P', 1641.00 599.30 605.56 605.71 0.004591 5.02 575.05 274.7 199000 599.30 605.88 606.04 0.004398 515 664.411 282.49 599.30 606.15 606.33 0.004289 5.27 429.00 599.78 604.10 601.25 604.19 979.00 5-99-781 604.91 602.32 r. 1302.001 599 781 605.30 599.78 bub.b2 Ouj.ju QUO.Ov 1641.00 6 259.. 1990.00 599.78 605.89 603.86 606.80 0.005943 ............... 604.28 607.26 0.007151 8.601 269.1 ............... 2316.00 599.78 606.11 Cutvert 423.00 600.28 601.T1 U.uu".':' 605.66 0.003616 265.50 041 4 60i O32 5.20 210.72 1095M 600.28 605. 1383.00 600.28 605.78 603.47 606.32 0.004090 5.92 233.63 280.06 0.44 6.61 256.90 293.33 0.47 1699.00 600.28 606.32 603.94 607.00 0.004497--7.18 272.51 311.62 0.50 0.004897 1956.00 600.28 606.69 604.32 607.49 04647 7.47 300.69 349.73 0.49 0.0 . . 2245.00 600.28 607.36 604.69 608.22......... 56 0361 600.00: 604.08 604.6 0-02::1:74:61_ 423.00 197.571 042 606.031 OM56981 5.2 is 383.44 605.85 1095M 600.00 HEC-RAS Plan: pg-nd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) . ........ ................ 1383.00 600.00 606.53 606.67 0.003872 4.71 1699.00 600.00 607.22 607- 1956.00 600.00 6 7.711 2245.00 600.00 608.42 U 0.001733 .UU 11'3.3 6Uts.ou 423.00 602.30 608.05 608.28 0.004169 4.82 163.30 113.44 039 1095.00 602.30 608.83 609.37 0.009648 8.11 263.90 140.51 0.61 1383.00 602.30 608.98 609.69 0.012755 9.49 285.15 144.6 1 0.70 1699.00 602.30 609.15 610.03 0.015621 in 71 1956.00 602.30 609.33 610.31 01.017173 11.. 2245.00 602.30 609.53 610.60 0.018530 12.1 423.00 602.70 608.65 606.46-609-05 0. 1095.00 602.70 610.05 60962 ... .... 1383.00 602.70 610. 609-95 1699.00 602.70 611.07 610.28 611.43 0.004213 6.32 512.65 228.06 0.43 1956.00 602.70 611.41 610.44 611.76 0.004040 6.40 595.70 258.99 0.43 2245.00 602.70-611.76 610.65 612.12 0.004066 6.63 691.11 284.32 0.43 Bridge 0 606.93 609.43 0.004843 4.70 106.08 142.86 0.41 ...................... , - --- ............ 423.00 602.60 609.1 1095.00 602.60 610.78 609.92 611.03 0.003535 5.04 399.26 209.30 0 .37 1383.00 602.60 611.18 610.21 611.43 0.003606 5.32 486.58 233.85 0.38 169900 602.60 611.59 610.50 611.86 0003768 5.67 592.43 274.71 0.39 1956.00 602.60 611.91 610.71 612.16 0.0 2245.00 602.60 612.'1 �610.891 612.501 0.0 423.00 1095.00 ,M=IW4--::Z.:.t.bo��,�..i.�;.�.:i .,.� 1383,00 tjuj..Jo 011.09 _..7.,.X �coo. 603.35 612.28 612.56 0.003686 5.64 523.48 231.82 0.40 's 611.27 aF 5.78 591.40 246.01 0.40 2245.00 603.35 612.87 611.64 7f6 _.I..: 6.00 603.35 612.56 611.48 612.84 0.003648 5.88 670.13 261.49 0.40 613.15 0.003552 Bridge X_ 423.00 603.35 610.57 608.02 610.68 0.001691 3.09 202.16 122.91 0.25 ........... ........ ........ Imm .095.00 603.35 611.51 610.38 611.77 0.003682 5.16 359.05 193.21 0.39 .......................... ..................................... . .... .87 491.96 224.93 0.35 611.00 612.35 0.002830 4 1383.00 603.35 612.14 M�Im 169900 603.35 612.53 611.27 612.74 0.002860 5.10 582.06 244.10 0.35- - 1956.00 603.35 612.80 611.48 613-02 0.002902 5.27 650.12 257.64 036 611.69 613.33 0.002900 5.42 728.22 - 272.35 U.3fj 2245.00 603.35 613.09 ................ . ............ _ 610.87 0.004156 4.27 150.59 118.60 0.38 ............. 423.00 604-90 610-67 L L 1095.00 604.90 611.75 612.04 0.005556 5.83 311.01 165.17 0.46 61256 0.004356 5.55 408.85 181.80 0.42 604.90 612.31 - I?K1S 56 1383.00 0.42 399.00 604.90 612.69 612.95 0.004311 5.77 479.76 192.96 1956.00 604.90 612.96 613.24 0.004330 5.96 532.60 200.87 0.42 2245.00 604.90 613.25 613.54 0.004306 6.13 591.87 209.40 0.43 ............. 423.00 606.10 611 62 0. 02693 3.8 -71 613.0 606-10. 6 1383 nn 606.10 613.18 613.4 x 606.10 613 . ................... SF .. ..... . ....................tal................... 195600 .............. 2245.00 606.10 I 423.00 606.10611.39 0 611.43 612.56 0.024302 8.69 53.40 25.77 0.88 .0.401 0.011559 8.50 227.36 1095.00 606.10 613.62 613.62 614.37 - 'SEM 1383.00 606.10 r13.92 613-92 614.72 0.012281 9.11 272.00 - 0 n19741 9 606.10 614.21 614.21 615.05 ss 1699.00 - 1956.00 606.10 614.381 614.381 F.k! 614.54 61t).bt)2245..00 606.101 614541 .4 0.002039 3.20 200.60 130.56 423.0 606.08 613.27 610.8 200.57 bib 8 613 0 - 0.26 0.002340 4.13 469.0 1095.0 606.08 614.82 613.24 614.98 - 1383.00 606.08 615.19 61358 615.37 HEC-RAS Plan: pg-nd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) 16991699.000.32 606.08 615.54 614.01 615.74 0.002858 4.90 620.09 223.07 0.33 1956.00 606.08 61583 614.22 616.04 0.002942 5.10 686.08 232.22 ...................... 2245.00 606.08 616.13 614.43 616.35 0.003020 5.31 757-33 241.71 0.34 ............. Bridge 423.00 606.08 613.45 610.88 613.55 0.001644 2.94 225.19 141.48 0.23 1095.00 606.08 614.95 613.24 615.09 0.002051 3.92 495.69 204.72 0.27 1383.00 606.08 615.33 613.58 615.49 0.002277, 4.29 575.55 216.68 0.29, 5 1699.00 606.08 615.69 614.01 615.87 0.0024951 4.64 654.79 227.93 0.30 1 Z X 1956.00 606.08 61598 614.22 616.17 0.0025821 4.85 722.60 237.13 0.31 606.08 616.28 614.44 616.4 026631 5.05 795.76 246.67 0.32 00 2245..... -- 423.00 608.93 614.06 612.37 614.69 0.014052 6.48 76.09 56.90 0.52 .......... 1095.00 608.93 615.70 615.391 616.18 0.011518 7.101 270.13 153.34 0.49 1383.00 608.93 616.14 615.701 616.59 0.010701 7.15 340.79 168.33 0.48 608.93 616.55 615.971 616.98 0.010160 7.24 412.51 182.28 0.47 608.93 616.86 616.17 617.27 0.009743 7.28 469.90 192.72 0.46 2245.00 608.93 617.17 616.361 617.58 0.009373 7.34 532.741 209.37 0.46 Cutvert ........................ ..................... 609.79- 1 39.75 0.75 613.84, 613.44 614.92 0.028411 8.39 55.1 1095.00 609.79 615.98 615.51 616.33 0.009469 6.42 303.46 162.82 0.461 616.37 615.77 616.72 0.009358 6.65 368.45 175.90 0.46 1383.00 609.79 -609 79 616.72 61600 617.09 0.009386 6.90 43318 188.04 0.47 - 1956.00 609.79 616.98 616.18 617.36 0.009408 7.09 483.20 19692 0.47 2245.00 609.79 617.25 616.37 617.64 0.009405 7.27. 538.60 214.34 0.48 423.00 609.43 615.58 615.70 0.001598 3.02 206.20 134.80 0.24 1095.00 617.10 0.002711 4.59 421.60 183.911 0.32 609.43 616.89 ............................................. 97.15 194.04 0.34 ............... 609.43 617.29 617.52 0.002962, 5.00 4 - ....... .... 1383.00 1699.00 609.43 617.67 617.93 0.003194 5.39 572.76 203.67 0.36 1956.00 609.43 617.95 1 618.22 0.003358 5.67 630.24 210.70 0.37 609.43- 618.53 0.003530 5.96 690.89 217.88 0.38 2245.00 618.23 --- 423.00 611.44 615.85 612.90 615.93. 0.000983 2.28 185.70 61.17 0.19 1095.00 611.44 617.62 095 617.32 614.19 0.002531 4.43 247.39 67.91 0.32 617.77 614.6 5.19 0.361 ............. 1383.00 611.44 266.32 69.98 --- 611.44 1699,00 618,19 615*12 6111,74 0.0038421 5.98 284.11 71.92 0.41 619.17 0.004396 6 611.44-618.49 615.49- .59 296.92 80.84 0.44 SFtatottt .............................. fi 2245 .00 611.44-618.80-615.88-619.62-0.005022 7.24 309.89 88.60 0.47 Culvert -611.60-615.91 -612.96- 615.98 0.000868 2.11 181.32 61.66 -- 0.18 -.1............. 989.00 611.60 617.53 614.17 617.78 0.002000 3.96 249.76 71.44 0.29 ............................ ........... 611.60 618.07 614.55 618.38 0.002265 4.47 272.51 75.32 0.31 1496.00 611.60 618.62 614.99 619.01 0.002616 5.06 295.40 79.26 0.34 1737.00 611.60 619.02 615.34 619.50 0.002931 5.56 312.27 82.16 0.36 ........................ ........ 1973.00 611.60 619.73 615.68 620.00 0.001788 4.18 504.06 103.19 0.27 ----------- .............- .................................. 0.55 SO..r, I 611.92 616.77 0.009887 5.58 73.84 32.80 . .......... 382.00 616.30 611.92 618.39 619.14 0.009268 7.53 171.17 60.18 0.57 ................. .00 611.92 619.04 619.80 0.008515 7.78 212.74 68.63 0.56 611.92 619.72 620.50 0.007893 8.05 262.70 77.57 0.55 .00 611.92 620.24 621.03 0.007500 8.25 305.11 84421 0.54 .00 611.92 620.36 621.32 0.008978 9.13 315.01 85.94 0.59 .00 612.31 618.05 618.33 0.005492 4.70 111.17 55.66 0.41 ........... ...... .... - 0.42 620.20 5.95 252.94 79.83 989.00 612.31 620.57 0.004951 1217.00 612.31 620.77 621.17 0.004918 6.29 301.40 89.19 0.43 1496.00 612.31 621.39 621.81 0.004860 6.63 359.32 99.23 0.43 IB 1737.00 612.31 621.86 622.31 0.004803 6.87 408.39 107.01 0.43 197100 612.31 622.25 622.72 0.004875 7.15 450.71 113.28 0.44 382.00 614.60 61943 619.891 0,013429 5.43 70.29 29.10 062 989.001 614.601 621.36- 622,161 0.014954 7.18 137.79 40.75 0.69 ism HEC-RAS Plan: pg-nd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) bhdiii�,�.................. MERWO .jot ............ ........... . ............ 1217.00 614.60 621.89 622.79 0.015194 7.61 160.02 43.91 0.70 1496.00 614.60 622.44 623.45 0.015542 8.08 185.24 47.25 0.72 1737.00 614.60 622.86 623.97 0.015850 8.45 205.68 49.79 0.73 1973.00 614.60 623.22 624.43 0.016266 8.80 224.11 51.971 0.75 .. ... .. . . ................ ... ............... ... -mx 3 0 616.03 620.35 617.41 620.43 0.000881 2.13 179.47 61.95 0.18 WWI 82.0 989.00 616.03 622.76 618.63 622.95 0.001353 3.54 279.25 73.32 0.24 ............ 1217.00 616.03 623.40 619.01 623.65 0.001512 3.98 305.90 76.36 0.26 , 1496.00 616.03 624.08 619.45 624.39 0.001702 4.48 334.13 79.58 0.28 1737.00 616.03 624.60 619.81 624.97 0.001863 4.88 355.67 82.03 0.29 1973.00 616.03 625.06 620.14 625.49 0.002019 5.26 374.75 84.20 0.31 Culvert 282.00 616.42 620.41 617.54 620.45 0.000629 1.70 165.50. 59.60 0.15 665.00 616.42 622.92 618.41 523.01 0.000688 2.47 269.60 74.75 0.17 87 8.00 616.42 623.59 618.82 623.73 0.000862 2.95 297.69 78.84 0.19 2 619.24 624.50 0.001022 3.43 327.84 83.23 0.21 ..g., 1123.00 616.42 624.32. 1305.00 616.42 624.91 619.54 625.12 0.001087 3.71 352.13 86.79 0.22 .......... 1466.00 616.42 625.44 619.79, 625.68 0.001120 3.92 374.27 90.09 0.23 282.00 618.25 621.51 621.51 622.52 0.028747 8.31 38.51 22.30 0.89 665.00 618.25 623.16 623.16 624.47 0.022606 10.15 86.67 36.02 0.86 878.00 618.25 624.13 624.13 625.21 0.015791 9.71 136.54 94.83 0.74 1123.00 618.25 624.27 624.08 626.07 0.024927 12.41 150.33 100.40 0.94 1305.00 618.25 625.35 626.10 0.010228 8.97 264.62 110.81 0.62 7 1466.00 618.25 625.98 626.53 0.007142 7.97 336.53 116.89 0.53 _ 282.00 621.14 625.29 625.41 0.004538 2.80 100.60 42.67 0.32 665.00 621.14 626.95 627.16 0.004482 3.67 185.36 59.70 0.35 878.00 621.14 627.49 627.75 0.004989 4.16 218.79 65.34 0.37 1123.00 621.14 628.40, 628.67 0.004006 4.19, 284.66 84.22 0.35 -4 1305.00 621.14 628.16 628.57 0.006562 5.18 265.24 74.72 0.44 1466.00 621.14 628.26 628.75 0.007639 5.67 272.98 78.64 0.47 282.00 622.76 625.88 623.88 625.95 0.001403 2.15 131.16 54.89 0.21 ........... . 665.00 622.76 627.61 624.73 627.78 0.001785 3.26 204.18 59.88 0.26 ...... ..... X...:� . - 1., 878.00 622.76 628.23 625.13 628.45 0.002090 3.82 230.07 61.64_0.29 . ........ .... . .. 1123.00 622.76 629.03 625.56 629.32 0.002158 4.25 264.11 79.37 0.30 1305.00 622.76 629.12 625.85 629.49 0.002788 4.88 267.63 82.96 0.34 ...... ......... 1466.00 622.76 629.36 626.10 629.80 0.003099 5.27 278.02 93.55 0.36 M ..................... Culvert ........... ................ 255.00 622.78 625.93 623.82 625.99 0.001110 1.93 131.91 53.53 0.19 ... .. ... ...... 631.00. 622.78 627.72 624.69 627.87 0.001511 3.05 207.09 59.53 0.24 827.00 622.78 .......... 628.38 625.07 628.57 0.001712 3.52 234.62 61.73 0.26 1067.00 622.78 629.28 625.49 629.52 0.001734 3.92 272.31 86.67 0.27 1233.00 622.78 629.46 625.77 629.76 0.002113 4.41 279.90 94.67 0.30 1379.00 622.78 629.83 626.00 630.17 0.002207 4.67 295.47 112.31 0.31 255.00 623.80 626.66 626.66 627.36 0.036583 7.06 40.06 29.10 0.97 11. .. ......... ............. 631.00 623.80 627.86 627.86 628.91 0.033821 8.78 80.18. 37.88 0.99 .............. 827.00 623.80 628.67 629.56 0.022772 8.15 113.32 43.82 0.84 1067.001 623.80 629.64 630.39 0.015166 7.49 159.22 50.92 0.71 OMM 1233.00 623.80 629.93 630.76 0.015894 7.90 174.25 53.04 0.73 1379.00 623.80 630.33 631.16 0.014377 7.89 196.51 57.08 0.70 .............. .... Bosom WWWWWOMM 255.00 627.84 631.20 631.51 0.010671 4.50 59.72 32.811 0.55 p 0.60 631.00 627.84 632.67 633.16 0.011611 5.87 118.48 47.471 827.00 627.84 631 0.6800 633.67 0.014404 6.81 135.27 51.931 ................. . 1067.00 627.84 633.31 634.20 0.018069 7.90 151.94 56.141 0.77 1233.00 627.84 633.68 634.60 0.017546 8.09 173.21 61.101 0.76 1379.00 627.84 633.90 634.89 0.018207 8.43 187.06 64.12 0.78 255.001 629.72 633.61 633.98 0.0113491 5.10� 57.85 29.69 0.57 .......... 631.00 629.72 635.23 635.79 0.012104 6.51 116.35 42.58 0.62 827.001 629.721 635.90I 636.50 0,0115811 6.821 146.69 47.92 0.62 r HEC-RAS Plan: pg-nd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) T.3 R xzwx .00 629.72 636.63 637.22 0.010685 7.00 201.15 145.40 0.60 .00 629.72 637.06 637.77 0.011954 7.72 286.81 252.21 0.64 --.00 629.72 637.29 637.93 0.010841 7.60 352.26 311.07 0.62 ................................... 255.00 630.581 635.52 635.52 635.58 0.001532 2.59 145.33 53.76 0.22 ... 631.00 630.58 636.77 635.52 636.95 0.003678 4.78 267.15 134.69 0.36 ........ ................. ..... .. ... 0.34 827.00 630.58 637.42 635.52 637.57 0.003147 4.77 363.27 164.09 0.33 1067.00 630.58 638.06 635.52 638.20 0.002771 4.78 477.29 193.87 1233.00 594.78 222.43 0.29 630.58 638.62 636.42 638.74 0.002206 4.51 1379.00 630.58 638.75 636.641 638.88 0.002467 4.82 624.07 229.55 0.31 ..:::............. ..... ..... Culvert .............. 255.00 630.58 636.99 0 630.58 637.83 82700 f. 1067.00 630.551 638.3 I I635.52 22 1233.00 630.58 638.69 636.42 6iEl� 1 0.002066 1379.001 630.581 638.82 636.641 638.9 255.00 1 631.66 ............ 631.00 631.66 638.17 638.39 0.004125 3.77 167.53 ... .... 36 827.00 631.66 638.53 638.84 0.005106 4.43 192.68 81.86 0.41 631.66 63891 639.31 0.006089 5.09 227.01 98.18 0.45 631,66 639.24 639.66 0.006175 5.33 260.64 111.33 0.46 L 1379.00 631-66 639.43 639.90 0.006577 5.63 282.65 119.15 0.48 Brid e E255.00 631.66-637.23 634.32 637.30 0.001321 2.04 125.011 40.07 0.20 631.00 631.66 638.56 635.74 638.73 0.002911 3.36 194.64 83.55 0.31 827.00 631.66 639.06 636.281 639.27 0.003233 3.78 241.50 104.05 0.33 F 631.661 639.73 636.84 639.96, 0.003069 3.97 320.47 131.51 0.33 631.661 639.80 637.18 640.10 0.003853 4.49 330.54 134.61 0.37 .s... 631.661 639.87 637.48 640.22 0.004551 4.92 340.17 137.51 0.40 1 1 0 632.73 637.45 637.48 0.000841 1.46 184.861 90.48 0.16 E, 0 632.73 638.96 639.01 0.000961 2.03 353.10 131.80. 0.18 827.00 632.73 639.50 639.571 0.000989 2.2 lip MRW 1067.00 632.73 640.17- 640.251 0.0 1233.00 632.73 640.34 640.441 0.0 16 1379.00 632.731 640.50 - - -- 0.001235 637.67 bit.10 U.0 ..... 120.28. ...... ... 255.00 - 26.46 0.31 631.00 633.40 639.19 639.31 0.002794 3.73 283.85 1- 827.00 633.40 639.74 639.86 0.002637 3.91 356.50 137.57 0.31 150.71 0.30 640.52 0.002364 4.02 450.30 633.40 640.39 1233.00 633.40 640.60 -- 640.75 0.002622 4.34 482.95 155.03 0.32 1379.00 633.40 640.79 640.95 0.002802 4.58 512.38 158.81 0.33 ........... g'.. 255.00 635.02 63834 638.34 638.831 0.022303 6.19 58.451 73.88 0.77 . ........ 631.00 635.02 639.56 639.871 0.010529 5.85 186.331 131.42 0.58 827.00 635.02 640.08 640.341 0.007830 5.58 260.58 151.57 0.51 ........... ...... .... .. .. 1067.00 635.02 640.69 640.901 0.005648 5.24 359.34 170.73 0.44 ... ... ............ 635.02 640.93 641.15 0.005587 1233.00 - ............. 5.41 401.53 176.65 0.44.. 1379.00 635.02 641.14 641.37 0.005499 5.52 438.59 181.701 0.44 Mn 255.00 637.25 640.39 640.50 0.005624 3.11 101.60 65 57.41 0.5395 ... .. --- 631.00 637.25 641.26 641.54 0.010347 4.89 155.06 .84 0. .. ... .. -827.00, 637.25 641.56 641.931 0.012561 5.62 175.28 68.76 0.62 71.80 0.68 067.00 637.25 36 0.0149801 6.40 197.26 NOW. 1 641.87 642. 73.98 0.71 .................... E/ 1233,00 637.25 642.10 642.65 0.015992 6.81 213.59 - 75.73 0.73 I£tr..... .............. 7.14 227.11........... 0.016832 642.28 642.89 1379.00 637.25 255.00 637.85 641.41 1 641.64 0.009390 3.80 67.02 37.41 0.50 Y gF 34rridtl $41 631.00637.85 642.73 643.10 0.0095 79 5.00 134.56 65.77 0.54 SF 4.tr(fuutxrd 643.17 643.611 0,00937411 AaLI.2:,;. 021.00 637.85 1067,00, 637,85, 643.63 HEC-RAS Plan: pg-nd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) .... ..... ........... FM .............. ... . . ......... ............ . .... ....... ... .. 1233.00 637.85 643.92 644.47 0.009089 6.24 234.46 102.43 0.56 ISP. . .......... 1379.00 637.85 644.15.......... 644.73 0.008960 6.44 259.68 110.40 0.56 ............ ISM 255.00 638.68 641.87 640.45 642.14 0.005172 4.21 60.58 41.36 0.42 flvoctd 631.00 638.68 643.25 641.92 644.07 0.009513 7.26 86.90 75.45 0.60 "POW .................. 827.00 638.68 643.68 642.56 644.86 0.012119 8.70 95.06 82.72 0.69 1067.00 638.68 644.09 643.27, 645.76 0.015499 10.37 102.88 89.68 0.79 1233.00 638.68 644.32 643.74 646.38 0.018022 11.50 107.24 93.56 0.85 1379.00 638.68 644.50 644.13 646.91 0.020390 12.48 110.52 96.48 0.91 EMWJO'A� Culvert 113.00 639.20 642.12 640.23 642.18 0.001362 2.04 55.47 21.20 0.21 R.,..................... 217.00 639.20 644.04 640.79 644.13 0.000933 2.36 91.93 55.14 0.19 296.00 639.20 644.81 641.15 644.93 0.001059 2.78 106.62 77.41 0.21 .... ...... 639.20 645.71 641.53 645.86 3.11 123.61 103.17 0.22 ........... . ...................................... 385.00 0.001094, Si= AMME 400.00 639.20 646.33 641.59 646.46 0.000871 2.95 135.44 129.03 0.19 ... ....... 507.00 639.20 646.87. 642.00 647.05 0.001099 3.48 145.64 152.97 0.22 113.00 639.66 642.37 642.41 0.001136 1.60 70.75 34.25 0.20 217.00 639.66 644.22.................... 644.26 0.000568 1.50, 144.62 45.39 0.15 .......... ".WN 296.00 639.66 645.03 645.07 0.000535 1.61 188.59 78.83 0.15 - A 645.98 0.00 385.00 639.66 645.94 0407 1.61 273.48 110.00 0.13 400.00 639.66 646.52 646.55 0.000270 1.42 344.32 132.72 0.11 W 007.00 639.66 647.12 647.15 0.000271 1.53 430.70 156.73 0.11 W 4 113.00 641.04 642.62 642.77 0.008002 3.14 35.98 27-50 0.48 2 7.00 641.04 644.32. .4... .. . . 644.41, 0.002035 2.37...........�� .. ....-% 91.39 37.71 0.27 296.00 641.04 645.12 645.20 0.001645 2.40 123.23 42.48 0.25 .......... 385.00 641.04 646.00 646.08 0.001239 2.36 167.37 69.76 0.22 400.00 641.04 646.56 114.12 646.62 0,000785 2.06 218.06 0.18 .sp.. . ........... 507.00 641.04 647.16 647.22 0.0007081 2.14 297.43 151.911 0.18 in`MI . 113.00 643.03 644.26 644.54 0.019564 4.25 26.61 25.38 0.73 217.00 643.03 644.75 645.21 0.021685 5.43 39.97 28.37 0.81 296.00 643.03 645.43 645.80 0.012210 4.90 60.44 32.42 0.63 385.00 643.03 646.21 646.51 0.007226 4.40 87.56 37.11 0.50 400.00 643.03 646.68 646.90 0.004617 3.79 105.60 39.92 0.411 ................................. ................................................................ ..................................................... ..................................... .............................. ........ 507.00 643.03 647.25, 647.47 0.003799 3.81 150.63 102.67 0.38 ....................................... 113.00 644.20 645.99 646.10 0.005165 2.70 41.78 28.74 0.40 217.00 644.20 646.72 646.90 0.005434 3.36 64.57 33.17 0.42 296.00 644.20 647.06 647.29 0.006374 3.90, 75.94 35.25 0.47 385.00 644.20 647.41 647.70 0.006700 4.34 89.30 38.68 0.49, 400.00 644.20 647.55 647.83 0.006134................... 4.27 94.49 39.08 0.47 ... . . 507.00 644.20 647.98 648.31 0.006008 4.59 111.90 40.40 0.48 . . ...... 113.00 644.73 646.56 646.66 0.004798 2.64 _42.84 28.94 0.38 F. 217.00 644.73 647.32 647.49 0.004938 3.25, 66.75 33.52 0.41 296.00 644.73 64734 647.95 0.005222 3.63 81.48 36.06. 0.43 385.00 644.73, 648.15 648.39 0.005434 3.99 96.64 41.53 0.44 ... ... .............. SE 644.73 648.23 4.01 100.15 44.17 0.44 400.00 648.48 0.005314 507.00 644.73 648.66 648.95 0.005190 4.31 121.95 52.80 0.44 113.00 645.27 647.10 647.20 0.004794 2.64 42.87 28.98 0.38 217.00 645.27 647.87 648.04 0.004834 3.22 67.29. 33.67 0.40 .................. 96.00 645.27 648.33 648.52 0.004938 3.56 83.17 36.40 0.41 385M, 48.99 0.005082;SP........... 645.27 648.76 6 3.88 99.29 38.98 0.43 400.00 645.27 648.83 649.07 0.005071 3.92 102.13 39.41 0.43 's g 507.00 645.27 649.25 649.53 0.005091 4.22 123.67 59.26 0.44 d - mom ........... 11"M 113.00 646.99 648.17 648.46 0.021736 4.31 26.20 26.48 0.76 217.00 646.99 648.84 649.19 0.016006 4.77 45.48 31.29 0.70 296.00 646.99 649.25 649.64 0.014050 5.00 59.15 34.30 0.67 385.00 646.99 649.66 650.08 0,012679 5.22 73.80 38.13 0.65 400.00 646.99 649.72 650.15 0.012420 5.25 76.28 41.16 0.65 507.00 646.99 650.11 650.58 0.011369 5.53 95.77 59.54 0,64 A AM NEW- Appendix C 2-Yr, 5-Yr, 10-Yr,25-Yr, 50-Y d 1 iles fo Proposed Stream Improvemen velo nt Hydrology (With Detention En ceme at ementary) 1 1 1 1 IIIIIr _ �j � N ! � I 11� N V CD I J I J ! J I J J G do oll, >� I CO l CO 3t ----- ----- -- \� p 99 uoPaS=X atenud-sNep Ape 4S OO6 t „\` ! ZLZ9 uoitoaS-X❑❑ZLZ9 uo!paS-X wok pa!doO-09Z8 uo!paS-X ----•----- N O X , --- --_-0808 OIl 3S Sld" ----- ' -- ---- ' ------'�� - -------�-- i -- ;Paslnaa- -09LL�I!3oaS-X 0ggL uo!paS-X wou pa oO -- ----------------- '< i OL£L N61133S X S13 0 t69 NO11O3S-X SI3 09L9 NO11O3S X SIB N o - � ---- ---- --- --- ---- ----- --- ---- --- - 00£9 u S-X X im i - OOt9 NO11O3S-X SIB N006S NOI1O3S-X Sld =-• --- -- - co 0998 �' as_X. _ - ----- \ OKG NOUO3S-X SIB 1 7 ri ❑Ob t t ABMgB1H GINS 98Lb uo!p as- X y 0 0 0996 uolpaS-X❑❑pgsb uolpaS-X o r Y -- ------ ------- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- --- . -- - , `o � SL 1X E -- ---- -- --- -- -- - $ r �O 09K NOI1O3S-X SIJ i ---•-------------- ------•------ -- -- - - ------ - - c uoitoaS X❑❑OOZE uo!paS X .. i -- ---- ---- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- --- OI1 3S C9 \• N 0 X _ , , , \` ,`\; OLZZ SIB _ 000Z NO11O3S-X SIB , I t 0 X' T�OOS NOIl 3S- Sld I� " i ; ; ; ; ; - --- - -- -- --••-- ---09Zt NO11O3S-X SIB• OLOt NO11O3S-XSId , o -------•------ -- --- --- -- ----- -- co (4)u01ten813 Pw r ; } ' r � � r $ ! u51d Ol 1 F' J I J I J I J J O .mod I I I >> jj> L') , ---'--•---' '----- ---- ---- ------ ------------ APeyS 6L610 ea 3sumo0)91+9£L" (s� �o (smeO w \� IL6E£L u0lpas-X --- ------------ \ 6 LZ£L K� s-X uo! a bL0£L uolpas-x- = -- -- ---- ------ ---- - S£6ZL uo!pas-x ----- ---- -•--- ' 1 �•� (puel461H-M10 wealsuMoQ AL) lb+9Zl (pue146H'M jo weajisunnoQ,SZZ)98+bZ l o \ I c iti Z LZZ L u01pas-X v ,•- -------•------•------ -------ZEOZ X- t 9181 l uoipas-X bZ9 L L uolpag-X W04 pald00-£8S L l Uo1p9S-X 0 . bbl Ol 0!30aS-X _. , , , N a; \ 6Ll l l U0!paS-X m U)1cc r ---:------ --- ------ 1' --- — OLO uolpas- , - ------ ---- --- - ---- ---- ---- --- ---- d 1 £ `uolpaS-X ,� I .. 0 LL 9bo L�uolpes-X ; , , I RftWt UOIPBS-X- ---------------------_ __ , , , 0 aLm 0 Y — -- ---- --- �`` --- £LL6 uolpes-X c ;\� OZ96 N01103S-X SIB' Y S£b6 uolpas-X U , �c Z ----- ---- -- c 6 ��f UZZ6 uoPas-X W , ------ 1 O \1 cbgg uo!pas-X- ��; OL98 uo!pas-X o alenud-sMe0 APe4S 006L o NBAud-sile0 APe4S 096 L CO $ ----------•--- t------------ --------I------:•----- ----- ----•- ---- �\: ;---- ------ ---- --- - ----- ;09M NO!103S-X Sld_ I ' ; ;OS8L N01103S X S \�\ "OESL uo!paS-X •----- •-----=------------- ------ --- � `Y ;OL£L N01103S-X SIB ------------ is -------------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- - ---•-- ""-__ ____' -•------------------0169 N01103S X Sld_ \\ ' 709L9 N01103S-X SIB , 00E9 U01paS-X co ,- -•------•---- - ---- --- --%-------------; 9 N01103S-X Sld , .0069 NO!103S-X SI3 --------------- -- -- ---- ------- --- --- ---- -- -- \\ �\ 09SS uoP X ------=----- - ------i------ ------! '------ ------ ------!----- -----'-- Ift all, N01103S X SIB ocli o (y)uol)en913 HEC-RAS Plan:pg-wd River:S Fork Kirkwood Reach:SF Kirkwood teach,' min= 867.00 547.801 555.68 553.45 556.03 0.005007 4.74 183.22--- - 81.701 0.55 1263.00 547.801 556.58 554.45 556.94 0.005002 4.82 -268.15 107.85 0.51 1510.00 547.801 557.03 555.59 557.40 0.0050101 4.89 323.54 sms...5 155.59 2289.00, 547.801 558.04 556.46 5 -645-36 255.49 0.46 58.43 .005002 5.21 2824.00 547.801 558.55 556.90 558.96 0.005008 5.42 684.03 283.28 0.451 3191.00 547.80 558.87 557.32 559.281 0.005007---- - 5.55 774.92 3M09 0.44 867.00 550.67 556.82 557.49 0.012798 6.55 133.12 66.13 0.79 1263.00 550.67 557.63 558.32 0.010970 6.71 193.94 84.84 0.73 1510.00 550.67 558.04 558.76 0.0104271 6.89 231.53 100.69 0.70 2289.00 550.67 558.94 559.84 0.010522 7.77 338.25 135.81 0.69 2824.00 550.67 559.39 560.41 0.010888 8.36 402.321 144.61 0.70 SF: .......... 3191.00 550.67 559.67 560.76 0.011182 8.75 442.44 149.86 0.72 ........................................... ......................... .... .. 867.0 553.53 559.00 559.68 0.011619 6.71 138.43 - 62.55 0.69 1263.00 553.53 559.61 560.54 0.013026 7.89 180.33 0.74 73.69 ...... 1510.00 553.53 559.93 561.00-0.013748 8.52, 204.95 79.511 0.77'1 2289.00 553.53 560.79 562.24 0.015235 10.11-- 280.10 95.66 0.82 824.00 553.53 561.26 562.94 0.016156 11.03 327.02 103.98 0.85 3191.00 553.53 561.55 563.38 0.016682 11.60 358.01 109.12 0.87 867.00 556.40 561.77 561.77, 563.25 0.018635 10.58 112.96 51.36 0.87 1263.00 556.40 563.34 563.34 564.13 0-008546 8.73 311.72 210.24 0.62 1510.00 556.40 563.61 563.61 564.41 0.008759 9.10 371.42 224.19 0.63 2289.00 556.40 564.20 564.20 565.12 0.010354 10.50 512.78 254.19 0.70 .00 556.40 564.32 565.56 0.013978 12.33 541.97 259.96 0.82 3191.00 556.40 564.78 565.75 0.011007 11.42 668.54. 277.68 0.73 867.00 556.90 563.75 563.86 0.001372 3.26 457.82 171.97 0.25 1263.00 556.90 564.50 564.64 0.001622 3.86 600.20 211.40 0.27 SCtkY ..................... .......... 1510.00 556.90 564.80 564.96 0.001851 4.25 665.62 227.23 0.29 2289.00 556.90 565.57 565.81 0.002407 5.23 858.16 266.60 0.34 10 2824.00 556.90 566.10 566.35 0.002536 5.62 1003.72. 288.79 0.35 3191.00 556.90 566.23 566.53 0.002957 6.13 1042.60 293.75 0.38 867.00 556.80 563.90 558.56 563.96 0.000749 1.88 461.64 173.39 0.12 Sf��M 1138-I-M 1263.00 556.80. 564.66 559.07 564.75 0.001134 2.47 510.84 215.88 0.16 1510.00 556.801 564.97 559.35 565.09 0.001425 2.84 530.93 233.48, 0.18 �s-, 2289.00 556.80 565.73 560.17 565.98 0.002429 3.94 580.76 272.861 0-23 0 556.80 566.26 560.67 566.59 0.003051 4.59 615.16 2824.00 295.041 0.26 SPON."WOMIAT'I". 3191.00 556.80 566.42 561.00 566.83 0.003685 5.10 625.51 300.95 0.29 Culvert 867.00 556.80 563.95 558.56 564.00 0.000347 1.87 464.50 175.86 0.12 .......... ... 1263.00 556.80 564.74 559.07 564.83 0.000519 2.45 515.81 220.18 0.15 ......... 1510.00 556.80 565.07, 559.35 565.19 0.000646 2.81 537.66 239.45 0.17 .. ....... .00 556.80 565.95 560.17 566.18 0.001061 3.85 594.72 282.88 0.22 2289.................................. ....................................................................... g,. .1;§g 556.80 566.57 560.67 566.88 0,001297 4.45 635.00 306.37 2824.00. ................... 0.25 . ........ 3191.00 556.80 566.81 561.00 567.18 0.001529 4.91 650.49 315.20 0.27 867.00 556.80 563.99 564.06 0.001108 271 519.10 184.27 0.20 1263.00 556.80 564.81 564.90 0.001291 3.13 689.00 228.03 0.22 1510.00 556.80 565.18 565.29 0.001425 3.38 776.87 248.17 0.23 ........... 2289.00 556.80 566.19 566.32 0.001629 3.88, 1050.22 292.18 0.25 567.03 0.001558 4.03 1267.88 318.33 0.25 2824.00 556.801 566.90 3191.00 556.80 567.22 567.36 0.001636 4.23 1370.02 329.05, 0.25 MEM I 867.00 557.80 563.83 563.37 565.13 OM0291 9.45 105.37 61.69 0.78 1263.00 557.80 564.66 566.09 0.019556 10.39 173.67 87.25 0.79 Sfiirkworad ice; 1510.00 557.80 565.08 566.52 0.018835 10.731 211.97 94.72 0.79 SF Pi. ................. 2289.00 557.80 566.16 567.61 0.017422 11.571 333.52 130.93 0.78 557,80 566.89 568.20 0.015 437.08 155.31 0.74 Kirkwood. DOOM 2824.00 097 11.511 7 85 0 5' 1 9 0.49 5 0 9 1 0 5 EO 46 5 25549 0 5 81 542 j283 28 0 45 00 00 0005007 30009 0 jO 012798 6 55 66 3 79 0 00109 7 8484 0010427 1 00 69 135.81 069 L iM, 3191.00 557.80 56T25 568.57 0.014789 11.76 495.16 159.62 0.7 S ..... 2000.*�:,............. 867.00 559.40 56743, 0.0020941 3.90 292.001 97.631 0.28 ............... 567.641 1263.001 559.40 568.461 568.72 0.0022721 4.51 411.281 154.631 0.30 Sknwood 2WQ� 1510.001 559.401 56892 j ..,- 569.201 0,0023671 4.81 487.68 171.531 0.311 HEC-RAS Plan: -wd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) Reacll Rlver Sta .. C17nta€ Ivi�ri t11=i USF S Etev Cr�EY�t 3 EG Eiev E Slope ?felttFi1,.;. FtoAra T:".Wu3tts:.. Fnrude#Chl;: ! # :SF K+Fkwood 2tlEIQ 2289.00 559.40 570.07 570.40 0.002589 5.53 703.61 204.92 0.33 KlF1iYYIIQd' 2ilQt3 2824.00 559.40 570.64 571.01 0.002799 6.00 825.01 221.49 0.35 F Ift[k�v�od' 2DOf1 3191.00 559.40 571.02 571.41 0.002870 6.24 911.58 232.59 0.36 iSF#4Frkwood t3 867.00 561.80 568.32 569.19 0.0248871 7.51 115.41 45.06 0.83 sSF 1£iFkwoad7f# 1263.00 561.801 569.39 570.26 0.0199291 7.50 169.41 57.44 0.74 ISF l4rckwogd 2f 1510.00 561.801 569.86 570.79 0.019310 7.77 197.88 64.70 0.73 SF£4[rkuud 227f1 2289.00 561.80 570.99 1 572.11 0.0190341 8.57 281.63 82.43 0.74 'SF K1Fkwood 227( 2824.00 561.80 571.60 572.83 0.019347 9.06 334.38 91.93 0.75 iSF1£i(kwoatf 22717 3191.00 561.80 571.97 573.27 0.019126 9.36 376.10 122.52 0.74 :SFlkirkwood 2i ¢lz ::'::'< 867.00 566.73 573.90 574.44 0.008084 6.72 189.48 74.79 0.51 :SF tFln++ood 257 .'%'<`<:> 1263.00 566.73 574.74 575.41 0.008941 7.78 261.30 97.30 0.55 SFaFkwFio'........ 1510.00 566.73 575. 201 575.91 0.009038 8.20 308.48 109.99 0.56 :SF£11F(twcad 2137(#a::'." 2289.00 566.73 576.38 577.15 0.008840 9.04 457.91 142.93 0.57 1S1Bhc# 2tf1'ftz"z €'<. 2824.00 566.73 577.05 577.83 0.008594 9.42 559.52 161.53 0.57 SF Ktticxdoif 1 2&7t)<%x% 3191.00 566.73 577.43 578.23 0.008552 9.68 624.33 172.36 0.57 :SFI 3flfi �? 867.00 570.78 577.49 577.65 0.004732 3.20 292.69 107.49 0.29 :SF 4rcMvo t S t 1263.00 570.781 578.41 578,60 0.0043541 3.55 400.64 126.99 0.29 $F t4Ukwoof 32{iff: m'< 1510.00 570.78 578.88 579.07 0.004298 3.76 461.46 136.76 0.29 SFI4fFkwoa# 3.+{!E# 2289.00 570.78 580.03 580.28 0.004353 4.34 635.07 164.12 0.31 :SF}41FkH+uaif 32flz:< ` : 2824.00 570.78 580.66 580.94 0.004449 4.67 742.66 178.91 0.31 t56rt4ltkvJocitf 32ft4 3191.00 570.78 581.05 581.35 0.004497 4.87 814.32 188.12 0.32 SIfffllwvcct f!1 z 867.00 573.99 578.86 578.86 579.70 0.065495 7.36 117.74 71.17 1.01 ?S)t34Etkwoa 333fi* 1263.00 573.99 579.40 579.40 580.36 0.062671 7.86 160.72 87.58 1.01 1510.00 573.99 579.67 579.65 580.71 0.057182 8.21 185.02 94.32 0.99 ':SF'laoe.._ 33f' 2289.00 573.99 580.74 581.72 0.032030 8.06 300.46 121.31 0.79 1SFR4iFkwFxil33f}" ^s 2824.00 573.99 581.34 582.32 0.026078 8.16 377.89 136.45 0.74 `SFE 838i " z 3191.00 573.99 581.71 582.70 0.023457 8.24 430.76 145.89 0.71 tkwoof W.-. 2 867.00 577.20 582.93 583.33 0.015262 5.10 169.86 100.62 0.69 263.00 577.20 583.50 583.97 0.015367 5.50 233.19 120.24 0.65 F10.00 577.20 583.78 584.30 0.015859 5.82 267.44 129.63 0.65 iSFUF89.00 577.20 584.28 585.07 0.020960 7.22 337.33 146.93 0.73 1SF KtFkaf824.00 577.20 584.59 585.54 0.023437 7.98 383.80 157.38 0.77 3191.00 577.20 584.79 585.85 0.024551 8.41 416.85 164.41 0.79 :SELF.&ewof17§r;.?< 850.00 578.81 586.53 586.71 0.002906 3.99 319.38 125.83 0.31 SF 4ldcwzxl �1EI�{s,w» :' 1150.00 578.81 587.28 587.47 0.002943 4.40 435.21 186.64 0.32 SFI43rf4nto�h At�7'rt 1545.00 578.81 587.80 588.04 0.003443 5.05 543.47 229.65 0.35 €SF I£ukwgix€ 4Q? ri 2076.00 578.81 588.67 588.89 0.002907 5.06 773.62 287.94 0.33 `SFwa37,�tata'v3'n "` 2337.00 578.81 589.10 589.30 0.002528 4.90 901.13 303.00 0.31 :SE :nkWearf. 37 >> 2557.00 578.81 589.39 589.58 0.002397 4.89 989.30 312.99 0.31 SFKiFtbod ASa17?:;" . 850.00 583.51 588.84 589.70 0.015977 8.43 146.70 70.34 0.73 SFHitwonc£ 1150.00 583.51 589.53 590.48 0.015412 9.19 208.01 113.64 0.74 :Sl= id�wodt€ *1a5f#'`.;u .: 1545.00 583.51 590.29 591.10 0.012342 9.07 310.95 151.09 0.68 511fdif A55 °�:: 2078.00� 583.51 590.84 591.71 0.012788 9.83 399.62 171.36 0.70 €SF#41Fkwmd' 4ra5f1 :.::'::` 2337.00 583.51 591.02 591.96 0.013622 10.34 430.94 177.98 0.73 :SF 2557.00 583.51 591.21 592.17 0.013699 10.58 464.89 184.87 0.73 Sfi Yukwtictf> 47SS' 429.00 585.60 590.72 587.10 590.78 0.000649 2.04 209.88 132.62 0.16 1SF I4iFTavoetf' € ,,7,.86h«:; ":> 973.00 585.60 591.66 588.19 591.90 0.001897 3.91 248.66 189.68 0.28 SF1IF1tw�aQ d796 iws"'%vz 1273.00 585.60 592.19 588.70 592.53 0.002462 4.71 270.18 203.30 0.32 iSF14iFkwood`' 4785 �v 1590.00 585.60 592.84 589.19 593.28 0.002810 5.36 296.74 220.12 0.35 €SEI£ifkvuooSf 4?B6m:::; v 1911.00 585.60 593.11 589.66 593.71 0.003585 6.20 307.99 231.70 0.40 c51= :i 2237.00 585.60 593.26 590.11 594.05 0.004594 7.12 314.24 239.99 0.45 �T;m SF1i4i0* 495r} Culvert Kirlcnuood 5113Q; 429.00 586.52 590.87 588.02 590.96 0.001116 2.41 178.34 140.05 0.20 4irkwocxi, 503Q.< 973.00 586.52 592.22 589.11 592.49 0.002328 4.161 233.84 202.881 0.31 KiFkwootl.` 5Q3Q 1273.00 586.52 593.01 589.62 593.37 0.002584 4.78 266.28 223.42 0.33 iSFKirkwood 503Q ' 1590.001 586,52 593,90 590.11 594.33 0.002638 5.26 302.42 262.50 0.34 SF10Fkwood:'' S03Q., 1911 001 586.52 594,56 590.581 595.081 0,002861 5.80 329.57 288.12 0.36 ESFKirkwood 503Q 2237.00 586.52 595.21 591.03I 595.82 0.003020 6,28 356.39 31342 0.38 No HEC-RAS Plan: pg-wd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) Feach River Stilt C!T? . .59066 59012 586.70 1 73.00 586.70 592.46 1273.00 Qoa.lu 0�1,5-jb OV2.2u 61 4.80 80.15 0.53 -- 593.72 0,0089 265.42 1 IS Mr 1590.00 586.70 594.36 592.55 594.63 0.005437 4.23 389.14 282.57 0.40 M., St 1 191 .00 586.70 595.13 592.88 595.38 0.004152 ....... 4.07 503.41 316.36 0.35 2237.00 586.70 595.89 59321 596.11 0.003265 3.94 630.43 346.89 0.31 ............ M.4 429.00 590.50 594.18 1 594.411 0.009235 ............ , 3.88 110..67 60.20 0.50 L 973.00 590.50 595.24 595.68 0.011428 5.3 P 1 1 184.22 80.08 0.59 ....................... r 1273.00 590.50 595.61 596.17 0.012246 6.02 215.80 89.68 0.63 ISE 1590.00 590.50 595.93 596.62 0.01335-8 6.74 245.30 97.81 0.66 1911.00 59050 596.32 597.09 0.012856 7.14 285.46 107.89 0.66 2237.00 590.50 596.76 597.57 0.011579 7.33 336.33 122.73 0.64 .............. 429.00 591.82 595.68 595.861 0.005066 3.65 149.53 93.37 -- 0.40 SF ........... 973.00 591.82 597.00 597.28 F 0.005091 4.80 300.38 156.94 0.42 1273.00 591.82 597.52 597.821 0.005090 5.20 390.17 -192.52- 0.43 ..31 00 1590.00 591.82 597.99 598 04897 5.46 489.40 225.39-0.43 1911.00 591.82 598.40 598.72 0.004741 5.66 585.79 250.43 0.43 00 591.82 598.77 599.09 0.004525 5.78 683.07 -0.43 268.47 00 592.50 597.67 597.91 0.007069 4.08 -124.58 83.31 0.45 592.50 598.95 599.29 0.006727 5.23 264.37 141.38 0.47 tSfitinaoa 00 592.50 599.46 599.83 0.006692 5.66 347.45 186.39 0.48 .................... ............... ............................... 59f1tl. 1590.00 592.50 599.87 600.28 0.006687 6.02 433.341 223.59- 0.49 592.50 600.23 600.64 0.006584 6.27 517.02 246.35 0.49 mr 00 592.50 600.54 600.96 0.006500 6.48 596.60 262.29 0.49 00 594.40 599.63 599.63 600.34 0.019001 7.15 81.47 78.60 0.73 00 594.40 600.70 601.48 0.018295 8.61 200.52 144.12 0.75 .00 594.40 601.17 601.88 0.016061 8.68 275.37 173.05 0.72 1590.00 594.40 601.56 602.23 0.014759 8.80 348.49 194.70 0.70 1911.00 594-40 601.88 602.54 0.014272 9.02 412.42 209.07 0.70 2237.00 594.40 474.03 22Z37 602.17 602.83 0.013964 9.25 0.69 tg! ...... ..... ............ X: .............. .......... ......... 429.00 596,48 601.59 601.71 0.003305 3.39 210.62 145.93 0.32 6.48 602.76 602.92 0.003593 4.31 433.64 236.77 0.36 973.00 59 SF MU 1273.00 596.48 603.14 603.31 0.003856 4.71 527.76 259.81 0.37 M: 1590.00 596.48 603.48 603.67 0.004069 5.06 619.98 280.55 0.39 603,79 603.99 0.004203 5.34 708.53 1911.00 296.93 596.48 0.40 2237.00 596.481 604.07 604.28 0.004291, 5.58 794.22 310.33,-0.41 m .......................- t ST 17.'O'KX 429.00 599.30 603.86 604.05 0.008181 4.88 171.49 189.71 0.52 M 973.00 599.30 604.79 604.93 0.005433 4.82 373.70 243.57 0.44 1273.0 0 599.30 605.16 605.31 0.004971 4.91 469.26 261.90 0.43 1590.00 599.30 605.51 605.66 0.004632 5.00 561.26 273.50 0.42 1911.00 599.30, 605.81 605.97 0.0044321 5.12 644.84 280.80 0.411 2237.00 599.30 606.09 606.26 0.004312 5.24 72172 287.53 0.41 429.00 599.78 604.10 601.25 604.19 0.000876 2.33 183.77 --- 210.21 0.20 :S 973.00 599.78 604.91 602.31 605.22 0.002555 4.47 217.86 249.41 0.35 1273.00 599.78 605.26 602.80 605.73 0.003492 5.46 233.08 266.77 0.41 1590.00 599.78, 605.57 603.28 606.221 0.004536 6.46 246.25 -275.14, 0.47 :s 1911.00 599.78 605.83 603.74 606.69 0.005658 7.43 257.33 281.461 0.53 .4 .00 599.78 606.06 1, ... .......::,� 2237 604.18 607.15 0.006854 8.38 267.03 286.99 0.59 ftomm-Culvert :77m 423.00 600.28 604.17 601.73 604.27 0.001216 2.56 165.16 213.12 0.23 3512 5.15 6W 0,411 1094.00 600.28 605.28 603-01 605.69 0.00 267.48 1375.00 600.28 605.82 603.46 606.35 0.003948 5.84 235.291 281.01 0.44 A 1675.00 600.28 606,37 603.91 607.02 0.004269 6.47 258.73 294.37 0.46 1907,00, 600.28 606.67 604.25 607.43 0.004712 7.02 271.52 310.30 049 2166001 600.28 607.31 604.59, 608.13 0.004416 7.25 298.83 347.13 048 423.001 600,00 604.11 6-0463 0.020817 7.541 99081 99.351 0,76 tF fad(%O*Wx:.,-,mg -.. 1094 00 600.00 605881 606.05 0.005473 5.141 388.84 198,501 0 42J HEC-RAS Plan: pg-wd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) .......... OD 1375.001 600.00 606.55 606.68 0.003751 4.65 529.39 224.32 0.35 ..... .... 1675.001 600.00 607.22 607.33 0.002751 4.31 689.72 253.07 0.31 00.00 607.65 607.75 0.002393 4.20 801.12 271.26 0.29 00.00 608.32 608.40 0.001754 3.84 993.49 302.04 0.25 is 602.30 608.03 608.27 0.004244 4.85 161.84 112.88 0.39 :SF) 1094.001 602.30 608.81 609.36 0.009913 8.20 260.75 139.89 0.61 1375.001 602.30 608.95 609.68 0.013087 9.58 280.82 143.78 0.71 ........... 1675.001 602.30 609.10 610.01 0.016119 10.82 303.03, 147.98 0.79 1907.00 602.30 609.28 610.26 0.017185 11.40 329.951 156.09- 0.82 2166.00 602.30 609.44 610.52 0.018820 12.14 356.15 167.12 0.86 423.00 602.70 608.65 08.6 606.46 609.04 0.004107 5.06 83.60 46.28 0.41 mom 109400 602.70 610.06 609.62 610.52 0.005296 6.35 308.22 184.34 0.47 sp, ... ................. 1375.00 602.70 610.59 609.94 610.98 0.004570 6.26 409.62 201.12 0.44 1675.00, 602.70 611.06 610.22 611.42 0.004113 6.24 511.66 227.81 0.43 1907.001 602.70 611.36 610.41 611.71 0.004025 6.35 581.90 251.96 0.42 j$R.i K, 2166.00 602.70 611.70 610.61 612.05 0.004027 6.56 672.85 260.65 0.43 ... ........I . ...... w5, . ..... Bridge 423.00 602.60 609.10 606.93 609.43, 0.004857 4.70 105.74 142.77 0.41 1094.00 602.60 610.78 609.92 611.03 0.003531 5.04 399.09 209.25 0.37 I I.... .......1 1375.00 602.60 611.17 610.20 611.42 0.003585 5.30 485.26 233.44 0.37 1675.00 602.60 611.58 610.48 611.84 0.003733 5.64 587.61 273.72 0.39 1907.00 602.60 611.85 610.68 612.11 0.003598 5.69 665.21 289.34 0.38 2166.00 602.601 612.19 610.84 612.43 0.003284 5.61 766.64 308.57 0.37 ISO .4 423.00 603.35 610.05 608.02 610.25 0.003213 3.92 147.41 93.58 0.34 ................. 1094.00 603.35 611.46 610.38 611.73 0.003894 5.28 349.99 190.86 0.40 1375.00 603.35 611.85 610.99 612.13 0.003871, 5.51 428.35 210.35, 0.40 1675.00 603.35 612.26 611.26 612.53 0.003669 5.61 518.29 230.70 0.40 1907.00 603.35 612.51 611.45 612.79 0.003652 5.75 578.78 243.43 0.40 2166.00 603.35 612.81 611.58 613.08 0.003534 5.82 652.02 258.01 0.39 W. Bridge SF I ........... 17.- 423.00 603.35 610.57 608.02 610.68 0.001692 109 202.10 122.84 0.25 :SF: • 1094.00 603.35 611.51 610.38 611.77 0.003678 5.16 358.92 193.18 0.39 ...... ...... 1375.00 603.35 612.13 610.99 612.34 0.002823 4.86 490.03 224.50 0.35 1675.00 603.35 612.50 611.26 612.72 0.002845 5.07 576.45 242.96 0.35 .............. ............................... 1907.00 603.35 612.75 611.45 612.97, 0.002894 5.24 637.40 255.17 0.36 :SRWI 2166.00.............. 603.35 613.02 611.64 613.25 0.002878 5.37, 709.43 268.88 0.3 .. ......... ............. 423.00 604.90 610.67 610.87 0.004159 4.27 150.53 118.54 0.38 F, ...... 1094.00 604.90 611.75 612.04 0.005553 5.82 310.85 165.14 0.46 1375.00 604.90 612.30 612.55 0.004350 5.54 407.24 181.54 0.42 SS- 1675.001 604.90 612.67 612.93 0.004296 5.74 475.25 192.27 0.42 `SF[4IfTsNR3nd: somm 1907.00 604.90 612.91 613.18 0.004324 5.92 522.77 199.43 0.42 166.00 604.90 613.46 0.004281 6.06 577.45 207.35 0.42 2 613.18 ..... . ....... .... 42100 WON 606.10 611.43 611.62 0.002694 3.80 164.60 114.97 0.32 094.00 606.10 612.76 5.31 373.13 193.66 0.39 w..%..................I. 613.04 0.003690 1375.00 606.10 613.17 �&W6&gg 613.46 0.003811 5.65 463.02 242.50, 0.40 SF ... 1675.00 606.10 613.53 613.82 0.003777 5.84 556.47 268.74 0.40 .SF. - 11................... 1907.00 606.10 613.78 614.07 0.003729 5.95 624.65 28�.63 0.40 : iwwdwiRm 2166.00 606.10 614.05 614.33 0.003656 6.04 700.04 293.21 0.401 .............. :Spm, 423.00. 606.10 611.43 611.391 612.56 0.024303 8.69. 53.40 1 25.77 0.88 SPKWwogffj 1094001 606.10 613.62 613.621 614.37 0.011560 8.50 227.151 145.01 0.66 0 OW-1 1375MI 606.10 613.91 613.91 614.71 0.012255 9.09 270.90 152.68 0.69 1675m 606.10 614.14 614.14 615.03 0.013478 9.81 307.48 158.80 0.73 1907001 606.1 Mao :::,%m 0 614.35 614.35 615.25 0.013675 10.11 340.13 164.07 0.74 ammmm 2166.00 60 1 16T69 0.78 6.10 614.49 614A9 615.49 0.015014 10.76 363.12 .... ..... :SF a 423 00 I 606.08 613.27 610.88 613.40 0.002039 3.201 200,601 130.56 0.26 :SF 19-., 826 ,x, 1094001 606.08 614,82 613.24 614.98 0.002338 468.801 200.53 0.29 : 1375 00 606.08 615.18 613.58 615.36 0.002596 4.511 542.87! 211.87 0.31 HEC-RAS Plan: pg-wd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) ........... m- ;,, ....... ::t WO M MMM M. -M&M.01 WOCEit N" 1675.00 606.08 615.54 613.97 615.74 0.0027581 4.81 621.92 223.33 0.32 1907.00 606.08 615.77 614.18 615.98 0.0029301 5.07 673.45 230.50 0.33 ........... 2166.00 606.08 616.06 614.39 616.27 0.0029741 5.24 740.67 239.52 0.34 .......... .......... Bridge 423.00 2.94 141.48 0.23 SF 606.08 613.45 610.88 613.55 0.0016441 225.19 109400 60608 61495 61324 61509 0002050[ 3.92 495.44 ......... . . . . . . 204.68 0.27 1375.00 606.08 615.32 613.58 615.48 0.0022711 4.28 573.37 216.36 0.29 ESF . .......... 1675.00 606.08 615.69 613.97 615.86 0.002421 4.57, 655.23 227.99 0.30 SFflswwo. ............. 1907.00 606.08 615.93 614.18 616.11 0.002569 4.81 709.66 235.40 0.31 2166.00 606.08 616.21, 614.39 616.41 0.002623 4.99 778.21 24442 0.32 ............... 608.93 614.06 612.37 614.69 0.014052 6.48 76.09 56.90 0.52 1094.00 608.93 615.70 615.39 616.18 0.011521 7.10 269.88, 153.29 0.4-9 _UB: 1375.00 608.93 616.13 615.70 616.58 0.010720 7.15 338.88 167.94 0.48 1675.00 608.93 616.53 615.96 tookom . - T 616.95 0.010086 20 408.97 181.62 0.47 1907.00 608.93 616.80 616.131 617.22 0.009818 7.28 459.04 190.79 0.4-6- 2166.00 608.93 617.09 616.31 617.50 0.009438 7.31 516.24 204.24 0.46 .... ........ ......... .. ....... Culvert 423.00 609.79. ........ 613.84 613.44 614.92 0.028411 8.39 55.11 39.75 0.75 ............ .............. 1094.00 609.79 .615.98 615.51 616.33 0.009469 6.42 303.24 162.77 0.46 1375.00 609.79 616.36 615.77 616.71 0.009326 6.63 367.25 175.67 0.46 BSfl 1675.00 609.79---- 616.70 615.98 617.06 0.009291 6.86, 430.09 187.47 0.47 1907.00 609.79 616.93 616.15 617.31 0.009402 7.05 473.86 195.28 0.47 2166.00 609.79 617.18 616.32 617.56 0.009362 7.21 524.49---- 210.08 0.47 423.00 609.43 615.58 615.70 0.001598 3.02 206.20 134.80 0.24 ................... ................. 1094.00 609.43 616.89 617.10 0.002710, 4.69 421.33 183.87 0.32 1375.00 609.43 617.28 1675.00 609.43 617.64 1907.00 609.43 617.89 SFtuavrf 7:01 2166.001 60 .... ...... 423.00 611.441 615.85 612.90 615.93 0.000983 2.28 185.70 61.17 0.19 0 611.44 617.31 61 1094.0 4.19 617.62 0.002529 4.42 247.32 67.90 0.32 ............... 1375.00 611.44 617.75 614.64 618.17 0.003140 5.17 265.84 69.93 0.36 1675.00........ ......... 611.44 618.16 615.09 618.70 0.003788 5.92 282.89 71.79 0.40 ..............- 1907.00 611.44 618.44 615.42 619.09 0.004290 6.47 294.58 76.87 0.43 2166.00 611.44 618.72, 615.77 619.50 0.004849 7.07, 306.50 87.58 0.46 Culvert ........ . ....... ........ ...... 382.00 611.60 615.91 612.96 615.98 0.000868 2.11 181.32 61.66 0.18 989.00 611.60. 617.53 614.17 617.77 0.002003 3.96 249.67 71.43 0.29 Si A..... . ...... 1207.00 611.60 618.06, 614.54 618.37 0.002243 4.44, 271.95 75.22 0.31 .... � ... ....... 1458.00 611.60 618.58 614.93 618.96 0.002527 4.96 293.89 79.00, 0.33 .. ................................... .00 611.60 618.95 615.23 619.40 0.002776 5.38 309.32 81.65 0.35 I'S 1879.00 611.60 619.61 615.54 619.86 0.001721 4.05 492.21 87.97 0.27 E..1 611.92 616.30 616.77 0.009887 5.58 73.84 32.80 0.55, 989.00 611.92 618.39 619.14 0.0092761 7.53 171.11 60.17 0.57 619.01 619.78 0.008516 7.76 211.21 68.33 0.56 2W 45800 611.92 619.65 620.42 0.007877 7.99 257.18 76.63 0.55 .L ' I .0................ 1664.00 611.92 620.11 620.89 0.007498 8.15 294.17 82.70 0.54 1879.00 611.92 620.20 621.15 0.009004 9.01 301.80 83.90 0.59 I, WOW 382.00 612.31 618.05 618.33 0.005492 4.701 111.17 55.66 0.41 989.00 612.31 620.20 620.57 0.004942 5.941 253.14 79.87 0.42 1207.00 612.31 620.75 621.15 0.004919 6.28 299.31 88.81 0.43 1458.00 612.31 621.31 621.73 0M4863 6.59 351.66 97.97 0.43 622.16 0=4811 8 2.31 621.73 6. 0 393.94 104.78 0.43 1664.00, 61 .............LLLL** -,== I - - 110.67 .44 WW4b6d, VTjU.:R, 1879.001 612.31 622.09 62Z55, 0.0048811 7.06 432.791 382.001 614.60 619,43 619.891 0.0134291 5.43, 70.291 29.10 0.62 989.001 614.60 621.36 622,161 0.0149511 7.181 137801 40.75 0.69 rl -I ib HEC-RAS Plan: pg-wd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) "each.. ... Rorer Sla -X-Xv: .11. ........ .......... Aria... ......... ......... ........... . ........ 1207.001 614.60 621.871 622.76 0.015182 7.59 159.09 43.79 010 614.60 622.371 181.92-46.82 0.72 623.37 0.015491 8.01 d.l...........'.. ............. 1664.001 614.60 622.741 623.82 0.015750 8.34 199.64 49.051 0.73 . ............ �rFrkwovd 623.08 624.25 0.016128 8.67 216.75 51.111 79.001 614.60 0.74 . ........ .s 382.001 616.03 620.35 617.41 620.43 0.000881 2.13 61.95 0.18 989.001 616.03 622.76 618.63 622.95 0.001353: 3.54 279.25 73.32 0.24 1207,001 616.03 623.37 618.99 623.62 0.0015051 3.96 304.81 76.23 .......... 0.26 isF 1458.00 616.03, 623.99 619.39 624.30 0.001676 4.41 330.52 79.16 0.28 1664.001 616.03 624.45 619.70, 624.80 0.001814 4.76 349.39 81.31 0.29 1879.0 F ............ 01 616.03 624.88 620.01 625.29 0.001958 5.11 367.35 83.36 0.30 .. .......... Culvert iSFOm 620.41 617.54 620.45 0.000629 m 616.42 1.70 165.50 59.60 0.15 j 44. ......... 282.001 .SFM.-'.'......i 1 1% 658.001 616.42 622.92 618.40 623.01 0.000673 2.44 269.63 lly- 74.76 0.17 821.001 616.42 623.57 618.71 623.69 0.000761 2.77 296.76 78.71..... 0.18 1020.00 624.23 619.07 74 3.15 324.25 82.71 616.42 624.39 0.0008 0.20 .................... ............... ............. 1189.001 616.42 624.74 619.35 624.92 0.000964 3.44 no 345.28 85.77 0.21 ESFtkwrs. ......... 1361.001 616.42 625.23 619.63 625.45 0.001042 3.72 365.78 . ............. 88.83, 0.22 282.00 618.25 621.51 621.51 622.52 0.028747 8.31 38.51 22.30 0.89 ispmd' 658.00 618.25 623.14 623.14 624.4 10.12 85.83- 35.83 0.86 4 0.022658 821.00 618.25........... 623.63 623.63 625.03 0.022024 10.73, 104.40 39.90 0.86 1020.001 624.17 624.04. 625.58 618.25 0.020473 11.11 140.36 96. 71 0.85 .............. 1189.001 618.25 625.06 625.89 0.011499 9.22 232.29 1079-7 0.65 618.25 625.71 626.30 0.007849 8.15 305.44 114.30 0.55 1361.001 ISE OU"i'MAOMM 282.001 621.14 625.29 625.41 0.004538 2.80 100.60 42.67 0.32 ESFflo [WO#m 658.001 621.14 626.93, 627.13 0.004482 3.661 183.92 59.44 0.35 621.1 .4 627.70 0.004449 3.91 217.18 65.08 0.35 1020.001 621.14 627.98 628.25 0.004620 4.24 251.99 70.50, 0.36 1189.00 621.14 628.02 628.38 0.006070 4.89 255.19 70.98 0.42 ...........- 1361.00 621.14 628.14 628.58 0.007284 5.43 263.38 73.74 0.46 X.0 ................ MR', .00 622.76, 625.88 623.88 625.95 0.001403 2.15 131.16 54.89 0.21 SF�f1r&xuf . ..... 658.00 622.76 627.59 624.72,.............. ............. 627.75 0.001777 3.24 203.13 59.80 0.26 625.03 628.33 0.001939 3.63 226.00 61.37 821.001 622.76 628.13 ........................... - 0.28 1020.001 622.76 628.67 625.39 628.93 0.002173 4.10 248.77 63.72 0.30 i .�.. .......... . ........ 1189.001 622.76 628.91 625.67 629.24 0.002586 4.59 258.88 74.03 0.33 1361.00 622.76 629.19 625.94 629.58 0.002929 5.03 270.45 85.84 0.35 Culvert pp 255.00 622.78 625.93 623.82 625.99 0.001110 1.93 131.91 53.53 0.19 ......... 626.00, 622.78 627.70 624.68 627.84 0.001514 3.04 205.97 59.44, 0.24 622 781.001 .78 628.27 624.98 628.45 0. 61.36 0.26 ----- - 001634 3.40 229.91 SOW" 954.007 622.78 628.93 625.30 629.15 0.001664 3.70 257.82 77.08 0.26 622.78 1111.001 629.16 625.57 629.43 0.001995 4.15 267.51 83.50 0.29 1268.001 622.78 62956 625.82 629.87 0.002131 4.47 283.91-- 99.21 0.30 255.001 623.80 626.661 626.66 627.36 0.036583 7.06- 40.06 29.10 0.97 626.00 623.80 627.85 627.85 628.89 0.033856 8.77 79.68 37.78 0.99 781.001 623.80 628.53 629.42 0.023662 8.15 107.09 42.76 0.85 623.80 629.26 630.03 0.017047 7.60 140.27 48.11 0.74 954.001 ........... 1111.00 623.80 629.59 630.43 0.017209 7.93 156.54 50.53 0.75 1268.00 630.03 630.86 0.015442 7.88 179.85 53.80 0.72 623.80 .-SF 255.001 627.84 631.20 0.010671 4.50 59.72 32.81 0.55 631.51 626.001 627.84 632.65 633.15 &011604 5.85 117.76 47.32 0.60 781.001 627.84 632.91 633.55 0.014065 6.65 130.34 50.62 0.67 954.001 627.84 633.13 633.941 0.017095 7.53 141.77 53.61 0.74 1111.001 627.84 633.47 634.341 0.016972. 7.79 161.17, 58.34 0.75 21 6 7'179 47 279 25 6 6, gi� Ir 8.18 176.39 1268LOO 627L84 633.73 63j�0.0177551 61.81 0.77 Im 255.001 629.72 633.61 633.981 0.011349 5.10 57.85 29.69 0.57 SF I4#lkwoat3€ 04 626.00 629.72 635.22 635.771 OL01 2095 649 115.65 42.45 0,62 _781,001 629.72.. 635.76 636.35 0.0116131 6.74 140.051 46.80, 0.62j Ir LHEC-RAS Plan: pg-wd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) F ea River 5ta f�Tatat n E[ . t±!/S Etetr:: CrttltY 3 EG Elea E C3.Slope . .Uel�hn4 ;FiarrAi>xa Top: ulk€MI de.:A, k� cfs ....... ... -sm. M, 954.001 629.721 636.32 636.93 0.011032 6.92 168.09 70.18 0.61 1111.001 629.721 636.69 637.30 0.010935 7.12 210.89 160.98 0.61 1268.001 629721 63712 V�ii . . 637.81 0.011665 7.70 302.27 269.67 0.64 €SF£atkwaad k1583 255.00 630.581 635.52 635.52 635.58 0.001532 2.59 145.33 53.76 0.22 626.00 630.581 636.76 635.52 636.93 0.003692 4.78 264.78 133.88 0.36 -41583 781.00 630.58 637.28 635.52 637.43 0.003258 4.78 340.47 157.61 0.35 954.00 630.58 637.79 635.52. 637.94 0.002854 4.73 428.23 181.28 0.33 1111.001 630.58 638.14 636.241 638.29 0.002770 4.83 494.22 198.24 0.33 1268.001 630.58 638.66 636.48 638.78 0.002262 4.58. 602.50 224.18 0.30 Culvert 255.00 630.58 636.99 635.52 637.02 0.000472 1.76 297.60 144.65 0.13 626.00 630.58 637.85 635.52, 637.90 0.001168 3.04 437.55 183.62 0.21 781.00 630.58 638.04 635.52 638.11 0.001511 3.53 473.70 192.93 0.24 954.00 630.58 638.27 635.52 638.37 0.001812 3.95 520.25 204.77 0.27, 1111.00. 630.58 638.46 636.24 638.57 0.002068 4.30 559.79 214.32 0.28 1268.001 630.58 638.73 636.48 638.84 0.002119 4.46 619.22 227.92 0.29 ................ . ............. .... . 255.00 631.66 637.13 637.19 0.001448 2.11 120.81 39.40 0.21 626.00 631.66 638.18 638.39 0.004031 3.73 167L92:5 56.26 0.36 43 781.00 631.66 638.45 638.74 0.004892 4.29 186.30 76.08 0.40, .......... 954.00 631.661 638.76 639.11 0.005577 4.77 212.19 91.79 0.43 1111.00 631.66 639.01 639.41 0.006103 5.15 236.09 101.90 0.46 AIM. 1268.00 631.66 639.28 639.72 0....... .... ..... .006279 5.41 265.86 113.23 0.47 MI NO M;loom I.W$�motm Bridge 255.00 631.66 637.23 634.32 637.30 0.001321 2.04 125.01 40.07 0.20 626.00 631.66 638.56 635.73 638.73 0.002865 194.65 83.56 0.31 M 3.33 MOM 99.27 0.33 781.00 631.66 638.94 636.16 639.15 0.003188 3.69 229.64 ........ 954.00 631.66 639.68 636.59 639.87 0.002558 3.61 313.80 129.42 0.30 1111.00 5 636.93 640.00 0.003264 4.11 631.66 639.7 323.57, 132.47 0.34 1268.00 631.66 639.63 637.25 640.13 0.003998 4.58 333.70 135.57 0.38 .00i 632.73 626.001 632.73 638.95 639.01 0.000951 2.02 352.38 131.70 0.18 781.00 632.73, 639.38 639.45 0.000985 2.20, 410.36 139.14 0.19 954.00 632.731 640.05 640.11 0.000837 2.24 507.00 150.72 0.18 1111.00 632.73 64021 640.30 0.000995 2.50 532.68 153.65 0.20 1268.00 632.73 640.39, 640.49 0.001139 2.73 559.24 156.62 0.21 MON. 255.00 633.40 637.67 637.78 0.003682 3.25 120.28 84.82 0.33 626.00 633.401 639.18 639.30 0.002775 3.71 282.86 126.30 0.31 781.00 633.401 639.61 639.74 0.002674 3.88 339.53 135.06 0.31 954.00 633.401 640.24 640.36 0.002156 3.77 428.55 147.77 0.28 1111.00 633.40 640.45 640.58 0.002434 4.11 459.18 151.90 0.30 S 1268.00, 633.40 640.65 640.80 0.002661, 4.39 490.48 156.00 0.32 U., 255.00 635.02 638.34 638.34 638.83 0.022303 6.19 58.45 73.88 0.77 F 23 639.86 0.010552 5.85 184.96 131.02 0.58, 626.00 635.02 639.55 781.00 635.021 639.96 640.23 0.008332 5.64 242.93 147.03 0.52 954.00 635.02 640.52 640.72 0.005652 5.11 330.55 166.57 0.44 1111.00 635.02 640.761 640.97 0.005627 5.29 370.79 172.36 0.44 .00 Is ........ 1268.00 635.02 640.99 641.21 0.005552 5.43 410.84 177.94 0.44 SF I4iikwoad............ 255.001 637.25 640.39 640.50 0.005624 3.11 101.60 57.41 0.39 626.001 637.25 641.25 641.53 0.010304 4.87 154.42 65.75 0.55 !SFI-.kW"&'.*-4' T: ......................... . ........ SIFIG 781.00 637.25 641.49 641.84 0.012098 5.46 170.58 68.09 0.60 .......... T 4 954.00 637.25 641.71, 642.15 0.014260 6.11 185.42 70.18 0.66 act 42Q8& 1111.00 637.25 641.94 642.44 0.015259 6.51. 201.68 72.39 0.69 1268M 637.25 642.14 642.71 0.016204 6.89 216.86 74.40 0.71 639 28 643723 63856 -.0 S4ttkvicodM, 1284 1 25500 637.85 641.41 641.64 0.009390 3.80 67.02 37.41 0.50 62600 4 637.85 642.71 643.09 0.009597 4.99 133.65 65.40 0.54 sFW 1� 781.00 1 637.851 643071 643.50 0.009421 5.38 159.011 76.28 0.55 . 954,001 637851 643431 1 643.911 0.0092311 5.74 188.11 8715, 0.55 HEC-RAS Plan: pg-wd River: S Fork Kirkwood Reach: SF Kirkwood (Continued) fiteaeh . ...5#a....... ... . ................. 1111.00 637.85 643.71 644.23 0.009172 6.04 213.90 95.76 0.56 1268.00 637.85 643.98 644.53 0.009058 6.29 240.48 104.39 0.56 ........................ 255.00 638.68 641.88 640.52 642.191 0.005666 4.42, 57.69 41.47 0.441 mo 626.00 638.681 643.25 642.02 644.15 0.010477 7.611 82.221 75.36 0.63 m S. 781.00 638.681 643.59 642.55 644.80 0.012814 8.84 88.39 81.15 0.70 95400 638.68 643.91 643.10 645.50 0.015545 10.14 94.06 86.48 0.78 1111-00 638.68 644.14 643.58 646.12 0.018242 11.31 98.23 90.40 0.85 1268.00 63868 64433 64403 64674- 0.021136 12.46 101.74.............. cit . . . . . . ...... 93.70 0.92 ........... ........................... Culvert .............. 113.00 639.20 642.17 640.27 642.24 0.001435 2.11 53.45 21.22 0.22 191.00 639.20 644.13 640.71 644.20 0.000758 2.15 88.69 57.70- 0.17 217.00 639.20 644.80 640.85 644.87 0.000639 2.15 100.75 77.00 0.16 639.20 645.52 641.09 645.60 0.000642 2.34 113.72 97.76 0.16 336.00 639.20 646.17 641.41 646.28 0.000737 2.68 125.50, 122.06 0.18 407.00 639.20 641.70 646.98 0.000797 - 2.96 137.571 151.97 0.19 113.00 639.66 642.47 642.53 0.001836 1.97 57.32 28.84 0.25 129. ........ 191.00 639.66 644.29 644.33 0.000693 1.59 119.94 39.79 0.16 217.00 639.66 644.94 644.97 0.000503 1.47 149.95 70.38 0.14 266.00 639.66 645.66 645.69 0.000371 1.44 210.61 98.27 0.12 336.00 639.66 646.34 646.37 0.000317 1.477- 286.61 125.22 0.12 47.04 647.06 1.45 382.87 152.99 0.11 407.00 639.66 6 0.000257 113.00 641.04 642.86 643.06 0.009484 3.54 31.90 22.96 0.53 191.00 644.41 0.002527 2.56 74.70 32.27 0.30 ........... 641.04 644.52 217.00 641.04 645.02 645.10 0.001666 2.27 95.48 35.93 0.25 266.00 641.04 645.72, 645.79 0.001272 2.18 122.25 46.29 0.22 336.00 641.04 646.38 646.46 0.001028 2.21 168.94 98.55 0.20 407.00 641.04 647.07 647.13 0.000732 2.09 253.58 146.17--- 0.18 ................. .................... 113.00, 643.03 644.59 644.88 0.016849 4.33 26.07 21.39 0.69 321 191.001 6 34.54 23.65 0.81 43.03 644.97 645.44 0.021636 5.53, 217.00 643.03 645.35 645.73 0.014086 4.92 44.07, 25.96 0.67 SF 266.00 643.03 645.95 646.25 0.008721 4.39 60.62 29.55. 0.54 . .. ......... . .......... 336.00 643.03 646.55 646.83 0.0 79.45 33.16 0.48 ............. 06608 4.23 ................... 647.16 647.40 0.004502 3.93 117.45 94.07 0.411 407.00 643.03 113.00 644.20 646.30 646.44 0.005561 2.93, 38.54 24.64 0.41 MOM 191.00 644.20 646.97 647.15 0,005526 3.391 56.26 28.64 0.43 217.00 644.20 647.07 647.28 0.006137 3.66 59.33 29.57 0.45 266.00 644.20 647.30 647.55 0.006641 4.02 66.48 32.35, 0.48 336.00 644.20 647.67 647.96 0.006538 4.33 8.68 33.46 0.48 407.00 644.20 648.02, 648.34 0.006444 4.58 90.33 34.50 0.49 113.00 644.73 646.91 647.03 0.004889 2.80, 40.34 25.06 0.39 191.00 644.73 647.58 647.74 0.004973 3.27 58.43 29.08 0.41 647.74 647.92 0.005152 3.43 63.27 30.06 0.42 217.00 644.73 6 sm 648.24 0.005391 3.69 1, 266.00 644.73 648.03 72.15 31.78 0-43 336.00 644.73 648.39 648.64 0.005376 3.98 86.03 44.33 0.44 407.00 644.73 48.73 649.00 0.005155 4.20 102.28 53.60 0.44 ........... 6 .......... 645.27 647.46 647.59 0.005080 2.90 39.00 23.56 0.40 113.00 M.W.% ...... 191.00 645.27 648.14 648.32 0.005213 3.40 56.21 2714 0.42 217.00 645.27 648.32 648.52 0.005315 3.55 61.20 28.09 0.42 17. 266.00 645.27 648.63 648.86 0.005469 3.79 70.17 29.73 0.43 isp.M. 336.00 645.27 649.01 RMA�. 649.27 0.005640 4.12 82.30 46.16 0.45 SR 4irkwoaff . .........L, 407.00 645.27 649.32 649.62 0.005546 4.40, 98.39 56.75 0.45 trkwonsf i:4 f.0 113.00 646.99 648.49 648.75 U16036 4.101 27.55 23.79 0.67 191.00 646.99 649.10 649.40 0,012701 4.401 43.37 28.17 0.63 644 1 3 644 80 645 52 646 1 7 E646 841 217,00 646.99 649.27 649.58 0.012063 4.481 48.41 29.43 0.62 266,00 646.991 649.57 649,90, 0.011177 4.621 57.60 31.61 0.60 SF#4tritwoacf I 13747 336.001 64699F 64993 6-0 )o 0.010222 ............ 407001 646.99 1 850 0591 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1` 1 L O U') coItCO Lc) co O O CM M lq� V: V: t m V) co 1l- co O N L LO N N 1- It N O V: (OV: qq: MN L O O M CO 00 N O rnCncoststco Li N M 4 ui 6 6 g. L O co co co N Coco O et N CO � e- 0 _ cV co r9 4 wi W; M L O N O O O N v L N O N e- (O � N C Mcli N d O N M I- Ln M O O CO CM cO r Lq CA N N M M M C) w LO w M M N c0 c0 N 00 2 E O N CM LO 1- 00 0 r C J cB J r � LL m M O Il d Z O_ UA cp I-- coCO Q 0 0 0 6 0 0 E t' W C N O F— m d > N to O N L cc Q W c H fir UO O O O O O O O O U O O O O O O O O O h N O O � '� ovcoMvoMMM � 'Z corncoornoi. rn � o O MI� COMN �f NNM o � rrrNrNrrN C 0 LO 0 1- LC) 1l- CD It r o C 0 LO 0 1� LA 1- O T lCi M0v0wr- I,, 'ITN � N eMLOI;r0 01,- hvN C c A R OR 0LnInCO (O0 (000C0 N (ONOCOOqCO � c CO O O CO -T CO 'T -T (0 o c M M M Cl) Icr m CO LO L � c d (O 000NC0000 C G1 C0 � 000NC00C0 E mrn NLl7N CA � C7rN0 R O NLf) N6 C-i 6 OCOrh0CoC0000 mfn m0 1-- 0co0000 r r r r r r L 0 -0 ONO V' MrrCO � L O 0NovMrrO � co m '� r N N r r N r r .r 'E r N N r r N r r o C d 000000000 C 000000000 t— JU J V 0 z 0 U 0 Cy ohLO0O CV) CM CV) CO Cam' o1I- LO00cMCMCMCO mW c'r ONC01� C0vtOvv mZ c'� ONC0hc0vaoCv � a my � � 0000000 wo co a) � � 0000000 W O J W — J J H W IJJ W 0 � W 90 � U W LO 0) Ln LO r O LO 1I- Q d m � N N M r � � O N O r a Z � ` N N M r � � O N O r z g Q 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 N m Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a � ax m � mw c c O O WC rNMtf LC) odco0 - W d o rNM 'gU,) 06 o J Q •y c0 J a y t0 m d m o o r. aw a W hN....Witt G . W.NNNNN.. a N N N N N N N N N N Oy�q N N N N N N N N N J N 000000000 J(% 000000000 a mmmmmmmmm a mmmmmmmmm A o0000000o A 000000o0o �v RQR4444R4 go I?44440000 vt nnnnnnnnn 9$ nnnnnnnnn c y N N N N N N N N N H 9 N N N N N N N N N {,:, '�� o0000000o m3 000000000 Y Y U U f?nODn �fD p n W n Nf0 J J ?t N h pQ J O �cmO O O O O O O J O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C C C 0 0 0 0 :j rA 0 0000 0 0 0 0 No .JN N O O W W 0 W WNn-ov D ai m C ad 0^^C 1,61 � pj 0 O w O^^C co, N ID Yr a OE �N�v°Di�VS�c°�i @y aE N9c-8%p�!S$A9i mot cV (iN0g(7 OS m(/1 W mvma mog Oim�In�04D�., O X Nc XO 822SWpmm0 CN m Nm Oap 0.4 A 1A a a r > > e c Epye pWpWnQp�ppp aD n m�ae (D owr.. COo�n > �NNtD� �m >h 1D�Nm m fO mm HW yW� AaXmpXmOD llt-ON9mm � 2D d> m aaD C�Omn�mntOnDm hm m O W N� W p OI`JE 0C4R VAN V� O V RN V cm OGGOOOOOC emE oc0000000 �U JU h 8nino$mmmao Hbi- 1�1" m�III�a�oa z (ce tvmn amaa W c E so H J 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 m J -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z U = v 00 c r a ON ma pQci nN pfh NN W mm N . CnVDmpp!Mpp O N Z Xr 00000000o O 66666666 N Oo50 I UW r Uo r U0 ttpp UU fQU O—o v S(O�O wZ rf aL 000000000 rr ac° 000000000 yr r 5 r 5m ■r g S a w1 W OIN —NmONe6�0 W� �J OIN NmO1A tlaD 0)� m Q— (O m Q y b g rr. No prz t -Owl, TABLE D-6. COMPOSITE LAG TIME DETERMINATION ULTIMATE DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Area ho Designation Tp(clay) Tp(sand) %, % Tp(composite) sm hour hour Sand Clay hour 1 0.19 0.36 36 64 0.25 2 0.11 0.21 55 45 0.17 3 0.10 0.18 46 54 0.14 4 0.14 0.26 67 33 0.22 5 0.11 0.20 85 15 0.19 6&7 0.08 0.15 77 23 0.14 8 0.16 0.31 70 30 0.27 9 0.11 0.20 44 56 0.15 kwa 10 0.10 0.18 21 79 0.11 TABLE D-7. COMPOSITE LAG TIME DETERMINATION EXISTING CONDITIONS .-� Area Designation Tp(clay) Tp(sand) % % Tp(composite) sm hour hour Sand Clay hour 1 0.23 0.43 36 64 0.30 2 0.16 0.30 55 45 0.24 3 0.14 0.27 46 54 0.20 to 4 0.16 0.30 67 33 0.25 5 0.11 0.22 85 15 0.20 Or 6&7 0.10 0.19 77 23 0.17 8 0.18 0.33 70 30 0.29 9 0.11 0.22 44 56 0.16 10 0.10 0.19 21 79 0.12 w wn a� A TABLE D-8. Block and Uniform Soil Losses by Subbasin Sub Basin 1 %Sand= 36 %Clay= 64 Composite Losses Clay Losses Sand Losses Initial Hourly Initial Hourly Initial Hourly 2-Year 1.72 0.22 1.50 0.20 2.10 0.26 5-Year 1.48 0.18 1.30 0.16 1.80 0.21 10-Year 1.26 0.15 1.12 0.14 1.50 0.18 25-Year 1.08 0.13 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.15 50-Year 0.93 0.11 0.84 0.10 1.10 0.13 100-Year 0.80 0.08 0.75 0.07 0.90 0.10 2 %Sand= 55 %Clay= 45 Composite Losses Clay Losses Sand Losses Initial Hourly Initial Hourly Initial Hourly 2-Year 1.83 0.23 1.50 0.20 2.10 0.26 5-Year 1.58 0.19 1.30 0.16 1.80 0.21 10-Year 1.33 0.16 1.12 0.14 1.50 0.18 25-Year 1.14 0.14 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.15 50-Year 0.98 0.12 0.84 0.10 1.10 0.13 100•Year 0.83 0.09 0.75 0.07 0.90 0.10 3 %Sand= 46 %Clay= 54 Composite Losses Clay Losses Sand Losses Initial Hourly Initial Hourly Initial Hourly 2-Year 1.78 0.23 1.50 0.20 2.10 0.26 5-Year 1.53 0.18 1.30 0.16 1.80 0.21 10-Year 1.29 0.16 1.12 0.14 1.50 0.18 25-Year 1.11 0.13 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.15 50-Year 0.96 0.11 0.84 0.10 1.10 0.13 100-Year 0.82 0.08 0.75 0.07 0.90 0.10 4 %Sand= 67 %Clay= 33 Composite Losses Clay Losses Sand Losses Initial Hourly Initial Hourly Initial Hourly 2-Year 1.90 0.24 1.50 0.20 2.10 0.26 5-Year 1.64 0.19 1.30 0.16 1.80 0.21 10-Year 1.37 0.17 1.12 0.14 1.50 0.18 25-Year 1.18 0.14 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.15 50-Year 1.01 0.12 0.84 0.10 1.10 0.13 100-Year 0.85 0.09 0.75 0.07 0.90 0.10 5 %Sand= 85 %Clay= 15 Composite Losses Clay Losses Sand Losses Initial Hourly Initial Hourly Initial Hourly 2-Year 2.01 0.25 1.50 0.20 2.10 0.26 5-Year 1.73 0.20 1.30 0.16 1.80 0.21 10-Year 1.44 0.17 1.12 0.14 1.50 0.18 25•Year 1.25 0.15 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.15 50-Year 1.06 0.13 0.84 0.10 1.10 0.13 f` 100-Year 0.88 0.10 0.75 0.07 0.90 0.10 #*f"*60", i�r TABLE D-8. Block and Uniform Soil Losses by Subbasin Arr Sub Basin 6&7 %Sand= 77 %Clay= 23 Composite Losses Clay Losses Sand Losses I is Initial Hourly Initial Hourly Initial Hourly 2-Year 1.96 0.25 1.50 0.20 2.10 0.26 5-Year 1.69 0.20 1.30 0.16 1.80 0.21 10-Year 1.41 0.17 1.12 0.14 1.50 0.18 25-Year 1.22 0.14 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.15 50-Year 1.04 0.12 0.84 0.10 1.10 0.13 100-Year 0.87 0.09 0.75 0.07 0.90 0.10 8 %Sand= 70 %Clay= 30 Composite Losses Clay Losses Sand Losses Initial Hourly Initial Hourly Initial Hourly 2-Year 1.92 0.24 1.50 0.20 2.10 0.26 5-Year 1.65 0.20 1.30 0.16 1.80 0.21 OW 10-Year 1.39 0.17 1.12 0.14 1.50 0.18 25-Year 1.20 0.14 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.15 50-Year 1.02 0.12 0.84 0.10 1.10 0.13 100-Year 0.86 0.09 0.75 0.07 0.90 0.10 9 %Sand= 44 %Clay= 56 Composite Losses Clay Losses Sand Losses Initial Hourly Initial Hourly Initial Hourly 2-Year 1.76 0.23 1.50 0.20 2.10 0.26 5-Year 1.52 0.18 1.30 0.16 1.80 0.21 10-Year 1.29 0.16 1.12 0.14 1.50 0.18 25-Year 1.10 0.13 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.15 50-Year 0.95 0.11 0.84 0.10 1.10 0.13 100-Year 0.82 0.08 0.75 0.07 0.90 0.10 10 %Sand= 21 %Clay= 79 Composite Losses Clay Losses Sand Losses Initial Hourly Initial Hourly Initial Hourly 2-Year 1.63 0.21 1.50 0.20 2.10 0.26 5-Year 1.41 0.17 1.30 0.16 1.80 0.21 10-Year 1.20 0.15 1.12 0.14 1.50 0.18 25-Year 1.02 0.13 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.15 50-Year 0.89 0.11 0.84 0.10 1.10 0.13 100-Year 0.78 0.08 0.75 0.07 0.90 0.10 I iir so City of Southlake, Texas (W STAFF REPORT July 30, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-036 PROJECT: Ordinance No. 480-316/First Reading/ Rezoning and Site Plan - Proposed Office Building-Miron Addition STAFF CONTACT: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator, 481-5581, ext. 743 Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Zoning Change on property legally described as Lot 3R3, Block 1, Miron Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake,Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 3901,Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 0.96134 acres. A Site Plan for a proposed office building will be considered with this request. PURPOSE: Zoning/Site Plan approval required for development. LOCATION: On the east side of Miron Drive approximately 700' south of East Southlake Boulevard(F.M. 1709). OWNER: Government Capital Corporation APPLICANT: Dwayne Young & Company CURRENT ZONING: "B-1" Business Service Park District REQUESTED ZONING: "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District with"0-1" Office District uses LAND USE CATEGORY: Office Commercial NO.NOTICES SENT: Twelve (12) RESPONSES: Four (4) responses were received from within the 200' notification area: • Pat Morgan, 210 Westwood Drive, Southlake, TX, undecided, "The most troublesome aspects of this change is the removal of 200 trees— some of which are over 50 ft. in height." (Received May 25, 1999.) A second response was received from Mrs. Morgan on June 1, 1999, opposed,"#1 the removal of some 200 trees from lot. 2. The building 1r itself is a 2 story structure, placed to the back of our homes, even SA r' City of Southlake, Texas only the ground level is to used. 2 story building should be placed closer to Miron St. —not our backyards." (Received June 1, 1999.) • Scott Stalets, 1316 Westmont Circle, Southlake, TX, opposed, "What is `S-P-1?' Very Vague." (Received June 1, 1999.) • Richard Edington, General Partner, Santa Fe Properties, 365 Miron Drive, Suite A, Southlake, TX , undecided, "I have reviewed the site plan and floor plan for the proposed building. They show a garage, kitchen, and a bath w/ shower. I am concerned about possible use as a living quarters with this layout which would not be compatible with existing zoning." (Received June 1, 1999.) • Jerry Adcock, 204 Westwood Drive, Southlake, TX, opposed, "The footprint of the building is extremely large and when you add in the driveway and parking spaces virtually the entire lot is covered by concrete or building. I see no way for any trees to remain. Additionally, the developer had promised a very attractive fence and instead we get the ugly side of an unattractive fence." (Received June 1, 1999.) On July 30, 1999, a second response was received from Mr. Adcock, in favor. See attached letter. One (1) response was received from outside the 200' notification area: • Dennis E. Minder, President Woodland Heights Homeowners Association, 223 Eastwood Drive, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received June 3, 1999.) P&Z ACTION: June 3, 1999; Approved(7-0)to table to the July 22, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and placing it at the front of that agenda. July 22, 1999;Approved(6-0)subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated July 16, 1999, deleting Items #1 (required rear yard setback),#2 (building articulation),#3.a(parking requirements),#3.c (not requiring an all surface material but giving applicant leeway to study appropriate materials—possibly Haydite blocks—before going to City Council) and#4 (dumpster location); requiring the garage to be for personal auto use only (cars, small trucks, SUVs); requiring back porch to be made of wood as depicted; requiring an 8' fence with the pretty side (the side with no rails or posts) towards the homeowners; requiring applicant to save trees as shown on the new plan; maintaining the landscaping in perpetuity; restricting the deck 4 size to be no larger than what is depicted giving the applicant leeway to shift the actual layout of the deck but not increasing the size; SA-2 City of Southlake, Texas restricting the washing or repairing of vehicles in the driveway; giving the applicant leeway in placement of irrigation systems and requiring the applicant to only maintain plants they are putting in place keeping in mind preservation issues. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is the Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 4,dated July 30, 1999. Please note that the current opposition within the 200' notification area is approximately 19.24% which would not require a super-majority vote (6 of 7)to approve. NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMEIMWP-HLES\MEMO\99CASES\99-036ZS.DOC OK - L June 03, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Southlake Southlake, Tx 76092 Members of the Board, The homeowners of Woodland Heights are opposed to the granting of a change in zoning under case #ZA99-036. When this business park was brought before the homeowners it was supposed tof have been low profile one story buildings. Much to our disappointment a two story building was built. Using only the ground floor, was not something that had been agreed upon. The removal of so many trees in the park has caused serious aesthetic problems. Government Capital Corp. now owns the property and has made no effort to meet with spin#8 to discuss the new site plan. We also do not want garages or storage space for boats, cars, rv's or any other vehicle located on site. The proposed removal of so many oak trees, especially to the rear building line would affect the neighbors on Westwood Dr., and the drive up appeal of the neighborhood. Having a single story building with an unusable upstairs with windows facing the McNutts,Morgans and the Adcocks would be detrimental to the value of their homes. Clear cutting the lot is not the answer and more work needs to be done on this project to allow more of a buffer yard between B-1 and Single Family Residential. Dennis E. Minder Pres. Woodland Heights Homeowners Assoc. ffA J U N 031999 FROM J AOCOCK 817 4816339 87-38-99 01:03PM TO 4889370 PA FAX MESSAGE TO: City Council, City of Southlake (817) 488-9370 From: Mr. Jerry W. Adcock Subject: Site Plan#ZA 99-0:36 Miron Addition At the first P &Z meeting(June 99)regarding the above named Site Plan, 1 submitted a written objection to the plan based upon the number and location of large trees which were being removed primarily for the parking lot. There were other objections and P& Z suggested that the builder and owners meet with the neighbors to work out an agreement. The interested neighbors met with the owners, walked the property, and agreed on many changes which would save the large trees on the north end of the property, which are the ones in my line of sight to the new water tower. This was my greatest concern. The agreed and marked the trees that I wanted saved. At the second P& Z meeting (July 99) the owners re-stated their agreement to save the trees that I wanted saved. I then verbally withdrew my objection to the plan. This memo confirms the withdrawal of my objection to the site plan. e . Adcock 204 Westwood Dr. Southlake, TX 76092 REC'D J U L 3 01999 ' n�e� WA: l MEND ,. .., Mu j ■ �► T.MAHA Its Us NMI ON mom -'sum ORN- �' ■ram ' III, ■ /�IIi1�111 ��l �t�yy ■; j 111111■1RNA off Mwla.�. IN ■ i��■ WA FfAlA 1 L..E.�..�� w, r ,. SURVEY 1, TR 2A 1" N 12.158 A-481 2.270 181 AC 46.018 m 76 12 1R 2A 6 5 .51 AC b 1 .522 AC 1.00 AC 1.03 AC 1A 25R1 0 2.07 @ 26 2 .607 @ U 2 lLJS 1.41 M.SCHELLING 1A 25R2 2.622 AC 4R 7 MIRON LLC _ 1.001 �+ O � � 4.823 @ IRO CC4 _ Q D.LIGHT "S—P-2" SANTA FE LL Cn PROPERTIES s 24 m. w M. J.ADCOCK 3R6 SCHELLING 1.5U @ a SANTA FE 3R 23 "B-1 $ PROPERTIES .9 @ D.MORGAN 3" 140 21 ,m is 11a +u 1A S. 176 ,M Q !L TENG STALETS IN 7P 1� 17 " 18 R 19 20 21 / E. DICKEY D 41. 22 21 WESTMONT CT "SF-2OB" 1a 41 71 117 117 117 117 1$ E. ROACHI 32 5 31 1 30 29 g 28 27 $ 26 ' AT 117 117 ,•1 1 133 ,a 117 1" ,u O 43 Z 37 38 39 40 41 v 42 44 9 120 1FOREST HILLS CT 17 tl a s 113 117 11 2 �1 o1 t 7 OD 3y C 1 n 50 = 49 = 48 47 46 45 p a 3� ' tl "�o, ADJACENT OWNERS 3 8 0 AND ZONING 66 67 s s>o p oil n-f &3�6 a CD na as". If 01 V. Ta H M.::: A h!. MY I pit Id a. w 0 z rs 0 bN C) TMV-————-——————— —- -------------- -----------------—— — 11 cr a. g L ja• NI C ; da W L 1 l -'h—In Q m11 it — w .60 E02 3.25.00.ON a: LI ZI v A �K fly oA -s ' xSnl��yjT I[Yn. n•�ti`r 71 P T2a wY.uc[ a"'E eSOM _ y M � 3 ,lit �1{:+;; }4+-' �I �� • ;1a 5� S s �ij j j.��' j �ji � +�, l�al "y'j ';L";j•j. .i J= rJi �I !,;� ,j ,t� } a" } t i!.} �j j�� X1 !Is j!J s r9 � 'd j+ajli =y� 1 js�! �li.� j}�� • !i` � 1 1a�� '� �tj,� j� rs'i� ,n' sf J{' i„l� !!'t j = i h1 ! �'t ► i 1+'� j d• >Vi c j_• �i j} a, � la} ,i sl,J i� � 1�s r,1 fj i}�■ !�i��! a� , , L , L i P 1' 14 1`jrl�}Ip a L! Ita;a�,Lj st ,}L� •, if�I!p�+�•�! , �,,YY��•� , } ! !rl! I��iT•`� �jl�`j� j!!+1 Ila.}I!j i'tl !� b�!'�f�L�} s� 1111�a ,�I; I aj'I 0 t !!„' 4 1 11 �t , �e as�i� h a X i'J r 1 �� • T M� 1 a} /.+ Ij li 1{IIr '1'} j �ttj'',,c4 Jt;'r; 1� � r �!� 1}61 $' i -j: y �� iji 1 fFJ` sAjJ�s+ yi'•+ Mi is�! N .�1�.j ►�' 11'jj �e i'usif! ;:Slii', ,l�j.Jno 0i � z��Ii�i i I� � R Z 1! p O CO �• �it�^ xoon . W r--�" - - - =---- — cr F-. It AL low hag.ac J• W i S _ _ - - s-- T a • �� is rr77� — � ii CL elk MMcc _-___-_ _ .[i'O[Ti___M__�a - 3.z8.W OON-i • go ! a i1 p � :fitits E � Id till, lilt Lu .1 43Nr a t 1 .11 J ; zis • tzi?� jF SA .-�( dyoun9co FAX NO. : 8176248564 Jul. 22 19% 08:25W P2 VWN& D*Uyne Youag uy. P.O.&rnc 54176 Photos:817-4::BElFfl Hurpd.l7i 7m54 FAX. tl1742MM e-maII:dyounLpnQnxgh•not Thursday,July 22,1999 City of Southlake 667 N.Carroll Ave. Southlake,TX 76092 Dear Sirs, In response to your latest review of case#994M,Site Plan,Lot 3R3 Mirror Add., I am pleased to report that we have met with the homeowners and gained their support in this matter.They were mainly concerned about tree lass and line of sigh#to a new water tower that the city is building.We agreed to move sore parking places and redesign the parking lot to not only save these key line of sight trees but another 4o plus trees as well. We are also seeking permission to use crushed granite in some parking areas near critW root zones in an attempt to save these trees as well.In reference to all other items,we are requesting variances as noted in the staff revue.We are also willing to make any and all technical corrections to the site plan.Some of these issues will require further explanation by the city staff The staff has been great to work with so far and i am sore that we can work out these technical notations quickly. Thank you, Dwayne Young WO J U L 2 21999 SA -to FROM : ypUNGCp FAX NO. : 8176248564 Jun. 03 1999 05:17PM P2 DWXYT .Yru w..6 Co. P.u.Nrnc!d 176 Phcmr.817-42R" Uuts.TX 76MA FAX:8174284ffi0 mail: 00un9c*C-4-c A Thursday,.June 3,1999 City of Southlake 667 N.Carrel Avenue Southlake,TX 76092 Dear Sirs, This is to serve as my written response to the staff review of case#1WM. We are attempting to build a building at Lot M in the Miron addition of Southlake.Let me begin by saying that the City Staff has been very helpful and working with them Las been both interesting and instructive.I look ftwward to attending the Planniag and Zoning commission this evening. Before answering the specific numbered comments made by staff I would like to elaborate on our goals in deslgning this building.The owners charged our design team with the challenge of deshming an aesthetically pleasing building that fit into the existing neighborhood of office buildings and save as many trees as humanly possible while blending into the natural landscaping.I believe that we have designed a very attractive building and salvaged over 8o%of the existing trees.The saving of these trees has caused us to run afoul of a few portions of the residential adjacency ordinance.It is our belief that the city and the surrounding homeowners will be much happier with the product we have produced for consideration than a strict compliance would have produced.Strict compliance would have cut down 75-80%of the trees_ Item#1: We realize that we have not met strict accordance with the residential adjacency ordinance on this matter.Shifting the building forward would wipe out the existing native trees and put the building further forward than the existing building which were built prior to residential adjacency.We respectfully ask for leniency on this matter. Itg_jA#2: We realize that we have not met strict accordance with the residential adjacency ordinance on this matter.We have,however, designed a very articulated and i complicated building that meets the intent of the articulation ordinance If not the letter. Again we re tfrspec 11�1>,y request leniency on this matter. 1 RECD i'N U a 1999 SA —( I /YoI.NGCO FAX NO. : 8176248564 Jun. 03 1999 05:18PM P3 taw/ Item#3: We have recounted and count 22 normal spaces and 1 handicap for a total of 23 spaces.Our count does not include space allotted for dunipster,perhaps we could count together and resolve this issue. Item#4: Putting the dumpster in the rear of the building would put it too close to adjoining residences.We are trying to be good neighbors.We are willing to move the dumpster if someone will suggest a more acceptable location. Item ft5: Interior landscaping minimums will be met or exceeded.our landscape architect Steve Belie will rework the charts and resubmit for your approval. Item tt6.7&S: These are labeling issues that we will be glad to correct. Thank you, LACLI Dwayne Young L i' OO K I' City of Southlake, Texas SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA 99-036 Revised Review No: Four Date of Review: 07/30/99 Project Name: Rezoning/Site Plan for SP-1 Zoning with 0-1 uses -Lot 3R3,Block 1, Miron Addn. APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: Dwayne Young&Co. Ernest Hedgcoth Consulting Engineers Inc. P.O. Box 54176 5701-C Midway Road Hurst,TX 76054 Fort Worth,TX 76117 Phone : (817)428-8531 Phone : (817) 831-7711 Fax : (817)428-6260 Attn: Dwayne Young Fax : (817) 831-6368 Attn: Ernest Hedgcoth CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 06/21/99 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 EDWARD MCROY AT(817)481-5581,EXT.880 General Development Standards Applies Comments Corridor Overlay Regulations N Not Applicable Residential Adjacency Y See Comments No. 1 &2 Building Articulation Y See Comment No. 2 Masonry Standards Y Complies Impervious Coverage Y Complies Bufferyards Y Complies Interior Landscape Y See Comments No.5 Driveways Y Complies * (Misc. P&ZActions 07122199-Requiring the garage to be for personal auto use only(cars, small trucks, SUYs)during such time as this portion of the building is utilized as a garage; requiring back porch to be made of wood as depicted, requiring an 8'fence with the pretty side (the side with no rails or posts) towards the homeowners; requiring applicant to save trees as shown on the new plan; maintaining the landscaping in perpetuity, restricting the deck size to be no larger than what is depicted giving the applicant leeway to shift the actual layout of the deck but not increasing the size;prohibiting the washing or repairing of vehicles in the driveway;giving the applicant leeway in placement of irrigation systems and requiring the applicant to only maintain plants they are putting in place keeping in mind preservation issues. ) l. The building must be configured such that it does not encroach above a 4:1 slope line extending from the east and south property lines per Residential Adjacency Regulations. The proposed building is setback at approximately 20' from the east property line and approximately 22' from the south property line. This location does not meet the sloped setback of the Residential gA - �3 Adjacency regulation nor does it meet 25'setback requirements established by the"0-1" Office District regulation. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 07122199- Delete) IL 2 Provide horizontal and vertical articulation meeting the requirements of Ord.480, Section 43.9.c.l.c. on all building facades and clarify the match lines on the elevation drawings. Compliance with the articulation is indicated on the attached chart. (Variance Requested) (P&Z Action 07122199—Delete) 3. The following changes are required with regard to parking: a. A total of 25 parking spaces are required on this site using the standard parking regulations as defined in Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes a total of 22 spaces(a ratio of 1:268 sq. ft)(Variance Requested)(P&ZAction 07122199—Delete) b. Provide standard parking spaces constructed of an all-weather surface material. The crushed granite material proposed does not conform to current city standards. (Variance Requested)(P&ZAction 07122199—Delete, giving the applicant leeway to study appropriate alternative materials before going to City Council) C. Provide handicapped parking spaces constructed of an all-weather surface material and locate these spaces at the most convenient location to the building entrances. d. Parking spaces may not encroach into fire lanes. Relocate the parking space shown (W adjacent to and west of the dumpster. 4. Relocate the dumpster to the side or rear of the building. (Variance Requested) (P&Z Action 07122199—Delete) 5. Correct the"provided"interior landscape plant materials in the calculation chart to equal or exceed the minimum"required". Existing tree credits will be evaluated by the Landscape Administrator with the final construction plans for the site and prior to issuance of a C.O. 6. Correct the side yard building lines along the north and west property lines to 15'in width. 7. Correct the label for the stacking depth of the proposed drive on the site. Stacking depth is measured from the R.O.W. line to the intersecting drive. Staff estimates that the stacking provided is approximately 47 feet,which exceeds the requirements for this site. 8. The following changes are needed with regard to surrounding properties. a. Correctly show and label the existing U.E. along the south line of this property as 10'in width. A dashed line,shown approximately 5' off the south line,appears to incorrectly indicate an easement. b. Correctly show and label the 5' of U.E. abandoned along the south line of this property. A heavy dashed line,shown approximately 15' off the south lot line,apparently indicates the north side of this abandoned easement. 9. Correct the Site Data Chart to correctly reflect changes made with this exhibit. Specifically,the parking ratio,the begin date for construction,and the impervious coverage should be updated. * This review is based on the 0-1 Office district. * The proposed site does not exceed the maximum permitted impervious coverage area percentage of 65%for the"O-V Zoning District. The impervious coverage area percentage of this site is approximately 48%. * No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan.A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. * Protected trees cannot be removed outside of 6' from the proposed building without processing a Tree Removal Permit or without approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Cuts or fills within the limits of the critical root zone of protected trees are not permitted unless adequate construction methods are approved by the Landscape Administrator. * Please be aware that parking requirements and approved parking ratios are based on general office use throughout the entire building. Any change of tenant/owners with a request for a new C.O. may increase the required number of parking spaces. * Denotes Informational Comment att: Articulation Evaluation Chart cc: Dwayne Young& Co.: VIA FAX ABOVE Ernest Hedgcoth Consulting Engineers: VIA FAX ABOVE Government Capital Corp. VIA FAX : (972) 518-2526 Attn: Tim Temple L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\REV\99\99036SP3.WPD 6 1'�- Articulation Evaluation No.4 Case No. ZA 99-03 Date of Evaluation: 07/09/98 Elevations for I Lot 3R3 Miron Addn. // Received: 06/21/99 Front-facing: West wall ht. 10 Horizontal articulation Vertical articulation Required Provided Delta Okay? Required Provided Delta Okay? Max. wall length 30 42 40% No 30 42 40% No Min. artic. offset, 2 22 1000% Yes 2 4 100% Yes Min. artic. length 6 22 2671;1 Yes 6 it 83% Yes Rear-facing East wall ht. _ 10 Horizontal articulation Vertical articulation Required Provided Delta Okay? Required Provided Delta Okay? Max. wall length 30 34 13% No 30 54 80$ No Min. artic. offset. 2 4 100% Yes 2 3 50W Yes Min. artic. length 5 19 280% Yes 9 8 -111; No Right-facing: South lWall ht. = 10 Horizontal articulation Vertical articulation Required Provided Delta Okay? Required Provided Delta Okay? Max. wall length 30 56 87% No 30 26 -131, Yes Min. artic. offset. 2 0 -100% No 2 0 -100% No Min. artic. length 8 0 0% No 7 6 -14% No Left-facing: North lWall ht. = 10 Horizontal articulation Vertical articulation Required Provided Delta Okay? Required Provided Delta Okay? Max. wall length 30 32 7% No 30 21 -30% Yes Min. artic. offset. 2 9 350% Yes 2 6 200$ Yes Min. artic. lengt 8 4 -50% Nol 5 15 200% Yes z V A I IV City of Southlake, Texas TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) Case: 99-036 Date of Review: 7 - 8 -99 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Lot 3R3,Block 1,Miron Court Addition (Site Plan) OWNER: PREPARED BY: Government Capital Corp. Ernest Hedgcoth Consulting Engineers,Inc. 1200 Walnut Hill, Suite#3400 5701 —C Midway Rd. Irving,TX 75038 Ft. Worth,TX 76117 Phone: (972) 518-1199 Phone: Fax: Fax: THIS ANALYSIS IS PREPARED AT THE THAE OF REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT AND IS TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN OR SURVEY AND THE EMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION ON ANY PROTECTED TREES ON THE SITE. FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION CONTACT KEITH MARTIN, LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR AT(817)181-5581 EXT.848. TREE PRESERVATION COMN ENTS: 1. The applicant did not submit a Tree Survey that meets the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance,but I used the survey from the last submittal to analysis the project. 2. To preserve more existing trees on the site the parking area was reduced to just a Fire Lane. To provide gaseous exchange for the roots of the existing trees crushed granite is proposed in the parking spaces instead of concrete. The rear of the building has not changed. 3. The proposed location of the Sanitary Sewer Line is located in an area that has been enlarged to preserve more existing trees. City Staff recommends locating the line within the Fire Lane and the sidewalk area to eliminate the removal of trees and. disturbance to the roots of the trees the applicant is proposing to preserve. 4. Because the soil on the site is primarily sand the proposed crushed granite in the parking spaces may not be stable enough. Pavestone or some other type of pervious material may work better. Crushed granite may also change the pH of the soil which effects the trees ability to absorb moisture and nutrients. 5. Preserved Tree: A.protected tree shall be considered to be preserved only if a minimum of 75%of the critical root zone is maintained at undisturbed natural grade and no more than 25% of the canopy is removed due to building encroachment. There are some trees that are on the edge of the driveway and parking spaces. The applicant cannot take credit for these trees as being preserved because less than 75%of their critical root zone will not be preserved at natural grade. BUILDING INSPECTIONS L:\Trm\DRC"M-036r2 City of Southlake, Texas 6. No grading or removal of any protected trees is allowed out side of the building pad, driveway and parking lot areas. If any grading does occur outside of these areas it will effect the critical root zone of protected trees. * Grade Changes: No grade changes shall be allowed within the limits of the critical root zone of any protected tree unless adequate construction methods are approved by the Landscape Administrator or if grading is as directed by the City's Drainage Inspector. * Preserved Tree: A protected tree shall be considered to be preserved only if a minimum of 75%of the critical root zone is maintained at undisturbed natural grade and no more than 25% of the canopy is removed due to building encroachment. * All area within the public R.O.W., public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat and the fire lanes, required parking areas and area within six feet (6') of the building foundation as shown on an approved Site Plan shall be exempt from the tree`protection and replacement requirements specified in the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A. * All requirements and regulations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A, apply to the entirety of this lot. Please be aware of the penalties of not applying the tree preservation protection methods required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A. BUILDING INSPECTIONS L:\TreeADRC"M-036r2 OBA tQ _ � a All It_ r Sol 10 ,mow M - --- f I 140 a • � p r.� , � P� ,. �T t ( t � t go 6 '' i " "•• t � I �I 5B� •x , 73, - I 1�• ■a ♦ �� 7•.1T ♦ R �— �j-If1BfYl N I / I I • r•......i �1 � �MJJJMIJ � I I � I I s ti I S (Cl i �11 a o •ram �'' ' 'I O O F jt �I 4 a ij m i�nr t; a u Ij ' r I t � f 1 r. ms Y a • r • 1 ;i 1 if • , .l 1 • 1 • 1 e 1 -- — • j Ili 1 • w- � 1 ■ 1 a • e 1 1 a i (off x Y - - t � • •1R-' as X„ y S _ck'. t -Y nt!• � y K a.. � ,�; r •. r ti .ate... rn rn t t tt t t tt t t ttttttnhttttttt�tttttttttttttmHtthttttthtt-ft 0 1 ■ S, Ultdtin t1111tiHt ttntttitltid tittjtttttlttittt :ttttt.» ti.„t„MR;;;;i►tuq;;ikutt'ttttttttiltttl�11a1::lia�4�'lq:�: h»a�a»..'y'4MaRaaarii•R.R+,,,•NR.. •....L....,. !�'�•�' �� r, Hmu -'^'^•^"..��ssief2LYKtRLLLfaRLLRRRRaaafaeM.•ffaaRRR/RR/Raaaaiaa aaseeeczReeeeii/uataaeu/en/waattitiiiia/a0iiaa�Jile!!i!! rA lion rf TTTI: _— r! � t + W nl l ,•5• 1 X / tt o r. •ra. ar ii � 5b e u ....^. . n s fit:x; I.. a Y= 1 f:w.Ul^NMI I " L d _- .1-�}I[infrA�lrq!M� lfS7 roN 1N111d415n,M. _ F _ y^}� � .��. •ice :/.�. � + � _ MM ]� bLai ' + \ ,' . +In � M a► S y 11 N ;NIMI NttNIN / \ rats7rt CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480-316 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 LOT 3R3, BLOCK 1, MIRON ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLABE TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN CABINET A, SLIDE 3901 PLAT RECOI f S, TARRANT CO , TEXAS,,'AND'BEING;APPRO 0.96134 -ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM BLT , SERVICE PARK FDISTRICT TO ",S-P-1" DK-TAII.ED SITE . ..,. DISTRICT WITH` "O=1" OFFICE DISTRICT USES 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 NACOMMUNMY DEVELOPMENnWP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480L3I6.DOC Page 1 SBA-ZZ (W to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "B-l" Business Service Park 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 (W other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the N:ICOMMUNMY DEVELOPMEPM*?.FILESMA\PENDING\480-316.DOC Page 2 SA +Zz (W view to conserve the value of the buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout this City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that there is a public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over-crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: (W NACOMMUNMY DEVELOPMEN nWP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\4W316.DOC Page 3 GA -2,q (W SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 480, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Southlake, Texas, passed on the 19th day of September, 1989, as originally adopted and amended, is hereby amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and amended as shown and described below: Being Lot 3R3,'`Block 1, Miron Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake Tarrant County, Texas, accordin Jothe,plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 39�01; Plat Records Tarrant Co Texas ani z y : ..�� ', �. �Pln y _ , and a oxunatel � 361 � more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from" °I Bus e Pto _tea. 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. (W 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 NACOMMUNMY DEVELOPMENTWP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\484316.DOC Page 4 (W conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen congestion in the streets; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent over-crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs and development of the community. They have been made after a full and complete hearing with reasonable consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. SECTION 5. 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 (W 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 (W fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a N:ICOMMUNMY DEVELOPMENTIWP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480-316.DOC Page 5 SA r2,10 violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 8. All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. SECTION 9. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. (W NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN7%WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480.316.DOC Page 6 %A -Z1 PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 1998. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 1998. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: N:ICOMMUNUY DEVEI.OPb(EWnWP-FlUiS BA%PENDIN"W316.DOC Page 7 eA-1.a EXHIBIT "A" Lot 3R3, Block 1, Miron Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County,,Texas, according lo the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 3901, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, being approximately:U.96134 acres: (W NACOMMUNMY DEVELOPMEbMWP-FILES\ZBA\PENDINGl484316.DOC Page 8 Skzer EXHIBIT "B" m l Ili z o m pp g aa pp � I I I I I� I I �� I I� ! � �6Y � � � ■9 a 1 z pp r a kin l i 51 = zi1141 p I $ W I• I �$y 1 p 5 � I I I N:\COMMUNMY DEVELOPMEbMWP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480-316.DOC Page 9 SA- 30 EXHIBIT "C" This page reserved for the approved City Council motion. (W NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENnWP-PILES\ZBA\PENDING\480-316.DOC Page 10 8A--2 I City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 27, 1999 TO: Billy ,Cam bell City Manager P Y g FROM: Greg Last, Director of Economic Development SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99-60: A resolution of the City of Southlake, Texas, urging the Texas transportation commission to fund local transportation improvements (SH 114 and US 377); to direct staff to continue to work with Metroport Transportation Partnership to ensure the timely development of these improvements and providing an effective date. Action Requested: Approval of a resolution as noted above. Background Information: On September 24, 1998, the Metroport Cities Partnership led a delegation to appear before the Texas Transportation Commission to advocate improvements to the following sections of roadway: • State Highway 114: Dove road to Carroll Ave • State Highway 114: S.H. 170 to Precinct Line Road • U.S. 377: F.M. 1709 to S.H. 170 The Commission did identif y Priority o ty 1 Level of Authority for the segment of S.H. 114 between Dove and Carroll but did not act on the remainder segments. The purpose of this resolution is to continue to urge advanced levels of authority for the remaining segment of S.H. 114 as well as the U.S. 377 from Keller to S.H. 170. Several cities of the Metroport Cities Partnership as well as Chambers of Commerce and business entities are passing similar resolutions. Financial Considerations: None Citizen Input/ Board Review: None Legal Review: None Alternatives: Pass resolution as proposed, pass a revised resolution, deny resolution. Supporting Documents: Resolution No. 99-60 attached. Staff Recommendation: Approve resolution as submitted. /'W A y.kr - i Approved for Submittal to City Council: A&- ity anager's Office a RESOLUTION NO. 99-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, URGING THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO FUND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS (SH 114 AND US 377); TO DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH METROPORT TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP TO ENSURE THE TIMELY DEVELOPMENT OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the METROPORT Cities Partnership appeared before the Texas Transportation Commission on September 24, 1998 to request project authorization and/or funding commitments for improvements to segments of State Highway 114, including Dove Road to Carroll Ave and State Highway 170 to Precinct Line Road, and for improvements to US 377 from FM 1709 to State Highway 170; and, WHEREAS, the Commission identified Priority 1 Level of Authority and funding commitment for the section of SH 114 from Dove Road to Carroll Ave in the currently adopted Unified Transportation Plan(UTP); and, WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Transportation is currently updating the UTP to identify construction funding for the following four (4) year construction timeframe; and, WHEREAS, regional economic development in the METROPORT Corridor continues to grow and expand, including the recent announcements of Sabre and Fidelity Investments of the location/expansion of their facilities to the METROPORT Corridor; and, WHEREAS, phase one of the Sabre Corporate Campus Headquarters located at the Solana mixed-use development at SH 114 and Kirkwood Blvd, will open in the second quarter of 2001 with 450,000 square feet of office space and nearly 3,000 new employees, in addition to the existing 375,000 square feet/1,755 employee facility at Solana, and will ultimately result in over 2,000,000 square feet and 9,400 employees by year 2008; and, WHEREAS, phase one of the Fidelity Investments Headquarters and Trade Transaction Center at Circle T Ranch located on SH 114 in the Town of Westlake will open in the first quarter of 2001 with over 600,000 square feet of office space and 2,000 new employees, with phase two adding another 600,000 square feet and 2,600 new employees; and, N:\econdev\agencies\metroport\transportationcommittee\cc-resolution-01 7/29/99 2:27 PM Page I of 2 WHEREAS, the continuation of the SH 114 freeway facility from Precinct Line Road to SH 170 and expansion of US 377 from FM 1709 to SH 170 will respond to growing traffic concerns in the METROPORT Corridor, including congestion, truck/passenger car conflicts, travel times, and decreasing air quality; and, WHEREAS all right-of-way is in place for the improvements to SH 114 from Precinct Line Road to SH 170, and Hillwood Development Corporation has initiated development of the construction documents for the Trophy Club Drive interchange to be provided to the Department at no cost; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The City of Southlake urges the Texas Transportation Commission to identify Priority 1 Level of Authority and fiscal year construction funding for the SH 114 improvements from Precinct Line Road to SH 170, and Priority 2 Level of Authority for the US 377 improvements from FM 1709 to SH 170 in the 2000 UTP currently under development; SECTION 2. The City of Southlake urges the Texas Transportation Commission to direct staff to work with the METROPORT Transportation Partnership to ensure the development of these critical mobility improvements as expeditiously as possible. This Resolution shall become effective upon passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1999. Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Sandy LeGrand, City Secretary N:\econdev\agencies\metroport\transportationcommittee\cc-resolu'on-01 7/29/99 2:27 PM Page 2 of 2 C ' ` City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM ,. July 30, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Kim Bush, Secretary to the City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99-61, In support of widening and improvements to SH 26 at the request of the City of Colleyville. Action Requested: City Council approval of Resolution No. 99-61, in support of widening and improvements to SH 26 at the request of the City of Colleyville. Background Information: Currently, Brumlow Avenue is the only major feeder road to SH26 for Southlake citizens. In recent months, Brumlow has become heavily used by motorists traveling to SH26 from Continental Blvd. It is anticipated that traffic will double over the next several years with the completion of Timarron's Warwick Green at Continental and Brumlow and the CISD's plans for additional schools and a stadium in the area. On June 17, 1999, the Metroport Cities Partnership passed a resolution supporting improvements to SH 26 and the individual Cities of Euless, Hurst, Keller, and North Richland Hills have submitted (or are in the process of submitting) resolutions of support. The City of Colleyville has supported every request we have made to TxDOT regarding our projects, the most recent on our petition to the Texas Transportation Commission September 24, 1998 concerning SH 114. Financial Considerations: None Citizen Input/ Board Review: Metroport Cities Partnership is comprised of the Cities of Colleyville, Grapevine, Haslet, Keller, Roanoke, Southlake, Trophy Club, and Westlake, the Carroll Independent School District. Grapevine - Colleyville Independent School District, and Northwest Independent School District, and area Chambers of Commerce. Legal Review: None (W Alternatives: Pass resolution as proposed, pass a revised resolution, deny resolution. Supporting Documents: Letter dated June 28, 1999 from Donna Arp, Mayor, City of Colleyville Resolution No. 99-61 Resolution No. 99-61 Agenda Packet Memo JO, 1999 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approval of Resolution No. 99-61. Approved for Submittal to City Council: C' M ger's Office 9�3 a City of THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Texas TEXAS ( Q [YJ DONNA ARP MAYOR OFFICE OF CITY SECRETARY June 28, 1999 Mayor Rick Stacy City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake, TX 76092 Dear Rick: I am writing to ask for your support in the improvement of the State Highway 26 (SH26) corridor. SH26 is an important part of Tarrant County's highway network and serves citizens of many communities including Southlake. We have applied for funding support through the North Central Texas Council of Governments. We are asking each of Colleyville's neighboring local governments to adopt a resolution of support similar to the one attached. I appreciate your consideration of our request. Please let me know if we can answer any questions that you may have. Sincerely, /onna Arp Mayor Enclosure P. O. BOX 185 COLLEYVILLE,TX 76034 METRO 817/577-7575 FAX 817/577-7555 M-3 ` City of Southlake, Texas RESOLUTION NO. "-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, SUPPORTING THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE'S REQUEST FOR WIDENING AND MPROVEMENTS TO STATE HIGHWAY 26 IN TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, State Highway 26 is a critical component of the regional transportation system of North Central Texas, serving the continually expanding residential communities and retail centers along the corridor between N.E. Loop 820 and State Highway 114; and WHEREAS, the improvements to State Highway 26 will offer local and regional mobility benefits by providing both direct and alternative access to the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, the recreational areas of Grapevine Lake, and the retail centers in northeast Tarrant County; and WHEREAS, the proposed State Highway 26 improvement project in combination with other transportation improvements in northeast Tarrant County will complete a vital link in the development of a direct, parallel, alternative route to the heavily congested State Highway 121 corridor between the cities of Bedford and Grapevine; and WHEREAS, the State Highway 26, State Highway 121, State Highway 114, State Highway 635, and Farm-to-Market Road 2499 are attracting increased development activity within all adjacent communities; and WHEREAS, adequate roadway systems are critical to area counties, municipalities, and businesses in order to accommodate traffic demand and to provide safe, efficient and environmentally sensitive transportation systems; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvement of State Highway 26 will offer improved local access to State Highway 121 and State Highway 114, and will enhance the operations of the regional transportation system as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: City of Southlake, Texas Resolution No. Page 2 SECTION 1. That the City of Southlake hereby supports the City of Colleyville's request to the Texas Transportation Commission for consideration of/and approval of funding for the widening and improvement of State Highway 26. SECTION 2. That the City of Southlake request that the Texas Transportation Commission take all steps necessary to ensure the accelerated development of these strategic, critical improvements. SECTION 3. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE ON THIS DAY OF , 1999. (W Mayor Rick Stacy ATTEST: Sandra L. LeGrand City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Date: M:\WD-FlIFSIRES0LUT1\99-61_SH 26.DOCM City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 30, 1999 To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Engineering Services Subject: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a commercial developer agreement with the developer of Gateway Plaza Action Requested: Authorize the Mayor to execute a commercial developer agreement for Gateway Plaza Addition. Background - Information: On February 2, 1999, the City Council approved the site plan for Gateway Plaza Addition, located in the northwest corner of SH 114 and FM 1709. This is a retail center that includes the construction of Gateway Drive, a street connecting the proposed relocation of Northwest Highway by TxDOT with FM 1709 at its intersection with Commerce Street. The developer is requesting that the City reimburse the developer for the over-width (48-feet instead of 36-feet) of the street as required by the City in the amount of$52,000. The project also includes extending a sewer main by boring under FM 1709, to the south, to the existing lift station near Bank Street at a cost of$33,250. When the sewer system is operable, the lift station will be removed and the sewer will flow north through Gateway Plaza to a new lift station being constructed by the City located at the northwest corner of Gateway Plaza Addition and pumped to a gravity main flowing to the Shady Lane (N-4) lift station being constructed by the City. The developer is requesting that the City reimburse the developer for bore under F.M. 1709 for the sewer in the amount of $33,250. A 12-inch water main is being extended through the site from SH 114 and FM 1709 per the City's master plan. i The developer has also committed to paying for one half of the cost of the traffic signal now being installed at Commerce Street and FM 1709. The City Council recently awarded the contract 10A-1 on the installation of the traffic signal in the amount of $96,809.04. The Park Board has credited the developer for 2,000 linear feet of 8-foot wide trail along FM 1709, open space, and the cemetery in lieu of the park fees. Financial Considerations: The Park Board has credited the developer for all the required park fees. The developer agrees to pay $48,404.52 to the City for one half of the cost of installing the Commerce Street traffic signal. If City Council chooses to participate with the developer in the street construction or sewer construction, that could be done with alternate means of credit in lieu of cash money. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: This developer agreement is the City's standard agreement, originally drafted by City Attorneys, except for the developer's requests. (vow Alternatives: Approve it, deny it, or modify it. Supporting Documents: Developer Agreement Plat Exhibit Park Board Memo Staff Recommendation: Place the commercial developer agreement for Gateway Plaza Addition on the August 3, 1999 City Council agenda for Council to review and approve. Charlie J. Tomas Deputy Director of Engineering Services Approved for Submittal to City Council: Aaz- Vft�,ffinager's Office 10A-2 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 P<< "Developer", of . �. , 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. I. 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 Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 1 10A-3 acceptance of the Addition. The maintenance bonds, letter 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. D. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon acceptance by the City, title to all facilities and improvements mentioned hereinabove 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; Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 2 10A-4 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 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. Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 3 10A-5 I. 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. ll. 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, materiais 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 Engineering Services, 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. Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 4 10A-6 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 Engineering Services. 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. Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 5 1OA-7 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 Engineering Services 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. 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 Engineering Services a soil control development plan that will be implemented for this Addition. When in the opinion of the Director of Engineering Services 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. Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 6 10A-8 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: 1 . 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 Engineering Services must be submitted. 3. All fees required to be paid to the City. 4. Developer Agreement must be executed. Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 7 10A-9 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, WiTHOU T 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. Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 8 10A-10 C. Approval by the Director of Engineering Services 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 Engineering Services 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 dny deieci, 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. Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 9 10A-11 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. TF _ ^ _ ROADWAY IMPACT FEES' TheCitynnlf reimburse the developer for the oversized portion of the construction of Gateway Drive, a public street connecting the proposed new location of Northwest Highway at S.H. 114 with FM 1709 at its intersection with Commerce Street. B. OFF-SITE SEWER — The City will reimburse the developer for the bore under and across FM 1709 in the amount of $33,250 to tie new sanitary sewer systems to the existing lift station near Bank Street, which will be abandoned and sewer will flow by gravity to the lift station near S.H. 114. C. QFaFm�FE, \;/A-,:LF=R TRAFFIC SIGNAL — The developer agrees to pay the City $48,404.52 for one half of the cost of the installation of the traffic signal at FM 1709 and Commerce Street. D. PARK FEES Gateway Plaza consists of 37.59 acres, resulting in a park land dedication requirement of 0.75 acres, or $30,075 in fees in lieu of land. The proposal approved by the Parks and Recreation Board includes the following items: •_.. 38,400 square feet of unmaintained open space. Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 10 10A-12 • Two thousand and twenty-three linear feet (2,023') of train bordering the north sieve of FM 1709. The developer plans to construct an 8-foot wide trail consistent with the Traffic Management Bond,approval. `However, since he is required by the Sidewalk Ordinance to construct a 6-foot wide trail as shown on the Trail System Master Plan, the Park Board considered, credit for only the additional two-foot width. • One cemetery improved and maintained by the developer. The Parks and Recreation Board voted unanimously to accept the proposed improvements and request for credit as meeting the $30,075 park dedication fee requirement and waived any a00,01091 requirements. E. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE All construction activities shall meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-A. SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below. DEVELOPER: By: Lincoln Property Company Title: Address: 500 Akard St., Ste. 3300, Dallas, Texas 75267 Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 11 10A-13 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. (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS By: Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary Date: Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 12 10A-14 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 (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 aiiow the C4 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. o. 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. Gateway Plaza Addition Developer Agreement 13 10A-15 I ! e r1�i ax6>1C 7:7:37S:7:ia22 as 4239a: 00009 1 y 1,11� 171 - s A 'J". aaw- bini n jEl WOWq:i t ; yeyyy3. 4.y y s : e6�• _" -- ----�aac ■ A 3 � Spia : q ' 4' 46 � / /li 'S L �.'i � t •i / i ► y? / i 0 n/� i. 931j �s l e i I em i pp : o•� : III cp >G 111 tl { 1 } Nit - a� l I � S i 1�c ` �� 1 I •I 11 �I ; IIf I 1yi I 1 � �........ ,,. I I� I I S I lb ►� � i • bs I - -- �.�•..... .._....... t � Ry illl! i�.zwm.�la I` 13 / a a r � ,. �-�.......:...._l�f.-�+L-a�q aa� ��st.r��r-•_J'1�L�` i�I I 3 3ilr 10A-16 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 29, 1999 TO: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Engineering Services FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services SUBJECT: Park Dedication Requirements — Gateway Plaza At its July 12, 1999 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Board considered the park dedication requirements and request for credits for Gateway Plaza, a non-residential development. Gateway Plaza consists of 37.59 acres, resulting in a park land dedication requirement of 0.75 acres, or $30,075 in fees in lieu of land. The developer requested credit for the following items: ■ 38,400 square feet of unmaintained open space using the private value multiplier. ■ Two-thousand and twenty-three linear feet (2023') of trail bordering the north side of F.M. 1709. The developer plans to construct an 8' wide trail consistent with the Traffic Management Bond approval. However, since he is required by the Sidewalk Ordinance to construct a 6' wide trail as shown on the Trail System Master Plan, the Park Board considered credit for only the additional two-foot width using the public value multiplier. ■ One cemetery, improved and maintained by the developer. The Parks and Recreation Board voted unanimously to accept the proposed improvements and request for credits as meeting the $30,075 park dedication fee requirement and waived any additional requirements. Please contact me if you have any further questions. k, KH/sb 10A-17 r-. City of Southlake, Texas I MEMORANDUM Julv 30, 1999 To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Engineering Services Subject: Remington Addition — Developer Agreement Action Requested: Authorize the Mayor to execute a commercial developer agreement for the Remington Addition. Background Information: The preliminary plat for the Remington Addition (a retirement center) located across F.M. 1709 from the Jellico Estates was approved by City Council on November 17, 1998. The final plat was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 17. 1999. The construction plans for the paving and drainage and water and sanitary sewer have been reviewed and approved by the City staff. The construction plans include approximately 1400' of Owenwood Drive (concrete street), a deceleration lane on F.M. 1709, on-site water lines and on-site and off-site sanitary sewer lines. The off-site 10" sewer line extends south to Union Church Road then east along Union Church Road to the S-2 interceptor line and is part of the City's concept plan for the sanitary sewer system. The developer is requesting reimbursement from the City, the sewer impact fees collected for properties which contribute sewage to this line installed by Remington in accordance with City policy and reimbursement for oversizing in accordance with City policy. The developer is also requesting that the City provide alternative credits and reimburse him the inspection fee for street construction in the amount of$72,815 as City participation since the development is having to build the entire street; although the adjacent property owner will abut the right-of-way on the west side and have full access to the new roadway. The developer is 1 OB-1 also requesting reimbursement by the City for the cost of the deceleration lane on F.M. 1709 that is required by the City. 1� If the City Council chooses to approve this participation in the street construction, the participation can be accomplished with no cash money by the City. Financial Considerations: On July 12, 1999 the Park Board voted to credit the developer the required park fees per the attached memo. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: This is our standard developer agreement prepared by City attorneys with additions by the developer. Alternatives: Approve it, deny it, or modify it. Supporting Documents: Developer Agreement Plat Exhibit Park Board Memo Staff Recommendation: Place the developer agreement for the Remington Addition on the August 3, 1999 City Council agenda for Council to review and approve. Charlie Deputy Director of Engineering Services Approved for Submittal to City Council: ity anager's Office 10B-2 i �EMI�C,�C1{V�DI qN 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 t 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. I. 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 Remington Addition Developer Agreement 1 1013-3 acceptance of the Addition. The maintenance bonds, letter 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. D. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon acceptance by the City, title to all facilities and improvements mentioned hereinabove 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; Remington.Addition Developer Agreement 2 10B-4 L 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 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. Remington Addition Developer Agreement 3 10B-5 I. 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 Engineering Services, 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. Remington Addition Developer Agreement 4 10B-6 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 Engineering Services. 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. Remington Addition Developer Agreement 5 1OB-7 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 Engineering Services 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. 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 Engineering Services a soil control development plan that will be implemented for this Addition. When in the opinion of the Director of Engineering Services 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. Remington Addition Developer Agreement 6 10B-8 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: 1 . 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 Engineering Services must be submitted. 3. All fees required to be paid to the City. 4. Developer Agreement must be executed. Remington Addition Developer Agreement 7 10B-9 6. 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 ASSEk T CD, (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. Remington Addition Developer Agreement 8 10B-10 C. Approval by the Director of Engineering Services 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 Engineering Services 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 engineers 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. Remington.addition Developer Agreement 9 1 OB-11 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 SEWER The Remington Addition will be served by a 10-inch sewer line extending south to Union Church Road, then east along Union Church Road to the S-2 interceptor line and is part of the City's concept plan for the sanitary sewer system. This portion of the sanitary sewer line will be constructed by the developer. Developer will be reimbursed, on a semi-annual basis, all sewer impact fees collected by the City for properties which contribute sewage to this new line built by the Remington Addition. This reimbursement shall not total a greater amount than the original cost of construction. Article V, Oversizing, will allow reimbursement to the developer for the difference in cost of oversizing within five (5) years from acceptance of Developer's portion of the sewer line. Inspection fees (3%) and Administrative fees (2%) paid by the developer to the City for on-site and off-site improvements will b offset against the City's reimbursement of oversizing costs by their repayment by the City to the developer within 10 days after the later to occur of (1) payment of the inspection fees and (I1) the City's acceptance of the off-site improvements. B. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (OWENWOOD DRIVE) The developer will construct a 37-foot back to back curb streef`from FM 1709 to his south property line along the west property line along with a deceleration lane at FM 1709 to serve Owenwood Drive. Remington Addition Developer Agreement 10 1OB-12 The City will participate-in the cost of 'constructing the street and deceleration lane, which will cost $183,050 and -,,,,,, respectively by reimbursing the developer for the deceleration lane and a portion of the street cost, reimbursement by the City to the developer of $72,815be offset by inspection fees and administrative processialternative credits to the developer and require no cash C. PARK FEES The required park'land'dedication `tor this development is 0.22 acres or$8,688 in fees in lieu of land dedication. • Natural and unmaintained open space totaling 1.5 acres. This land is contiguous to the south side of West Southlake. • Three (3) courtyard areas in the development. • 2,300 feet of trail with four foot (4') width along the south_side,of West Southlake Boulevard. • Two (2) gazebos • Eight(8) benches The Parks and Recreation Board voted unanimously to accept the proposed improvements and request for credits as meeting the required fees for this development. In accepting these improvements, the Park Board waived the requirements for the developer to pay additional fees or dedicate park land. Remington Addition Developer Agreement 11 10B-13 D. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE All construction activities shall meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-A. SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below. DEVELOPER: By: Title: Address: 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. (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: Remington Addition Developer Agreement 12 106-14 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS By: Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary Date: Remington Addition Developer Agreement 13 1013-15 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 (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. Remington Addition Developer Agreement 14 1OB-16 • E •a :al � c�l >:SS3,; a '- ►!_ } j -_ i2.•ei = T 7 S T i ;i T - :'t n S __ — _ _ -- •• z 'S#iiy= i3 ci - a7 . 2 _ Si ef` -�-•.[ ; : _ ` � it i•! ' — — _ — _ - i litl �1 �•y�c�t• �t si�:•I3 t ! i f i j i i+E I it !is a i 4+ _ _ _ ! r c ` 1 Ij •` i�2 i E d .. 3 3 3 3•_ 8y .-e f - — — - ' -✓-I r;=: 3 3 3 8 8s'i f Fa�? i i_= "_ —'t f d g'• j eyi�+ _�.jl `a • ct?•t s 8 - 2 d ? d:F s Bi tFf - _.i: • i� a 1.• .• `rm••„'•11 E ! =:= ': �; 1 ,.t`2 ... cr tr V :t.2 j•tL is i;i' .-;, 1Ili 1 ie 0: t �Z�I; �•_ i I Z un itco Z s 03 lii O� - • I W _ - ' y"ww�•i�i r g^ I � �3SS E =7;� i �� !� =e 'd e3 �y�� •'S - 3 is fp cii 'si'= i'f;l�ltit ' i"• ji ; :i:.�t '•.t . r .—'. �_ i? �.' 3 •: •�� '•i Iaeis:to �.` ' I.iflai ,_. I � � � T�?• - _ ��; ;�tii: ttti2'�i2 :tI I si t'Z a i ! •=i`tt j:a . t. I j�„� �•�I^I •+• Ii I a a3 jg ' ! P-1 Ss. 1 elf, -# iI : !I a•F_i.it6t•. t-•= o i f i •2` W� I V r r � - 21 d ;ate_I I ;j:. ifs t l _ ilca. i i _ I - . ... — r I I i.;tn�s N�:a�••la�'�atE� ::,;�' I�stfr�� r„� I i '! I VsiI : ''I Ir.. � Fi. •r 1 OB-17 — — City of Southlake, Texas Q' MEMORANDUM July 22, 1999 TO: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Engineering Services FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services SUBJECT: Park Dedication Requirements — Remington Retirement Community At its July 12, 1999 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Board considered the park dedication requirements and request for credits for Remington Retirement Community, a 10.86-acre non- residential development. The required park land dedication for this development is 0.22 acres or $8,688 in fees in lieu of land dedication. The proposal approved by the Parks and Recreation Board includes the following items: ■ Natural and unmaintained open space totaling 1.5 acres. This land is contiguous to the south side of West Southlake. Using the private value multiplier, the requested credit amounted to $45,000. ■ Three (3) courtyard areas in the development. Using the private value multiplier, the requested credit amounted to S 12,000. ■ 21300 ff. of trail with four foot (4') width along the south side of West Southlake Boulevard. Using the private value multiplier, the requested credit amounted to $10,000. ■ Two (2) gazebos, 53,000 requested credit using the private value multiplier. ■ Eight (8) benches, $400 requested credit using the private value multiplier. The Parks and Recreation Board voted unanimously to accept the proposed improvements and request for credits as meeting the required fees for this development. In accepting these improvements, the Park Board waived the requirements for the developer to pay additional fees or dedicate park land. Please contact me if you have any further questions. (/"_ KH/sb 10B-18 City of Southlake, Texas i MEMORANDUM i July 30, 1999 'I To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Engineering Services Subject: Sanitary sewer service and sewer mains for Countryside Bible Church, Barton House and Christian Men's Network Action Requested: Authorization for Mayor to execute an agreement with property owners to construct a lift station, force main and gravity mains to serve properties along Countryside Court. Background Information: For the past few weeks the City staff has been meeting with property owners along Countryside Court off North White Chapel Boulevard regarding the construction of a lift station and force mains along North White Chapel Boulevard to serve the property owned by Countryside Bible Church, Barton House, Christian Men's Network and Wayne Lee. The project was initiated as staff was searching for alternatives to development in that area utilizing septic systems. An agreement has been worked out with the property owners mentioned above to accomplish the installation of the lift station, force main and gravity mains. The estimated cost of the engineering and construction is $169,000. The property owners have agreed to participate in the following percentages based upon need: Uncommon Care (Barton House) 29.6% $50,000 Countryside Bible Church 20.7% $35,000 Christian Men's Network 20.7% $35,000 Wayne Lee 14.8% $25,000 City of Southlake 14.2% $24,000 The City participation of$24,000 is equal to thirty percent (30%) of $80,000, which is the estimated cost of the lift station and force mains and 14.2% of the total construction cost including 10C-1 engineering. The City will serve as the escrow agent and contract for the engineering, but the property owners will contract with a contractor for the construction. These commitments are predicated upon the principal that the actual cost does not exceed 10% of the estimated cost of $169,000 and the construction can be completed within the next five months. Financial Considerations: If the City Council approves this agreement, the City's cost will be $24,000 that has not been budgeted but will be paid from the sewer fund. Citizen Input/ Board Review: All affected property owners have approved this agreement. Legal Review: The agreement is being reviewed by City attorneys. Alternatives: Approve it, deny it, or modify it. Supporting Documents: Agreement Map Exhibit Staff Recommendation: Place the agreement on the August 3, 1999 City Council agenda for Council to review and approve. LT Charlie J. Thomas Deputy Director of Engineering Services Approved for Submittal to City Council: ity nager's Office 1 OC-2 AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS STATE OF TEXAS: COUNTY OF TARRANT: THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Southlake, Texas, a home rule municipal corporation, located in Tarrant County and Denton County (hereinafter referred to as "City") and the Countryside Bible Church and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Church"), Uncommon Care d.b.a. Barton House and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Barton House"); Christian Men's Network and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "CMN") and Wayne Lee and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "Lee") and hereinafter collectively referred to as "Property Owners", WHEREAS, public sanitary sewer service does not presently exist in the area of Countryside Court; and WHEREAS, the Church, Barton House, CMN, and Lee desire to have access to the public sanitary sewer system and eliminate the need for septic systems; and WHEREAS, the only viable alternative is to construct a sanitary sewer lift station and force main to access the public sanitary sewer system; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need for public sanitary sewer service in the area of Countryside Court; and WHEREAS, the City desires to participate with the property owners in the cost of the lift station and force main; NOW, THEREFORE, for the mutual consideration herein stated, the City and the Property Owners agree as follows: 1 . The City will contract with John Levitt, an engineering consultant, for the design and preparation of construction plans and specifications for the construction of a lift station and force main and gravity main to serve the Property Owners' property in the area of Countryside Court as shown in Exhibit "A". The City and Property Owners will review and approve design and construction plans prior to the Property Owners negotiating a contract with a qualified contractor. 10C-3 2. Prior to awarding the contract by the Property Owners, the Property Owners and the City will escrow to the City (acting as escrow agent) their share of the cost of sanitary sewer improvements based upon the following percentages: Church 20.7% Barton House 29.6% CM N 20.7% Lee 14.8% City 14.2% These percentages are based upon a preliminary engineer's estimate of probable costs (including the engineering fee) of $169,000. Should the construction cost (including the engineering fee) exceed $169,000 by more than 10%, the Property Owners and the City may re-evaluate their participation in this project. After the funds have been escrowed, the Property Owners will enter into a contract with the qualified contractor. 3. The City will inspect the construction to ensure compliance with City specifications. The City will make monthly dispersals to the contractor at the request of Property Owners and contractor. 4. The City will waive the inspection fees for this construction. The City will waive sewer impact fees and sewer tap fees for the property along Countryside Court and Barton House served by this construction and as shown on Exhibit "A". 5. After final inspection and acceptance of the construction of sanitary sewer improvements, final costs will be determined for the Property Owners and the City based upon the agreed to percentages and the final construction cost. 6. Lee will approve of and dedicate the necessary easement for the site of the lift station adjacent to the right-of-way of North White Chapel Boulevard. 10C-4 7. This Agreement and any of its terms and provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Should a dispute arise among any of the parties to this Agreement, the parties agree that the dispute will be submitted for mediation before any of the parties pursue any other legal remedy. In the event that any cause of action is filed by any of the parties arising out of the terms of this Agreement, venue for said lawsuit shall be in Tarrant County, Texas. 8. In the event that any portion of this Agreement shall be found to be contrary to law, it is the intent of the parties hereto that the remaining portions shall remain valid and in full force and effect to the extent possible. 9. The undersigned officers and/or agents of the parties hereto are the properly authorized officials and have the necessary authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto, and each party hereby certifies to the others that any necessary resolution of orders extending said authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. EXECUTED in multiple originals this the day of 1999. SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below. 10C-5 Signed: i Countryside Bible Church Printed Name: Title: Address: 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. (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: 1®C-6 Signed: Uncommon Care (Barton House) Printed Name: Title: Address: STATE OF COUNTY OF On before me, Notary Pubiic, 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. (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: 10C-7 Signed: Christian Mens Network Printed Name: Title: Address: 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. (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: 1OC-8 Signed: Wayne Lee Printed Name: Title: Address: 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. (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: 1 OC-9 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS By: Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary Date: 10C-10 F—xl4 tat r Sanitary Sewer Proj ect � � Countryside Bible Church "ayne Lee Wayne LLe Chris A %Aens Network Barton House tion j i i , i City of Southlake Geographic Information Systems 1 OC-1 1 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM July 29, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Interim Planning Director SUBJECT: Agenda Item 10D, Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Decision regarding The Shops of Southlake (ZA 99-023) Action Requested: On July 22, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding substantial conformance of a revised concept plan proposed by Cencor Realty Services. The Commission tabled review of the revised concept plan until their September 9, 1999 meeting pending any action necessitated by their recommendation. Background Information: Cencor Realty Services presented a revised concept plan to the city on 2/29/99. The Zoning Administrator determined that the plan was not in conformance with the previously approved concept plan due to development occurring outside the building envelope established at the time of zoning. The applicant was given three (3) options: rezone the property and bring forth the submitted plan, revise `'r.► the plan by placing all development within the building envelope and resubmit for review of substantial conformance; or appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Board of Adjustment. On 5/17/99, Cencor resubmitted a revised plan and the Zoning Administrator deemed the plan to be in substantial conformance for the following reasons: all development was proposed within the building envelope; the intensity of the development decreased in the following manner: overall square footage was reduced from 315,000 s.f. to 277,900 s.f. (per 5/17/99 plan); major tenant floor areas were reduced (from 70K, 50K, 44K to 45K, 40.1K 40K); the number of parking spaces decreased and therefore reducing impervious coverage originally approved with the zoning; and the southernmost drive on South Carroll (most adjacent to Oak Tree Estates) was eliminated. This opinion conferred no development rights other than to allow the plan to move forward in the process. Financial Considerations: Fees associated with legal representation at the Board hearing. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Oak Tree Estates residents expressed opposition to the plan because they felt that it does not represent a village concept proposed at the 1996 rezoning and instead envision "a strip mall that will attract low-ring/high volume retailers." They mentioned several changes that occurred since 1996: Town Square development across F.M. 1709 plus additional retail along the corridor; 10i).1 increased traffic and insufficient roads to carry the volumes; taxpayers' vested interest in the TIF area (Town Square); Land Use Plan revisions recommending that this property be developed as Office Commercial. They further offered concerns about inadequate transition from a more intense commercial retail zoning (Town Square) to the residential zoning (Oak Tree Estates); health issues due to restaurant and grocery store uses; safety concerns due to competing traffic movements between Town Square and The Shops of Southlake; and the diminution of property values. Legal Review: City Attorney Wayne K. Olson reviewed Zoning Administrator's letters regarding substantial conformance prior to being sent to Cencor Realty Services. Alternatives: Review plan for compliance with city ordinances and codes. The following variances have been requested by the Applicant: driveway spacing (Drives `B' & `C') and stacking (Drives `A,' `D,' & `E'); parking islands along the southern row of parking; and impervious coverage (81% approved on Southlake Commons plan, The Shops' plan proposes 78%; C-3 district requires 75% unless bufferyard widths are increased). Supporting Documents: Southlake Commons' Concept Plan (approved 2/29/06) Revised Concept Plan and Zoning Administrator's opinion letter dated 3/9/99 Revised Concept Plan and Zoning Administrator's opinion letter dated 6/8/99 Revised Concept Plan and Staff Review Summary dated 7/19/99 Staff Recommendation: Please place this item on the August 3, 1999 City Council Agenda for consideration. Action Plan: Should the Council accept the Commission's recommendation and refer the matter to the Board of Adjustment, Staff will advertise the hearing date of August 12, 1999 in the official newspaper and post the Board's agenda at least 72 hours before the hearing date. Courtesy notices will be sent to the adjacent property owners; however, only the property owner and the aggrieved party are required to receive certified notice. In order to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision, the Council (or other aggrieved party) would need to complete an application that clearly states the facts and reasons that the requested action should be taken. Due to the quasi- judicial nature of the Board's duties, only evidence presented at the Board's hearing should be considered in making their final determination on this matter. Should the Council choose not to pursue this action, it is my understanding (upon further research) that the Commission or any other aggrieved party may appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Board. Following Council's action, the Commission will be notified. Approved for Submittal to City Council: ity anager's Office C M LLI :: •■ eR es y � � ! � � I�t� ute �oE.°' �i b �ii 1'► 6 � a: A-fr ,i_• r� � gore i;�, t+ i �< 4 ) en iF a. 'a as • 7 y Y 7i R [•• rr e�� 1!! !! !, Ale�eC.p.p..g.g.�. Yre r EpC 1� 7l Al •�g •6 9 �. Yy 9 [�.` � � 1� e_■ 9 � Bi g �'�1Y�799�Q9i pY2C��-�' i.e J [ il' }t.�� E p4�yg {�g■pq°e� �— Y 9 s8(gliQ �W1Jy II i u-4A'c 'oa"cu��nRl== 9 • �I� II rti � L aG7�2 2S�!`dY�iE Y 9�i{iCCi i?YS 3r�I yi9a[ a3elaa17.i.`aiitl2t .>r.n�.n -a nRw u-em�mR�M Z 3 smr n.m a Lu a maw „ a o:; � � �r�u a m.o,-arulu, ,•...r.t y— JQ ———————— ------ •' $doh: ` ' 4d4dLU , a. �1 y is ' � I ! ;�`; �� $ � •fir I IS`t�d J r +S• �' � ggpp gv W cc rJ i•:+ I • . .,. i � i2� 1fR 13 o V/ W I � U p��_ I � T7p„— — --------- i o f s� 1 OD•� Cityof Southlake March 9. 1999 Cencor Realty Services Attn: Mr. David C. Palmer Senior Vice President 3102 Maple Avenue,Suite 500 Mayor. Dallas,TX 75201 Rick Stacy VIA FACSIMILE NO. (214) 953-0860 and REGULAR U.S. MAIL Mayor Pro Tern: W.Ralph Evans Re: The Shops of Southlake Concept Plan Submittal, legally described as approximately Deputy Mayor Pro Tern: 29.516 acres in the J. Freeman Survey,Abstract No. 529,Tract 7A,being the SEC of S. Scott F.Martin Carroll Avenue and East Southlake Blvd. Councilmembers: Wayne Moffat Ronnie Kendall Dear Mr. Palmer: Debra Edmondson Gary Fawks This letter addresses whether the above-referenced concept plan substantially conforms with Curbs Manager:rtis E.Hawk the previous concept plan approved at the time of zoning. As you are aware,the property was zoned "S-P-2"with limited"C-3, General Commercial District"uses on March 5, 1996 by .assistant city Manager: Ordinance No. 480-190. This approval was subject to Plan Review Summary No. 4 dated Shana K.Yelverton March 1, 1996 and was also subject to the list of deleted uses (given to you at our 2-1-99 City Secretary: meeting)and subject to the placement of 10'trees within the 25' bufferyard along the south Sandra L.LeGrand property line(instead of the 12' - 14'trees originally proposed by the applicant)as shown on the approved plan dated February 29, 1996. Historically..the Site Plan Districts (`S-P-I" and"S-P-2")have been treated as what-you-see- is-what-you-get districts. When properties are zoned in this manner, their development is subject to the underlying district regulations or to special development standards approved at the time of the zoning. Following a review of the 2/29/96 plan, I found that the approved plan established a building envelope to ensure the village concept. This was established both graphically (by dashes shown on the plan) and in the Notes Section which reads: "42 This approval permits building size arrangement,parking layout and distribution within the dash lines to be modified to suit site conditions and detail design considerations all within the gross floor area and total parking number noted above." It would be my opinion that the approved concept plan (dated 2/29/96) set forth the requirement that no building could be constructed outside of that envelope. The Concept Plan for The Shops of Southlake exceeds the limits of the denoted envelope. I have attached reduced copies of both the approved 2/29/96 plan and the revised plan dated 3/l/99. You will note that I sketched the approximate limits of the building envelope on the new plan(scaled from the original plan). 667 N. Carroll Ave.• Southlake,Texas 76092 ��w c (817) 491-SRAI a FAX/R171 AAR-o17n Cencor Realty Services David C. Palmer, Sr. V.P. March 9, 1999 Page Two Based on this information, I find that the 3/1/99 concept plan cannot be accepted for processing as a revised concept plan. The plan should either be modified to fit within the established envelope approved with the zoning or the application should be modified to include a request for rezoning. Due to the anticipated impact of the building envelope,I did not attempt to address other issues of conformance, but would do so upon subsequent submittals. Please be aware that any subsequent plans submitted for processing will be subject to the test of substantial conformance. As is the case in all zoning-related interpretations /opinions, the applicant or any aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment.Should you have questions regarding any of the above,please call me at(817)481-5581,ext. 743. Sincerely, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE /a/� P r~ Karen P. Gandv Zoning Administrator cc Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager Greg Last,Community and Economic Development Director Wayne K_ Olson, City Attorney enc Approved Concept Plan(2/29/96) Revised Concept Plan(3/1/99) �! 'wi>L r r j I l �� {? 3 g _ cg s Y ¢ CL 7 CL l"U4 CL: ui LLf W 0 w LL z CL 0 0:A :> WO Fri i), I I OZ Un03 mz;iB LU ' Ai Ow ...................................... J, ................... a Z, t . ...... . IL 1;j 0 t1j LL CO LLI j al ,:Ax :ia . :)z a 03us Im U) 0 ----------- J: ----------- w L 3vl3AY. TXX#JV'Z)N anN3Av'-1-1ohjuvo Hincls i City of Southlake June 8, 1999 Cencor Realty Services Attn: Mr. David C. Palmer Mayor: Senior Vice President Rick Stacy 3102 Maple Avenue, Suite 500 Dallas,TX. 75201 Mayor Pro Tem: Gary Fawks VIA FACSIMILE NO. (214) 953-0860 and REGULAR U.S. MAIL Deputy Mayor Pro Tem: Ronnie Kendall Re: The Shops of Southlake Revised Concept Plan Submittal, legally described as Councilmembers: approximately 29.516 acres in the J. Freeman Survey,Abstract No. 529, Tract 7A, Wayne Moffat being the SEC of S. Carroll Avenue and East Southlake Blvd. Rex Potter Debra Edmondson Patsy DuPre Dear Mr. Palmer: City Manager: The city ' t of our application for revised concept plan approval for The Shops Campbell i of Southlake submitted on 5/17/99. I have reviewed the revised concept plan and find flat Assistant City Manager: it substantially conforms to the concept plan approved with the rezoning application on Shana K.Yelverton March 5, 1996. City Secretary: Sandra L.LeGrand This opinion is based on the following: 1)all development is proposed within the building envelope established at the time of zoning; 2) overall square footage has decreased from that originally approved (i.e., 277,900 s.f. versus 315,000 s.f); 3) floor areas have been reduced in all three major tenant spaces (from 70k,50k,44k to 45k,40.lk,40k);4)fewer parking spaces are being proposed due to decreased total square footage; and 5) the southernmost driveway along South Carroll Avenue (adjacent to the Oak Tree Estates neighborhood) has been eliminated. Please be aware that this opinion confers no development rights on the 5/17/99 revised concept plan application other than allowing the plan to move forward and enter the pre- submittal review process. The permitted uses for the property were established on March 5, 1996 with the adoption of the"S-P-2,Generalized Site Plan District"with limited"C-3. General Commercial District"uses per Ordinance No. 480-190. The revised concept plan must meet all the provisions of the currently adopted ordinances of the city or obtain waivers of same before proceeding to the next step in the development process. As of this date, the revised plan has been reviewed by the planning staff and the Development Review Committee ("DRC") and you should have received the first plan review summary. As is the case in all zoning-related interpretations / opinions, the applicant or any aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment. Should you have questions regarding any of the above, please call me at(817) 481-5581,ext. 743. 1721 East Southlake Blvd., Suite 100- Southlake, Texas 76092 I AN-9 (817) 481-5581 - (817) 488-9370 Cencor Realt--Services DaVid C. Palmer, Sr. V.P. June 8, 1999 Page T,,o Sincerely, CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Karen P. Gandh- Zoning Administrator cc Billy Campbell,City Manager Wayne KC Olson,City Attorney IOD�q ` m CL a p `` %o ffLL a_ 4 �r}III I�ii ' MI ICE �x OIW $ � e• a - �$ 4� o )51 { I Y 388 cA A3t R � st Q3 f Z . . $EKE e133Ws n }; ,0/6G5 M_Pi.fl.nti I � CMIIIIIIIIII ---- llt At Oil 11111111 _ I is 'gI11-nrrivu tmil1nr J JMlllllillll� I ..�I �•� 1 twnw .% ;E m .= [�-_� I III Llll.� � 11ILILILILIILLtIlIIIIIIIIIIII � -----�----__�,, i >r�_'�: :::> i •fi.I _=► - LIf 1 lTtlllfll'll(rfllflltlll'lllllll 1, � I �-�•'•'' � I_ � '�� 1:1f 11 I IIIIIII((III(llll(llllllllll�� ' �� E! ; 'li��° 1 ' . • �• aY t �- d a IIIHIIII;f1'1 ll_I III,U �u11lLlillt{i,lt. F 11 , ,!I i i t IIILIIIItlI �_�I.-.I I a 133k1 s • F- 1" �-'�__ w 1� 1.U.11, II I C[TITkAl I I I I H 1 I h1 I 11(111Fil[Il]l(IRIIIIIIII� i =_��CMI II I II III III II II II I I(II I II III��'•E - ��' __. �� v I i I 1'[rCC ILLIIILIIICIJII_,� � ;-- :••.::: .l,- Ili l.lumnlfr1. 111riniritur� mJTR ! X I ITI.Cf1TJ1110]ICCr1IL li Lnlrr 1llllttttliy9nPl19JIJ11LLIIJ _ .. . Ikl'Itll i I I EnNDAV -nOHUV:D Hinos lii!a!P S I ►OD•ID City of Southlake, Texas CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No: ZA 99-023 Review No: Three Date of Review: 7/16/99 Project Name: Concept Plan - The Shops of Southlake, John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No 529 APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: Cencor Realty Hodges & Associates 3102 Maple, Suite 500 13642 Omega Dallas, Texas 75201 Dallas, Texas 75244-4514 Phone: (214) 720-6681 Phone: (972) 387-1000 Fax: (214) 953-0860 Attn. David Palmer Fax: (972) 960-1129 Attn. G. Devleer CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 7/06/99 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 LISA SUDBURY AT(817)481-5581,EXT. 862. General Development Standards Applies Comments Corridor Overlay Regulations Yes See Informational Comments for Site Plan Preparation Residential Adjacency Yes See Informational Comments for Site Plan Preparation Building Articulation Yes See Informational Comments for Site Plan Preparation Masonry Standards Yes See Informational Comments for Site Plan Preparation Impervious Coverage Yes See Comment No.3 Bufferyards Yes See Comment No.2 Interior Landscape Yes See Comment No.2 Driveways Yes See Comment No. 1 This is a revised Concept Plan,previously approved as Southlake Commons,for SP2 with C-3 (limited)uses. 1. The following changes are required regarding driveways: a. Proposed connections to public rights-of-way must comply with the minimum spacing requirements, as follows: Driveway Centerline Req'd Existing Deficiency Spacing Spacing Variance Drive"C"to Prop. Harris Court 500' 483' 17' Variance Drive"B"to Drive"C" 500' 284' 216' 1 lob - 11 City of Southlake, Texas b. Connections to public rights-of-way must be in compliance with the minimum stacking depths, as follows: Driveway Req'd Proposed Deficiency Stacking Stacking Variance Driveway"A" 150' 95' 55' Variance Driveway"D" 150' 114' 36' Variance Driveway"E" 150' 30' 120' * Driveway`B"and "C" are shown as right-in/right-out/left-in limited access driveways. The design should be approved by the City Engineer. C. Staff recommends shifting driveways B & C to the east to avoid left turn conflicts with State Street and Grand Avenue. NOTE: The previously approved Concept Plan included 2 driveways on S. Carroll, 2 driveways on F. M. 1709 and 1 common access easement from the Smock & Hussein Property. This plan proposes the same number of driveways, different locations, varying stacking depths, and has added some turning restrictions, not included on the previously approved concept plan. 2. The following changes are needed regarding landscaping, bufferyards and screening: Variance a. Provide parking islands to break up the continuous parking provided behind the buildings. Eighteen square feet per parking stall is required in each row or tier of stalls and must meet minimum size criteria of the Landscape Ordinance No. 544 and the overlay district,Zoning Ordinance No 480, Section 43.9.3.h. b. Relocate the 8' masonry wall to the southern property line adjacent to the residential properties. NOTE: Ordinance 480, §39.4.b - Where a nonresidential use abuts a residential lot or dwelling, a screening device shall be erected along the side and rear property lines abutting said residential lot or dwelling to a height of eight feet. Staff feels there is a potential maintenance and security problems for the property between the residential fencing and non-residential wall. (The wall is shown on the top of an 8' berm in response to comments from the adjacent residential property owners, the applicant does not indicate they are seeking a variance to this requirement.) C. Remove the bufferyard and interior landscape calculation charts from the plan. These will be evaluated at the time of site plan review(based on floor areas). No acceptance or approval of these charts is made with the approval of this concept plan. The proposed charts are not an exact duplicate of the charts from the previously approved concept plan and do not appear to be correct. NOTE: In this regard, the previous concept plan was approved with the following comment, "Although no review of required interior landscape is provided at the Concept Plan level, staff strongly recommends that each lot be evaluated for compliance with the interior landscape area requirements per the Landscape Ordinance No. 544, prior to preparation of any site plans for the individual lots. Landscape and .. irrigation plans meeting the requirements of Ordinance No. 544, will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit." 2 City of Southlake, Texas Variance 3. The site cannot exceed the maximum 75%impervious coverage permitted within the"C-3"underlying zoning district. This plan proposes 78% impervious coverage. The previously approved Concept Plan proposed 19%Open Space(or 81%Impervious Coverage). The applicant is proposing an combination of increased bufferyard widths and larger interior landscape areas adjacent to the rights-of-way in lieu of a straight increase in bufferyard widths permitted under Ord. 480-Sect. 22.51. Based on the square footage shown on this concept plan and assuming each of the buildings over 20,000 square feet are for anchor tenants,the required interior landscape area is approximately 114,275 square feet,this plan proposes 218,605 square feet. Please be aware that required interior landscape areas shall be determined at the time of site plan,when more specific building footprints/areas are provided. See the attached Impervious Area Increase Calculations provided by the applicant. NOTE: Zoning Ordinance No. 480-BB, Section 22.5.1- The maximum impervious coverage for the AC-3" district shall not exceed 75% of the total lot area. However, if the following criteria is met,up to, but not exceeding, an additional 5%of impervious coverage shall be permitted: for each additional 1% of impervious coverage provided, an additional two feet of width of the required bufferyards adjacent to any street and an additional 1 foot of width to the required side and rear bufferyards shall be added to the site. This requirement may also be satisfied by providing an equivalent amount of land area in the front or sides of the site (exclusive of the bufferyard areas) either by increasing the number and/or size of parking islands, by preserving natural groves of trees, by enhancing natural drainage area,etc. Any alternative means shall be required to have the approval of the Landscape Administrator to ensure that the proposal is practical and will enhance the survivability of existing trees on the site. 4. Any further subdivision of this property will require a revised Concept Plan so that the appropriate bufferyard requirements and any other resulting issues may be addressed. * Right-of-way dedications for proposed deceleration lanes are required at the time of platting. These should be designed to provide a minimum 12' X 150' of stacking space and 150' of transition area. * A plat of the adjoining property (Gorbutt Addition) has been approved, but not filed of record with Tarrant County, at this time. Depending on the timing of construction, if the right-of-way has not been dedicated, a common access easement and letter of permission for off-site pavement construction must be obtained from the adjoining property owner,prior to issuance of a building permit. * Although not required by ordinance, staff would appreciate placing the City case number AZA99-023" in the lower right corner for ease of reference. * A permit from TxDOT must be obtained prior to any curb cut along State Highways or Farm to Market Roads. * 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 site plan must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, and a fully corrected site plan submitted to the Building Department along with landscape plan, irrigation plan, building plans, and all required fees. Required fees may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Impact Fees, Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. 3 16D- City of Southlake, Texas * This review is based on the "C3" Zoning District Regulations. * This site falls within the applicability of the the Corridor Overlay Zone Regulations of as amended by Ordinance 480-S, Section 43 Part II and the Residential Adjacency Standards as amended by Ordinance 480-CC, Section 43, Part III. 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 343.13a, Ordinance 480, as amended and Masonry Ordinance No. 557,as amended. • Roof design standards per 3 43.13b,Ordinance 480,as amended • Mechanical Equipment Screening per 3 43.13c, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Vertical and horizontal building articulation(required on all building facades)per343.13d,Ordinance 480,as amended. • Loading and service areas per 3 43.13f, Ordinance 480, as amended. Naw • Trash Receptacles&Recycling Receptacles per 3 43.13g, Ordinance 480,as amended. • Building setback standards as per3 43.13h and as shown in exhibit 43-E,Ordinance 480,as amended. • Spill-over lighting and noise per 343.13i and 343.13j, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Off-street parking requirements per 335,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. • Off-street loading requirements per 336,Ordinance 480, as amended. • Screening as per§39.4, Ordinance 480, as amended. • Interior landscaping per Landscape Ordinance No. 544 and 343.9C3 and Exhibits 43-B and 43-C on Pages 43-12 and 43-13,Ordinance 480, as amended; and Parking Lot Impacts on interior landscaping in 343.90h and Exhibit 43-D on Page 43-14,Ordinance 480, as amended. • Fire lanes must be approved by the City Fire Department. * Denotes Informational Comment cc: S. Carroll Ave. / 1709, Ltd. Owner c/o David Palmer VIA FAX Hodges & Associates, Gary VIA FAX \\SLKSV400I\LOCAUCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILESaEV\99\99023CP3SHOPS.DOC 4 City of Southlake, Texas Case No. 99-023 Review No. Four Resubmittal Dated: 7 - 12 - 99 Number of Pages: 2 _ Project Name: John A. Freeman Survey. Abstract No. 529 Tract 7A The Shops at Southlake (Concept Plan) Contact: Keith Martin, Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 481-5581, x 848 Far: (817) 421-2175 The following comments are based on the review of plans received on 07 - 06 - 99 . Comments designated with a (4) symbol may be incorporated into the formal review to be considered by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. Other items will not be addressed by either the P&Z or City Council. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact the department representative shown above and make modifications as required by the comment. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1• Maximum Impervious Coverage: To comply with Section 22.5L, of the General Commercial District portion of the Zoning Ordinance; the applicant has provided additional pervious area along the North, East and West bufferyards to an extent. Although the applicant has provided additional pervious area the areas are not consistent with the entire length of the required bufferyards. The applicant has also provided enhanced natural drainage area in the Southwest corner of the property as weal as an enlarged area to preserve existing trees in the Northeast corner of the property. Please .. see the attached Tree Preservation Analysis for further details on existing tree preservation. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS: 1. Please correct the required bufferyard linear distances of the North, East and South bufferyard portions of the Bufferyard Summary Chart. 2. Parking lot landscape area requirements shall comply with Section 3.4 of the Landscape Ordinance No. 544. 3. Five (5) parking lot landscape islands should be placed within the parking spaces along the south of the property. * The parking lot landscape islands may need some redesigning. Please make sure all islands meet the minimum width requirement set fourth in Section 3.4 of the Landscape Ordinance. Please make sure that space requirements meet the requirements of Section 43.9.3h of the Corridor Overlay Standards of Development. 4. The applicant is proposing to place an 8' masonry wall approximately 38' inside the property from the south property line. Please confirm the maintenance of the area between the wall and the adjacent residential property. BUILDING INSPECTIONS LATrees\DRC99V9-023 lob-15 City of Southlake, Texas • All buffervards are labeled correctly. • The required interior landscape area is correct. TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS: * See attached Tree Preservation Analysis. BUILDING INSPECTIONS LATrees\DRC99\99-023 '60'up City of Southlake. Texas TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) Case: 99-023 Date of Review: 6 - 24 - 99 dumber of Pages: 1 Project Name: The Shops of Southlake (Concept Plan) OWNER: PREPARED BY: Cencor Realty- Services Hodges & Associates 3102 Maple, Suite 500 13642 Omega Dallas, TX 75201 Dallas, TX 75244 Phone: Phone: (972) 387-1000 Fax: Fax: (972) 960-1129 THIS ANALYSIS IS PREPARED AT THE TIME OF REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT AND IS TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN OR SURVEY AND THE IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION ON ANY PROTECTED TREES ON THE SITE. FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION CONTACT KEITH MARTIN, LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR AT(817)481-5581 EXT. 848. TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS: 1. The applicant has submitted a Tree Survey that meets the requirements of Schedule B of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A. Trees within the area of the northeast access drive were not shown on the survey and some of the trees shown to be preserved are dead. 2. The Concept Plans reflects that approximately eighteen (18 existing trees are proposed to be preserved in the northeast corner of the development. No other trees are shown to be preserved on the entire site. 3. All area within public R.O.W., public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, and the fire lanes, required parking areas and area within (6') of the building foundation as shown on an approved Site Plan shall be exempt from the tree protection and replacement specified in the Tree Preservation Ordinance. If the intent of the applicant is to remove the existing trees within the northeast landscape area next to the northeast building (40,000 sq.ft building), the trees will be required to be replaced in accordance with Section 5.0 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A. * The existing trees (protected Post Oaks and Eastern Red Cedar) in the northeast corner of the property should be physically tagged with a number for easier identification. * All requirements and regulations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A, apply to the entirety of this lot. Please be aware of the penalties of not applying the tree preservation protection methods required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A. BUILDING INSPECTIONS LATrees\DRC99\99-023 c^ 0 - C 1441 0 a } fill � o g € w = I E • •'�j ��5 ' _ _� �;IE � _ - � ■3' I !ifll i5,i�1. ! �.��"�:e`�".'GL4 �� 1��iC7-LU1fi - - (( �2 :I � � �' �'' i{� 0 1 1; ��I 11 111 I G 1 � I �i i_•: I I w 71 I I I I I I I I I +1,1, r •.�.�. ^_' i, 04 _ Is 531 'C�{ LL ,� i i I — �Jl1 l7ll*g! ;r II; I' I = it mi nul 11111WmAi 1 it arlanv 6rovr� I f- r '^.r Lac b 1 Ll 7gnignurWE LL In j i ^y r i r.•. 1 y ` `• �Ivlw ! fl ; IDD•�S 07/30/1999 10:58AM FAXCOM PAGE 002 OF 002 City of Southlake o g � 1n � City Council Agenda Item JUL `� as requested by a Councilmember OFFICE OF CITY SECRETAPIP If you wish to include an item on the City Council agenda,please complete this form and submit to Sandy LeGrand, City Secretary, at least 7 days before the council meeting. Proposed Agenda Item: All.America City Award Date of Council Meeting: August 3, 1999 Request from: Rex Potter; (817)488-1760 (nam c and phone number) Please provide any attachments/handouts you want to include in the council packet with this request. Council items are determined and listed on the agenda the Monday-week prior to the council meeting so it is imperative to have the submittal seven (7) days before the council meeting. If you have any questions,please contact Sandy LeGrand at(817) 481-5581,ext. 704. For Office Use Only Date Received: 7 Item will be included on agenda for council meeting dated: &44id �j l9 Item assigned to consentlfirst readin /resolution/other items for nsideration/other iteTps for discussion, item number Copy to City Manager M:1 W P-['l LF.S(:ff YS[SCtifORM>Uc iEN[1MDD.tI�x: 1119- 1 Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR.