Loading...
1999-08-17 CC Packet City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM August 13, 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 17, 1999 Note that the financial report is not included in your packet. Due to computer problems, the end of month information was not able to be entered into the computer. Assistant Finance Director Lynn Martinson plans to have the report ready to hand out at the meeting Tuesday night. If you have any questions, please call Lynn. Work Session Item. An item for consideration at the beginning of the City Council work session will be the pattern of choice the City Council wishes to request of TxDOT for the concrete retaining walls for the S.H. 114 reconstruction. At previous meetings, Council has been generally desirous of masonry patterns offered by the TxDOT- accepted manufacturers, and has asked staff to provide physical examples of both a "Slumpstone" or equivalent pattern, and an "Ashlar Stone" or equivalent pattern, as noted in previously forwarded literature. Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter has obtained the molds for both of these patterns and will have concrete casts of both available at the August 17th meeting during work session. At that time, Council can provide input as to the most desirable of those patterns. Please feel free to contact Chris. 1. Agenda Item No. 5A. Approval of minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held August 3, 1999 and the Special City Council meeting of August 10, 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. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 2 of 14 2. Agenda Item No. 5B. Appointment of Sharen Elam as Director of Finance. The packet memo from Shana Yelverton describes our selection process and the choice of Ms. Elam for the position. We are pleased to have "acquired" a director for the position who brings a strong technical background, as well as familiarity with our Finance Department and Southlake financial issues. Ms. Elam will be in attendance at the work session on Tuesday and we will introduce you to her at that time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Shana Yelverton or me. 3. Agenda Item No. 5C. Resolution No. 99-64, Authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with Texas Department of Transportation for funding of an alternative fuels program. This grant opportunity will help us pay for converting specific items within our fleet to alternative fuels, as required by state law. The memo in your packet from Ron Harper describes the state mandates, the program Texas has put in place to address the issue, and the grant funding availability. Please let Ron Harper know if you have any questions about this item. 4. Agenda Item No. 5D. Award of bid to Wright Construction Company for the relocation of an 18" water line at the intersection of Dove Street and SH 114. Although we received only two bids for the project, the bid from Wright Construction is very favorable. The bottom line is that we can complete the project for approximately $59,000 less than the budget estimate. Please let Shawn Poe or Ron Harper know if there are questions on this item. 5. Agenda Item No. 5E. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional service agreement with Cheatham and Associates, Inc. for the engineering and design of South Kimball Avenue, from Crooked Lane to Heritage Business Park, and the extension of East Continental Boulevard to South Kimball Avenue. This item will Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council ' Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 3 of 14 allow us to move forward with development of the infrastructure needed for the CISD projects to be located on the 42-acre site. The map attached to Shawn Poe's memo shows alignment of the proposed project. Cheatham & Associates is the logical consultant to design S. Kimball for several reasons. First, they are under contract with CISD to develop the site plan and engineering for the school facilities on the 42-acre tract. Second, they surveyed and platted the right-of-way needed for the roadway, and third, they designed the water line along the proposed S. Kimball to serve the CISD site. Please note that the design and construction of these projects are eligible TIF projects included in the financing plan. Please let Shawn Poe or Ron Harper know if there are questions on this item. 6. Agenda Item No. 5F. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement with the developer of Barton House. The memo from Charlie Thomas provides the details of the agreement. This is essentially a standard developer agreement, the primary purpose of which is to govern the installation of the 12" water line. Please let Charlie Thomas know if you have any questions on this item. 7. Agenda Item No. 5G. Designating the City Council Meeting on August 31, 1999 as a Regular City Council Meeting. As of the May 1998 election, the City Charter allows the City Council to establish additional regular meetings as deemed necessary. As explained in the memo from City Secretary Sandra LeGrand, we are asking you to establish an additional meeting for the purpose of adopting the budget. Please let me know if you have questions or comments about the additional regular City Council meeting. t Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 4 of 14 8. Agenda Item No. 5H. ZA 99-058, Revised Preliminary Plat for Eagle Bend Estates, Phase 2. The property is located in the center of the Timarron Golf Course, east of Timarron Addition - Eagle Bend Estates and west of Timarron Addition - Crescent Royale. This plat proposes a revision to the street alignments and lot configurations of the previously approved Preliminary Plat. There were no significant issues regarding the proposed revision at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The Commission recommended approval (5-0) subject to the Plat Review allowing variances to "radial lot line" requirements and the "10' Utility Easements" required along a portion of the subdivision perimeter. This is the final phase for the Timarron Addition - Village `J' Development Plan which was approved having a total of 84 residential lots, with a maximum density of 1.48du/ac. Following the Commission's recommendation for approval, staff discovered that the proposed revision to the final phase would put the overall development 3 lots over the approved development plan with a density of 1.52 du/ac. A comment requiring a reduction of 3 lots has been added to the Plat Review Summary. This requirement cannot be waived. In order to add additional lots and/or increase the density, a Revised Development Plan must be approved. If the applicant agrees to comply with this requirement and the Council or other persons have no concerns, this item can remain on the consent agenda, subject to the Revised Plat Review Summary dated August 13, 1999 and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Feel free to contact Dennis Killough regarding this item. 9. Agenda Item No. 5I. Ordinance No. 693-B, 1" Reading, Providing outdoor lighting regulations. You may recall discussing this item at your July 20 meeting. Subsequent to your discussion, the ordinance was considered and approved by the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council ` Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 5 of 14 Planning and Zoning Commission on August 5. We have also been in discussions with our attorneys regarding the best mechanism for meeting the objectives of the P&Z and City Council as articulated during the various meetings. The result is the ordinance included in your packet. Please note the following changes to the ordinance you originally discussed: ➢ P&Z had no substantive change recommendations; ➢ P&Z supported the correlating Zoning Ordinance change that deletes lighting issues from Zoning Ordinance; > City Attorney has made this a stand alone ordinance and not part of Building Code, due to some upcoming legislation that will change the required processes for appeals and variances; ➢ This ordinance still provides for a plan review by both P&Z and Council; ➢ The ordinance still allows the building official to make administrative decisions regarding equivalent lighting products; and, ➢ The ordinance still allows Council to review appeals and variances. The memo from Malcolm Jackson provides details about the ordinance under consideration. Please feel free to call Malcolm or Garland Wilson with questions about this item. 10. Agenda Item No. 5J. Ordinance No. 480-GG, Pt Reading, Revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, regarding regulations on lighting and glare. This item is associated with the proposed revisions to the Uniform Building Code regarding lighting and glare regulations. Since the lighting regulations are being placed in the City's UBC, this revision is being made to remove existing lighting regulations from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. A memo and ordinance describing the proposed changes is included in your packet. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council ` Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 6 of 14 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (5-0) on August 5, 1999. Feel free to contact Karen Gandy regarding this item. 11.Agenda Item No. 7A. Ordinance No. 480-316, 2'd Reading, (ZA 99-036), Rezoning and Site Plan for a proposed office building on Miron Drive. This request is for a change of Zoning from "B-l" to "S-P-l" with "0-1" 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 feet office building which 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 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 "O-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 "O-1" uses. The proposed variances 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 requested variances are dumpster location (forward of the structure) -and building articulation. L Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council ' Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest = For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 - Page 7 of 14 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0) subject to the Plan Review, allowing the requested variances, and adding the following: • The 8' fence be constructed with the smooth side facing the residential properties. • Prohibiting any car washing or car repairs with regard to the proposed attached garage. • Allowing the City Landscape Administrator leeway in evaluating irrigation requirements in order to address any concerns affecting existing tree preservation. 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 staff's understanding that the majority of their concerns have been resolved. This item appeared before you on August 3, 1999 for first reading and was approved (5-0) subject to the Revised Site Plan Review and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. Feel free to contact Karen Gandy or Dennis Killough regarding this request. 12. Agenda Item No. 7B. Ordinance No. 752, 2' Reading, Amending the Project Plan and Financing Plan for Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake, Texas; and resolving other matters incidental and related thereto. This ordinance amends the Project Plan and Financing Plan to reflect the participation of the CISD in the Southlake Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone. The TIRZ Board Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 8 of 14 approved the amended Project Plan and Financing Plan on August 10, and the City Council approved the Ordinance on first reading after the TIRZ board meeting. In order for the CISD to participate in the TIRZ, these amendments must be approved by City Council prior to August 31, 1999. These projects identified in the amended plan will be funded through the TIRZ. As you recall from the presentation to City Council last week, the real property taxes generated from the TIRZ are anticipated to pay for the debt issued. Jim Sabonis plans to attend the City Council meeting to respond to any questions you may have regarding the financing plan. If you have questions regarding the TIF prior to the meeting, please contact Shelli Siemer. 13. Agenda Item No. 7C. ZA 99-066, Revised Site Plan for Southridge Executive Suites. This property is located at the northeast portion of Corporate Drive, south of Southridge Lakes residential community, and north of the Bank United located on W. Southlake Boulevard. The purpose of this revision is to add a proposed carport over 6 parking spaces located on the far east portion of the site. You may recall that this was proposed during the original Site Plan approval and was removed from the request due to design and location concerns. At that time the applicant said he would further evaluate the issues and would possibly return with a revised plan. The primary issue regarding the carport is its encroachment into the 15' side yard setback. Without rezoning the property to "S-P-1" "Site Plan District", this requirement may only be varied by the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Staff has included a memo in your packet for this item, which establishes standards for evaluating carports in non-residential districts. These standards are based on existing regulations within the City's Ordinances. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (5-0) on August 5, 1999, due to the encroachment Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 9 of 14 into the side yard building line. Feel free to contact Dennis Killough regarding this request. 14.Agenda Item No. 5D. ZA 99-053, Development Plan for Kirkwood Hollow, Phase H. This property is located north of Kirkwood Hollow Phase I, east Kirkwood Boulevard and west of White Chapel Boulevard. This is part of the Kirkwood Hollow Residential Planned Unit Development. The plan proposes 33 single-family residential lots, with 4.88 acres of park land dedication and 0.10 acres of common open space. The primary issue discussed was related to the applicant's requested waiver of sidewalk requirements within the development. The applicant felt that since the Sidewalk Ordinance was not in affect at the time of platting of Phase I, that it should not be imposed on future phases. The Commission felt that the future developments would benefit from the sidewalks and did not recommend waiver of this requirement. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (4- 1) on August 5, 1999, subject to the Plan Review allowing waiver of the requirements for "two points of access" and "street stubs." Commissioner King dissented disagreeing with the requirement of sidewalks. Please contact Dennis Killough regarding this item. 15. Agenda Item No. 7E. ZA 99-054, Preliminary Plat for Kirkwood Hollow, Phase II. This is the Preliminary Plat associated with the previous item. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (4-1) on August 5, 1999, subject to the Plat Review allowing waiver of the requirements for "two points of access," "street stubs," and "utility easements" along a portion of the perimeter property boundary. Commissioner King dissented disagreeing with the requirement of sidewalks. Feel free to contact Dennis Killough regarding this item. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 10 of 14 16. Agenda Item No. 7F. ZA 99-055, Development Plan for Kirkwood Hollow, Phase III. This property is located south of Kirkwood Hollow Phase I, north of W. Dove Road, east of Kirkwood Boulevard and west of White Chapel Boulevard. This is part of the Kirkwood Hollow Residential Planned Unit Development. The plan proposes 50 single family residential lots, with 1.02 acres of park land dedication and 1.77 acres of common open space. Sidewalks were a similar issue as in the previously discussed Kirkwood Hollow proposals. The applicant has requested a waiver of an additional 5' of R.O.W. dedication (ultimate 94' R.O.W. width) required along Dove Road. Their reason for the request is based on the fact that during the Concept Plan approval the R.O.W requirement was for an ultimate 84' of R.O.W. width (42' from center line) and when they provided dedication for the realignment of Dove Road to the City, they provided only the 84' of width. The width was changed on the City Thoroughfare Plan in order to provide an additional 10' of width for placement of an off-road trail (6' sidewalk). You may note that the applicant is providing a 20' wide park dedication along the north side of Dove Road which will provide adequate room for the required trail. The applicant stated in the meeting that one of the reasons for doing it this way was to insure that the Kirkwood Development complied with their open space requirement. There was also some discussion regarding a proposed access point on Street `A' for the future CISD elementary school to be located on what is now platted as Stanford Place Addition. The Commission allowed the connection of Street `A' to the school property as shown with the understanding that any future school driveway at that location would be evaluated with future plan reviews for the school. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (4-1) on August 5, 1999, subject to the Plan Review amended as noted in the Staff Report. Commissioner King dissented disagreeing with the requirement of sidewalks. Feel free to contact Dennis Killough regarding this item. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 11 of 14 17. Agenda Item No. 7G. ZA 99-059, Site Plan for Carroll I.S.D. Addition No. 3. This site is located at the northwest comer of Dove and Carroll. The plan proposes approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of additional classroom space along with a 3,200 sq. ft. storage building. The primary issues were related to variances requested for bufferyards and sidewalks. The initial motion to approve by the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 5, 1999 failed (2-3) with another motion to approve which carried (3-2) as noted in the Staff Report. Contact Dennis Killough with questions regarding this item. 18. Agenda Item No. 10A. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a participation agreement with the Carroll Independent School District pertaining to their participation in the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake, Texas. In order to participate in the TIF, the school district must establish their level of participation by September 1, 1999. During the Joint City Council/CISD meeting on July 27, 1999, there was consensus among both governing bodies to pursue the agreement with a number of issues to be discussed and resolved between the CISD and City staff. The attorneys representing both organizations and the staff from the City and School District have worked over the past two weeks to finalize the participation agreement. The CISD will consider the agreement at their August 17' Board meeting. The agreement reflects the issues agreed upon during the joint meeting. As you recall, this participation agreement and the amendments to the project and financing plan correspond with one another. In fact, The City will have the flexibility to use 30% of the CISD TIF fund contribution (after reduction of negative financial impact) to pay for public improvement projects defined in the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council ` Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 12 of 14 Project Plan, and does not limit the City to the school infrastructure as described earlier in the negotiations with the CISD. Although there are risks involved for both parties, this agreement does limit the risks and will provide for the CISD and City to benefit from their participation in the TIRZ. Please contact Shelli Siemer if you have any questions regarding the agreement. 19. Agenda Item No. 10B. Masonry color and style for the Southlake Town Hall. As noted in the memo from Ron Harper, early order of the bricks for the Town Hall fagade is necessary to ensure timely delivery of the materials. Samples will be provided during the meeting for your consideration, as well as cost estimates. Please let Ron Harper know what questions you have. 20. Agenda Item No. 11A. Authorize the Mayor to amend the utility contract with IBM allowing the City to repay IBM for the water utility improvements made for Solana and surrounding development. The memo in your packet details the proposed amendments to the contract and the purpose for making the changes. The key elements of change include: • Assignment of the Maguire Partners' interest in the agreement to IBM, ■ Provision of a payment schedule while a balance exists, ■ Provision of credits against development fees. As pointed out in the staff memo, the balance owed to IBM is $501,352.90. Payments made under this contract will need to be budgeted as part of the CIP, and would be made as specified in the agreement as long as the balance owed exceeds the payment due. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999 Page 13 of 14 This item has been placed on your agenda as a discussion item so that you have the opportunity to review the issues before you're asked to act. If you are comfortable with it, we will place it on the consent agenda of a subsequent meeting. Please let Ron know if you have any questions about this item. Other Items of Interest 21. Included in your packet is a Workgroup Sign-Up Sheet. Please return your completed form to Karen Gandy by August 24' so that each director may begin scheduling the projects for discussion. If you would like to fax it to her, the number is (817) 488-9370. 22.Also included with my memo: ■ Memo from Greg Last concerning Typical TxDOT Project Development Summary ■ Thank you notes X C BC Staff Extension Numbers: Campbell, Billy, City Manager, ext. 701 Carpenter, Chris, Senior Planner, ext. 866 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 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest - For City Council Meeting August 17, 1999_- i Page 14 of 14 Last, Greg, Director of Economic Development, ext. 750 LeGrand, Sandra, City Secretary, ext. 704 Martinson, Lynn, Assistant Finance Director, 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, Nona, Community Services Coordinator, 481-2776 Wilson, Garland, Director of Public Safety, ext. 735 Yelverton, Shana, Assistant City Manager, ext. 705 M:\W D-FILES\Campbe ll\Meetings\9"8-17.doc E U Z o c w e °' z o c p � m E > C m� 0 u -9 5 � M E > k �Y OOU Y U � 0CnU Y o °3F p = p s U Ll a m a N W � � a � � w C. U !� G c c e p N QO QO O 0 a, cq Ix � 0 !U L ago a L IW 3 o I cc 3 y N �1 cz U = (C = L O C C � Y y C y Cq O C cC N O cC it t- C rn 7 CCS bA L' X O O `� n > O O p M CY r- c al c 3 ° _ _ Y a CL. n 0 3 x � c � G y C E E 0 U L 6� L' N W � �o 00 _ O N a C. U o \ O O O O ° CD CD CDCD O O v1 O A V O kn to O W') 00 O O O ,r) 00 kr) N 00 IW a 00 WaV+ H L Q 1 1 vl cl VZ � .b a' pq GL y c N bA C (Vth _ o no CLto tD CJ U ° = v E Cz c y E o n L _ E c=Gcc 71 � y Q •B c� o � � = O y O c � O P.M cn = y R cq y L _ -D W = L L r L C9 n c O p CAp wo c y o z CA = OL p p y �..i y y ? cy G •= c > v�i cz c y cz U o y n m m u c c� c `' p a� a� c y ? ca C4 � �_ � > � •°� `� � _ •v >_ L c CC y = Q y C3 O a> G p cz O L O CL. to 0 7— y O,1 fC C Q as O .L y Y o L y Ca = L o ^A CG ^A cz cC o y o 2 cC o G C-1 vn N N v� N Q O 4 'v) N O Q _ F C C O O U U L L U o o a O a N � a UL a 0 0 a yO IrC�I y O CIS to "•� C O bA a W o W o � W U U a w H d a � w � U Y H � 1 t C O � LIS 3 o � i �^ U ❑Q �+ U Lj A ' City of Southlake,Texas MEM0RANDUNI August 3, 1999 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Greg Last, Director of Economic Development SUBJECT: Typical TxDOT Project Development Summary From Prime Strategies Inc., Courtesy of Mike Weaver Attached is a summary of procedures utilized by TxDOT for approval and funding of transportation facilities. This was provided to us courtesy of Mike Weaver, Prime Strategies, Inc., the consultant that we have used on various Metroport advocacy projects. I thought you might like to keep this for future reference. cc: Nees media contacts enc: Typical Texas Department of Transportation Project Development i i i i Typical Texas Department of Transportation Project Development The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) averages from four to six years to complete the following six steps necessary to develop a roadway project to the point of construction letting 1. Project authorization '_. Project Approval of NiPO where Federal funds are used 3. Major Investment Study/Schematic and Environmental Studies/Public Involvement Process 4. Engineering (Plans, Specifications & Estimates, and Right-of-Way Plans) 5. Right-of-Way Acquisition and Utility Relocation 6. Construction Letting/Commission Contract Award TxDOT revises rules and policies for project development within the Department and in coordination with outside agencies such as the Texas Historical Commission or Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission on an as-needed basis. The following presents an over-,iew of the six major areas of project development, noting major TxDOT rules and policies currently in place The estimated time duration for task completion is based on usual TxDOT project development duration when tasks are funded and managed by TxDOT staff unless otherwise noted. Duration of project development can be significantly affected by TxDOT funding and staffing limitations, and changes in priority assignments. 1. Project Authorization Any project which is planned to undergo project development must first be approved by the Texas Transportation Commission' (Commission) for inclusion into the Department's fiscally- constrained 10-Year Unified Transportation Plan (UTP). There are several ways a project may be presented for authorization by the Commission. They include being proposed by the appropriate TxDOT District Engineer; the Commission itself may request that a particular District evaluate the project; and, the project being proposed by a delegation (one or more local governments, or an organization consisting of two or more persons). ITexas Transportation Commission: a three-member bode,appointed by the Governor on a staggered appointment basis. Present members include Chairman Da,,id Laney(appointment expires Z/1/01),and Members of the Commission Robert Nichols(appointment expires 21/0+).and John 1'. Johnson(appointment expires 21/05). The Commission sets polic} for the Department,authorizes projects for development,and retains the emplo%Ytnent of the Department's Executive Director. Page 1 ' Delegation Appearances before the Texas Transportation Commission Delegation appearances are currently scheduled eight times a vear at the Commission's monthly meeting in Austin or at one of the District Offices. The request for a delegation appearance would be directed to the District Engineer of the TxDOT District Office, who has jurisdiction over the projects. A delegation may request Commission action on a maximum of three specific transportation projects, or on the general transportation needs for a specific geographical area. Delegation appearances are limited to 20 minutes (time limit does not include remarks by elected public officials), and the number of delegation speakers is limited to three (other than elected public officials). Petitions for delegation requests must be filed no earlier than 90 days prior to the date on which the delegation requests to appear. The Commission usually limits delegation appearances to three or four per delegation Meeting, and prefers not to schedule more than one delegation from a particular area during one Meeting. The request for a delegation appearance ("petition") on highway projects must include the following information: 1. Delegation identification • name of organization or local government; contact person, and contact address and telephone number 2 Statement of Intent • statement that petitioner desires to appear as representative of named organization or local government: name and address of organization or local Qovernment Clear and concise statement of subject of proposal presentation and brief summary of action soueht 4. Brief description of known or potential adverse impacts on the environment 5. Name, address and telephone number of each opponent, if any, to proposed action 6. Name and statement of position and endorsement, if any, of the applicable Metropolitan Planning Organization Additional Information if requests concerns a particular transportation project: 7. Basic Project Data • highway(s) or roadway(s) involved • limits, including cities and counties • length • description of existing facility • description of requested improvement Page 2 8 Estimated cost • right-ofway • construction • utility relocation cost • engineering and design cost • environmental mitigation • total cost of project 9 Local participation • engineering and design • right-of-way • utility adjustments • environmental mitigation • construction • other project components • proposed participation by other public or private entities 10. Background • historical information. if any • project details not covered elsewhere that lend supportive information to the request 11. State Senators and Representatives in whose district the request is located Once a delegation petition is submitted to the District the District reviews thepetition, P requests additional information if necessary. and prepares a delegation report packet for submittal to the TxDOT Executive Director no later than 35 days before the scheduled appearance. The petitioner is scheduled (or not) for an appearance and notified of such no less than 70 days before the date of the requested appearance The reviewed and approved delegation report is submitted to the Commission, the Governor, and appropriate Department Administration staff no less than 8 days before the scheduled appearance. Identified opposition is notified of the petitioner's requested appearance and is given the opportunity to also appear before the Commission at the same Delegation Meeting after the project sponsor appearance. The delegation report packet prepared by the District includes traffic information, historical and status information, economic development considerations, results of a preliminary environmental investigation, accident data, estimated costs, MPO endorsement or status (if any), and District recommendations and comments. Page 3 Commission Action for Project Authorization The Commission usually takes action on requests 60 to 90 days after the delegation appearance. Formal action by the Commission authorizing a project is in the form of a Minute Order The Minute Order is usually tendered to local entities and outlines the State and local responsibilities for acquisition of fight-of-way, utility relocation, and construction funding. Such tendered Minute Orders must be formally accepted by the local entity governing body within 90 days: if not accepted, the ?Minute Order is then voided. Minute Orders are not tendered to a pfivate entity. Active TxDOT project development for mobility projects is carried out in two priority authorization levels: Priority 1 Authorized for completion of Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), utility adjustments, and construction letting. These projects are the highest ranking, and have letting dates and construction funding identified within the four-year fiscal timeframe. Priority 2 Authorized for project development through preparation of PS&E, and right-of-way acquisition. PS&.E should be substantially completed (approximately 70°o - with geometric, structural, hydraulic, and pavement design approved by TxDOT's Design Division), with a (owl substantial amount of right-of-way acquired. Construction funding within the four-year fiscal timeframe and construction letting date are not identified for Priority 2 projects. Included in the Commission action would be the fandine category identified for the project. There are several State and Federal funding categories, including the Commission Strategy Priority funding category (which would fund projects already authorized from other categories), and special economic development and incentive funding sources, such as those created in Federal surface transportation legislation (e.g., the Intermodal Surface Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) or the currently in effect Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century (TEA 21). Category funding may be allocated to Districts by formula (e.g., population, lane miles, cost effectiveness or safety index), distfibuted statewide based on ranking, or selected on a project-specific basis by the Commission or committee. The following are the current TxDOT funding categories. I Interstate construction 2 Interstate maintenance 3A National Highway System (NHS) Mobility 3B NHS Texas Trunk System Page 4 3C NHS Rehabilitation 3D 'NHS Traffic Management Systems 3E N7HS Miscellaneous 4A Surface Transportation Program (STP) Safety - Federal Hazard Elimination Program 4A STP Federal Railroad Signal Safety Program 4B STP Transportation Enhancements 4C STP Metropolitan Mobility/Rehabilitation 4D STP Cuban Mobility/Rehabilitation 4E STP Rural Mobilitv/Rehabilitation 4F STP Rehabilitation - Urban. Rural Areas 4G STP Railroad Grade Separations 5 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 6A Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation - On State Highway System 6B Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation - Off State Highway System 7 State Preventative Maintenance 8A Farm to Market (FM) Rehabilitation 8B FM Expansion 9 State Park Roads 10A Traffic Control Devices 10B Traffic Management Systems Rehabilitation 11 State District Discretionary_ , 12 Strategic Priority 13A State Funded Mobilitv 13B Hurricane Evacuation Routes 13C NAFTA Discretionary 13D Urban Streets 14 State Rehabilitation 15 Federal Demonstration Projects 16 Railroad Grade Crossing Replanking 16 Railroad Signal Maintenance 16 Construction Landscape 16 Miscellaneous (Federal) 17 State Principal Arterial Street System Typical Estimated Duration for Commission Action Subsequent to Delegation Appearance: 2 - 3 months Page 5 Administrative Approval Approval that is gi%en by the Commission when a project is proposed by the appropriate TxDOT District Engineer or by a Commission member is referred to as Administrative Approval. A strong mix of several key factors must be present for the Commission to eliminate the need for a delegation appearance in order to authorize a project. First and foremost there must be an urgent mobility and/or safety need for the project. A second factor is timing in terms of the impact of initiating project development on TxDOT cash- flow and work-flo«. A project may have a better chance if, in addition to a demonstrable urgent need, there is an `opening" in unobligated funds and/or available staffing. Sometimes, a delay in a project already under development (e.g., unanticipated environmental features/mitigation, etc.) can open the door to a well-positioned project (in terms of need, support, and financial program). Also, project support in terms of participation in the construction financing is a very important factor. The Commission is very sensitive to the political/economic context of a project, and has made it very clear that a project sponsor bringing a package of local and private support, financial participation, and project prioritization, as happens with successful public-private partnerships, stands a much better chance of approval either through the administrative or delegation process It is very hard, if not impossible, to predict a project's chance of being administratively approved. Usually. a project is submitted through the delegation process_ and if appropriate, the TxDOT District Engineer or Commissioner(s) will move forward administratively. A Program Assessment (similar to a Feasibility Study) is usually prepared by the TxDOT District, unless such a report has already been prepared by the project sponsor. Administrative approval still requires formal Commission action in the form of a Minute Order. Federal, State and Local Participation In addition to the funding categories, TxDOT complies with defined cost participation ratios for preliminary engineering, construction engineering and construction funds, and right-of-way or eligible utilities. These ratios are based on location of project (e.g., on State Highway System, within urbanized area, etc.) and type of project (e.g., new location, expansion of existing facilities, etc.). For example, right-of-way cost for a new location Farm-to-Market is a 100% local responsibility, while right-of-way for an FM expansion is a 10% local responsibility. A table outlining these cost participation ratios is attached. Page 6 2. Project Approval of NIPO If Federal funds are contemplated, projects would need to be included in the appropriate MPO's 20-year Long Range Plan, which must be tinancialiv constrained to anticipated funding for the 20-year timeframe. Inclusion into the Long Range Plan is normally done subsequent to the completion of the MIS process and prior to the initiation of environmental studies. As the project moves through the development process and is anticipated to be ready for construction, it would need to be included in the MVO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which also is financially constrained to anticipated funding for a minimum three year timeframe, before it can be certified by FHWA and let for construction (see below). MPO TIPs and TxDOT's TIP for the non-urban areas comprise the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Estimated Duration for Completion of MPO Approval: Most MPOs provide for their TIPS to be amended every quarter to specifically include the funding for new projects. This can be done during the latter part of the environmental clearance phase of the project. 3. Major Investment Study/Schematic and Environmental Studies/ Public Involvement Process Document Preparation Once a project is authorized for development, the Major Investment Study/schematic design and environmental studies may proceed. Projects which would utilize Federal funding must comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policv Act (``EPA). State-funded projects must comply with, at a minimum, the Endangered Species Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, Federal Water Pollution Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act. For projects where significant environmental impacts are not anticipated or not readily discernable, an Environmental Assessment would be prepared. If, in the course of preparing the document significant impacts are identified, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) would then be prepared. Pursuant to Metropolitan planning processes promulgated in ISTEA, any proposed significant transportation investment in the metropolitan planning area where Federal funding (Federal Highway Administration - FHWA, or Federal Transit .Administration) are contemplated must have a Major Investment Study (MIS) performed. This "alternatives analysis," performed under the direction of the affected MPO would consider direct and indirect costs of reasonable alternatives such as mobility improvement, social, economic, and environmental effects; safety; operating efficiencies; land use and economic development; financing; and energy consumption. Page 7 The focus of the MIS is the consideration of different transportation modes (e.g., highway, rail, transit. HOB". etc.) to respond to an identified need, as contrasted to the National Environmental Policv Act (NvEPA) considerations in the environmental document process of alignment and design (cross-section) alternatives (see below). The MIS procedure would require av-encv coordination, including TxDOT, FHWA, public transit operators, environmental, resource and permit agencies, and local officials. As promulgated in ISTEA, the MIS was intended as input to a draft environmental document, although the participating agencies could elect to develop the environmental document as part of the MIS, at the discretion of the MPO. TEA 21 has since eliminated the tiIIS as a separate requirement and regulations will be promulgated by the US Department of Transportation regarding the integration of the NIIS requirement into the environmental analyses required for federal aid projects. The final document prepared in the EIS process, after interagency coordination and the holding of a Public Hearing, would be a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Federally funded projects are approved by FHWA for environmental clearance (a Finding of No Significant Impact, or FONSI, for an Environmental Assessment: a Record of Decision, or ROD. for an Environmental Impact Statement). An EIS would contain a comprehensive study of the human and natural environmental features which may be impacted by a proposed improvement (e.g., traffic operations. endangered and threatened species, air and noise quality, water quality, socio-economic, 40" land use, business and residential relocation, hazardous waste, hydrology/streams and navigable waters, historic and archeological), while an Environmental Assessment would not address these issues in a comprehensive and individual manner to the same extent necessarv. The further study and detail in an Environmental Assessment does not lengthen the process as a foil EIS would, but insures that major areas of community concern are adequately addressed through the public involvement process. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Two considerations have been given increasing importance by FHWA in the last few years as part of the environmental process: secondary and cumulative impacts. Secondary impacts have been defined as those that are "caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable" and are induced by the action (i.e., proposed improvement), and include changes in land use, water quality, economic vitality and population density-. Cumulative impacts are those which result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Page 8 Such impacts are usually less defined than secondary impacts. and may be undetectable when viexed solely in the context of direct or even secondary impacts, but nonetheless add to other disturbances and eventually may lead to a measurable environmental impact. Guidelines developed by FHWA state that impacts to environmental resources that function as an integral part of a large scheme (e.g., impacts on wetland/threatened or endangered species habitats, impacts of business/residentiaVcommunity services on the community) can trigger effects on a greater scale than the immediate influence of an isolated projects. Therefore, secondary and cumulative impacts focus on the functional relationship with the larger system. Agency Coordination Coordination with the appropriate agencies would be undertaken as part of initiating document preparation. In the case of a DEIS, a Notice of Intent to prepare the document must be published in the Texas Register (and Federal Register if a Federally funded project) and local newspapers. Interagency coordination includes circulation of the draft EA or DEIS to, at a minimum, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission. Texas Parks and Wildlife, L.S. Fish and Wildlife. Texas Historical Commission, L.S. Army Corps of Engineers (if appropriate for stream and wetland crossings), and L.S. Coast Guard (if appropriate for navigable water crossings). The environmental document is circulated for comment for a period of no less than 90 days before approval can be given to either afford an opportunity for a Public Hearing or hold a Public Hearing. The TxDOT District Office would be the lead office for interagency coordination during the preparation of the environmental documents. Public Involvement (Public Meetings and Public Hearing Requirements) The circumstances for holding either a Public Meeting or Public Hearing, or affording the opportunity for a Public Hearing can vary with each specific project. For example, in the case of detours and/or minimal amounts of right-of-way to be acquired or temporary construction easements, a meeting would be held with the affected property owners and local residents. Such a meeting would also be held if a minor or design revision were proposed subsequent to approval of the environmental document and completion of the necessary public involvement requirements. Were the proposed changes determined to be significant, the document would be revised and an opportunity for a Public Hearing would be afforded. An opportunity for a Public Hearing would be afforded to determine local interest for holding a Public Hearing when a project requires the acquisition of significant amounts of right-of-way, a substantial revision is being proposed, a measurable adverse impact on_ abutting real property is identified, or there is a substantial social, economic or environmental impact. A Public Hearing would be held (foregoing affording the Page 9 opportunity) if the document being prepared is a DEIS, an EA for a high profile project, or if public land designated as a park, recreation area, wildlife refuge, historic site or scenic area is proposed to be taken. Two Notices are required to be published, either for an opportunity for a Public Hearing, or a Public Hearing, and 'notices are mailed to abutting landowners and affected local governments and public officials. The environmental document is made available for inspection prior to the Hearing. Anv person is allowed to offer comments to be entered into the public record at the Public Hearing and the public has ten (10) days after the Public Hearing to submit comments to the District. In the event an opportunity is afforded for a Public Hearing where one is not required, a Hearing would be held if at least ten individuals request one. Subsequent to the Public Hearing, a Summary and Analysis is prepared, which includes a certified transcript (and more recently, a videotape of the proceedings) and analysis of comments made regarding the project. The summary analysis is circulated from the District to the Environmental Affairs Division and FHWA (for Federally funded projects). Once the Summary and Analysis is approved, a FONSI is prepared by the Environmental Affairs Division and issued (by FHWA for Federally funded projects) and the project has environmental clearance. In the case of an EIS document, the final EIS (FEIS) is prepared after the Public Hearing (if one is held) and includes a summary of the public involvement process. Once the TxDOT District Office and the Austin Environmental Affairs Division approve the FEIS, notice of its availability is published in the Texas Register (and Federal Register if Federally funded) and local newspapers and is circulated to the agencies which made substantive comments on the DEIS. The public has thirty (30) days to comment on the final document. After the thirty-day comment period, a ROD is prepared by the Environmental Affairs Division' and issued (by FHWA via the Federal Register, if Federally funded) and the project has environmental clearance. Manv factors can affect the scope and length of the environmental clearance process, such as whether the project is an expansion or new location project, located in a rural or urbanized area, number of affected jurisdictions, number or quality of environmental features, etc, and, like fight-of-way acquisition, can comprise the lengthiest portion of project development. Minimum Duration for Environmental Clearance: 4 - 6 months to Public Meeting (includes initiated report preparation). 9 - 10 months following Public Meeting to completion of schematic and draft environmental document and holding of Public Hearing (includes interagency "Pro-lding that the Environmental A-5irs Dwision and agencies are assured that the Department has satistactoni% addressed comments received on the project. Page 10 distribution and review. document review, and approval to hold Public Hearing). 1 - _ months for submittal of Public Hearing Summary and Analysis. months for District and FHu"A review and approval of Summary and Analysis and issuance of Findin; of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Total Duration: 16 - 20 months 4. Engineering Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) While engineering may commerce at any time, the preferred alignment (locally and technically) is not given final approval until the project is given environmental clearance (see above.) Once completed and approved by the TxDOT District Engineer, plans are submitted to the Austin Design Division for review and approval. Four (4) months prior to scheduled letting date, the District forwards a letting list of projects planned for construction letting. and plans must be forwarded to the Design Division no later than 12- 14 weeks (approximately 3 months) prior to the scheduled construction letting date, depending on whether the project is State or Federally funded. The following estimations for PS&E and Right-of-Way Plan completion are based on a District contracting with an outside design consultant to prepare the engineering. "Typical Duration for PS&E Completion: 8-14 months to retain design consultant and Notice to Proceed. 6-9 months to 60-700, completion for submittal to District for review. 2-4 months for revisions/comments and 100% completed resubmittal to District. 1 month for District review. 1 month for revisions/comments and final resubmittal to District. 2 weeks for final District review and District submittal to Austin Design Division. 1 month for Austin Design Division review and approval. Total Duration: 21-32 months Page 11 Right-of-«'ay Plans Right-of-Wav plans are generally submitted in 1000,0' completed form to the TxDOT District Office for review, and then forwarded to the Austin Right-of-Way Division for final approval. Right-of-Way plans can be prepared concurrent with or initiated prior to the preparation of the PS&E. Depending on the project sponsors, the environmental document. PS&E, and Right-of-Nk'ay Plans can be prepared by the Department, contracted by the Department with an outside consulting firm, or public-private partnership sponsors may include all or part of these services as part of its contribution to cost participate and ultimately accelerate project development. Typical Estimated Duration for Right-of-Way Plan Completion: 4 months to completion for submittal to TxDOT District Office for review. 2 months for revisions/comments and complete resubmittal to District. v eeks for District review and District submittal to Austin Right-of-Way Division. •..eeks for Austin Right-of-%Vay Division reyie%k and approyai Total Duration. 8 months „►• 5. Right-of-Way and Acquisition and Utility Relocation Program Right-of-«ay acquisition and utility relocation costs are project-specific. Responsibility for the cost of right-of-way acquisition depends on whether the project is an interstate, state highway. FM or other roadway on the State Highway System. as noted in Section 1. Project Authorisation in the discussion of Federal, State and Local participation. TxDOT must pay for the relocation of utilities located in their own easements; otherwise, the utilities must move at their own expense. The TxDOT District Office is the entity normally responsible for acquiring rights-of-way for transportation projects, although local political jurisdictions can assume responsibility for right-of-way acquisition such as Farm-to-Market projects or by Minute Order when local governments offer to provide 100% of the right-of-way at no cost to the State. Acquisition, if performed by the State can comprise the most lengthy element of project development: the State estimates right-of-way acquisition at about two (2) years. Many projects have exceeded that average time by several months or even years, but TxDOT has begun implementing new programs to positively impact the ROW acquisition process schedule. Page 12 For large, complex programs. TxDOT has recently begun to contract with private sector firms to handle the entire ROW acquisition process, including appraisals, property owner contact and negotiation, coordination and preparation for condemnation proceedings, and all escrow and title transfer paperwork. Additionally. TxDOT can now approve and accept a documented property owner counter-offer, rather than proceed with condemnation_ proceedings when TxDOT's first and only offer to the property owner is refused. Public-private partnership sponsors also can assume responsibility for acquiring right-of-way (appraisal, property owner contact and negotiation, solicitation of right-of-way donation, and local entity eminent domain or condemnation powers) and assist the Department in early coordination with utility companies for relocation. In such a case, the Department would enter into an agreement with the local public entity outlining the responsibilities of each party in the right-of-way acquisition process, including reimbursement (if any) by TxDOT to the local sponsor. Appraisals, if performed by or on behalf of the local entity must be approved by the TxDOT District Office and Austin Right-of-Way Division. Early property owner contact (affected property owners can be identified during the latter stage of the environmental phase) and appraisals can be done prior to the project receiving environmental clearance; however, an offer can only be made after environmental clearance has been secured. Early in the process, the local entity governing board authorizes right-of-way acquisition and utilization of eminent domain powers, if necessary, in accordance with State laws governing acquisition policies for acquiring real property. All right-of-way must be Le acquired prior to construction letting (see below.) v The typical right-of-way (ROIL) acquisition process by TxDOT can be broken down into three (3) general tasks phases: l ROVE' Determination and Identification of Property Owner ROW Purchase Negotiation with Property Owner 3 TxDOT Purchase or Condemnation of ROW ROW Determination and Identification of Property Owner A preferred alternative (technically and locally) is identified during the schematic/ environmental approval phase of the project. While the preferred alternative indicates the general location of the improvement, the specific, physical location is not identified until more detailed engineering tasks are completed as part of the PS&E and ROW plan preparation phase. During this engineering phase, surveys are conducted, precise measurements are made, and the actual ROW is physically staked on the ground. From this information, property owners are identified through the appropriate County tax appraisal district ownership information database. This information is included in the ROW plan sheets which, along with legal descriptions of the identified parcels needed for the improvement, comprise the ROIL' documents used in the purchase, donation and condemnation of ROW. Page 13 Typical Estimated Duration for Right-of-Way Acquisition and Utility Relocation: 6 months to complete appraisals and District and Right-of-Way Division approval (includes local entity governing body authorization) 2 - 6 months to complete property owner negotiations on an agreed purchase (includes local entity transaction and right-of-way possession, and Special Commission Condemnation Hearing(s) scheduled, if necessary). 6 - 12 months to complete Condemnation Process (Hearing Commissioners award determination, local entity award deposit and right-of-way possession) Total Duration: 14 - 24 months 6. Construction Letting/Commission Contract Award Before a project can be let for construction, TxDOT must certify at least one month prior to the estimated letting date that 1) funds are available for the estimated construction cost, and 2) the State is in possession of all required right-of-way Advertisements for construction letting are published the month prior to construction letting (usually within 22-27 days prior) Lettings are held within the first two weeks of the month. Sealed bids are opened and only the contractor name and total construction bid amount is read aloud. The low bid is considered the "apparent" low bid until the Austin Construction and Maintenance Division reviews the bids, confirms the "apparent" low bid, and recommends to the Texas Transportation Commission to award the contract. Normally, bids are received both higher and lower than the Department's estimated construction cost. If the verified low bid is "out of range," exceeding more or less than seven to ten percent of the Department's estimate, the Department would first review its own estimate, and if all bids received were in the same range, would most likely recommend the Commission award the contract. If not, the project would be re-bid. The verification and confirmation process takes only two to three weeks, so that the Commission can award the contract later in the construction letting month during the regular monthly Commission Meeting. Contract negotiation with the contractor is initiated, and once executed, construction activities may commence. Typical Estimated Duration from Austin Design Division Review and Approval of PS&E to Contract Award 7-9 weeks for fund and ROW certification, advertising and letting 2-3 weeks for bid review Total Duration: 9 - 12 weeks Page 15 N m � Of m d W o 3 m m m m m m mst 0 cp N m m m mm m mm U mm `m mm mm mm m mm N m /0 is v v M U O M U v M U '0U jp (� 'a m U O m O J O m «5 O m o O m O e LLV) LL U) (nJ LL (n _J (nJ LL (nJ LL -j (nJ LLcnJ 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 � o 0 o O g o o � o 0 0 � o 0 0 0 � o 0 0 O D O O D O O O O 0 0 0 0 O D O O D 0 0 0 D O O 0 0 0 000 QI CO CV O) CD CO CD e- m N U) U') Co G 44 m j m � OI W o = N ` G Z U m m m m m m m m N (p d d `m m t0 N m (9 mCD m N y m () o L.L (n LL cn o LL En o LL (n o LL (n c o 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 O o o o o O o o O o o O 0 o 0 0 ? a O 0 O O O D O O O D O O 0 0 0 O Cn CD N CO N CO N — m N O th Q O a. m U c � w m Q ti a m m m m m m m m Rat LL mm mm ifl mm mm mm QLL CO LL c'n -0 LL () LL c'n �lz LL u) U O o o , SZ a O o o O Z9 o O o SR O O D O O 0 O O 0 0 0 O O D O O O 0 O O O> CO N CO N CO N CO N J 0 T � m Q O Q L ' m 7 m O E LM m ` m am W = tm (D m Q4) >. o°gTE �o mm `^ Q o = o m a--� O m m �, � c m ma= J V ac E o o x o O a H m m u+ U) 5% QE 6 E E2 ; E cN 1 W Q N 2 a a LL acn a_ U) 0 acn ain o m o N `y J W _ R LLMJ \U Jo Z6o �o mO c u o O J U O m / Jm m _m) J U � r , J LLJ LL (n !n LLVm `4i O o o O O o o 0 0 o O o o O o o o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 00 D 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 a D 0 0 0 CO C 4 — Co w .-- W C*4 ca m � G W � a O y N y y (9 (D y m 6 m m cu 0 a) O G U U � d O O V) d U) m (n a) U) CD r (� LL J U) J o LL U) o LL (1) o LL U) o LL U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O o o O o 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O D O O O CD CO NCO N r- CO N 0 (V C) CO N .- CO N LTI G a m CD G DL W G _ CD m m m m m U m m O a O m l0 m m 0 N f0 J v f0 m m a o v o v �p 2 65 v v � LL - J U1 LL U) LL () LL (n LL (n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o o O O � 0 0 O r o o O � o o O O r o 0 O `O O O O O O`O O 0 0 0 O 00 0 O O O D O O Co N — �-- Co N •- CD N Co 04 .- Co N O o L C L O E 01 ft7 O O Y O () Z) N n m d G m ~ c0 o V) (o a N rn Uri O 6 « N O LL m 2L a m U O C C C O 7 a E �, E o ff-� C6 r LL m y o a) m N � - o) C N 0 �° 0 0 Y V) a (0 a A w LL Z un U m Ea Lv0 m D a m m 3 0 .S mz LL m U) >� 1 ov, o oT �a a (n (n a U a a (n (n 0 ` Ln M m j m m a o) 0 � m m m cv m m mm d m mm m m m m m mm U Cam m o v �p vU vm vU vM 'a mQ o vU vo J (n m m 0 m C. m 0 (n m m O J C) O m 0 e c LLfn LLJ LLfn LLJ LLCO LLU) (nJ \ LLJ LLJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O - oe o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o o o o o O o O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O` O CD O O 0 C) 0 O 0 C) 00 C) 0 r- a) — CD '- O M N M N M M G ul m Of G W n o N G U C V f9 m m m m C) (D m (0 m V) -t C) (0 N C) m m m m m m 2C) 05 2 U C1 M C) (9 OG 'a (0 U � f0 U 'D (D _0U U m - m O '0 U U CS d m O 0) d O (n m m J al O a) O (� LL (n O Q)J LL LLJ LL (n LLJ LLfn LLU) LLJ LLJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -RR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 o O r o o � o o O r � o 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O `O O O p 0 0 O `O O O `O O O O Cl O C) C) C) � CD N O CD C) CD N a Cl Of G `\ CD m G Of W C m 2m m m m m m m m m m U N m m m m m �p CI m m m U m m m m m M U v �p v ((�7 v l0 v (D O -0 U 'a U m +- O U) m — m 0 m m 0 (o m — m — J m m 0 LL (oJ LLco LLJ LL(1) LLJ LLN LL (o o LLJ LLJ 0 o a O o o \ \ \ \ o , \ \ \ \O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 O O O O `O O O O O O CD O co `O O CD `O O CD O `O CD `O CD O CO r- 0) — 0) — O .-- CD N CO N , O •- CON O m E E E OD E E E m m m U) m m ay d Ch 0 0 0 (co moo c >, 6 >. >. o m (n U) cn a a n E t9 a >1 m m m m O m m O m � c L O C L O L = CD (n cn N C = O d = Ln _ >. V) O E E m C p) w y m V H m > N d A N m V v O C f0 C 3 (n (� C _R �+ >. �. 0 - m (n m �` m (n m co 7 >, Q c m c d m C c Cm y O yW m .21 V) dU C UCco Ucco U = n Cl) O O G a mOOm ° m 10 0 0 a � ° H m G ° Q j a m o cn a W - � ` LL o _ d R ° :3 3 st at co co o m m at m at m <`o mmio mm c � O f0 O fC V l0 U (C U :. fn N J Z LLU) o (nJ (1 (nJ LLd) LL y OI o � _ (n O o o O o o o 0 o O . o 0 0 0 0 Co 0 C) 0 CD C) D O C) 0 0 0 0 C) O CO N tC) to IT to CO 04 "O V LL O (n ton m � � O Zf ul N m (C a G C N O m m j SLL m O O o0 _ Q O = C N p) m _ Q Y E m LO r o u = to to cco coo a m CD ai m ° 0 c @ o G � m co m m d � H N p 0 C (0 G) > a O J O CD m O (n m O X U o LL � o (n J U- -1 G LL (0 y a � y N C U O o o O o o o 0 o O o o y r L U 0 N m 0 000 00 000 0000 0 000 '^ 10 3 o v c0 N to to Q to CO N 0 LL 10 N � c m fA O Y c C O M fC z cc 9 3 (D w a _> m cNi c m E a m O .0 Vl O ° O CD C a) U L c Y_ U C d C O C = (C N m O 75 2 C 3 vl .0 to a (C w C (0 to l0 O = E 2 N N a N at at co co a d a E v Y L. N M ffl at m mU O d > - co L m (C m m U m f0 m m RUUC m m p O O v 7 O O 41 . J O 4) 0 [� m65 O O _O j; E Ll- (n -j LL(n J LL (A E p1 N 0 O C ° 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .p o o o C O Dp U O t o o ` O t a` o t e-eT o O t o o n Cl C 7 O m O 0 Co O O O 0 O O `0 00 0 O 0 OO C v m N (D (C V E r' ON t t 1n tO t Q—O t CDN '� �, j d Hr m to N C O L O � m m O a(A d tZ .� v c a� H up o _rn a ° o m N ° a�i E m E u E CDc cM E O C (n N mm m 3 � � (o � c 0 0 y m m T at Cl) o ° cn E H 5 'n N m C m O _ o s r 3 In Y) O O .H C c >O (C c m c T 3 3 n o scn o is o Epp a > `m U 2) >, OD m o a a. y ,� = r o v 3 Lo Oat f0 N d G1 V/ r U C L N O t0 N a a Fw L L LL C .. ` (C a U H H H c� cn co cn Q z c I ` 0 LO d Cr m a a c d F U) m` v a� LL m a O aUi E um D C CL C N ._ C � � L 3 � c � O 3 cn o m O N U U (n O 7 c `• m C Ef w U y y O C m C 3 m 0 7 Q ur O J m N >, a yr 7 u� o m [1C, O �I G O m 3 U _ o m o o O m m c (p r o 0o a in ° CD 0 m o o .e o io o S� m N 0 <D a p c C � O Q U _ N m _ f6 d W J .0 m «� d p c m V U (n _ l0 DC to lJJ o X J o C � O . m O v+ CS O CD O 41 0 m m O c in y O O o L c m ci vi c M o N E cQ o (D O 0 _, O a r O F- a O` U) U- U W O N 0.Mv A No o m 0 � C) d O._O O y LL Q U C Q Cr N o C Q O) C O X o m F c 7 ar O O (p O O c a� LL LL CV C7 L m m F LL c_ m� (ate to E � co CD c0n a ��� LitiGc.J %77,�.�EG �it�tccd b � Q .P.S. tOA- a�zz A" � L L Qug 3, /P99 �� , a.�/ ✓�la�.�dvut.�z.,ao�� e Cw C L de Y Bonnie Sudderth District Judge Linda Blair 352nd Judicial District of Texas Monica Willenburg Court Coordinator Tarrant County Justice Center Court Reporter (817)884-2730 Fort Worth,Texas 76196-7283 (817)884-2732 July 19, 1999 Mr. Robert McAmis City of Southlake 667 N. Carroll Avenue Southlake,Texas 76092 Re: Your Employee: Mr. Gaylon Music, #162 Jury Service from July 12-16, 1999 Dear Mr. McAmis: Let me express my gratitude to you and your company for the services of your employee, Gaylon Music, as a juror in the 352nd District Court. The case on which he deliberated was important, and I wanted you to know that he worked diligently during his service. I realize the difficulty employers face when an employee is called to jury service. However, the sacrifice you make in allowing your employees to serve as jurors without fear of lost wages or work is one of the most valuable contributions you can make to your community. Since the quality of the verdict is often determined by the quality of the jurors who serve,our system of justice is dependent upon citizens and employers, like you,who are willing to place the interests of justice above personal and business needs. Should you or your company ever become a party in litigation, certainly you would desire the best qualified jurors to hear and resolve your dispute. Again, I thank you for allowing us the privilege of working with your employee. Please place this letter of commendation in Gaylon Music's permanent file. /Si ely, 1 BONNIE SUDDERTH BS:mw 1 31 � Y , 999 TIP:s ll�A On rr-� be h&► T eo 41 d not have,, Jo 4-OX uj u4j o PP W;�"I I&k c o A4i'n 4c d iv% i I who(e_. c k1as dsrc.l Th-4Akj44 �� 4p' 4,4j c&rat ry. �tsl Arad I't tv �.9-9q -7/a 99 b 7 .f ce_n C� Le !�•-c:Ejl ,� _fit w -7 /,C2, ..¢x�ir� ,, ' "a ) U /e tul i yK .n 3 C�o v 1 G G -7�j z 7b — 7 �� o-- Gk0 %�o►.,�� �v �o-� dZQI�y� J ,7 4*4- �. (yam wQY ILI, �" ''�cu,°; �/ '74/ �G7— Gyp-3s65� q �\ Sewell Lem . 1 David Thomas David Thomas 6321 Lemmon Avenue Dallas,Texas 75209 — Direct Line(214)353-2100 - (214)352-8100 1-800-352-8108 - = Fax(214)352-9429 ! _ 91" ; August 4, 1999 Ron Harper Director of Public Works '�-- City of Southlake r = 1950 E. Continental _. Southlake, TX 76092 Dear Mr. Harper, As an employer, it is always refreshing to hear positive feedback regarding one of my associates, and I am sure you share my feelings. I recently found myself up against a"utility challenge" and was responded to with the utmost professionalism and concern for my satisfaction. Your Supervisor of Water. Mr. Mike Patterson, went above and beyond his call to duty. I commend his performance in resolving my situation promptly and efficiently. I am proud to have made the choice to reside in the Southlake community and people like Mike Patterson reconfirm that decision. He truly represents the"Spirit of Southlake". Best regards, 1 I David Thomas Thomas Cc: Billy Campbell — City Mgr. Mike Patterson DT/nb • City of Southlake, Texas r MEMORANDUM August 13, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Appointment of Sharen Elam as Director of Finance Action Requested: City Council approval of the appointment of Sharen Elam as the Director of Finance for the City of Southlake. Background Information: The Southlake Charter requires that "The head of each department shall be a chief, director or superintendent who shall be appointed by the City Manager subject to the approval of the Council and such chief, director or superintendent shall have supervision and control over his department." Upon the resignation of Lou Ann Heath, the city began its search for a new finance director. Six finalists were selected and interviewed. Upon thorough review of each finalist's background, skills, and philosophy, it was determined that Sharen Elam best met the needs of the City of Southlake. NW She was offered the position and has subsequently accepted. Due to the provisions of her current employment contract, it is anticipated that Ms. Elam will begin her duties with the city on August 23, 1999. Ms. Elam is licensed as a Certified Public Accountant and has seven years experience in governmental auditing, most recently as an Audit Manager with Weaver and Tidwell, L.L.P. As you know, Weaver and Tidwell has functioned as the City of Southlake's auditor for several years. As such, we have the added benefit of Ms. Elam's familiarity with the City of Southlake. Financial Considerations: This position has been extended to Ms. Elam with a monthly salary of $6,416.67, plus the standard executive benefit package. Citizen Input/ Board Review: N/A Legal Review: N/A Alternatives: N/A Supporting Documents: None Billy Campbell,City Manager Appointment of Sharen Elam Page 2 of 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approval of the appointment of Sharen Elam to the position of Director of Finance for the City of Southlake. Approved for Submittal to City Council: ---9 _ - City Manager's Office City of Southlake, Texas 4 MEMORANDUM August 13, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Ron Harper, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution 99-64,Authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with Texas Department of Transportation for funding of an alternative fuels program Action Requested: City Council consideration of Resolution No. 99-64, approving the Alternative Fuels Program Agreement for funding with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Background Information: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established the federal Clean Fuel Vehicle Fleet Program to reduce air pollution. This mandatory program, which began in 1998, requires fleet owners operating in areas that surpass the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and are categorized as serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment areas, to purchase a percentage of low emission vehicles when adding or replacing vehicles in their fleet. (Dallas-Fort Worth has been upgraded as serious non-attainment.) States have the option of implementing the federal Clean Fuel Vehicle Fleet Program in their designated nonattainment areas or developing a state substitute program that would reduce the same amount of vehicle emissions. In response to this option, the State of Texas has developed the Texas Clean Fleet (TCF) Program. As a result of Dallas-Fort Worth's upgrade from "Moderate" to "Serious" pollution status, participation in the TCF Program is required for the City of Southlake. Some of the highlights of the TCF are: • Local governments that operate a fleet of more than 15 vehicles and private entities that operate a fleet of more than 25 fleet vehicles are affected. These figures exclude law enforcement and emergency vehicles and vehicles over 26,000 lbs. in weight. • Beginning September 1, 1998, such fleets must ensure that their vehicles, including leased ones, are certified to meet or exceed the following low emission vehicle standards: ➢ 30% of vehicles purchased between September 1, 1998 and September 1, 2000; or at least 10 percent of the total fleet as of September 1, 1998. kkw 5C-1 F , Billy Campbell August 13, 1999 Page 2.of 3 • Within 90 days of meeting the minimum fleet size, affected local kw government and private fleets must register with the Executive Director of the Clean Fleet Program for identification and compliance tracking. To help defer the impact of the TCF mandates, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) developed the optional Alternative Fuels Program for grant funding for local governments from TxDOT to assist with the conversion of vehicles. These grants would reimburse municipalities 80 percent of the total cost of conversion. Southlake currently has a non-emergency fleet covered by the TCF of 44 vehicles and only 4 of these vehicles currently use an alternative fuel. Since these four vehicles comprise less than 10% of the fleet, Southlake could not register for the TCF by September 1, 1998. Therefore, 30% of vehicle purchases between now and September 1, 2000 must be certified low emission vehicles (LEV). Southlake can earn credits towards this requirement by converting vehicles currently owned to run on an alternative fuel. Earlier this year, the City of Southlake applied for the aforementioned grant and was awarded up to $19,200. The funds provided by the State under this agreement will be used to reimburse the City for cost incurred for the incremental costs of the purchase price of a new alternative fuel vehicle or conversion of an existing vehicle to operate on an alternative fuel. Reimbursement also covers supplemental capital outlay related to the alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., additional tanks or canisters, air boxes, etc.). By converting vehicles to alternative fuels the City can earn credits toward the mandatory compliance with the TCF as required by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission. In order for the City of Southlake to receive the optional grant through NCTCOG Alternative Fuels Program and use the funding to supplement to cost of the State requirements for the TCF program, the City must properly execute the agreement from the TxDOT, provide an approved resolution demonstrating City Council approval of the agreement, and provide the State with a Cost Estimate of the Agreement. Financial Considerations: The cost of conversion will be approximately $1,950 per vehicle and the reimbursable portion of the conversion of each vehicle would be 80% or $1,560. 5C-2 Billy Campbell August 13, 1999 Page 3 of 3 The departmental participation is as follows: Department Make Model Year Unit # Building Inspections Ford F150 99 913 Ford F150 99 912 Ford F150 98 909 Engineering Ford Taurus 96 790 Ford F150 99 792 Ford Crown 95 791 Victoria Streets/Drama e Ford F150 99 801 Ford F150 96 820 Parks Ford F250 96 952 Ford Ranger 96 954 Ford Taurus 97 953 Ford 1/2 ton 99 956 Each department that will be converting vehicles has budgeted for this expense in the FY 99-00 budget. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: A copy of the agreement has been faxed to the attorneys for review. Alternatives: Find other avenues to support the costs of purchasing alternate fuel vehicles or converting vehicles to alternative fuels in order to comply with the TCF requirements. Supporting Documents: TxDOT Agreement for Funding Alternative Fuels Program. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with Texas Department of Transportation for funding of an alternative fuels program Approved for Submittal to City Council: - 1 / ager's Office 5C-3 Agreement No. 02-132 CSJ: 0902-48-221 *�— STATE OF TEXAS § Fiscal Year 2000 No. of Vehicles: 12 COUNTY OF TRAVIS § AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT, is made by and between the State of Texas, acting by and through the Texas Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the "State" and the City of Southlake, acting by and through its authorized officials, hereinafter called the "Recipient". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ("ISTEA") codified under Title 23 U.S.C. Section 101, et seq., establishes the National Surface Transportation System that is economically efficient and environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy, and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner; and WHEREAS, Title 23 U.S.C. Section 149, establishes a congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program ("CMAQ") to contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality standard to be implemented by the States' Transportation Agencies; and WHEREAS, Title 23 U.S.C. Section 134, establishes that Metropolitan Planning Organizations ("MPO's") and the States' Transportation Agencies develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of the State; and WHEREAS, Title 23 U.S.C. Section 120, establishes that the Federal share of funding for CMAQ programs will not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the cost of the desired activity; and WHEREAS, Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton Counties have been designated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 as an ozone nonattainment area, and thus qualifies for CMAQ funds; and WHEREAS, the North Central Texas Council of Governments, hereinafter identified as "NCTCOG", as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan area and Denton and Lewisville urbanized areas, has the responsibility for developing transportation control measures for the State implementation plan to assist in the reduction of ozone-forming mobile emissions; and WHEREAS, a program of converting new and existing vehicles from conventional fuels to alternative fuels is desired, to be hereinafter identified as the "Alternative Fuels Program"; and WHEREAS, CMAQ funds have been made available to the State through the U.S. Department of Transportation for the advancement of the Alternative Fuels Program; and 12/29/98 Page 1 of 6 5C-4 WHEREAS, NCTCOG has submitted the Alternative Fuels Program through the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for incorporation in the State implementation plan to assist in the reduction of ozone-forming mobile emissions; and WHEREAS, the State and the Recipient desire to enter into this agreement to establish the parties' obligations and responsibilities associated with the Alternative Fuels Program; and WHEREAS, on the day of , 19_, the Recipient's ruling board, passed Resolution No. , attached hereto and identified as EXHIBIT "A", authorizing the Recipient's participation in the Alternative Fuels Program; and WHEREAS, on the 28' day of September, 1993, the State's Texas Transportation Commission passed Minute Order No. 102788, attached hereto and identified as EXHIBIT "B", authorizing the Alternative Fuels Program through the State Transportation Improvement Program; AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties hereto to be by them respectively kept and performed as hereinafter set forth, it is agreed as follows: 1. CONTRACT PERIOD This agreement becomes effective on the date of final execution by the State and shall terminate on August 31, 2000 or unless terminated or modified as hereinafter provided. 2. SCOPE OF PROJECT The Recipient shall agree to the terms and conditions of the Specifications for Public Sector, Non- Transit Alternative Fuel Vehicles, attached hereto and identified as EXHIBIT "C". 3. FUNDING RESPONSIBILITIES The maximum amount payable for FY 2000, under this cost reimbursement agreement is $19,200. This amount is based on the Cost Estimate, attached hereto and identified as EXHIBIT "D". The Recipient will be responsible for securing the non-federal funding share required for financing the Alternative Fuels Program. The Recipient will not incur any cost for reimbursement until authorized by the State through the issuance of a signed Work Order, to be attached hereto and identified as EXHIBIT "E". Costs incurred by the Recipient prior to the issuance of a Work Order will not be eligible for reimbursement. The Recipient shall comply with the cost principles established in OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State and Local Governments". 12/29/98 Page 2 of 6 5C-5 `-- 4. REIMBURSEMENT The State will reimburse the Recipient for properly supported costs incurred under the terms and conditions of this agreement. The reimbursement of costs will only include those applicable federal participating funds. The Recipient shall submit the State's Form 132, Billing Statement, or other type of invoice acceptable to the State to the following address: Texas Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 6868, Fort Worth, Texas 76115. All billing statements shall be properly documented, summarizing the costs by description of work performed and other incidental costs. The Recipient shall provide an invoice showing vehicle cost, the incremental cost for the alternative fuel system, the total as bid by the recipient, less any rebates and/or incentives for the installation of the alternative fuel system. The State will make payment to the Recipient within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Recipient's request for payment, provided that the request is properly prepared, executed, and documented. Unsupported charges or charges after final acceptance by the State will not be considered eligible for reimbursement. If applicable or necessary the State will prepare a final audit upon completion of the services authorized herein or at any time an audit is deemed to be in the best interest of the State. 5. TERMINATION This agreement may be terminated by one of the following conditions: (1) By mutual agreement and consent of both parties. (2) By the State, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Recipient as a consequence of failure by the Recipient to perform the services and obligations set forth in a satisfactory manner and within the limits provided, with proper allowances being made for circumstances beyond the control of the Recipient as determined by the State. (3) By either party, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other. Termination of this agreement shall extinguish all rights, duties, obligations or responsibilities established under this agreement. The Recipient will not incur any costs eligible for reimbursement during the thirty (30) day notice periods established hereinabove. 6. INDEMNIFICATION The Recipient acknowledges that it is not an agent, servant, or employee of the State, and that it is responsible for its own acts and deeds and for those if its agents or employees. 7. REMEDIES Violation or breach of contract terms by the Recipient shall be grounds for termination of the agreement, and any increased cost arising from the Recipient's default, breach of contract, or violation of terms shall be paid by the Recipient. This agreement shall not be considered as specifying the exclusive remedy for any default, but all remedies existing at law and in equity may be availed of by 12/29/98 Page 3 of 6 5C-6 8. AMENDMENTS -- Changes in the time frame, character, responsibilities, or obligations authorized herein shall be enacted by written amendment. Any amendment to this agreement must be executed by both parties. 9. SUBLETTING The Recipient shall not assign or otherwise transfer its rights or obligations under this agreement without the prior written consent of the State. 10. INSPECTION OF RECIPIENT RECORDS The State will, for purpose of termination of the agreement prior to completion, examine the books and records of the Recipient for the purpose of checking the amount of the costs incurred by the Recipient at the time of contract termination. The Recipient shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other documentation relating to costs incurred under this agreement and shall make such materials available to the State, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or its duly authorized representatives for review and inspection at its office during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under this contract or until impending litigation is resolved. Additionally, the State, FHWA and its duly authorized representatives shall have access to all records of the Recipient which are directly applicable to this agreement for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts and transcriptions. 11. LEGAL CONSTRUCTION In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this agreement shall for any reason, be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision thereof and this agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 12. AUDIT REQUIREMENTS The Recipient shall comply with the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984, P.L. 98-502, ensuring that the single audit report includes the coverage stipulated in paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of OMB Circular No. A-128. 13. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The Recipient shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and the orders and decrees of any court, administration bodies, or tribunals in any matter affecting the performance of the agreement. 1y.. 12/29/98 Page 4 of 6 5C-7 14. NOTICES `�-- All notices or documentation to either party by the other required under this agreement shall be delivered personally or sent by certified or U.S. mail, postage prepaid, addressed to such party at the following respective addresses: State Recipient Mr. Steven E. Simmons, P.E. Mr. Billy Campbell, City Manager District Engineer City of Southlake Texas Department of Transportation Attention: Ms. Valerie Bradley P.O. Box 6868 667 N. Carroll Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76115 Southlake, Texas 76092 All notices and documentation shall be deemed given on the date so delivered or so deposited in the mail, unless otherwise provided herein. Either party hereto may change the above address by sending written notice of such change to the other in the manner provided herein. 15. SOLE AGREEMENT This agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter. ��,.. 16. COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS In complying with laws, the Recipient will comply with federal civil rights laws (49CRF21 and 23CFR710) and Equal Employment Opportunity laws (41CFR60) and with Minority Business Enterprise requirements (49CFR23) as applicable and to the extent these laws and requirements are not in conflict with or considered unconstitutional under case law. �w. 12/29/98 Page 5 of 6 5C-8 IN TESTIMONY HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed in duplicate counterparts. THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE THE STATE OF TEXAS Recipient Certified as being executed for the purpose and effect of activating and/or carrying out the By: orders, established policies, or work programs heretofore approved and authorized by the Texas Transportation Commission under the authority of Minute Order 100002. Typed Name Title By: Date Date ATTEST: 12/29/98 Page 6 of 6 5C-9 EXHffiff A RESOLUTION 99-64 c A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FUNDING OF AN ALTERNATIVE FUELS PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the City staff to apply for a grant to convert twelve (12) vehicles to dual fuel Propane (LPG) and; WHEREAS, the City's request for a grant was approved by the North Central Texas Council of Governments and sent to the Texas Department of Transportation for administration of the grant; and, WHEREAS, matching funds are available in the applicable City departmental budgets for this program. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS THAT: Section 1. That the City Council authorizes the Mayor to execute and an agreement with the State of Texas for funding of an Alternative Fuels Program. .. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE DAY OF 1999. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BY: Mayor Rick Stacy ATTEST: Sandra L. LeGrand City Secretary 5C-10 EXHIBIT B TENT L TXOOT 2-17-94 10:01 TXOOT- 98173706759:U 4 TEXAS TRANSPOEZTATICN CCt4MISSIO0 VARIOUS County MINUTE ORDER Page 1 of 3 Pages District No. VARIOUS WHEREAS, Title 23, United States Code, Sections 134 and 135, as amended by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, require each designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the State, respectively, to develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a condition to securing federal funds for transportation projects .under either Title 23 or the Federal Transit Act ( formerly the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1991) ; and, WHEREAS, Section 134(h) requires an MPO to develop its TIP in cooperation with the State and affected transit operators; to provide :citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, other affected employee representatives, private providers of transportation, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to cocrne-nt on the proposed TIP; and further .requires the TIP to be updated at least once every 2 years and to be approved by the MPO and by the Governor; and, UEREAS, Section 135(f) requires the State to develop its TIP for all areas of the State in cooperation with those designated MPOs; .and further requires the Governor to provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, other affected employee representatives, private providers of transportation, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to convent on the proposed State TIP; and, WfiEREAS, Sections 134(h) and 135(f) specify the respective requirements and eligibility criteria for projects to be included in ;the respective TIPS; and, MiEREAS, the various TIP's applicable to the designated MPO'sr as well as to those areas outside designated MPO boundaries have been presented for public ccrmient by relevant authorities throughout the State; and, 5C-11 �:;gINT 6Y TXDOT 2-17-94 10 02 TXDOT- 98173706759:a 5 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COK 1ISSION I VARIOUS ' County MINUTE ORDER Page 2 of 3 Pages District No. VARIOUS i i WHEREAS, widespread notice was made available for review and comment at each of TxDOT's 25 district offices, at the TxDOT headquarters in Austin, to provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, other affected employee representatives, private providers of transportation and other interested parties in accordance with Sections 134 and 135 of the ;United States Code; and, IWHEREAS, a public hearing on the said STIP was held at the :TxDOT headquarters in the D. C. Greer Building at 125 East llth Street in Austin, Texas, on August 24, 1993; and, I WHEREAS, oral and written cmments received due to this hearing ;process were analyzed and Department responses and recommendations were ` submitted to the Commission for consideration; and, WHEREAS, after due deliberation and consideration the iCommission finds that the requisites of Section 134 have been fully satisfied as they pertain to development of the prescribers TIP's by beach of the 25 MPO's, and that the Statewide TIP attached to this order .as Exhibit "A" fully satisfies requisites of Section 135 as they ,pertain to the TIP; and, i VU S, Waco, Wichita Falls, and the Houston MPO's have corrected the local TIP and Financial Plan to reflect the original intent to use Federal, Local and/or State funding to implement said :project; and, i WHEREAS, Dallas—Fort Worth adopted their local TIP after the -Commission approved the other TIP's; and, WHEREAS, by letters dated September 9, 1992 and September 16, 1992, addressed to federal transportation officials, the honorable Arn W. Richards, Governor of Texas, has delegated to the Texas ;Transportation Coninission (Commission) those powers and 'responsibilities granted to her by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, save and except the Recreational Trails Program; SC-12 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CCL'MSSICL4 VARIOUS County MINUrE ORDER Page 3 of 3 Pages District No. VARIOUS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO THIS COMMISSION BY THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the respective TIP's of each designated MPO as well as, those areas outside designated MPO boundaries as reflected in the Statewide TIP in attached Exhibit "A" are hereby approved and the Executive Director is directed to submit the document to appropriate federal agencies for review consistent with applicable policies and procedures. f Subm' ted by: Examined and reco by: Oirecto: of Transportation °la in Approve1 iate Exe u ive bi c r x ve Di ctor 5C-13 Minute Num -10 2'788ber �` EXHIBIT"C" SPECIFICATION FOR PUBLIC SECTOR, NON-TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES FUNDING The funds provided by the State under the "Agreement for Funding Alternative Fuels Program," hereinafter referenced as the"Agreement," will be used to reimburse the Recipient for costs incurred for the incremental cost of the purchase price of a new alternative fuel vehicle or conversion of an existing vehicle to operate on an alternative fuel. The"Incremental Cost" is defined as: • The cost of a certified conversion of an existing vehicle to use at least one alternative fuel. • The additional cost of an alternative fuel system on new vehicles which may be purchased by the Recipient over the normal cost of the same make and model vehicle to operate on a conventional fuel. • Supplemental capital costs relating to costs associated with alternative fuel vehicle. (e.g., additional tanks or canisters, air boxes, etc.) The maximum available funding eligible for reimbursement for each approved vehicle type is derived from the programmed funding tables approved by the Regional Transportation Council, attached hereto and identified as Attachment "1". The amounts established in Attachment "1" shall include the cost of the actual installation of the alternative fuel system, the cost associated with the emissions tests and applicable costs incurred by the Recipient in implementing the Alternative Fuels Program. Under no circumstances will the federal reimbursable share exceed 80% of the total incremental cost. Vehicles operating on the following fuel types are eligible for funding under the Alternative Fuels Program: • Natural gas - Compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) • Propane (LPG) • Electricity • Ethanol • Methanol VEHICLE CONVERSION REQUIREMENTS The vehicle must be registered and based in the Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment area to qualify for funding under the Alternative Fuels Program. The Recipient will provide to the State written verification of existing or planned alternative fuels stations from which the Recipient plans to obtain the required fuels. The verification must be submitted to the State prior to the State's issuance of the Work Order. The conversion kit for the alternative fuel must be in compliance with the certification process accepted by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC") in order to qualify for 12/29/98 Page 1 of 2 5C-14 funding under this program. An emissions test demonstrating air quality benefits will be required by the State for each vehicle at the time of conversion. The emissions text must measure volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in the loaded mode (e.g., IM240 or similar). When appropriate, tests °�- before and after the conversion is performed should be conducted. Until the IM240 or similar test is available, emission tests using existing technology (e.g., four-gas analyzer, Bar-90) will be acceptable. As a minimum, the emissions with the alternative fuel in use must meet the traditional fuel emission standards for the model year and classification of the vehicle. Bi-fuel vehicles must be tested in operation on both the traditional and alternative fuel. The State has made arrangements with the North Central Texas Council of Governments ("NCTCOG") to act as its representative to review and approve various tests and reports required under the agreement. The Recipient will forward the emissions test documentation directly to NCTCOG at the following address: North Central Texas Council of Governments 616 Six Flags Drive, Centerpoint Two P.O. Box 5888 Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 The State's reimbursement of funds to the Recipient will be determined by the approval of the emissions test. FUEL/VEHICLE USE REQUIREMENTS Regardless of the age of the vehicle at the time of conversion, the Recipient will be required to operate the vehicle using the alternative fuel for a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of the vehicle miles traveled and travel a minimum of 25,000 miles (service life) and maintain the vehicle in its fleet for a period not less than three (3) years. Documentation verifying the usage requirements established hereabove may be requested by the NCTCOG on an annual basis or at any time required by the State and/or NCTCOG. If records are not provided to the NCTCOG by the Recipient or the records which have been provided by the Recipient reveals that the vehicles have not met the usage requirements established in this agreement, funding for future vehicles under the Alternative Fuels Program may not be allocated. Adjustments for idling vehicles will be made on a case by case basis. NCTCOG has the option to grant waivers for special cases. In the event an alternative fuel vehicle funded under this agreement is destroyed or lost through fire, theft, accident, or force majeure, the State will not seek reimbursement of funds. However, should the Recipient decide to sell the vehicle or otherwise voluntarily take it out of service, a prorated amount of funds provided under this program will be refunded by the Recipient to the State. The amortized amount of the refund will be based on the number of months the vehicle was driven on the alternative fuel (up to 36 months) for at least ninety percent (90%) of the vehicle miles traveled during each month. OWNERSHIP AND DISPOSITION At the end of the three (3) year operation period, the ownership and disposition of the alternative fuel conversion equipment purchased under the agreement will be assumed by the Recipient. Continued use of the alternative fuel vehicles by the Recipient is highly encouraged. 12/29/98 Page 2 of 2 5C-15 EXHIBIT "D" COST ESTIMATE Number of onversion Cost onversion Cost Fuel Type * Vehicle Type Vehicles Per Vehicle Summary LPG Automobile 1 , y 5 0 5 ,8 5 0 LPG Light-duty Truck 9 $1 , 9 5 0 $17 , 5 5 0 Heavy-duty Truck Automobile Light-duty Truck Heavy-duty Truck Automobile Light-duty Truck Heavy-duty Truck Total = $23 , 400 Less Federal Participation = ( $18 , 7 2 0 ) Local Participation Cost = $ 4 , 63u (Difference) NOTE: 1. If purchasing anew altemative fuel vehicle (including electric), the Federal Reimbursement is 80% of the incremental cost of the purchase price. 2. For conversions, the Federal Reimbursement is 80% of the conversion cost per vehicle. * Fuel Type: -Natural Gas (CNG) -Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) -Propane (LPG) -Electric -Ethanol -Methanol 12/29/98 5C-16 EXHIBIT "E" 1999 Alternative Fuel Program for 1999 Tarrant County CSJ: 0902-48- Mr. City Manager City of Dear Mr. This letter will serve as a Work Order, authorizing you to begin the conversion of vehicles. Attached for your records is a fully executed Alternative Fuels Program Agreement. This attached Agreement's Exhibit "C" requires an emission test to be conducted by a certain procedure. This emissions test is to be submitted to the North Central Texas Council of Governments for review and approval prior to any reimbursement of funds. Also enclosed, is a example Form 132 (Billing Statement), which you will use as documentation for reimbursement. Please submit one signed original and one copy to my office for reimbursement. If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact me at (817) 370-6591. Sincerely, i Joel H. Mallard Contract Management JHM Attachment Cc: Ms. Lynn Hayes, NCTCOG (W 5C-17 City of Southlake. Texas MEMORANDUM August 13, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shawn Poe, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Award of bid to Wright Construction Company for the relocation of an 18" water line at the intersection of Dove Street and SH 114 Action Requested: Award the bid to Wright Construction Company of Grapevine, TX for the relocation of an 18" water line located at the intersection of Dove and S.H. 114 for the amount of$257,999. Background Information: Prior to reconstructing S.H. 114, all utilities within the state right-of-way must be relocated that conflict with the proposed highway improvements. The portion of the S.H. 114 reconstruction that includes the Dove intersection was bid out on August 4, 1999. Construction is scheduled to begin by March 2000. There is an 18" water line that crosses S.H. 114 along the north side of Dove (see attached exhibit). This water line is in conflict with the proposed highway improvements. Financial Considerations: In the CIP budget, $339,200 was appropriated for the engineering design, surveying and construction costs to relocate the 18" water line at the intersection of Dove and S.H. 114. • The engineering design and surveying cost is $22,425. • The low bid for the construction cost is $257,999. There were two bids for this project (see attached bid tabulation). • The total cost of the project, which includes the engineering design, surveying, and construction, is $280,424. This is $58,776 below the estimated cost. This project has been added to the attached CIP Project Cost Ledger. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Not applicable. Legal Review: Not applicable. 5D-1 City of Southiake, Texas Alternatives: Although only two contractors bid this project, the low bid is below the estimated cost. As previously stated, these improvements must be completed by February 2000 to accommodate the SH 114 reconstruction. Moreover, there is an 8-10 week lead-time to deliver the water pipe following award of this project. Therefore, Staff recommends accepting the low bid and proceeding with construction of the project. Supporting Documents: Map exhibit Bid Tabulation CIP Project Cost Ledger Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council award the bid to Wright Construction Company in the amount of$257,999 for the relocation of the 18" water line at the intersection of Dove and S.H. 114. Please place this item on the August 17, 1999 Regular City Council Agenda for approval. SEP/sep Approved for Submittal to City Council: City/*' anager's Office 5D-2 Intersection of Dove Road and S.H. 114 t 18" Water Line ,F-, i I City of Southlake Geographic Information Systems 5D-3 CIP PROJECT COSTS A B C D Ce 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION BUDGETED AMOUNT 1 BID/FINAL COST DIFFERENCE 2 1.5 MGD MIRON ELEVATED TOWER* S1,860,000 S1,832,000 S28,000 3 20"WATERLINE ALONG FM 1709 S641,000 S638,408 S2.592 4 24"WATER LINE ALONG N.WHITE CHAPEL S850,000; S826,455 S23,545 5 BRUMLOW $112,700; S111,000' S1,700 6 BURNEY LN.-REHAB CUL-DE-SAC $57,000 S64,523 (S7,523) 7 BYRON NELSON STOP LIGHT S40,000 j $65.000 (S25,000) 8 BYRON NELSON STRIPING S65,000, S74,163' (S9,163) 9 ICOMMERCE TRAFFIC LIGHT* S100,000', S48,405 S51.595 10 DIAMOND CIRCLE STREETS&SEWER S1,286,000, S990,161' S295,839 11 DOVE FORCE MAIN* S1,747,500; S2.080,318 (S332.818) 12 DOVEHIGHLAND PAVING* S611,480, S778,533' fS167,053) 13 DOVE;SH 114 WATER LINE RELOCATION S339,200' S280.424' S58,776 14 FLORENCE TOWER TANK PAINTING* $105,000, S152,200', (S47,200) 15 FM 1709 TRAFFIC SEQUENCING* S120,000 S42,000, S78,000 16 HILLWOODSEWER* $95,0001 S82,415; S12.586 17 HUNTWICK ESTATES SEWER S200,000 S276,123' (S76.123) 18 JELLICO SEWER* S500,000 S419,723 S80?77 19 KIRKWOOD WATER LINE S326,000 S266.159 S59.841 20 LAKE DRIVE WATER,SEWER,PAVING* S364,500: S37r,001 S1 1w 21 LILAC LN.WATER SEWER,STREET* S234,600 S286.782 (S51182) 22 MISSION HILL SEWER S430,000', S489,099' (S59,099) 23 N.WHITE CHAPEL-COUNTY LINE TO LAKE* S340,000!; S470,970 (S130.970) 24 N.WHITE CHAPEL-DOVE TO COUNTY LINE S181,8501 S177,010 S4.840 25 N-3&N4 LIFT STATIONS* ! S1,000,OOOi S1,009,500I (S9,500) 26 PEARSON GROUND STORAGE TANK NO.2* S1,687,400 S1,545,24T, S142,153 27 PINE SEWER* S200,000 S183,368! S16,632 28 PLANTATION SEWER* S110,400 $84,676 S25,724 29 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER IMPROVEMENTS* S405,600' $472,580: (S66,980) 30 PUMP STATION NO.2* S3,110,000! S3,146,800 (S36,800) 31 RAINTREE SHADY LN WATER SEWER,PAVING*,! S1.925,995; S1,615.029' S310,966 32 RIDGECREST* S355,576!, S370,640i (S15,064) 33 SABRE SEWER CONNECTION-SOLANA S25,0001 S21,700! S3,300 34 SHADY OAKS TRAFFIC LIGHT* S100,0001 S91,000', S9,000 35 SOUTHLAKE, KELLER PUMP STATION MOD.* S300,000' S294,000' S6,000 36 TIMARRON-BENT CREEK REPAIR* I S726,9861 S699,315'; S27,671 37 TROPHY CLUB 24"WATER LINE* S1,511,0001 S1,440,693', S70,307 38 W.CONTINENTAL RECON.-PHASE 1 * $640,4241 $640,096', $328 39 W.DOVE RECON.-PEYTONVILLE TO SHADY OAKS i S259,680 $298,397', ($38,717) 40 WATER&SEWER TO MIRON ADDITION S196,781 S262,535 (S65,754) 41 TOTAL $23,161,672! $23,004,437' 42 TOTAL(OVER)/UNDER BUDGET $157,235 43 44 *Project not yet complete. Cost shown reflects contract bid price&engineering,surveying costs 45 46 47 1 8/11/99 5D-5 0 00000000000 00 00 0 0 00000000000 $ (Rq C! q o H rn H H H H H H H H H HIH H H H H H H H H H H w LLL m o N U O maw cl) m W ~ w m m z U 0j� l� ja LU mOU� (QLR Lu 0 000000000000000008800 0 = o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 (n o F o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Hf N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 0 o U H 4 m iD N Z Q O y m (nz a0 F V k � a 0 000000000000000000000 0 000 000000000000000000000 0 w to C (DOO $ gNa00 (000OOOOOOb00 N M (h (V V 000 0) P- OOOOOOQO00 N V 0 N MOOOOOhm r0i 0 .- (O N (D N70 (O to 00 b � � N 0 P- r- 0 W ti (OO to CAN N (nm RhH(OcOO b th M f` U 0) N N HH H b N HHHHH H HH n gaaI HHH HHHH H b9 Cl) O W n H N = 70 n O) Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h N ' C k W V N O O O N �_ O O W ~ U co V O pp 0 0 ('7 n O O . 0000O N O O Z U m p 2 m Z O O O N N V N2 0 v w g o 7 00 a k {� 7 a tD l'7 f- N N N Cl) m O oO C`( i I.- E cn Q LO p i o 000 000000 00000 0 0 - - 0 00000000000000008808 0 0 0 J HMO n0000tl7RO000000000NOO Cf O N N O ~ h C 0 0 0 0 M V b O O O O O O M 0 0 of to b to cc O R C'I U1 QJ N (O OC O (O O N O O C7 4b9 O 01 Q W m p tp tb r 0 N c0 V c0 n N o N o t (O N N ('7 C M O C7 N 0 1- t0 er 7 to U n H H H H H b NH H H H H H H H H H ,N CO01, 00 ' C �_ 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZM /y i V N 'C O Hw O W OOOOtn 00001AOOO0000000 p� W W 1 t m z m Z V a n N 0 0 0 0 M f` t o 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 O O O o m2 ¢ � 7a QN - NNONr` f` tn to to Z N ] to tD O Q IN CD b m N ("7 l7 d Q N z LL LL 6 ZQQLL ILLILL LL Q Q Q QQQQQu- (n (n Z J J J O W W J J J J W W W W W W W W J J J LO LU h O W N z U w W w W I— Ww MCLUj� � w � � W0 to Q ! � a z xCL(Lo i � � � � � U 0 O � 3 aaww mzzww > zww � W w � � a 0. 0- ,� wwaa � zU Q Y o as 2200 � J � � '. ? 2 � m N t J } °a W )- ^2 ww � yzzUa° } QQD w � W U � W >� :� QQ - - jr2 J w wQ0 � Z zN Q O wy UUmtn woo Q i J U O U Q > Z Z Q Q M U U U W } 0 t p Q z 0 z z » w w U U CO w » U Z U w O N J j h 7 0 f7 w O o H w W CC F o 0 F J J J J - Q U K d' > Q J 0 G j O Y in — Z (JUE W Qwwwwz > < W WwO W mO Jz W 0 ❑ LLfn (� F- FFFOJH W XW >- ZI- 1- U Q2 UwZr- f- rnUrnW wz � W 0 0 (n w Z 0 z z 0 o o > ¢ P P w = O LL 0 O H ui00a a Z (L0 ¢ w —Q f- - F— w (n — � WWwwwwzLLcc ¢ ¢ F � UUU � r Q I w W w W F Z w 0 0 0 0 m O a> LL U = Z 7 W J W UwJ (n (nW W W W � 2 ~ ~ > � ' UOm _ _ 3 F p aaWc(.� z � � 3 � � pw00zc) ' w0 � �/� 0 m O ON � OONQ0IT0 J � Sx0Xwww VI CU 0 0 m .-- 4. D � � N to N Cl) CIO U U J W n. F- W .J W O Z CI� N c'7 V t17 t0 h a0 Qf O W N R b CA O F r N N 5D-4 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM August 13, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shawn Poe, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional services agreement with Cheatham & Associates, Inc. for the engineering and design of South Kimball Avenue from Crooked Lane to Heritage Business Park and extension of East Continental Boulevard to South Kimball Avenue Action Requested: Staff requests Council to authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional services agreement with Cheatham & Associates, Inc. for the engineering and design of S. Kimball from Crooked Lane to Heritage Business Park and extension of E. Continental to S. Kimball. Background Information: The Carroll Independent School District (CISD) voters approved several Bond Projects in January 1999. Two projects in particular are the construction of a Transportation Center and stadium. These projects will be located on a 42-acre site south of Crooked Lane and east of the proposed S. Kimball Blvd. Based upon coordination meetings that have been held with CISD staff, the construction of these two projects will begin by June 2000. There currently is not access to the site. The access will be provided by the construction of S. Kimball extending from Crooked Lane to the Heritage Business Park. The design and engineering of S. Kimball from Crooked Lane to Heritage Business Park is scheduled in the FY99-00 CIP budget. The extension of E. Continental to the proposed S. Kimball is included as part of this project. In order to accommodate the construction schedule of the CISD Transportation Center and stadium, staff recommends to begin the engineering and design immediately and include the construction cost in the FY99-00 CIP budget. Financial Considerations: The amount of this proposal totals $104,150 (see attached proposal). The City estimated and budgeted $157,611 to engineer and design S. Kimball from Crooked Land to Heritage Business Park. 5E - I City of Southlake, Texas Citizen Input/ Board Review: None Legal Review: Not applicable Alternatives: Not applicable Supporting Documents: Proposal from Cheatham & Associates Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional services agreement with Cheatham & Associates, Inc. for the engineering and design of South Kimball Avenue from Crooked Lane to Heritage Business Park and the extension of E. Continental to S. Kimball in the amount $104,150. Please place this item on the August 17, 1999 Regular City Council Agenda for City Council approval. SEP/sep Approved for Submittal to City Council: City Manager's Office 5E - 2 aij W WE August 9, 1999 Mr. Charlie Thomas, P.E. City Engineer City of Southlake 1721 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 100 Southlake, TX 76092 Re: Proposal for Providing Professional Services in Connection with the Design of Street Improvements -Extension of South Kimball and Continental Blvd. CONSULTANT'S UNDERSTANDING The City of Southlake is experiencing an increasing amount of traffic along South Kimball and East Continental. In addition,the Carroll I.S.D.recently had a bond election to construct two schools, an intermediate and a middle school,upon a37 acre tract along South Kimball between =: Southlake Blvd., and Crooked Lane. These schools increase the tragic along South Kimball, but the major traffic generators will be the new stadium and transportation facility which is planned upon a 44 acre tract,just north of the intersection of South Kimball and East Continental, as shown on Exhibit"A". Therefore, the city staff has requested this proposal for engineering services for the preparation of construction plans and specifications for the street and drainage improvements related to the extension of South Kimball and East Continental Blvd. The project w-ill include the surveying, design, bidding,and contract administration of the proposed construction. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Surveying -� 1.1 Our firm will Punish all necessary surveying fieldand office work necessary to perform the engineering design and to prepare construction plans. 1.2 We will also furnish all construction staking- w ENGINEERS • PLANNERS• SURVEYORS A Subsidiary Firm of Southwest Planning and Design, Inc. . 1601 E. Lamar Blvd. • Suite 200•Arlington,Texas 76011 817/548-0696•Metro 265-8836� Fax 817E 8532 �= Mr. Charlie Thomas, P.E. Augqs 14999 City of Southlake 2 2.0 Engineering ;t 2.1 Our firm will furnish all necessary technical.expertise required to accompliskthe +- engineering design of the streets and drainage facilities.--:The design-will fben accordance with applicable state and local regulations � f 2.2 Our firm will then prepare construction plans, specifications and contract documents based on the engineering design. 2.3 We will assist in the advertising for and taking of construction bids. We will issue any required addendums. Our firm will assist in the processing of contract documents after contract award and will issue notice-to-proceed. 2.4 Periodic on-site visits by an engineer will take place during construction_.We will issue and process any required change orders. AM 2.5 We will provide assistance in conducting the final inspection and issuance of certificate of completion. 3.0 Inspection 4.1 We will not furnish full-time on-site construction inspection, but will make periodic visits to the site, and will be available for plan interpretations. a FEES► .r We will provide all the services and products described in the scope of services including all services necessary for engineering surveying,engineering,preparation of construction plans and Ar" specifications, construction staking and periodic visits during construction, and as-built plans for a flat fee of$ 94,800.00 for engineering. The surveying fee will be billed on an hourly basis not to exceed$ 9,350.00, including design surveys and construction staking. (See attachment"A" for cost breakdown.) T PLAN REVISIONS Any plan revisions, which the city directs to be performed, shall be billed upon an hourly basis _ per the enclosed hourly fee schedule. TERMS Invoicing will be based on percentage of completion. Billing will normally occur around the first of each month and payment expected within ten working days. GUARANTEE Cheatham&Associates guarantee to maintain the fees presented herein for 90 days from'*'date of this proposal unchanged. �A. 5E-4 = Mr. Charlie Thomas,P.E. A 1999 City,of Southlake If the above meets with your approval;this proposal can also serve as our agreemenly w ttch you may indicate by signing in the space-'provided below..Please do not hesitate to call . d you have any questions or requested ffiodifications'ofthe-proposal: The opportunity ce to you and the City of Southlake is greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Eddie Cheatham, P.E. F:\WORD\PROPOSAL`,SOUTHLAK\Kimball Extension.wpd •_:ram AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED: Accepted this day of , 1999 By: Title: 60 rya i � T �f9 "A� > � 42 ENGINEERING/SURVEYING FEE.G PRELINHNARY DESIGN PHASE:,, Field Crew- $--85.00 Staff Engineer $85.00 x 325 hrs: $276�00 . , Cad Technician $ 60-00 x 195 hrs. . . $ 11700:00' SUB-TOTAL . . . . . . $ 43,575.00 FINAL DESIGN PHASE: Staff Engineer $ 85.00 x 395 hrs. . . .$ 33,575.00 Cad Technician $ 60.00 x 290 hrs. . . .$.17,400.00 _ .: SUB-TOTAL . . . . . . $ 50,975.00 CONSTRUCTION PHASE: Field Crew $ 85.00 x 60 hrs. . . . . .$ 5,100.00 Staff Engineer $ 75.00 x 60 hrs. . . . . .$ 4,500.00 SUB-TOTAL . . . . . . . . . $ 9,600.00 TOTAL SURVEYING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,350 00 Now, TOTAL ENGINEERING.-. . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 94,800 00 7x� ' TOTAL FEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 5,104,150.00: r _ FEE SCHEDULE 5/01/98 Professional fees for studies and reports are calculated using hourly rates which include all wages, benefits, overhead and profit. The fees include all incidental costs and expenses(except where specifically noted), including all travel,out-of-pocket expenses, drafting,telephone, typing, etc., plus direct expenses times a handling multiplier. 4 The fees proposed for this project are based on the hours estimated for each phase of the project times hourly rates. The following is the current rate schedule used to calculate job fees. Principal Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 100.00 Registered Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 85.00 Registered Surveyor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 85.00 = Project Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 80.00 Graduate Engineer, E.I.T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 70.00 CAD Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 60.00 Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 55.00 _ Construction Inspector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50.00 ClericaUTechnical Typist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $40.00 3 Man Survey Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 85.00 2 Man Survey Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 TERMS Invoicing will be based on percentage of completion. Billing will normally occur around the first of each month and payment expected within ten working days. GUARANTEE Cheatham & Associates guarantee to maintain the fees presented herein for 90 days from the date of this proposal unchanged. ' FAWORDTROPOSAUSOUTHI.AK\KimbaR ExWnsioawpd ems: 5E-7 -- N 1 Q I __1I � I II I 1 ' I (-- - z, PROPOSED 1 PROJECT '�I f lo; to CISD 1 ' ( ; SCHOOL i I ( I PROPERTY I ' I � ( I I ---------- EAST CONTINENTAL BLVD. ' I ' I I I I I SCALE r - 300' Millif ' 4 L�4 inn I S S-. EXHIBIT 'A' 5E-8 City of Southlake, Texas f i MEMORANDUM f August 13, 1999 I I To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Engineering Services I Subject: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement with the developer of Barton House i Action Requested: Authorize the Mayor to execute a developer agreement for T.M. Hood No. 706 Addition, Lot 15 (Barton House). jBackground - Information: On March 23, 1999, the City Council approved the site plan for Barton House, which is located on the west side of North White Chapel Boulevard, north of Highland Street. Barton House will be served with sewer to be installed by Barton House, and several property owners under an agreement with the City approved on August 3, 1999. This developer agreement covers the construction of a 12-inch water line to be constructed by Barton House along the west side of North White Chapel Boulevard. Financial Considerations: The developer agreement includes a park fee of $2,400 in accordance with the attached memo from Kevin Hugman. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: This developer agreement is our standard agreement, originally drafted by the City Attorney. Alternatives: Approve the agreement as submitted, modify the terms, or deny the agreement. Supporting Documents: Developer Agreement Plat Exhibit Park Board Memo 5F-1 Staff Recommendation: Place the developer agreement for T.M. Hood No. 706 Addition, Lot 15 (Barton House) on the August 17, 1999 City Council agenda for Council to review and approve. Charlie *Thmas Deputy Director of Engineering Services Approved for Submittal to City Council: City 'Manager's Office 5F-2 BA �` QUSE COMMERCIAL DEVELOHPER 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 Bar;tanHouse, 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 Barton House Developer Agreement 1 5F-3 t . 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 ail public fadiities 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 e. Any charges for retesting as a result of failed tests; Barton House Developer Agreement 2 5F-4 i 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 Deveioper vviii be responsibie 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. Barton House Developer Agreement 3 5F-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. Barton House Developer Agreement 4 5F-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. Barton House Developer Agreement 5 5F-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. Barton House Developer Agreement 6 5F-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. Barton House Developer Agreement 7 5F-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, 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. Barton House Developer Agreement 8 5F-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 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. Barton House Developer Agreement 9 5F-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 DRAINAGE B. OFF-SITE SEWER C. OFF-SITE WATER D. PARK FEES The Developer agrees to pay the Park Fee of $800 per acre, in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance No. 48.3-F, Section 7.0. There are approximately acres in the Addition, which would bring the total cost of Park Fees to $ 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: Uncommon Care dba Barton House By: Bob Bouchard Title: Address: 1301 Capitol of Texas Highway, Building C, Austin, TX 78746 Barton House Developer Agreement 10 5F-12 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: Barton House Developer Agreement 11 5F-13 No Text 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. Barton House Developer Agreement 12 5F-14 � z lajt q �a7 CC) ( .kc).CD l H'i 1 1 ee=; ttj�4+j1}t}F2 !� 'ji jai}F I E'er S! "s ila i,;ji :� �•� aat' �*�� iii °�, � zt ' � x y9i.� _ -_ � J�� : i'�j;i� al;tr'j il�lliii!_Ilii!' i e 1 ii i I if f ii i ;i� _!• a}4'i pl i.' li. f3.� �1` iJ ,1 �t.i .� ! �;_'•i ,jt# 9�_aj�i!�l!!�, tj!4tl� %i? e27' �� a� i�i.� 3 f Imo-. ?2 dins s P _ _ fI (,r6-dOdd :.09''SIX3) ((( n,Nig 13dv H'J 3VwM H1hON _ --� -- v011,01070 M-O-M 1, 'dOild -_ JSSIC 1 i 1 1 1 8 I s I "' ; Y ✓IS {{ w� ————————————__. , a 7. .roclr _____________ys�,•i� _____________� •ti�M � C� e f�v i i 5F-15 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM August 12, 1999 TO: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Engineering Services FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services SUBJECT: Park Dedication Requirements—Barton House At its August 9, 1999 meeting, the Park and Recreation Board considered the park dedication requirements for Barton House, a three (3) acre non-residential development. The required park land dedication for this development is .06 acres or$2,400 in fees in lieu of land dedication. The developer requested to pay fees of$800 per gross acre for a total of$2,400 in lieu of parkland dedication. The Park and Recreation Board voted 8-0 to accept payment of park dedication fees in the amount of$2,400 for this development. Please contact me if you have further questions. KH/j e 5F-16 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM August 12, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Sandra L. LeGrand, City Secretary SUBJECT: Designating the City Council Meeting on August 31, 1999 as a Regular City Council Meeting Action Requested: City Council designates August 31, 1999 as a Regular City Council Meeting date. Background In referring to the budget adoption process, the City Charter states in Section Information: 9.05, Public Hearing Notice and Hearing, "The Council shall adopt the budget by ordinance only after two (2) public hearings at two (2) separate Council meetings, which shall be regular meetings." To accommodate the adoption of the budget by the end of September, it is recommended that a regular city council meeting be designated for August 31, 1999 in order to hold the first public hearing of the budget at that time. The second public hearing would be scheduled for the September 7 Regular City Council meeting, leaving the September 21 city council meeting available, should council need an additional meeting to pass the budget. The Charter gives City Council the authority to call the August 31 meeting as a regular meeting under provision Section 2.09, "Meetings of the City Council," Part (2), which states, "The Council shall ... establish as many additional regular meetings during the month as may be necessary for the transaction of the business of the City and its citizens." Financial Considerations: Not applicable. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Not applicable. Legal Review: Posting a 72-hour notice [agenda] in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act would satisfy legal requirement and adhere to Charter provisions. Alternatives: Not applicable. Supporting Documents: See Charter provisions as noted above under "Background Information." 5G-1 41 Billy Campbell August 17, 1999 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Consider and approve action at the August 17, 1999 City Council meeting. Approved for Submittal to City Council: ity anager's Office 5G-2 City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT August 13, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-058 PROJECT: Revised Preliminary Plat- Eagle Bend Estates, Phase 2 STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Revised Preliminary Plat for Eagle Bend Estates,Phase 2, on property legally described as Tracts 3A3A1, 3A3B, 3C4, and a portion of Tracts 2, 3C7, and 3C2, situated in the Hall Medlin Survey,Abstract No. 1037, and a portion of Tract 2 situated in the Hollingsworth and Barnett Survey, Abstract No. 797, and being approximately 33.75 acres. PURPOSE: Revise the street and lot configuration of the previously approved Preliminary Plat in order to proceed with the Final Plat(s). LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Eagle Bend Estates. OWNER: Westerra-Timarron, L.P. APPLICANT: Carter& Burgess, Inc. CURRENT ZONING: "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District. LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential and 100 Year Flood Plain NO.NOTICES SENT: Sixteen (16) RESPONSES: One(1)response was received from within the 200' notification area: • Linda A. Hawks, 606 Regency Crossing, Southlake, TX, opposed, "The natural habitat of blue herons, great egrets, cormorants, horned owls, ducks and other migratory birds will be destroyed or severely altered. Coyotes, beavers and nutria also live in that area. All these creatures habitat will be disturbed if this land is platted as planned. We are particularly concerned about removing trees and clearing land on lots 30, 31, and 32,which lie along the tributary to Big Bear Creek. This plat needs to be changed to preserve the natural state of the creek area and this habitat." (Received August 5, 1999.) 51�1 r City of Southlake, Texas P&Z ACTION: August 5, 1999; Approved(5-0)subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated July 30, 1999, deleting Items #La (10' utility easement provided around the property boundary) and #2 (provide lot lines radial to cul-de-sac streets) and acknowledging the applicant's agreement to work with staff on easements. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated August 13, 1999. NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTNWP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-058RPP.DOC 5H-z logo 'tEmilio s1 �t r.■ ` ,,� y• �- A • M � A r • N •, N g$ G co n p N N N N N • n F f i hi N K n V n 10 / O N • N i n r M w ' N LO n C ♦ of f11 co N / U , � r o LL J �' W coo x a co \ LL ry •^ ' n , 12k 9os ,, H ' { OZ Z W In rwl Ir a � N \ `7o 1 o � V) Q l �� E E SE ZSSFF+FFFF '^ u = N .55.95E 9 9 9 9 gin u a E p o u ri u u u 6S U m u m li u x V rn 2 nv 3 i 0 0000333333..;c73n:n:ac7ui..i n a ' Y —rl r•1?Vl�G ri m O.C ?V1 V 1.m O.O— �m N f N N N N N rl NNN M M M M M M rry M M M 7 7 OI n 9 p ti u C C V u g(-Fz1=EFS1=eFFFSSSFFSZ > �emY�q_ •K / x FHad3 �33� i3IIS333eSMesa 5N-� eV �fVMOv G1�.0 Nw lNC .aOpO lYi 'N 1A ^ 1 ��- - � I:fI I,rf:a:li]�•i;.:lflo a 7Ia e , j;i - a ; �/� :L- = �' `.s•i !1l :32,:!!:•T�f;7••,�a :�' � Il �il it = = r••rV _fv as 0 }^ � ����� ? pits ♦'-I f*i b i }o .:` �;�- y 3 t '- ���; '� fl iS •'.I.I.I, .I.II .ilsi. a: 7� Q i i• _ �j q - - t r ifn � M1r Y�. i a4 a rr f r f r I f t f I 1 1 f I t 1[f f 1 f 1 f F I $ —cam= e ;I it 7 r r r � - � Y • � lY a��.r !if 77liitiiilillll I �� -- s - � '� . � 1ltifll�l��lll•� i lili�lfff I '�, -=� �-f- --,¢ ` TIT 7 -�,aE•317C_ l i T l l l 4 f 7 f l l f l , � _ / �••., ..l� 7 _ - .� � 1 �dr�k§r� F1y: atti FFI �( t a1 1 '�. Ni7M��7�4��.�1�`i �I(<i:•faa �._ ^ ,� l , � '_d4a Y_ •�K ;� f'� �jt �_ S S_ f ! 2 f f S S S , S , S f , S �--- -•- i , .1 - ... ,.s!.! ♦f d•!♦I.!♦I a ♦r w♦,u♦,'t•!.t tt•! � ( yr � i:TC - I ffRkkFk 31111331RF�R °1 ! Fkklikkt Ft � >. �ftil 1 rr 'gip +i W + 112a1311511. LU rr 01, t i /^�' �.�__�_ i� '��, ter' ... ��..:� � `ri/.( /"'' � y,vx'• - I- _._..--- .._.__-__._.__�_ ]6q���j�Y�y'w.�. --�, �c....L _- �• J� G}�, ���..'"�..-_"�`y��'Ex0 _� t C-7"41* Carter :: Burgess Ir' � Cl-rir c, z7aineermc, 'Acrccerre, , uf'c Relc:tea: Ser-.'C5S July 19, 1999 Mr. Ed McRoy City of Southlake 1721 E. Southlake Blvd. Suite 100 Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: Timarron - Eagle Bend Estates, Phase 2 Preliminary Plat Formal Submittal Comment Letter Dear Ed: Enclosed is the formal submittal for Eagle Bend Estates, Phase 2, Preliminary Plat in which all of the comments from the review dated July 12, 1999 have been addressed, with the exception of certain items in which a variance will be requested. These items in question are listed and were addressed in the following manner: A) The 10' U.E. around the property boundary required by the Subdivision Ordinance will be addressed by requesting a variance to relocate these easements adjacent to the shown right-of-ways in order to save existing trees on the site. B) A drainage easement was added from Lot 22 to Lot 23, Block 64 per a request by Angela Turner to allow for proper drainage of the site. C) A variance will be requested for all lot lines not meeting the requirement of being radial to the shown right-of-way. If there are any further questions concerning this submittal please feel free to call me at (214) 638-0145. Sincerely, CARTER & BURGESS, INC. GG' Kacy R. Flemons KF/shb 99211801.101.00C Enclosure (END J U L 191999 Carter&Burgess, Inc. 7950 Elmbrook Suite 250 Dolias,Texas 75247-4951 (21Q)638-0:45 Metro(972)263-2019 F—(?I A',A3R-nAA7 City of Southiake, Texas PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY Case No: ZA 99-058 Revised Review No: Three Date of Review: 08/13/99 Project Name: Revised Preliminary Plat,Eagle Bend Estates Addition,Phase II, being 33.75 acres out of the Hall Medlin Survey,Abstract No 1037 APPLICANT: ENGINEER: Westerra—Timarron,L.P. Carter&Burgess,Inc. 7905 W. Viginia Parkway 7950 Elmbrook, Suite 250 McKinney,TX 75070' Dallas,TX 75247 Phone: (817)481-0145 Phone: (214) 638-0145 Fax: (972) 592-5540 Attn: Steve Yetts Fax: (214)638-0447 Attn: Richard Payne CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 07/19/99 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PLAT 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. l. The following changes are needed with regard to easements: a. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a 10' U.E. be provided around the property boundary where the adjacent platted property shows no utility easement. The applicant has proposed relocating these easements adjacent to the shown R.O.W.'s in order to save existing trees on the site (Variance Requested)(P&ZAction 08105199 Delete) b. Provide easements for water,sewer and/or drainage in compliance with approved construction plans. 2. Provide lot lines radial to cul-de-sac streets. Lots 16 & 17, 19, and 29 -32,4, Block 64 do not meet this requirement. (Variance Requested)(P&ZAction 08105199 Delete) 3. Remove "Note No. 2" regarding building setbacks. This note is unneeded because development regulations are identified in"Note No. 7". 4. Provide a density and total number of lots no greater than that specified in the approved Development Plan for Timarron Addn. Village J. (City Case No. 97-056). A total of 84 residential lots with a density no greater than 1.48 D.U. per acre was approved for the Timarron Addition Village `J' Development Plan. As proposed,this final phase(40 res. lots)would result in a total of 87 residential lots with a density of approximately 1.52 D.U.per acre within Village `F.A reduction of a minimum of 3 residential lots is required for compliance. (Comment added after P&Z consideration) \\8LRSV4001\14=\C0N4=rTY DEVELOPNBNT\NP-FIL19S\R6V\99\9905SRDP3A TINARAON AWN.-KWLB BMM SSTATBS PH 3 .WC Page 1 5H-7 City of Southiake, Texas * A Developers Agreement is required prior to construction of any public M structure.The Developer's Agreement for this addition should consider streets,drainage,park dedication requirements and fees, off-site sewer extensions,off-site drainage and utility easements and impact fees. * Denotes Informational Comment cc: Steve Yetts,Westerra-Timarron,L.P. VIA FAX: ABOVE Richard Payne,Carter&Burgess,Inc. VIA FAX: ABOVE Terry Wilkinson, Southlake Residential Properties VIA FAX: (817)488-2420 \\SLR8114001\LOCAL\C"MTi Y.DiViLODISw '7-mX8\RLY\"\"05SR'nA TD.RON AWN. NAMN BMTM R8TATZ6 F9 ] .DOC Pale 2 1 Y.P P TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (Residential Subdivision Development) Case: 99-058 Date of Review: 6-21 - 99 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Eagle Bend Estates,Phase II(Revised Preliminary Plat) OWNER: PREPARED BY: Westerra—Timmarron L.P. Carter and Burgess, Inc. 7905 W. Virginia Parkway 7950 Elmbrook Dr., Suite 250 McKinney,TX 75070 Dallas,TX 75247 Phone: (972) 529-5988 Phone: Fax: Fax: THIS ANALYSIS IS PREPARED AT THE TM E OF REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT AND `IS TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN OR SURVEY AND THE IIVIPACT 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: L The creek which runs parallel with Eagle Bend is significantly lower than the grade on Lots 12 and 14, Block 62, and the road. The creek is full of mature Pecans, Cedar Elms and Bur Oaks. The creek area is not designated as a drainage easement so the existing trees may not be removed except without mitigation. To build a house on the lot the builder wold have to build a bridged driveway that spans for some distance over the deep creek. * 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 5H-q Wj "'i • �virs 1W RNj. led !V r � r ► �L �1�v ` + :" wv�'�1,:; 4.+•-fir,. llrg Impiwi two [trrt^ • � � �� ,. 1 on000000aaoa000a0000000logo 00 0001000000000000000000 .: ©0000a000000000000000000 ��_ �:,��' �; GGGODGo COD�CGD�OGGGOl01oo� �-;��,;�, y • � 0000� NNISC�C j a000000000�Q s o0 00000in000i � - WHOM 888g8B8B9911118881, � 88 � Hp-' 11117. e �:�►�h .dr��� Milt _ _ II 1w ILI ia�a!slsialcMill - ' cn O� t— �y"� a Joil --------------------------------- _ A ------ --- i7 W.sal. : .,1... �i 'f lot A � \ t t `{ �, .. `♦1— is\ „ .d. .'T Y 4 I / � a IF IL ........... ... . ... ..... a a / C r / a � S zm 15mam ••"'Z �H-I� City of Southlake, Texas ` MEMORANDUM August 13, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Garland Wilson. Director of Public Safety SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 693-B, 1st Reading, Providing outdoor lighting regulations. Action Requested: City Council consideration of Ordinance No. 693-B on first reading. Background Information: This ordinance was originally requested by former Councilmember Pam Muller to provide guidelines for commercial lighting requirements compatible with adjacent residential property. City Plans Examiner Chuck Bloomberg met with Councilmember Muller and Mayor Stacy at least twice while developing the basic text of this ordinance. During the development of this ordinance, the City experienced a significant lighting issue at the Tetco convenience store. further identifying lighting issues. The draft lighting information was forwarded to the city attorney's office to be put into ordinance form. The draft ordinance was discussed by City Council on September 20,1999 with direction given to staff for recommended changes. This item was presented to the P&Z at the September 22, 1999 meeting; however, due to the length of the P&Z agenda, the discussion was tabled until the August 5, 1999 meeting. The P&Z provided input to the staff with no substantive changes to the revised draft ordinance. A revised draft incorporating those changes was submitted to the City Attorney for review and comment. The proposed ordinance establishes measurable limits on outdoor lighting projecting onto private property from commercial establishments, and incorporates those items recommended by the City Council. The City Attorney reviewed the revised draft and has recommended adoption of the ordinance as a stand-alone ordinance instead of incorporation into the Uniform Building Code. The ordinance will include language that will continue to require a plan review process to be considered by both the P&Z and City Council and administrative procedures consistent with the UBC, including the right to review for variance by the City Council. Financial Considerations: Not Applicable Citizen Input/ Board Review: No citizen input has been received. Not subject to any Board review. Legal Review: This ordinance was forwarded to City Attorney Debra Drayovitch for legal review and comment. 1 Billy Campbell August 13, 1999 Page 2 Alternatives: The City Council may approve the ordinance on first reading at the August 17, 1999 City Council meeting as submitted, or they may deny or recommend changes or conditions they deem appropriate. Supporting Documents: Ordinance No. 693-B Staff Recommendation: Place Ordinance No. 693-13, on the August 17, 1999 City Council meeting for first reading. GW/bls Approved for Submittal to City Council: /�, (,7' City Manager's Office ORDINANCE NO. 693-B AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTDOOR LIGHTING; ESTABLISHING ILLUMINATION STANDARDS; ESTABLISHING LUMINANCE LIMITS; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; 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 if the Texas Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Southlake has previously adopted regulations providing for requirements for outdoor lighting in certain zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to adopt revisions to the Building Code to provide for more comprehensive regulations regarding the provision of outdoor lighting on private property within the City, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAHE,TEXAS: SECTION 1. PURPOSE This Ordinance sets forth minimum criteria for the installation, use and maintenance of outdoor lighting, the purposes of which are to: (a) preserve and enhance the lawful nighttime use and enjoyment of property; (b) protect drivers and pedestrians on nearby travel ways from disabling glare from non-vehicular light sources that shine directly into their eyes and thereby impair safe travel; ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE I of 11 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc SI-3 i l (c) shield neighboring properties from nuisance glare and trespass resulting from improperly directed or unshielded shield light sources; (d) preclude or lessen light pollution; (e) promote efficient design and operation with regard to energy conservation; and to (f) curtail the degradation of the nighttime visual environment. SECTION 2. EXEMPTIONS (a) The following uses shall be exempt from the requirements of this Ordinance: (1) Lighting installed on property used for a single-family or two-family dwelling; (2) Lighting, such as street lights and traffic signal devices, installed by a governmental agency for public benefit on public rights-of-way or property. (3) Temporary special effects of holiday lighting. (4) Lighting which is not subject to this Ordinance by state or federal law. (5) Specific exemptions as may be recommended by the planning and zoning commission and approved by the city council during a development, site plan, or other similar review process so long as the requirements of Section 9 are met. (b) Other temporary lighting effects may be used for a period not to exceed days if approved by the building official or his designated representative. Any person may submit a written request, on a form furnished by the city, to the building official for a temporary exemption. The building official shall consider the following information in determining whether to approve a request for temporary exemption: ORDINANCE NO.693-B PACE 2 of 11 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc SI-4 (1) specific exemption requested; (2) type and use of outdoor light fixture involved; (3) duration of time for the requested exemption; (4) type of lamp and calculated lumens; (5) proposed location on premises of the outdoor light fixture; and (6) physical size of outdoor light fixtures and type of shielding provided. (c) An applicant may appeal any denial of such application to the city council, by requesting a modification in accordance with Section . Such appeal must be filed with the building official not more than 10 days after the denial. SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS The following words when used in this Ordinance, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Bollard luminaire means a luminaire on a pole not over 42 inches in height designed to project light below a horizontal plane running through the top of the fixture. Candela means the unit of luminous intensity in a given direction. It is commonly called one candlepower. Diffusing Luminaires means a luminaire that scatters light substantially in all directions as contrasted with a directional luminaire which confines its light principally in an angle of less than 180 degrees. Floodlight means a luminaire designed to project its light in a defined area. It is directional in character. Floodlight beam means the angular spread of light between two orthogonal planes each of which equal ten percent of the maximum candlepower within the beam. ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE 3 of 11 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc SI-S "i Footcandle means the amount of illumination provided by one lumen uniformly distributed on one square foot of surface. Footlambert means the luminance of a surface uniformly emitting, transmitting, or reflecting one lumen per square foot of surface. Illumination mans the density of the luminous flux (lumens) incident on a surface. It is the quotient of the luminous flux divided by the area of the surface, expressed in foot candles. Light source means a device (such as a lamp)which produces visible energy as distinguished from devices or bodies that reflect or transmit light, such as a luminaire. Lumen means the quantity of luminous flux intercepted by a surface of one square foot, all points of which are one foot from a uniform source of one candela. A one-candela source provides 12.57 lumens. Luminaire means a device or fixture containing a light source and means for directing and controlling the distribution of light from the source. Luminance means the luminous intensity per unit projected area of a given surface viewed from a given direction for purposes of this Ordinance expressed in candelas divided by distance squared. Glare means light emitting from a luminaire with an intensity great enough to reduce a viewer's ability to see. SECTION 4. LIGHTING DESIGN (a) Lighting systems, including the placement of luminaires, shall meet the requirements of this Ordinance. (b) Luminaires on poles over 42 inches in height and exterior wall mounted light fixtures shall be high pressured sodium lights or other lights giving a similar soft lighting effect. The building official may approve alternate lighting if he finds that it: ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE 4 of 11 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc 5I-6 (1) provides at least approximate equivalence to the applicable specific requirements of this Ordinance; and (2) is otherwise satisfactory and complies with the intent of this Ordinance. (c) Fully recessed lights in ceilings of canopies or roof overhangs may be of any type provided the level of illumination does not exceed the limitations specified in Section 5 hereof. See Appendix Illustration B. (d) Luminaires causing glare at property line or in vehicle areas on streets or parking lots are prohibited. (e) Incandescent bulbs may be used as decorative lighting provided the individual lamps do not exceed 25 watts and do not otherwise conflict with this chapter. SECTION 5. ILLUMINATION (a) The intensity of illumination projected from one property to another property is determined by the zoning district classification of the neighboring property and shall not exceed the following intensities, as measured from the property line of the neighboring property: Footcandles Footcandles Zoning of Neighboring Property Horizontal vertical Agricultural, Single-family, and two-family residential districts 0.2 0.5 Multiple-family residential districts 0.5 0.5 Nonresidential districts, streets 3.0 3.0 Light industrial districts 5.0 5.0 (b) The maximum outdoor computed or measured illumination level on a property shall not exceed 20 foot candles outdoors at any point, except that lighting under canopies (such as service stations) shall not exceed 30 foot candles. SECTION 6. ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE 5 of 11 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc 5I-7 i MEASUREMENT. (a) Meter required. Lighting levels of outdoor lighting shall be measured in foot candles with a direct reading portable light meter with a color and cosine corrected sensor with multiple scales. The meter shall read within an accuracy of plus or minus five percent. It shall have been tested and calibrated by an independent commercial photometric laboratory or the manufacturer within one year of date of use as attested to by a certificate issued by such laboratory. (b) Horizontal method of measurement. The meter sensor shall be mounted not more than six inches above ground level in a horizontal position. Readings shall be taken only after the cell has been exposed to provide a constant reading. Measurements shall be made when the meteorological optical range is six miles or further so that measurements will not be adversely affected by atmospheric scatter. Measurements shall be made after dark with the existing questioned light sources on, then with the same sources off. This procedure eliminates the effects of moonlight and other ambient light. The difference between the two readings shall be compared to the footcandle ratings listed in Section 5(a) hereof. (c) Vertical method of measurement. The meter sensor shall be mounted at five feet above ground level in a vertical position, perpendicular to the property line and facing the outdoor lighting in question. Reading shall be taken only after the cell has been exposed to provide a constant reading. Measurements shall be made after dark with the existing questioned light sources on, then with the same sources off. This procedure eliminates the effects of moonlight and other ambient light. The difference between the two readings shall be compared to the footcandle ratings listed in Section 5(a)hereof. (d) Computation of illumination. Illumination at a point may be computed in lieu of measurement. Computation methods shall consist of a generally accepted Illuminating Engineering society method, using certified photometric data furnished by the fixture manufacturer, lamp manufacturer, photometric laboratory, or other reliable authority satisfactory to the city. Computations shall be based on new, properly seasoned lamps, new and clean fixtures, and at rated voltage and wattage, with ballasts, lenses, shields, diffusers, and other appurtenances in place, and with proper regard taken for mounting height, relative elevation, natural and manmade objects. ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE 6 of 13 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc SI-8 SECTION 7. LUMINANCE. (a) Limits. The intensity of luminance projected from one property to another is determined by the zoning district classification of the neighboring property and shall not exceed the following limits: Zoning of Neighboring Property Luminance (1) Single-family and two-family residential districts 0.02 (2) Multiple-family residential districts 0.05 (3) Nonresidential districts, streets 0.30 (4) Industrial districts 0.50 (b) Calculations generally. Because of the lack of a practical means of measuring fixture luminance in the field, and because of the factors involved in glare, a computational method shall be used, the results of which determine compliance with this section. The point from which luminance calculations shall be made is five feet above ground at the property line of the property adjacent to the property with the outdoor lighting. (We (c) Luminance calculations using luminaire photometric data. Luminance shall be computed by the formula: L= I d2 +h2 where "I" is the fixture candlepower in candelas in the direction of the point from which the calculations are to be made, "d" is the shortest distance in feet measured horizontally from the property line to a point directly under the luminaire, and "h" is the height of the luminaire above the eye level as explained in Appendix A illustration. ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE 7 of 13 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc 5I-9 s s i SECTION S. ENFORCEMENT. (a) Illumination in excess of limits. If the illumination, as measured, exceeds the limits stated in Section 5 hereof, the illumination shall be reduced until the illumination is equal to or less than the limits prescribed in Section 5. This may be accomplished by removal of the light, reduction in the quantity of luminaires, reduction of the wattage of the lamps, shielding the luminaires or aiming of the luminaires. (b) Luminance in excess of limits. If the luminance of a luminaire, as calculated, exceeds the limitations stated in Section 7 hereof, the luminance shall be reduced until the luminance is equal to or less than the limits prescribed in Section 7. This may be accomplished by reduction of the wattage of the lamps, shielding the luminaire of by re-aiming of the luminaires. (c) Shielding. Luminaires shall be aimed in such a manner that the viewer's eye, five feet above ground at or beyond the property line, shall not be exposed to fixture luminance within the floodlight beam of the luminaire. If such luminaires cannot be aimed they shall be shielded such that the light source is effectively concealed from view from the neighboring property. Shielding may be accomplished by louvers, baffles, visors, or shields placed on the luminaires, or by plantings, fences, berms, elevation, or any other method such that the limitations of Section 7 hereof are met. SECTION 9. PLANS AND SUBMITTALS. (a) Lighting plans submitted for review and approval for concept plans, site plans, and building permits shall include a schematic lay-out of all proposed exterior fixture locations, footcandle data, and a plot demonstrating intensities and uniformities within the limitations established in this Ordinance. (b) When requested by the building official, the applicant shall submit a visual impact photometric plan that demonstrates both light coverage and light spillage resulting from the proposed lighting plan and the provision for adequate measures to mitigate nuisance from light pollution and disabling glare both on the uses or development site and on adjacent properties. ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE S of 13 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc SI-10 a (c) Should any outdoor light fixture or the type of light source be changed after receiving approval pursuant to this ordinance, the owner shall submit a change request to the building official for his approval, together with adequate information to assure compliance with this Ordinance. SECTION 10. APPEALS; MODIFICATIONS (a) The city council shall may grant a modification or variance from the provisions of this Ordinance, and the city council, after receiving a recommendation from the planning and zoning commission, may impose conditions on such modification or variance which it deems appropriate to further the purposes of this Ordinance, in either of the following circumstances: (1) Upon finding that strict application of the Ordinance would not forward the purposes of this Ordinance, or that alternatives proposed by the applicant would satisfy the purposes of this Ordinance at least to an equivalent degree. (2) Upon finding that an outdoor light, or system of outdoor lights required for a particular use cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination for safety, as determined by recommended practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North American for the particular use or other evidence submitted by a professional engineer. (b) The city council may consider an appeal from a person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the building official. The person shall file an appeal in writing with the building official not more than 10 days after the determination of the building official. SECTION 11. CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES. All outdoor electrically powered illuminating devices shall be installed in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance, the Building Code and the Electrical Code, as applicable. ORDNANCE NO.693-B PAGE 9 of 13 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc 5I-11 a SECTION 12. EXISTING LIGHTING When outdoor lighting does not conform to the provisions of this Ordinance and lawfully exists on the effective date of this Ordinance, it shall be deemed a lawful use. Any change or addition to an existing lighting system shall, however, comply with the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 13. PENALTY Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 14. PUBLICATION 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 or its caption and penalty in the official City newspaper one time within ten days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE 10 of 13 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc (410, SI-12 SECTION 15. SEVERABILITY It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences,paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 16. CUMULATIVE CLAUSE This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances, in which event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed. Specifically, this ordinance shall be cumulative of the provisions regarding outdoor lighting as contained in the Zoning Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE 11 of 13 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc SI-13 s SECTION 17. EFFECTIVE DATE 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. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all applications for building permits filed on or after the effective date. PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF 1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF (W1 1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY EFFECTIVE: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE 12 of 13 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc 5I-14 y Factors for Luminance Determination A Factors for Luminance Determination luNrws ReOa�Y Grdepo in M� ecbm of aye M � �f�----- Ian D.aea i D Ceiling Light in Canopy or Overhang Fkan f A�Lan r wy RWAGS a wy Pmeemd ORDINANCE NO.693-B PAGE 13 of 13 Lighting Ordinance First Reading version 8-12-99.doc SI-15 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM August 131, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, ext. 743 Art Wright, Zoning Assistant, ext. 828 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 480-GG, Regarding Lighting and Glare, First Reading Action Requested: City Council consideration of the proposed Ordinance No. 480-GG to revise certain provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, regarding lights, lighting and glare. Background Information: The Building Department proposes to amend the Uniform Building Code (Ordinance No. 693-B) to incorporate detailed regulations on lighting and glare for non-single family residential properties. The purpose of this amendment is to establish measurable and enforceable criteria with respect to lighting to provide for the protection of the residents and the enjoyment of their property from nuisance or hazardous lighting and glare. As a result of this change in the Building Code, an amendment of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is necessary to remove the general lighting regulations from the ordinance and replace them with appropriate references to the new lighting ordinance. Financial Considerations: Not applicable. Citizen Input/ Board Review: August 5, 1999; Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve (5 - 0) Legal Reviews: This ordinance was reviewed by City Attorney, Debra Drayovitch, who has approved the ordinance presented to the City Council for consideration. Alternatives: The Council may recommend that the ordinance be submitted for consideration at the second reading by the Council as submitted, recommend changes or conditions they deem appropriate, or request to remove it from the list of priorities. N:`.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENnWP-FILESIZBA'.PF.NDING�DRAFT ORDINANCES�LIGHTMEMO.DOC W I City of Southlake, Texas Consideration on Proposed Ordinance No. 480-GG, regarding lighting and glare Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator August 13, 1999 Page 2 Supporting Documents: Proposed Ordinance No. 480-GG. P&Z Action: August 5, 1999; Voted to approve (5 - 0) Ordinance No. 480-GG with the changes discussed and recommending whatever action on any other ordinances is necessary to comply with the changes contained in 480-GG. Staff Recommendation: Present to City Council for consideration. Approved for Submittal to City Council kt- iry anager's Office NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILESV9A\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCEMLIGHTMEMO.DOC W L CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480-GG AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.480,AS AMENDED,THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,TEXAS; REVISING CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING LIGHTS, LIGHTING, AND GLARE; 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 PAMPHLET FORM; 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,the City has adopted Ordinance No. 480, as amended, as the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the City; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that it is appropriate and in the best interest of the City to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its residents by amending Ordinance No. 480 as provided herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has given published notice and held public hearings with respect to the amendment of the zoning ordinance as required by law. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,TEXAS: SECTION 1. Sections 20.5, 21.5, 22.5, 23.5, and 26.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraphs (i), respectively to read as follows: W\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'nWP-PILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFTORDINANCES\480-GG.WPD(Draft 1,dated 2115199) Page 1 65-3 "i. All exterior lighting designed for security, illumination,parking lot illumination or advertising and which is placed within this zoning district shall bedesig;ed ,# RUGh R MURAer t 2P.�-o„rg th2t ;t dQQQ AQt AX+o,; ;,,t., adja.o„t ro�;.io„t;�tt., meet the requirements of the current lighting ordinance, as amended." SECTION 2. Section 25.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph (g), to read as follows: "g. All exterior lighting designed for security, illumination,parking lot illumination or advertising and which is placed within this zoning district shall W desig;ied in minter n oo t^ nn ov+o sum that it does not r.a :.�+.. ...a:....o..+«e..:.1.....+:..11.. 'Zollad pr-ope meet the requirements of the�eurren't°I g fmg oirdmance,Ras amended." SECTION 3. Sections 24.5 and 27.5.of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising ,. paragraphs(h), respectively to read as follows: "h. All exterior lighting designed for security, illumination,parking lot illumination or advertising and which is placed within this zoning district shall be-designed m m.nti o mnnnem; 20 to anouwn that it dons Rot ovtoad inn adjaccat ;3e meet the requirements of the current lighting ordinance, as amended." SECTION 4. Sections 24.10, 26.8, and 27.8 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraphs (f), respectively to read as follows: 'T Glare: All artificial light sources shall meet the requirements of the current lighting ordinance,as amended." SECTION 5. (W Section 43.13 of Ordinance No. 480,as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-GG.WPD(Draft 1,dated 2115199) Page 2 W (i), to read as follows: • "i. Spill-over lighting: No use or operation shall produce direct or indirect illumination across a residential property line except in compliance with the requirements of the current lighting ordinance, as amended. 4ial p;ope,r4 ,line, - f'from n Rowwo n ,redder llnminn4inn no;oholl nv onnl, light hu Af-RI—A i*i+e,nS;+;,as 4n nre,n4n n n,,;onU-e. .10+.2-4 49M ale,„99 and t � 2. A n,,,onnne, ol,nll l,e, .le, ne,rl no more,4},nn +, 4 4t, /!1 l\ F fnn+ nnnille, light-Measu;@d at the P;ePe;4y URG,=' SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances, in which event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed. W SECTION 7. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 8. Any person, firm or corporation who violates,disobeys, omits,neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCES\480-GG.WPD(Draft 1,dated 2115199) Page 3 55 5 than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 9. 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 yard regulations 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 10. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby authorized to publish this ordinance in book or pamphlet form for general distribution among the public, and the operative provisions of this ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof than the production thereof. SECTION 11. 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 or its caption and penalty in the official City newspaper one time within ten days after final passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT ORDINANCEswo-GG.WPD(Draft/,dated 2115199) Page 4 W SECTION 12. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its date of passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENl1WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\DRAFT 0RDINANCES\480-GG.WPD(Draft 1,dated 2115199) Page 5 5 7 City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT August 13, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-036 PROJECT: Ordinance No. 480-316/Second 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 3 90 1, 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 kw 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 itself is a 2 story structure, placed to the back of our homes, even 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-IT 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 01 plan; maintaining the landscaping in perpetuity; restricting the deck �01 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; IK t 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. COUNCIL ACTION: August 3, 1999;Approved(5-0)First Reading subject to Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 4,dated July 30, 1999,and subject to the action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their July 22, 1999, meeting. 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 DEVELOPMENnWP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-036ZS.DOC 7A•3 i �w 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 Minder Pres. Woodland Heights Homeowners Assoc. REC'D J U N 0 3 1999 FROM J AOCOCK 117 1111111 ........ 81:83PM TO ....... p,1 (W FAX MESSAGE TO. City Council, City of Southlake (817) 488-9370 From: Mr. Jerry W. Adcock Subject: Site Plan#ZA 99-036 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. 9Adcock 270iw'-stwood Dr. Southlake, TX 76092 fM JUL 3 01999 C■■■► Y .11 • IIY �� ' JIFDM AMISS t ■ �■ 1 �--�C iR ♦ ►��HR 9 �, ■� ii► ■� Om /����i'�/III/■ 111���♦`��`��`"� ��I��i�l!�1�1 ■tip■�� ..��.._■ TR 2A SURVEY V 1 2.158 @181 �� A-481 2.270 4G.�1 fI AC 371 70 a N a i h 1R 6 5 .51 AC 1 .522 AC 1.00 AC 1 .03 AC 1 A 2250R 1@ �R 28 � .607 @ '45 \ A / 214 � 2 � � 1.41 a to 170 M.SCHELLING 1 25R2 2.622 AC r � 4R 7 RO O MIRON LLC = 1.001 @ O 4.823 @ yj r a Q r D. LIGHT "S—P-2" SANTA FE u- PROPERTIES cn 24 b. 149 M. J.ADCOCK 3R6 SCHELLING 1.50 @ SANTA FE 3R 23 "B-1 " S PROPERTIES .9 @ MD_ MORGAN »r 43 In 1U 1U to 1u 178 1W S. 17 18 R 19 20 21 !L.TENG STALETS _ ,T7 7p E. DICKEY D. 22 11/ 11a 1u 11I 21 1 WESTMONT CT "SF-20Brr MCNUTT to 41 71 117 117 117 117 1. 32 5 31 1 30 �+ 29 S 28 27 8 26 E. ROACH AT a p 1 177 121 129 117 1" # 1 37 38 39 40 41 $ 42 43 Z 44 = „ so 9 FOREST HILLS CTQV� n as s n3 na a 19we a 2 4iw1 ti 50 = 49 s 48 47 46 45 y p"I C a x 3 I " to 'ot ADJACENT OWNERS 3 8 0 9 0 _ AND ZONING 66 = s7 "�' � o� '�(' 7p'7 3 rr;!-! as, X Roll Ul PV a CL w C.) FE z T)W 376-E zo dill L: L a D 'N ui fig EOe 14 IT yx� X •eeErUry'r— nnW,71 1?7u — . wuurt.xeiagW Cull,Y b E?. F al0 Jl al�ai •� ! j gl,l}i'l, ,i� 1za 1!' 1 it•! , ,! +%� •t j i [;i '41 1 ,� FA It v fill [ p, _ •a� t(, ,`t:` a !C o A ll! 0 °ti� ,� it' � U. ;, ��� ' �D $ 1r '!1 t ; ! ;1!!1! [r t ! l�<<st•� !!.!}, �!},t' � .� i�'! l��•fit it l�{ , ��! �;�±I ° .- 2- ,,: lU 1l 1 tit._!11 �l !� ' �� it}i !;'f .�tip r! , 1's t'![ 1.l ! 1l} ,G) le as+[° s�1� G • I r ,11, � lFt Rill Sri it it, 1 1 iill�jl'; Sl�M!1 it"!►'a N YI is ` �,� .,�M. it 1 �1 tj FTJ ea i•„ i ,l,lj �t II:•� Y.t 'l�I �1 . � � . 11� n.t Illy r. 1 1 1 Ii it I!!ii Itlll I!all li fil!11 n�l 1f It,! .•.� � t . t- O W a.s�zo_oos _-_ Q ~ CL ?� J O �, 1 • � ._ �, . t' '! j sx o 1 Li � t' s I t sic ej t if hfl!t ! W � ' _ , NO 3 r A. •jj +tjij�i'�i,l ' ,}ajlUlliIll a,! 'Z Y tilt: iF q1+--! a'PRQ'f d9oun9co FAX No. : 8176248564 Jul. 22 1999 08:25W P2 �W Mini YWGIL p w4r Ycweg&c;t,. P.O.&rnt 5417G phone;817-4:8esA 11ur,ct,'12 7wi54 FAX: 41742MM e-maII:d7'� 11.I1W Thursday,July 22,1999 City of Southlake 667 N.Carroll Ave. Southlake,TX 76092 Dear Sirs, In response to your latest review of Case#99-W6,Site Plan,Lot 3R3 Mirror Add., I am pleased to report that we have met with the homeowners and gafned their support In this matter.They were maiNy concerned about tree lass and line of sight to a new water tower that the city is building.We agreed to move some parkfng P12M and redesign the parking lot to not only save these key lime of sight trees but another 40 plus trees as well. We are also seeking permission to use crushed granite in some parking near critical root zones in an attempt to save these trees as well.In refe areas items,we are Ience to all other requesting variances as noted in the staff revue.We are also willing to eft'theany and all technical corrections to the site plan.Some of these will hire explanation by the city staff:The staff has been sure that we can work out these technicalgreat to work with so far and I am notations quickly. Thank you, Dwayne Young BT J U L 2 21999 9A-1D FROM : YOUNGCO FAX NO. : 8176248564 Jun. 03 1999 O5:17PM P2 Dw�11e Yom � 1)wxynW.Yrunp.&Ca P.o.lkyx W 176 Phtxw. M74-v tmt1 i uuru.Tx 76M4 FAX:8174394M ►mail: dyoungocyitabiLnet 1 Thursday,.June 3,1999 City Of Southlake 667 N.Carrol Avenue Southlake,TX 76092 Dear Sirs, This is to serve as my written response to the staff review of case#199.M6. We are attempting to build a budding at Lot 3M in the Munn addition of Southlake.Let ire begin by saying that the City Staff has been very helpthl and worming with them has been both interesting and instructive.I look Forward to attending the Planning and Zoning commission this evening. Before answering the specific numbered comments made by staff I would like to elaborate on our goals in designing this building.The owners charged our design team with the challenge of designing an aesthetically pleasing building that fit into the existing neighborhood of of5ce 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 80%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 stl: 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 wdsting buildings which were built prior to residential adjacency.We respectfully ask for leniency on this matter. &gm 92: 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 comp]icated building that meets the intent of the articulation ordinance if not the letter. Again we respectlUlly request leniency on this matter. r. RED U►*-� i999 7R-II /YOL� r FAX No. : 8176248564 Jun. 03 1999 05:18PM P3 L 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 dumpster,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 its: Interior landscaping minimums will be met or exceeded.Our landscape architect Steve BeBe will rework the charts and resubmit for your approval. Item#6.7&8. These are labeling issues that we will be glad to correct. Thank you, Ll�l Dwayne Young x City of Southiake, Texas SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY 3 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 3113,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, SUPS) 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. ) 1. 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 Adjacency regulation nor does it meet 25'setback requirements established by the"0-1" Office District regulation. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 07122199- Delete) 2 Provide horizontal and vertical articulation meeting the requirements of Ord. 480, Section 43.9.c.1.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&ZAction 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 adjacent to and west of the dumpster. 4. Relocate the dumpster to the side or rear of the building. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 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"0-1" 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 tenantlowners 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-FELES\REV\99\99036SP3.WPD Articulation Evaluation No.4 Case No. ZA 99-03 Date of Evaluation: 07/09/98 Elevations for 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. offsed 2 22 1000% Yes 2 4 100% Yes Min. artic. length 6 22 267% Yes 6 11 83% Yes Rear-facing East Wall ht. = 10 Horizontal articulation I Vertical articulation Required Provided Delta Okay? Required Provided Delta Okay? Max. wall length 30 34 134; 'No 30 54 so% No Min. artic. offset, 2 4 100161 Yes 2 3 50* Yes Min. artic. length 5 19 280%1 Yes 9 8 -11% No Right-facing: South lWall ht. 10 Horizontal articulation Vertical articulation Required Provided Delta Okay? Required Provided Delta Okay? Max. wall length 30 56 8716 No 30 26 -134; Yes Min. artic. offse 2 0 -100% No 2 0 -100% No Min. artic. length 8 0 0% No 7 6 -14% No Left-facing: North Wall 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% No 5 15 2001; Yes 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 TINIE OF REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT AND IS TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN OR SURVEY AND THE HWPACT OF CONSTRUCTION ON ANY PROTECTED TREES ON THE SITE. FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION CONTACT KEITH MARTIN, LANDSCAPE ADMIAIISTRATOR AT(817)481-5581 EXT.848. TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS: 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 LATrees\DRC99\99-036r2 I 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:\Trea%DRC"\". 436r2 S rn _ 1 xI , 41la , e' a61 AyQ e R d i•� i � r t. I 4 I HAND ! tiff :•,..• ��&:, •Q• � . .� � ( I � I ail r:•� � :� • �� .'� �.. � I I it all / I I I I 71-i9 ii ... _ .• it � � ° F � � •;ernr4 it '•ti o p w 1"' a' Z J i c .-- — - - 061 J Ol I °-Sa. II: in ~ a I s tz - U ' r I IN. ' Ill i 1 1i • • 1 � 1 'l I t G � Al i; t� • r • j t ;� }.`C A C�� •r3 ur!.j. .,tF a__:: F:�c•. •� ` j rn rn r—i 11t +hHitktti vmoW. 'ft.l*"0h.L_1 ' f+i+ii A l zic r� s iiinjtrn +ittH:tii+ipit�ftl !�'f+t i)it11 1 :''n'y :►'�►'M''>t:�:::.'"tt11111ttitit+l+:::'ln,�'�'4`'';b' t NOR ^^�-•-•^•,.r■s■ie■aawspoaeanaaaaaatararsssr¢ssuaaaaoasasaasaa saseeeetaececuataataea.aasuaaym/t/NRta//itaL9H!!93!/ ��/� i I E, IR 1 •r• ?Y �6Q / y �C - —--J-- —-in AI + 11L -.lIR3 .1-�■ItI,A1A�1•r, -� ^�IYHI]Ni}MIS�.K jam .ril \1`.``Y \\` �`\ 'ktr ►m,+ bx�_ +43 ggp + 523 . �: e I :• i I.�Ya. nn //�1•O f �.ilY + IMTMY•111 pYY,1' -- //a• 3 9 • �� I qsa� IL " it IN,1 N,UIIN "� Y �Y - e�, �= • R, ii rats amp} did • . 0 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 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, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "B-1" BUSINESS SERVICE PARK DISTRICT TO "S-P-1" DETAILED SITE PLAN DISTRICT WITH "0-1" 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 LAMY DOMORDTASE41484316.DOC Page I ` 0t 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-1" 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 LACITY DOMORDTASFSWBO.316.DOC Page 2 Ia7 (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: LAMY DOMORDTASEM480-316.DOC Page 3 IR-24 (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, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 3901, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 0.96134 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from "B-1" Business Service Park District to "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District with "O-1" Office District uses as depicted on the approved Site Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", and subject to the specific conditions established in the motion of the City Council and attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit"C." SECTION 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning. SECTION 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, words, phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance are not amended hereby, but remain intact and are hereby ratified, verified, and affirmed. SECTION 4. That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals (W and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed, with respect to both present LACITY DOMORDTASESWW316.DOC Page 4 ` h-25 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 those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. SECTION 7. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a LAMY DOCS\ORDTASEM480-316.DOC Page S �p-Zlo 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 L:\CIrY DOCS\ORD\CASF.S\484316.DOC Page 6 �P-2� 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. ,1. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: (W EFFECTIVE: LAMY DOCS\ORD\CASESWW316.DOC Page 7 `1A-23 EXHIBIT "A" 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, being approximately 0.96134 acres. (W LAMY DOMORMCASESMO-316.DOC Page 8 ��-2 1 EXHIBIT "B" i i i I� ' i Ilj i e rn 'k Ing 1 yQA. 9 121 t k! l o 21 I ri LIP vi i solo Oi H { i --- ------- a A .,; Jil, /f ••,�I' '/ Ill �i a� i I ( � ❑ it N:\COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMEN'nSVP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480JI6.DOC Page 9 1 A-30 (W EXHIBIT "C" This page reserved for the approved City Council motion. LAMY DOCS\ORD\CASEM480-316.DOC Page 10 `1 A 31 e ` — City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM August 13, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shelli Siemer, Assistant to the City Manager i SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 752, Amending the Project Plan and Financing Plan for Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake, Texas; and resolving other matters incidental and related thereto. I I I � j Action Requested: Consideration of Ordinance No. 752, on second reading, to amend the project plan and financing plan for the Southlake Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone. i Background Information: This ordinance amends the Project Plan and Financing Plan to reflect the participation of the CISD in the Southlake Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone. The TIRZ Board approved the amended Project Plan and Financing Plan on August 10, and the City Council approved the Ordinance on first reading after the TIRZ board meeting. In order for the CISD to participate in the TIRZ, these amendments must be approved by City Council prior to August 31, 1999. Attached to my memo is a copy of the amended project plan. A summary j of the revisions in the project costs is as follows: • Revised costs for school projects will be increased to $61.7 million. • The costs for the operation of the schools located in the TIRZ Boundaries are increased to $51.5 million. • Revised costs for the infrastructure for school projects is now estimated at $15.47 million. • Included in the plan are the initial capital costs for the Library, which is estimated at $1.13 million. • Included are additional capital costs for Town Hall: site work, and furniture, fixtures and equipment including the common areas (ie: City Council Chambers, Courtroom, etc) $1.97 million. rib- 1 t Billy Campbell August 10, 1999 Page Two Financial Considerations: These projects will be funded through the TIRZ. The real property taxes generated from the TIRZ are anticipated to pay for the debt issued. A revised financing plan, prepared by First Southwest, is also included with this memo. A representative with First Southwest will available at the meeting to respond to questions. Citizen Input/ Board Review: The TIRZ Board approved the amended Project and Finance Plan prior to the City Council approving the first reading of the Ordinance on August 10, 1999. Legal Review: The city attorneys and bond counsel have been involved in the TIF process and can respond to any legal questions or issues which may arise during the meeting. Alternatives: Not applicable. Supporting Documents: Ordinance No. 752. Amended Project and Financing Plan for TIRZ Number One Financial Projections and Analysis for TIRZ Number One Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends placing this item on the August 17', City Council meeting agenda to consider the amendments to the Project Plan and Financing Plan. Approved for Submittal to City Council: L City Manager's Office Vr t a City of Southlake, Texas i i ORDINANCE NO. 752 i AN ORDINANCE amending the Project Plan and Financing Plan for Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake, Texas; and resolving other matters incident and I related thereto. I i WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas (the "City") passed Ordinance 682 creating a Reinvestment Zone as authorized by the Tax Increment Financing Act, V.T.C.A., Tax Code, Chapter 311 (the "Act") on September 23, 1997; and I i WHEREAS, the City, after public hearing, passed Ordinance 682-A expanding the Zone boundaries from 256 acres to 408 acres on December 2, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors approved the Project and Financing Plan on December 12, 1997 and the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas passed Ordinance 690 approving the Project Plan and Financing Plan for Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One on December 16, 1.997; and WHEREAS, the Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors approved amendments to the Project Plan and Financing Plan on August 10, 1999; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 311.011 (d), the City must approve a final reinvestment zone project and financing plan containing information relating to the estimated project costs of the zone, the kind, number and location of all proposed public works or public improvements in the zone, an economic feasibility study, the estimated amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, the methods of financing all estimated project costs and the expected sources of revenue to finance or pay project costs, including the percentage of tax increment to be derived from the property taxes of each taxing unit that levies taxes on real property in the district, and other data; a copy of such reinvestment zone project and financing plan being attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the Project Plan and Financing Plan feasible and conforms to the City's Master Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct. '�B-3 SECTION 2: If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 3: It is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this Ordinance is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Ordinance, was given, all as required by V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 551, as amended. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately from and after its passage on the date shown below. PASSED ON FIRST READING,August 10, 1999. PASSED ON SECOND READING AND ADOPTED, this 17 day of August, 1999. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS Mayor ATTEST: City Secretary (City APPROVED AS TO LEGALITY: City Attorney CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE #1 AMENDED PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN August 10, 1999 r7 ib-5 CITY OF SOUTHLAIE TAX INCREMENT REEWESTMENT ZONE #1 AMENDED PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Amended Project Plan 1) Existing Uses and Conditions of Real Property and Proposed Improvements to and Uses of That Property 2) Proposed Changes of Zoning Ordinances, Master Plans, Building Codes and Other Municipal Ordinances 3) List of Estimated Nonproject Costs 4) Statement of a Method of Relocating Persons to be Displaced as a Result of Implementing the Plan Amended Financing Plan 1) Estimated Project Cost of Zone, including administrative expenses 2) Statement listing proposed public works or public improvements in the zone 3) Economic Feasibility Study 4) Estimated amount of Bond Indebtedness 5) Time When Related Costs Or Monetary Obligations Are To Be Incurred 6) Description of Financing Methods 7) Current Total Appraised Value of Taxable Real Property in the Zone 8) Estimated Captured Appraised Value of the Zone during Each Year of its Existence 9) The Duration of the Zone Exhibits A Legal Description and Map of The Reinvestment Zone B Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Analysis C Proposed Capital Improvements D Listing of Properties and Appraised Taxable Real Value E Resolution No. 97-43 Setting A Public Hearing On The Creation Of the Reinvestment Zone and Public Notice Of A Public Hearing on The Creation of A Reinvestment Zone F Concept Plan Town Center - Phase I Town Center - Phase H G Interlocal Agreements H Developer's Agreement AMENDED PROJECT PLAN Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One Southlake,Texas In June 1997, the Southlake City Council began the process of creating the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone by setting the public hearing. In September of 1997, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 682 establishing the TIRZ boundaries and creating a Board of Directors. In December of 1997, the City Council approved the final project and financing plan. The City of Southlake established a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One for the purpose of dedicating the tax revenue generated within the zone to a comprehensive infrastructure and facility development plan. The area consists of approximately 408 acres and is more fully described in the map and legal description presented in Exhibit A. The City created this zone to encourage quality commercial development along the Highway 114 corridor. The area is primarily undeveloped and the City intends to capture the anticipated incremental tax revenue increase to apply to targeted public improvement projects that benefit all the overlapping taxing jurisdictions. This TIRZ zone represents an area that will develop fully at some point in the future, however active business/commercial development occurring to the west of the proposed zone may affect the zone's immediate development. With the creation of a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone, property tax revenues in excess of the current appraised taxable value will be used to finance public improvements within the TIRZ Zone. The TIRZ will exist for the next twenty years or the date when all project costs are paid and the debt is retired, whichever comes first. This amended project plan and financing plan includes changes based on the CISD's ability to participate in the TIRZ and includes school educational facilities as consistent with the State statutes. As set forth in Section 311.011 in the Tax Increment Financing Act of the Tax Code, the Project Plan for the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number 1, Southlake Texas must include the following elements: 1. A map showing existing uses and conditions of real property in the zone and a map showing proposed improvements to and proposed uses of the property. The boundaries of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone are shown in Map 1. The majority of the TIRZ area is open and undeveloped. Approximately 139.94 acres, or 41.5%, receives an agriculture deferral designation by Tarrant County Appraisal District. The far southeast comer of the area is in the 75 `LDN' noise contour of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, while the remainder is within the 65 `LDN' noise contour. `LDN' is the abbreviation for the average day/night sound level calculation methodology used by airport operators to determine noise levels. The current zoning districts approved in the Reinvestment Zone are C3-General Commercial, NR-PUD-Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, R-PUD - Residential Planned Unit Development, AG - Agricultural, SF20A and SF2013- Single Family Residential, and CS- Community Service. The current approved zoning districts are included on a map designated as Map 2. The City of Southlake Land Use Plan adopted in June 1993 designates this area as Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Industrial. Map 3 shows the Land Use Plan for the TIRZ area. Map 4 shows the current uses within the TIRZ area. This is not an exhaustive display, but is intended to provide a feeling of the current area and the possibility of expansion. The TIRZ has some existing development including Southlake City Hall, Walmart, Kroger, Home Depot, Blockbuster Video, and several other retail commercial units. Business areas, such as Village Center, have the opportunity to include more tenants, and this development is included in the incremental tax calculations. The final map, Map 5, shows the phasing of the development within the TIRZ based on what is anticipated to occur. It emphasizes the stages of the Southlake Town Square development, and is more indicative of the projected revenue streams from the order of development. It is not intended to be a definitive statement of all projects and developments which may occur on the TIRZ area. The contents of the maps are as follows: Ma p 1 of 5 Boundaries of the Reinvestment Zone Map 2 of 5 TIRZ Zoning Map 3 of 5 Land Use in the TIRZ Map 4 of 5 Current Uses and Conditions of Real Property in the TIRZ Map 5 of 5 Anticipated Phases of Development within the TIRZ Area 2. Proposed changes of zoning ordinances, the master plan of the municipality, building codes and other municipal ordinances. No changes are anticipated to any city codes or ordinances by the creation of the Tax Increment Finance Zone. This does not preclude, however, the possibility of planning and zoning changes subject to the standard planning and zoning process and procedures. 3. A list of estimated non-project costs. Non-project costs within the TIRZ zone are those development costs not paid for by the TIRZ. These will include, but are not limited to, $360.5 million in improvement costs for the Southlake Town Square which comprises 140 acres or nearly one third of the total land area of the Tax - Increment Reinvestment Zone. This provides a conservative projection of assessed value growth - - - - and the potential funds available for public improvements. No information is available at this Amended Project and Financing Plan Tax Increment Zone#1 Southlake, TX Page 2 August 10, 1999 1�� V time on the potential value of projects arising from the other non-developed property or from the value of expanding uses currently within the TIRZ Zone. 4. A statement of a method of relocating persons to be displaced as a result of implementing the plan. In the process of developing Southlake Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One it may be necessary to relocate individuals and businesses. In the event that this is required, the City will follow the procedures that would be used in the development or construction of other public improvements outside the zone. (awl Amended Project and Financing Plan Tax Increment Zone#1 Southlake, TX Page 3 August 10, 1999 1�� -1 AMENDED FINANCING PLAN Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One Southlake,Texas The Amended Financing Plan provides information on the projected monetary impact that the formation of the TIRZ could have on the property described in Exhibit A. It will also describe how that impact can be utilized to enhance the area and region through leveraging the resources of each entity who participate in the project. Since the approval of the original project plan and financing plan, in December, 1997, additional contractual information has been incorporated into this plan. These items include (1) the interlocal agreements with the overlapping taxing entities between Tarrant County, Tarrant County Hospital District, and Tarrant County Junior College, and the City; and, (2) development agreement between the primary developers and the City. Upon approval of the amended project plan and financing plan, the participation agreement between the Carroll Independent School District and the City will be incorporated into this plan. The Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Analysis, prepared by First Southwest Company, is included in its entirety in Exhibit B. The allowable "project costs" by the municipality establishing a reinvestment zone, as set forth in Section 311.011 in the TIF Tax code, are as follows: • acquisition and construction of public works, public improvements, new buildings, structures, and fixtures; the actual costs of the acquisition, demolition, alteration, remodeling, repair, or reconstruction of existing buildings, structures, and fixtures; and the actual costs of the acquisition of land and equipment and the clearing and grading of land; • financing costs, including all interest paid to holders of evidences of indebtedness or other obligations issued to pay for project costs and any premium paid over the principal amount of the obligations because of the redemption of the obligations before maturity; • real property assembly costs; • professional service costs, including those incurred for architectural, planning, engineering, and legal advise and services; • imputed administrative costs, including reasonable charges for the time - spent by employees of the municipality in connection with the implementation of the project plan; Amended Project and Financing Plan Tax Increment Zone#1 Southlake, TX Page 4 August 10, 1999 '7P�- 10 • relocation costs; • organizational costs, including the costs of conducting environmental impact studies or other studies, the cost of publicizing the creation of the zone, and the cost of implementing the project plan for the zone; • interest before and during construction and for one year after completion of construction, whether or not capitalized; • the cost of operating the reinvestment zone and project facilities; • the amount of any contributions made by the municipality from general revenue for the implementation of the project plan; and • payments made at the discretion of the governing body of the municipality that the municipality finds necessary or convenient to the creation of the zone or to the implementation of the project plans for the zone. The specific capital improvement projects anticipated to be undertaken in the TIRZ #l, Southlake are included as Exhibit C. As set forth in Section 311.011 in the Tax Increment Financing Act of the Tax Code, the Financing Plan for the Southlake, Texas Reinvestment Zone Number One must include the following elements: 1. Estimated Project Costs of the Zone, including administrative expenses; and, 2. A statement listing the kind, number and location of all proposed public works or public improvements in the zone. Total Project costs are estimated at approximately $163,669,018. Specific project cost estimates are included in Exhibit C. The proposed public improvements in the zone fall into five general categories: public buildings and facilities, public parks, general infrastructure, operational and maintenance, and other incremental costs. In addition, the TIF will pay a portion of project costs and operations for the Carroll Independent School District's educational facilities listed in Exhibit C-2 of the project plan, which are located in the TIRZ boundaries. The participation agreement between the City of Southlake and the Carroll Independent School District details the School District's level of participation in the TIF. Amended Project and Financing Plan Tax Increment Zone#1 Southlake, TX Page 5 August 10, 1999 The costs of each item and a brief description of the project components are as follows: Public Buildings and Facilities: TownHall-City/County Facility - $12,000,000 The proposed "Town Hail" will be a shared facility between the City of Southlake and Tarrant County with the goal to bring together in one central location, the many civic offices of the City of Southlake and Tarrant County. Town Hall will be located in the heart of the Town Square development, and will be the focal point of the new downtown. The facility will be approximately 80,000 square feet with approximately 12,000 square feet dedicated for Southlake's first Public Library. The offices for Tarrant County include the County Commissioner, Constable, Justice of the Peace, County Clerk offices, and Tax offices. The City of Southlake will include administrative offices, finance, municipal court, utility billing, planning, economic development, public works, and a public safety sub-station. Parking Facilities - $ 5,000,000 The public parking facility will provide parking for the Town Square development and could provide the TIF an optional revenue source by maintaining the right to charge parking fees. Educational Facilities - Library Capital Costs- $ 1,139,000 The Library facility is located within the Town Hall. The initial capital expenditures related to the library facility include the purchase of resource materials needed for the library collection, a library automation system, and library furnishings. Capital & Operational School Improvement Project- $113,200,000 As part of the TIRZ, the CISD will be paid a portion of project costs and operations for the educational facilities described in the project plan. The public improvements include a Middle School, Intermediate School, Elementary School, Transportation Facility and Multipurpose Stadium. The sites for these facilities are within the TIRZ boundaries and will benefit the community by attracting individuals and businesses desiring to relocate to the area with an exemplary school system which provides quality academic and athletic facilities. Amended Project and Financing Plan Tax Increment Zone#1 Southlake, TX Page 6 August 10, 1999 Public Parks: $2,706,619 The TIRZ project plan includes costs associated with the development of public parks within the Town Square development including the development of Rustin and Fountain Place parks and a future six-acre park. These costs include land acquisition, structures, landscaping and trails. General Infrastructure: $24,710,400 The public improvement projects include streets, water, sanitary sewer, and storm water drainage systems. The project plan separates the general infrastructure into four categories designated as General Infrastructure A, B, C, and Educational Infrastructure. General Infrastructure A and B projects include costs associated with reimbursing the developer for 40% of the infrastructure costs within the Town Square development. General Infrastructure C costs include costs associated with road improvements to Carroll Avenue and Kimball Avenue, which are located on the periphery of the TIRZ boundaries. The Educational Infrastructure costs include water, sewer, drainage, and road construction to service the educational facilities located in the TIRZ. These projects will be funded with CISD and City of Southlake Contributions only. Operational and Maintenance: Capital Maintenance - $2,973,000 Capital Maintenance includes site work costs associated with construction of Town Hall and furniture, fixture, and equipment (FFE) costs for Town Hall. FFE includes such construction costs associated with building the dais for the Council Chambers, the bench for the Courtroom, etc. These funds will also include furnishing the common areas of the Town Hall, and for furniture and equipment for City of Southlake and Tarrant County offices. The capital maintenance costs includes $1,000,000 designated for large capital expenditures related to the building maintenance of the Town Hall facility. Other Incremental Costs: $1,940,000 Professional services costs associated with the TIRZ project plan include the architectural fees, construction management fees, and technology for the Town Hall facility. - _ - - - -- Amended Project and Financing Plan Tax Increment Zone#1 Southlake, TX Page 7 August 10, 1999 rib-is 3. Economic Feasibility Study. The fiscal impact of phased development is outlined in the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Analysis (Exhibit B). Not reflected in this analysis is the anticipated sales tax and personal property tax revenue which would be in addition to the real property tax. These revenue streams would not be designated to be used specifically in the zone. 4. The estimated amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred. The total principal amount to be issued for project costs is estimated at $53,600,000 for Public Improvement Projects and $ 61,700,000 for School Improvement Projects. 5. The time when related costs or monetary obligations are to be incurred. It is anticipated that debt will be issued in phases to fund a portion of the public works improvements that the corresponding real property development will require. Please refer to Exhibit C for the details regarding the type of improvements. Exhibit B provides an estimated timeline for issuance of debt. 6. A description of the methods of financing all estimated project costs and the expected sources of revenue to finance or pay project costs, including the percentage of tax increment to be derived from the property taxes of each taking unit on real property in the zone. Project costs will be financed through the issuance of debt instruments or through use of tax increment funds received. The revenue source will be the real property taxes captured by the TIRZ District, which will account for 100% of revenues used to retire the debt. For the Amended Financial Plan, the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Carroll Independent School District, Tarrant County Junior College District and Tarrant County Hospital District are illustrated as participating at 100% in the TIRZ. The Carroll Independent School District is participating in the TIF with 100% of its M&O rate in the TIF district. The TIRZ, active through the City, will make annual payments to the School District in an amount necessary to offset any negative financial impact on the School District, as a result of its participation in the TIF, relating to State funds that would otherwise be received by the School District under school finance legislation or relating to amounts that must be paid or contributed by the School District under school finance - - law. Amended Project and Financing Plan Tax Increment Zone#1 Southlake, TX Page 8 August 10, 1999 71b'�y 7. The current total appraised value of taxable real property ro in the zone. P The total appraised value of the taxable real property in the zone using the 1997 base year values provided by the Tarrant Appraisal District is $32,123,017. The taxable value of those same properties is $23,217,804, after deducting a total of$8,805,213 for agricultural deferrals and tax exempt properties. A listing of properties is included in Exhibit D. The total taxable value of all properties on Southlake is $1.573 billion based on 1997 preliminary Tarrant Appraisal District Values. The 1999 total appraised value of the taxable real property in the zone provided by the Tarrant Appraisal District is $54,949,664. The 1999 taxable value of those same properties is $54,874,664, after deducting a total of$75,000 for agricultural deferrals and tax exempt properties. 8. The estimated captured appraised value of the zone during each year of its existence. The estimated appraised value of the improvements in the zone per year is listed in the following table. The estimated value of the zone assumes an annual growth in the appraised value of 3%. This is less than the historic average annual growth of 5% in assessed values in Southlake since 1992. Incremental Incremental Fiscal Year Taxable Assessed Fiscal Year Taxable Assessed Valuation Valuation 1998 S8,600,000 2009 $366,870,903 1999 $58,065,769 2010 $399,706,830 2000 $89,798,134 2011 $433,482,835 2001 $139,624,890 2012 $468,227,118 2002 $149,951,655 2013 $503,968,732 2003 $188,118,189 2014 $507,147,815 2004 $215,861,534 2015 $510,377,271 2005 $244,392,179 2016 $513,658,612 2006 $273,733,744 2017 $515,158,612 2007 $303,910,557 2018 $516,658,612 2008 $334,947,672 Amended Project and Financing Plan Tax Increment Zone#1 SoutWake, TX Page 9 August 10, 1999 rier 15 9. The duration of the zone. The zone was created in September 1997, with an effective date of January 1, 1998. The zone exists for 20 years with the termination of the zone set at either September 30, 2018 or the date when all project costs are paid and all debt is retired, whichever comes first. Amended Project and Financing Plan Tax Increment Zone #1 Southlake, TX Page 10 August 10, 1999 Exhibit C-1 Reinvestment Zone#1, Southlake Proposed Capital Improvement Program General General General Educational School lmpry . Type of Allowable Project Costs Infrastructure A' Infrastructure B Infrastructure C2 Infrastructure Projects' Public Buildings and Facilities Joint City/County Facility $ 12,000,000.00 Educational Facilities $ 1,139,000.00 $ 61,700,000.00 Parking Facilities $ 5,000,000.00 Public Parks $ 1,134,1154.00 $ 1,572,465.00 Land Acquisition Special Structures Landscaping Trails General Infrastructure Water Utilities $ 548,380.00 $ 881,682.00 $ 652,000.00 Sewer Utilities $ 216,148.00 $ 350,234.00 $ 1,370,000.00 Storm Water $ 399,669.00 $ 1,010,522.00 $ 300,000.00' Streets and Curbs $ 1,329,972.00 $ 1,925,905.00 $ 2,500,000.00 $13,150,000.00 Traffic Control $ 1,000,000.00 Sidewalks/Streetscape $ 3,484,739.00 $ 4,907,623.00 Demolition& Excavation Earthwork/Grading $ 302,540.00 $ 488,585.00 Engineering/Contingency Development Infrastructure $ 7,281,448.00 $ 9,564,551.00 4 f Developer Infrastructure $ 2,912,579.20 $ 3,825,820.40 Operational and Maintenance Capital Maintenance $ 1,973,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 Operation Costs $ 51,500,000.00 Other Incremental Costs Professional Services5 $ 1,940,000.00 SUB-TOTAL COSTS $ 21,098,733.20 $ 6,398,285.40 $ 7,500,000.00 $15,472,000.00 $113,200,000.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 163,669,018.60 1 The costs categorized as"educational facilities"include initial capital expenditures related to the library facility for resource materials,library automation system,and furnishings. 2 These street costs include road improvements to Carroll Ave.and Kimball Ave. They are either on the periphery of or exterior to the Rialto Development and thus the costs are covered 100%by TIRZ revenues. 3 All projects in this phase are to be funded with CISD contributions only. 4 Capital Maint.Costs described in"General Infrastructure A"includes site work costs associated with construction of Town Hall($500,000),and FF&E costs for Town Hall($1,473,000) e Professional services includes($200,000 for services fees;$1,200,000 for Architectural fees;$390,000 for Construction Management fees;and,$150,000 for Technology for Town Hall including AN,sound, computer networking,etc.) '41 (W., Exhibit C-2 Reinvestment Zone#1,Southlake Proposed Capital Improvement Program To be funded with CISD and City of Southlake Contributions Only Educational Infrastructure School Site(Continental Blvd) South Carroll Avenue Road Construction from 1709 to Continental $4,740,000.00 Brumlow Road Construction from Continental to SH 26 $2,470,000.00 Drainage Improvements for 16 acre school site on Continental $300,000.00 Subtotal Infrastructure for Continental School Site $7,510,000.00 School Sites(South Kimball Ave) South Kimball Avenue Road Construction from 1709 $3,960,000.00 South Kimball Avenue Road Construction from Crooked to Heritage $1,980,000.00 Construct a 12"waterline along Kimball $652,000.00 Sewer for S. Kimball School site $370,000.00 S-7 Sewer Line for 42 acre site on S. Kimball $1,000,000.00 Subtotal Infrastructure for South Kimball School Sites $7,962,000.00 Total Educational Infrastructure $15,472,000.00 Educational Buildings and Facilities Middle School $ 19,500,000.00 Intermediate School $ 15,000,000.00 Elementary School $ 11,000,000.00 Transportation Facility $ 1,600,000.00 Stadium $ 14,600,000.00 Subtotal Buildings and Facilities $ 61,700,000.00 Operating Costs TIF Administrative Costs $ 75,000.00 Middle School $ 800,000.00 Intermediate School $ 500,000.00 Elementary School $ 500,000.00 Transportation Facility $ 200,000.00 Stadium $ 500,000.00 Annual Operating Costs $ 2,575,000.00 Cost for 20 years $ 51,500,000 00 Total Educational $ 113,200,000.00 TOTAL Contribution including Educational Infrastructure $ 128,672,000.00 (W and Educational Facilities and Operating Costs /B- 'S all a+ (ow, 0 ao Mai •� � ell O � � NOF" a� •(M y •p" c� 0 y � Z ar � O L • � Gir i '1�3•lei e � e 73 - z C! x T, x .. •C en yy x C• rl — Y: 1+1 7 n'7 �O x O sCiL » may y'se�id - x r 10 IO r 9 y = .•• �. — N ems: x N x .. T N x Rr 24 Sc cx c 0 r �. x- 1` o r` �: x Iq. �r� x rlIc ,yI C y 6. rx.• — x r -r C W y C � ar T Z = T �C rl rl !� r; ;� ,c n• '� X T — �C F O z y V +�+ cn yC — rl FA 72 CL El S L L1 LL _ r v-, C \ •^ i+ ` L yam . rl CI r31 J A ^IT .— 73 7 _ 4 � � G r f^. f^. N. F. e e f^. i+: r: = N. 5 F !'^. r% 1=�•. C �/ ^ C Q P P i S O Y n C x�O v1 Y- ,O S Scc Y d E - - c e 2 L t v1 Z C r1 n •° T F m 9 - •O m - - -ri �Y v� Q O O � U _ a c c t yy uFlR — y F^M C�_• y w'L� -Lt r�i a0 7;?>Y =i!T:; .j�J T � C � � u u 7 C C !9 T Of N y O � U c_lYvor �aa� y � c "" » Z R ° � � e av' E f! ri 7 O - Y n •O r m N Y e o C •C 5 .1 u' r� F U s ]n0 T NI m y M� n YY.r r, ^ Y �•O b W � ° a �o�r•a �n�M T_�� ah�� U s `•'a — ;maw — na �� n��e C C R 3r3�,c -��n'� Ya��+ a=,ni•moo, a a r-= _r111. T-- r -- U!> >•kl �— ! I C _ — _ =7 2_ _ u a ° _ o � T u m L 7 7 _ � O Q. C v s V �m 0 � 1 T�G rl 1.rl � e+�, — J 3 J y C 3 Z r — e+ �G T Yt — n �0 � e•1 CT = n T � •C n M rl Y �C Y. ^ n = O .. Z Z Y. V1 Y. Y. A T, ,.• % �D Y. N � % Y. Y, 7 �O ^. rl 1� . ]C x Q � L .,I > � _ — — 'r'�. ri .r... Y, 7 •n — _, 1 � 9a� PTA 9�1 s '9„� N N tN C 1 � N w < < < < < = :a C z z z z z Z % y In N O N n 1 IjN 'tZ C O Z Z Z Z r ]x0 IYi•'. ' I "_ —� In s r S rl 1' J 44 I•1 N H CYO y < < ~° rI NN ° y ^ Z Z Y, Y. Y, Y. Y YI_. •L` C — — f� + T 7 �Y VI yl w ? A G N a H CJ C 1 H — 3 rr v G� �r > � � x ,c r ,�; Tom-,• i�� n -. - T �, -L, rl a 3� c .. .". •� 90 � J = L9 Y, x f�1 x — �C rl v: ,'1 CI : � ?� �. p Z x - - rle r c na rlT c r- 9 O 9 � d � L r a c:. �8-22 Yr c y z I er. ll 3 12 PI n T _ F. TT nI y 7 C �I � i � �i _..� �� � rl L t•I � �, =r T < a . V < < .• Z Z ,� i � T — s — — — — Y — t•I � � � T 91 t7 00 Q G L iq C V1 — H < < < < < O z z z z z - - - - - - - 25 "' 'x hN Zo r C3 y ^ ;T 3� GC L ZZZZ ,f xx �Z'. x x — ; C r ri (mow, C ? < < < < ? — =r.. v. it r x z 5l z rri env 8� vri a� Q F,.1 — z z z Z r` n - n n r` z7 — ��. — C 1 y vl-O O O C V J .� C rl �.' r.,l = �I .rl ,r—'. `G =r Y [`.I "y ZI h — .xn y N '� .�. � y — — — _ — �tom'. tom: Ci !i Ci N rN•, N n H H H �.0 ^" T T z Z r ae _ c �r p,y iC ►�I L •f ^ `� ys — — _ _ r r t�j n n n e�i n vrr Al In si4 cw r.r y a .s 72 as _ L X O'_ CI .., 'T W,% C r X N L = a. w City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT August 13, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-066 PROJECT: Revised Site Plan—Southridge Executive Suites STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 Attached is a letter from the applicant requesting for this item to be tabled to the September 7, 1999, City Council meeting. Four Peaks Development,Inc. August 13, 1999 Mr.Dennis Killough Director of Planning City of Souddake 667 N.Carroll Ave. Souddake,Texas 76M RE: ZA 994" Covered Parking Structure Southridge Executive Center DearDennis; Please accept this letter as our request to table the subject zoning action from the Council meeting of August 1701, 1999 until the Council meeting of September 76, 1999. As 1 mentior ed on the phone,we are out of town on the 1'7 and would not be able to attend We appreciate your anent ion to this matter. Sincerely, Z., e David C.McMahan Vice President FECU AUG 131999 1C - 2 726 ewmem St.,Ste. 109 • SoutnlaM.TX 76092 • (817)32s-sass Fax(817)481-4074 s _ City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT August 13, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-053 PROJECT: Development Plan—Kirkwood Hollow,Phase II STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner,481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Development Plan for Kirkwood Hollow,Phase II,on property legally described as Tracts 3A, 3A4, 3A4B, 3A1A1, 4A,4A1, and portions of Tracts 3A1, 3AIA, 3A1A2, 3A3, 3A3A1, 3A4A, 4131, 4132, situated in the R. D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207; portions of Tracts 2A4 and 2A5, situated in the U.P. Martin Survey,Abstract No. 1015;and a portion of Tract 1 situated in the James B. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1134; and being approximately 30.68 acres. PURPOSE: Development Plan approval is required prior to further development. LOCATION: North and adjacent to Kirkwood Hollow,Phase I, on the west side of North White Chapel Boulevard approximately 1,000' northwest of Sweet Street. OWNER: 300 Convent Corporation. APPLICANT: Huitt-Zollars, Inc. CURRENT ZONING: "R-PUD"Residential Planned Unit Development District LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential and 100 Year Flood Plain NO. NOTICES SENT: Fifteen(15) RESPONSES: Three (3)responses were received from within the 200' notification area: • Wm. P. Edginton, Panorama Properties, 502 N. Carroll Ave, Southlake, TX, in favor, "High quality development with careful attention to site surroundings." (Received July 14, 1999.) • Richard D. Edgington, Calais Construction Inc., 365 Miron Drive, Suite A, Southlake, TX, in favor, "This development plan is compatible with existing development and would be the best use for the property." (Received July 15, 1999.) • Richard Robbins, Conn Anderson Homes, Inc., 929 Parkview, Southlake, TX, in favor. (Received July 16, 1999.) -7 S City of Southlake, Texas P&Z ACTION: Approved (6-0) to table and to continue the Public Hearing to the August 5, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. August 5, 1999;Approved(4-1)subject to Development Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated July 16, 1999, deleting Items #1.a (provide two planned points of access)and#l.b(provide sufficient street stubs into adjacent property). STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Development Plan Review Summary No. 3,dated July 16, 1999. NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-053DP.DOC �NI/IIIIfill ■a111111111� Illlllllllililllllllllllll�l�lb� wig �' nB111n111111111111111p�� fl11t811111111111111111n111u� nlnnulj il,►'llaiUlill�u f 1• Illllllil\� " .• � •' �111111111\�� 1 :=11111111111,1111111\ , i :. � IIlld�l i111ud� �1 1 - - s I: I V. 1 1 1 1 ♦ .I I ' i D DUSY1T AREY "AG" I' 'ON L18A I "AG" I�. � , —_- = l -------- ---------, ------- I MTP-IBM �/ /' PHASE N i 111,JVTR 4 USA / TR 4C b 14 AC YIP-NIY JJJJJ /• [^■ V PHASE p•M,lY �— /• / ' MTP-IBM _ (1 ` / PARK CITIES UONCLUB RSUR12 7 PHASE 11 i III.JV \ 4A1 A 1 1 TR "AG" a3 I I MTP-IBM "N R—PUD" R2A 1 PHASE u a u1,Jv M.CAW 72A R 3A t � 4.3 AC 1 � "S—P-2" I YiP-Irl.ly - I PHASE p a M.JV tLU TR 3A t 4.2 I f MTP-IBM PHASE 11 i III,JV I n TR 19.4 I r t COFWkC TR 3A4 1 4.35 d t i Mlv-Iam 3A4A 12, PHASE NA pl,4Y lA1 .47 11 .5 �O , 1 i I � o I; T 3A3AI I a 005 K "NR—PUD" YI I "NR—PUD" Kirkwood Hollow Ownership Key C 1. 300 Convent Street Corp. 2. 300 Convent Street Corp. J n 3. Conn Anderson Homes,Inc. MTP-IBM PHASE II i III,JV ( 4. 300 Convent Street Corp. ^ea 5. Panorama Properties J 6. R.Villani 7. Chateaumar Homes,Inc. 1 8. 300 Convent Street Corp. 1 ♦6 9. 300 Convent Street Corp. 10. Calais Construction,Inc. 2 11. T.Handwerk 2. R.Stark 1 13. 300 Convent Street Corp. 1- MTP-ISII PHASE it IL Ill.JV ! 14. Chareaumar Homes,Inc. " 4tO 15.% 300 C unvcm Strect Crap.NR—PUD" y 16. Panorama Properties,Inc. r V. 17. Mitcham Homes,LLC t Ill. Phil Chafrms,Custom Homes ADJACENT OWNERS 20' '"'on vad �. AND ZONING ` 21. 300 Convent Street Corp. Huitt_Zoiiaiia_s. Inc./3131 McKinney Avenue/Suite 600 r LB 105/Dallas,Texas 75204-2489 i 214/871-3311!FAX 214/871-0757 I i i August 11, 1999 Edward McRoy City Planner City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake,TX 76092 Subject: Kirkwood Hollow Phase 11 Development Plan Case No.ZA 99-053 j Dear Mr. McRoy: I The following are our responses to items on your development plan summary review letter dated July 16th and the reasons for the compliance or noncompliance on these issues. I have also included a brief history on the overall Solona Residential Planned Development (RPD) and the initial development(Phase 1)that took place in the RPD. On October 3b and 17th 1995, the Southlake City Council approved the Solona RPD. On October 19th, 1995, the Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Development Plan for Phase I of the Solona RPD now named Kirkwood Hollow Phase I. On November 7th, 1995, the Southlake City Council approved the Development Plan for Kirkwood Hollow Phase I. As you can see by the dates given, the Concept Plan and the Phase I Development Plan essentially were run concurrently through the city approval process. A number of items were approved with the Phase I Development Plan that due to the city review process running concurrently with the RPD, we believed to be a part of the development standards for the entire RPD development. These items are as follows: • 29'street section in lieu of a 31'street section • No internal sidewalks • No sidewalks around the exterior of the development except those shown on the Phase I Development Plan along Kirkwood Blvd. i j Although new ordinances have been put into place since the approval of the Solona RPD and Phase I Development Plan, it is our belief that our existing RPD should supercede any additional ordinances added to the Subdivision Ordinance after the approval of the Solona Residential PD. Planning Department Comments: 1 a. Provide Two Planned Points of Access: Staff has suggested as an alternative to this requirement, a future median break be provided on Kirkwood Hollow Blvd when the southbound lanes are constructed. If this were to be provided, the two points of access requirement would be considered to be met, as emergency vehicles would be able to use both the existing north bound and future south bound lanes of Kirkwood Blvd. for emergency access. With this in mind, I have enclosed a copy of Kirkwood Blvd, as it will be constructed when development REGI) AUG l 31999 i Edward McRoy Page 2 August 11, 1999 occurs to the west and south of the site. As currently configured, median breaks will be provided at different locations along Kirkwood Blvd providing the proper access to Kirkwood Hollow Phase II. 1b. Street Stubs to Adjacent Properties: With the adjacent properties being an existing subdivision to the east (Kirkwood Hollow Phase 1), and the South Fork of the Kirkwood Branch Creek on the west, the requirement to stub a street to adjacent properties makes this requirement impractical. We would ask for relief from this requirement. 1c. Minimum Pavement Width: Phase I of the Kirkwood Hollow Planned Development was constructed with a street width of twenty-nine (29) feet from back of curb to back of curb as a part of the zoning approval for this planned development.We would request, that this section be maintained to ensure continuity throughout the entire development and to save as many trees as possible in this heavily treed tract. 2. Sidewalk on North White Chapel: With the park board approval of our proposed open space and parkland dedication, it is our understanding that we have met the requirements of the City of Southlake Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The park board has approved this park land dedication, which is in excess of the amount of parkland required, and did not require that the park sidewalk be constructed as a part of this project. Under the requirements of the existing RPD, the approved Concept Plan, and Phase I Development Plan, the sidewalk would not be required due to the sidewalk ordinance not being in effect at the time the initial approvals took place. No sidewalks were required along North White Chapel with the Phase I development. It is our understanding that the City of Southlake plans to construct the proposed sidewalk as a part of bond package approved by voters in May of 1999. Based on the Solona RPD approvals, the dedication of more parkland than required, the approved bond package, and the history of the developer as a quality corporate citizen we would ask for relief from this item. 3. Provide Pedestrian Access Plan: In order to remain consistent with the internal access provided in Phase I, no internal sidewalks will be provided in Phase II of the development. Items 4a and 4b have been addressed. 6e. Screening Wall Maintenance: The parties responsible for the maintenance of the screening wall on North White Chapel will be the individual property owners, since the wall will be placed within their respective lots. Wproj\01 249201\Phase 2\Docs\Dev RespUrSL081199.doc Edward McRoy Page 3 August 11, 1999 Tree Preservation Comments: Items are informational comments only. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if there are any additional questions on the above addressed items. Sincerely, HUITT-ZOLLARS, INC. Kevin Spraggins, PE Encl. Cc: Ocie Vest, P.E. -HZI Anthony Canonaco—300 Convent Street Corp. -7 H:%prog101249201%Phase 2\Docs%Dev RespUrSL081199.doc �w -r end. Residential Phase 1 Residential Phase 2 Residential Phase 3 ® Greenbelt/Park Trail ® Town Park Trail �a eo`/ 1• .w.... '\fir. a a y .i i A� ' s _ t � 2 1r `�y.• v N_ Y a 30 'Nest Dove Road Community Map KiRKWOOD HOLLOW ID- S noun a ■ mass Nunn an mass :`eir Orchard Road Armonk. feu• York 1o5o4 August 2, 1999 Via FAX and hard copy Ms. Karen Gandy 817488-9370 Zoning Administrator The City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: Kirkwood Hollow - Phase 2 Dear Ms. Gandy, I am writing you to respond to your request for the developer of Kirkwood Hollow, 300 Convent Street Corporation, to consider the use of revised Avigation Easement language issued by DFW Airport and the Transport Union. We would like to proceed with our submittal to the City for approval of Phase 2 and are prepared to abide by the existing Avigation Easement language filed of record on Kirkwood Hollow Phase 1. The Phase 2 addition is contiguous to Phase l and about one-half the size, it therefore does not make sense to change the easement language already of record for this development. At this time we do not agree with the requested change to the Avigation Easement language and request that the City not consider the language change for the Kirkwood Hollow development. Sincerely, �(nt'hony Canonaco Senior Program Manager "1 ��q RECD AUG 0 31999 s City of Southlake, Texas DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA 99-053 Review No:-Three Date of Review: 07/16/99 Project Name: Development Plan- Kirkwood Hollow Phase II being 30.68 acres out of the J.B. Martin Survey,Abstract No. 1134 the R.D. Price Survey,Abstract No. 1207, and the U.P. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1015 APPLICANT: ENGINEER: 300 Convent Corporation Huitt-Zollars,Inc. New Orchard Road 3131 McKinney Ave, Suite 600 Armonk,NY 10504 Dallas,TX 75204 Phone: (914)499-4811 Phone: (214) 871-3311 Fax: (914)499-7804 Attn: A.Canonaco Fax: (214) 871-0757 Attn: Ocie Vest CITY STAFF HAS.REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 07/06/99 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 N/A Residential Adjacency N N/A. Building Articulation N N/A Masonry Standards N N/A Impervious Coverage N N/A Bufferyards Y See Complies Interior Landscape N N/A Driveways Y Complies 1. The following changes are required with regard to the proposed streets and rights of way. a. Provide two planned points of access. (5.01-C) The proposed Round Hollow Lane measures approximately 1,575' at its farthest point from Tyler Street. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 08105199—Delete) b. Provide sufficient street stubs into adjacent property. (No. 483-5.03-K-1) (Variance Requested) (P&Z Action 08105199—Delete) '� � �10 . r City of Southlake, Texas C. Provide pavement widths in accordance with current city standards. A minimum pavement width of 31' back to back is required. (Variance Requested) 2. In accordance with the Trail Master Plan,provide a minimum 8'meandering sidewalk along the west side of North White Chapel Blvd. (Variance Requested) 3. Provide sidewalks and a pedestrian access plait as required for residential developments with average lot sizes less than 1 acre. (Variance Requested) 4. The following changes are needed with regard to the legal description of this property: a. In the first call from the P.O.B. the arc distance indicated in the description does not match the graphic. b. In the forty-seventh(47m)call from the beginning,the ac distance specified in the legal description does not match the graphic. 5. The following changes are needed with regard to the graphic: a. Note the parties responsible for the maintenance of the screening wall indicated along the west side of N. White Chapel Blvd. * The Development Review Committee(DRC)has determined that this pre-submittal is sufficient for a formal submittal. * Although the lots shown meet the minimum area criteria, staff is concerned about the sufficiency of the buildable area on Lots 9 and 14,Block A. Please confirm their adequacy to eliminate the need for replats. * It appears that this property lies within the 65 'LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone will require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance-No.479. * The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be processed and filed in the County Plat Records,a fully corrected site plan,landscape plan,irrigation plan, and building plans,must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee,Perimeter Street Impact Fee, Water& Sewer Impact and Tap Fees,and related Permit Fees. * Denotes Informational Comment att: Bufferyard Calculation Chart cc: 300 Convent Corporation VIA FAX ABOVE Huitt-Zollars,Inc. VIA FAX ABOVE L:�COMDEV\WP-F[LES\REY1i�SPLAN-1.WPD �ID, City of Southlake, Texas SUMMARY CHART-BUFF :RYARDS Bufferyard Canopy Accent Shrubs Fence/Screening Location Length Width - Type Trees Trees Height&Material West- Required' 80' 10'-B 2 2 6 none Provided° 80' 50'-B 2 2 6 6'Metal&Wood w Stone Columns *Notes a. Required plant material has been reduced by 20%as allowed for increased bufferyard width. b. The applicant has proposed an approximately 50'wide area of common open space area with bufferyard plantings in lieu of the required bufferyard. f Other Comments:' r k a 1. Note any additional credits requested for a reduction iri'regiiired plant materials. Revised June 13, 1997 f City of Southlake, Texas TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) Case: 99-053 Date of Review: 6-24 -99 Number of Pages: l Project Name: Kirkwood Hollow Phase II (Development Plan) OWNWER: PREPARED BY: 300 Covent Corporation Huitt- Zollars New Orchard Rd. 3131 McKinney Ave. Suite 600 Armonk,NY 10504 Dallas,TX 75204 Phone: (914)499-4811 Phone: (214) 871-3311 Fax: Fax: 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 submitted an aerial photograph which meets the requirements of the Tree r` Preservation Ordinance. 2. From the aerial photograph it looks as though the subdivision has been designed to effect the least amount of existing protected trees as possible. All sewer lines are proposed to be placed in the R.O.W. and most of the Drainage Easements have been located along the back of lots to allow for the water to drain into the sewer and to the creek or 100 year flood plain area. 3. Any areas on lots that will require Cut/Fill will be required to be designated on the Drainage Construction Plan so that any possible tree mitigation can be evaluated. * Residential Subdivision Development: All area within the public R.O.W., utility easements or drainage easements as shown on an approved final Plat and areas designated as-Cut/Fill on the Master Drainage Construction Plan approved by the Landscape Administrator shall be exempt from the tree protection and replacement requirements specified in the Tree Preservation Ordinance. All other areas shall be subject to these requirements. * No Disturbance Areas: No disturbance areas must be clearly marked on the plan and surrounded with protective fencing on the ground. A single incidence removal of underbrush and vines is allowed. BUILDING INSPECTIONS City of Southlake, Texas * All requirements and regulations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A, apply to the entirety of the properties. Please be aware of the penalties of not applying the tree preservation protection methods required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A. B G INSPECTIONS , - co o U. O I-Z g 1 � s a o r }C y r' gig__ kRo 51 1 ;+ IS \ \ • �( p � Gy■ Mv IF �1 ° 1.1 J --L�d ��'� �'%�di`/ � ,� ,�•''�I \\��`� � � �� t w • i ! a 'wa �$ lei r ♦ Z � b g , s Z al Y n i 0 03: ig o a III if a s IL It 41 It 41 Jk VV WA lr- '✓ 1' i� ,Yit �i� . • J � � / -�3.•-- it., \\jam\ '��y 1 "•'` E d t /! / �, ' ■ :'.y �`'�. `fit i /a a ♦ ♦ � r, f i ♦ �U t r r r ; , � ♦�•t �\ �/ .r�an /. � " �a,� �jai• '�•_ � ., ,r / \\\ ��C��✓�/ r.tea' dC" za a t : LU Ilan JID J Z F cgLu Off. F `' . Ale iP '� � � x. _ _ , .fig•� t ;. Ty \ mil_ T/r t ♦� a Vim: ' ��• x � � y � � A d Ai�. x�h .. ♦ �t '��'( ` 1.1( � it.. :._...--._ -^•i/r;i� � `�1 �. � r�'� � '.i. .<< �S- iilM:l '�1`5 � �y�i; -`'',-../�-1/��-•ri'- ,lf•�\��.`\♦\ a�� + _ 7 4 :i : �` � J �t •�.�-,'•• tt ti\ S ,•.may\ \ \'i �;.!) .:•� .� it r ,F.l •• .y, ''�\ ' i: Ji t - . :. t,i I b y'' %(% •: \: Kir .` a �i i ' �- `�`� ~'' i r , .•^.- .N i � /• 7/ \ VW , �/ �/ i�(,^�d CIF �{I i`,i'!��.�; ,\y `l�����,�t,�L �; 's ♦\` - - !.'� j�j r 'I/ .r.-.rl �:v.,;.,.. . e.i i , Yilis:: ) 1,•/i�tk r'.�%.W, �!.:. `r`'�"vi�._. _....!. .7717►51� �'' O:D o C o W>- g g IL -,M \'. iJ t.T r f t IV �. ,`•. � ,ti;,r' _fitt. + -�r:.��:'�':�\,-���\ �° Z AF IN Of 41 IV a "rill•r r Mrs : ���•�\ \ �} a\ t yr.'�t •:•�S`� 1�.'��ti���;.•t .' (`, yi��,J4 .-X�. _.• ��, .ayA•�• rit, Nil tit '1 , r i.i a• i r t•",-� Lam' I /. /f�.•�+y � r, 7•` / J 7iG I .". ''����/r j. �,t t'`t P 1,t`I/ ,J! '- \ `,,•c,Y`)r'��( 't'•��^t//� 'i /j��,i/i �,�`i,3 ai �`Y.1,����1}111:i�� t / 1•,It v� �.?,.,\ .'�ti`•.,�/�'tlS�\ +i1 � ;�� �i•f•} Y` j 'I Iy r i 1i.11 ` l' i' � t t, "•�j�:;`�,"c��:�\..�i�q �1'l/,/I 41 j Rai i.�. i ! ,:i °1 1 .••4 ��"�iq{'.'.�-6�—=:-z� f' -A�t, V�.` ,``'` h�.S'J'/ `'ai,`•:�-y. �� .�.�� �.... ./. �i .l�..d,:i4•:.��.•f:i '�1 t'iV.�. T��'���t,'t•+'�+`,//-��'}``,"kQ\ /"- City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT August 13, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-054 PROJECT: Preliminary Plat-Kirkwood Hollow,Phase II STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Preliminary Plat for Kirkwood Hollow, Phase II, on property legally described as Tracts 3A, 3A4, 3A4B, 3A1A1, 4A,4A1, and portions of Tracts 3A1, 3AIA, 3A1A2, 3A3, 3A3A1, 3A4A, 4131, 4132, situated in the R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207; portions of Tracts 2A4 and 2A5, situated in the U.P. Martin Survey,Abstract No. 1015;and a portion of Tract 1 situated in the James B.Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1134; and being approximately 30.68 acres. PURPOSE: Preliminary Plat approval is required prior to Final Platting. LOCATION: North and adjacent to Kirkwood Hollow,Phase I, on the west side of North White Chapel Boulevard approximately 1,000' northwest of Sweet Street. OWNER: 300 Convent Corporation APPLICANT: Huitt-Zollars, Inc. CURRENT ZONING: "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential and 100 Year Flood Plain NO.NOTICES SENT: Fifteen(15) RESPONSES: Three (3)responses were received from within the 200' notification area: • Wm. P. Edginton, Panorama Properties, 502 North Carroll Avenue, #120, Southlake, TX, in favor, "Quality low density development." (Received July 14, 1999.) • Rodney A. Stark, 439 Marshall Road, Southlake, TX, in favor. (Received July 14, 1999.) • Richard Robbins, Conn Anderson Homes, Inc., 929 Parkview, Southlake, TX, in favor. (Received July 16, 1999.) P&Z ACTION: Approved (6-0) to table and to continue the Public Hearing to the August 5, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. IG"I City of Southlake, Texas August 5, 1999;Approved(4-1)subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated July 16, 1999, deleting Items #La (provide two planned points of access); #Lb (provide sufficient street stubs into adjacent property); #3.a (provide 5' utility easement around property boundary); and adding an Item#7 requiring the applicant to provide sidewalks and a pedestrian access plan. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated August 13, 1999. NACOMMUMTY DEVELOPMEN nWP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-054PP.DOC W l�,.�ff.y �i�" �� .�Yff • fflf>♦ � fit11t f1♦S ft•ft• ft♦ _W.� __ , \, it'�I .il � f ff1f1• �IY.f ttt _W �•� o1111111111111■■■�11l111111\ 1111111 Bill Iululniuu11111�11�j� milli1111 q 1111111111111111111Zak ��11�111 ii�--•�"�"•• IL TR Ic 15,1 25 A Ni AC A-72 TRACT MAP 1c, � ��Illuulrlln,'111�u111tm►1► �1111111►� - .. . 1 �nuunl► �� -:-,umnl�lluul► f , -v. � ■„ran i ` 300 1' I p U101 ROE "AG" SA,A�S 00�Egt USA I MTP-IBM PHASE It i Ill.JV I /' USA / TR 4C 14 AC YTP-1 /' /, l PHASE "I IIA NI,JV l— /, /./ �� PRIG Y MTP-IBM _ ("�' `' / PARK CITIES LION CLUB R A R�201 PHASE II i Ill,JV \ 4A1 r 1 AC TR "AG" r .83 C 1 I MTP-IBM / "NR—PUD" I R2A111 PHASE 11 i Ill,JV M.CALLI 72AY R 3A t 4.3 AC I "S—P-2" a t t 1 YIP IqY. to I P"ASENa1;,JV u� TR 3A / I 4.2 I MTP-IBM PHASE 11 i III,JV I i C' TR 19.4 I I IBM eORP 4. 3A4 ��!1 � 35 � I i Y P INY 3A4A 12' PIuSE n a nl,ar 1A1 .47 11 l .5 AC !q �O t q • T 3A3A1 1\ .005 K I t W a "NR—PUD" b "NR—PUD" Kirkwood Ilullow Ownership Key II. 300 Convent Street Corp. t 2. 300 Convent Street Corp. 1 b 3. Conn Anderson Homes,Inc. MTP-IBM PHASE It i 111,JV 4. 300 Convent Street Corp. I b 5. Panom-na Properties 6. R.Villani / 7. Chateaumar Homes,Inc. p 1 8. 300 Convent Street Corp. �b 9. 300 Convent Street Corp. 1 pQ 10. Calais Construction,Inc. G 2 t. 11. T.Handwerk 12. R.Stark b t. 13. 300 Convent Street Corp. - 1- MTP-IBM PHASE It i Ill.JV v% dF 14. Chareaumar Homes,Inc. QO 15. 300 Convent Street Corp. " NR—PUD' 16. Panorama PropMies,Inc. ' 17. Mitcham Homes,LLC I 18. Phil Chanins,Custom Homes ADJACENT OWNERS 19• Simmons Properties `\ IG 20. 300 Convent Street Corp. AND ZONING 21. 300 Convent Street Corp. H U IT -ZOLLARS Huitt-Zollars,Inc./3131 McKinney Avenue/Suite 600/LB 105/Dallas,Texas 75204-2489/214/871-3311/FAX 214/871-0757 i I August 11, 1999 Edward McRoy City Planner City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake,TX 76092 i Subject: Kirkwood Hollow Phase II Preliminary Plat Case No.ZA 99-054 Dear Mr. McRoy: I The following are our responses to items on your Preliminary Plat summary review letter dated July 16th and the reasons for the compliance or noncompliance on these issues. I have also included a brief history on the overall Solona Residential Planned Development (RPD) and the initial development(Phase 1)that took place in the RPD. 1 On October 3ro and 17`" 1995, the Southlake City Council approved the Solona RPD. On October i ' 19t", 1995, the Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Development Plan for I Phase I of the Solona RPD now named Kirkwood Hollow Phase I. On November 7th, 1995, the Southlake City Council approved the Development Plan for Kirkwood Hollow Phase I. As you can see by the dates given, the Concept Plan and the Phase I Development Plan essentially were run concurrently through the city approval process. A number of items were approved with the Phase I Development Plan that due to the city review process running concurrently with the RPD, we I believed to be a part of the development standards for the entire RPD development. These items are as follows: • 29'street section in lieu of a 31'street section • No internal sidewalks • No sidewalks around the exterior of the development except those shown on the Phase I Development Plan along Kirkwood Blvd. Although new ordinances have been put into place since the approval of the Solona RPD and 1 Phase I Development Plan, it is our belief that our existing RPD should supercede any additional ordinances added to the Subdivision Ordinance after the approval of the Solona Residential PD. i j Planning Department Comments: 1a. Provide Two Planned Points of Access: Staff has suggested as an alternative to this requirement a median break be provided on Kirkwood Hollow Blvd when the southbound lanes are constructed. If this were to be provided, the two points of access requirement would be considered to be met, as emergency vehicles would be able to use both the existing north bound and future south bound lanes of Kirkwood Blvd for emergency access.With this in mind, I have enclosed a j copy of Kirkwood Blvd as it will be constructed when development ur)lh"and I Edward McRoy Page 2 August 11, 1999 south of the site. As currently configured, median breaks will be provided at different locations along Kirkwood Blvd providing the proper access to Kirkwood Hollow Phase II. 1b. Street Stubs to Adjacent Properties: With the adjacent properties being an existing subdivision to the east (Kirkwood Hollow Phase 1), and the South Fork of the Kirkwood Branch Creek on the west, the requirement to stub a street to adjacent properties makes this requirement impractical. We would ask for relief from this requirement. 1c. Minimum Pavement Width: Phase I of the Kirkwood Hollow Planned Development was constructed with a street width of twenty-nine (29) feet from back of curb to back of curb as a part of the zoning approval for this planned development.We would request,that this section be maintained to ensure continuity throughout the entire development and to save as many trees as possible in this heavily treed tract. 2. Sidewalk on North White Chapel: With the park board approval of our proposed open space and parkland dedication, it is our understanding that we have met the requirements of the City of Southlake Parkland Dedication Ordinance.The park board has approved this park land dedication, which is in excess of the amount of parkland required, and did not require that the park sidewalk be constructed as a part of this project. Under the requirements of the existing RPD, the approved Concept Plan, and Phase I Development Plan, the sidewalk would not be required due to the sidewalk ordinance not being in effect at the time the initial approvals took place. No sidewalks were required along North White Chapel with the Phase I development. It is our understanding that the City of Southlake plans to construct the proposed sidewalk as a part of bond package approved by voters in May of 1999. Based on the Solona RPD approvals, the dedication of more parkland than required, the approved bond package, and the history of the developer as a quality corporate citizen we would ask for relief from this item. 3a. Provide 5' Utility Easement around Property Boundary Due to the western property line being located along the top of the east bank of the creek, and in some areas in the channel, of the South Fork of the Kirkwood Branch Creek,we have provided a ten (10)foot utility easement at the front of the lots fronting on the creek. This easement would be provided in lieu of the ten (10) foot utility easement being located on the property line as required by ordinance. This will provide for greater accessibility to the utilities in the easement, and allow the areas along the creek to remain undisturbed.We would ask for relief from this requirement. 3b. Provide Access to Drainage Channels Additional access to drainage channels can be provided if requested by the public works department. Items 4a and 4b have been addressed. 5. Gross Cumulative Area: The gross cumulative areas for Phases I, II, and III are 115.11 ac as stated on the land use schedule of the preliminary plat. HApro1101249201\Phase 21Docs\P1atRespLtrSL081199.d0c ry-6 Edward McRoy Page 3 August 11, 1999 Tree Preservation Comments: Items are informational comments only. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if there are any additional questions on the above addressed items. Sincerely, HUITT ZOLLARS, INC. Kevin Spraggins, PE- HZI Encl. Cc: Ocie Vest, P.E.-HZI Anthony Canonaco—300 Convent Street Corp. H:\prg1012492011Phase ZDocsM11atRespLtrSL081199.&x 1 a �w le end. Q Residential Phase 1 ` Q Residential Phase 2 0 Residential Phase 3 ® Greenbelt/Park Trail M Town Park Trail :y . ~ T_ Cis i .. ti 7.1 %.: dw q4i. -f j �r ,>` ,-�-t� ,-.�•'mot, Nest Po ve oad Community Map KIRKWOOD HOLLOW mass an ■ ■ ■' ��� soon an ■ ■ ■"s r;LG 02 1QQ9 16:33 FR ISM RES FINANCE TO 918174889370 P.01i01 j*w OhAaru Pkad ,4mwnk.I*W York It wi August 2. 1999 Via FAX and hard copy Ms. Karen Gandy 817-488-9370 Zoning Administrator The City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake,Texas 76092 Re: Kirkwood Hollow-Phase 2 Dear Ms. Gandy, i am writing you to respond to your request for the developer of Kirkwood Hollow, 300 Convent Street Corporation, to consider the use of revised Avigation Easement language issued by DFW Airport and the Transport Union. We would like to proceed with our submittal to the City for approval of Phase 2 and are prepared to abide by the existing Avigation Easement language filed of record on Kirkwood Hollow Phase 1. The Phase 2 addition is contiguous to Phase 1 and about one-half the size, it therefore does not make sense to change the easement language already of record for this development. At this time we do not agree with the requested change to the Avigation Easement language and request that the City not consider the language change for the Kirkwood Hollow development. Sincerely. Ithonfy�Canonaco Senior Program Manager RECD A G 0 21999 ** TOTAL PAGE.01 ** City of Southlake, Texas PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY Case No: ZA 99-054 Revised Review No: Three Date of Review: 08/13/99 Project Name: Preliminary Plat—Kirkwood Hollow Phase H,being 30.68 acres out of the James B.Martin Survey,Abstract No. 1134,the R.D.Price Survey,Abstract No. 1207 and the U.P. Survey,Abstract No. 1015 APPLICANT: ENGINEERS: 300 Convent Corporation Huitt-Zollars, Inc. New Orchard Road 3131 McKinney Ave, Suite 600 Armonk,NY 10504 Dallas,TX 75204 Phone: (914)499-4811 Phone: (214) 871-3311 Fax:(914)499-7804 Attn:Anthony Cononaco Fax: (214) 871-0757 Attn: Ocie Vest CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 07/06/99 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF PLAT 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. 1. The following changes are required with regard to the proposed streets and rights-of-way. a. Provide two planned points of access. (5.01-C) The proposed Round Hollow Lane measures approximately 1,575' at its farthest point from Tyler Street. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 08105199—Delete) b. Provide sufficient street stubs into adjacent property. (No. 483-5.03-K-1) (Variance Requested) (P&Z Action 08105199—Delete) C. Provide pavement widths in accordance with current city standards. A minimum pavement width of 3l' back to back is required. (Variance Requested) 2. Show and label a minimum 6' meandering concrete sidewalk along the east side of Kirkwood Blvd. and an 8' meandering sidewalk along the west side of North White Chapel Blvd. in accordance with the Trail Master Plan. (Variance Requested) 3. Provide sidewalks and a pedestrian access plan as required for residential developments with average lot sizes less than 1 acre.(Variance Requested)(P&ZAction 08105199—This comment added during meeting 4. The following changes are needed with regard to easements: a. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a 5' U.E. be provided around the property boundary where adjacent property is unplatted. No such easement has been provided along the boundary within the proposed public park lot(Lot 30,Blk. 1). Where adequate service is available through the R.O.W. and where existing trees can be saved, staff recommends that the applicant request relief from these easements. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 08105199—Delete) \\SLnV4001\1,OCAL\CQWW=r4 DBVBWPNSi'r\WP-PILES\RXV\99\99054PP3A. KIRKWOOD HOLLOW PH. 2 DOC.DOC Page 1 x ljk E-10 j City of Southiake, Texas b. Provide easements and/or access to drainage channels as may be required by the Public 'Works Department. 4. The following changes are needed with regard to the legal description of this property: a. In the first call from the P.O.B.the arc distance indicated in the description does not match he graphic. b. In the forty-seventh(47m)call from the beginning the arc distance specified in the legal description does not match the graphic. 5. In the Quantitative Land Use Schedule,confirm the gross cumulative area for the combined phase I, II&III. Staff calculates that 119.114 acres is the correct figure. 6. Indicate the parties responsible for the maintenance of the screening wall shown along the west side of N. White Chapel Blvd. * Although the lots shown meet the minimum area criteria, staff is concerned about the sufficiency of the buildable area on Lots 9 and 14,Block A. Please confirm their adequacy to eliminate the need for replats. * A"Certificate of Taxes Paid"from each taxing authority must be provided to the City prior to filing this plat in the County records. * The Development Review Committee(DRC)has determined that this submittal is sufficient for a formal submittal to the Planning and Zoning Commission. * Although there are a few lot lines that are not perpendicular or radial,they appear to meet the intent of this requirement. * A Developers Agreement is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure.The Developer's Agreement for this addition should consider streets,drainage,park dedication requirements and fees, off-site sewer extensions,off-site drainage and utility easements and impact fees. * It appears that this property lies within the 65 'LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone will require construction standards that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. * The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Final Plat must be processed and filed in the County Plat Records,a fully corrected site plan,landscape plan, irrigation plan,and building plans,must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee,Perimeter Street Impact Fee, Water& Sewer Impact and Tap Fees,and related Permit Fees. -\\SLRSV4001\LOCAL\COMM1TR DBVBLOADIIIT\NP-PILRS\RRV\99\99054PP3A. KIRKWOOD HOLLOW PH. 2 DOC.DOC Page 2 t City of Southlake,'7exas * Denotes Informational Comment cc: 300 Convent Corporation VIA FAX ABOVE Huitt-Zollars,Inc VIA FAX ABOVE \\BLKBV4,001\10CAL\C0IMRARSY DO:VMnMlIT\MP-PILtS\RZV\"\II.OS4 P3A. RIR MOOD HOLUM PH. 2 DOC.DOC Page" 3 City of Southlake, Texas TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) Case: 99-053 Date of Review: 6-24- 99 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Kirkwood Hollow Phase II(Preliminary Plat) OWNWER: PREPARED BY: 300 Covent Corporation Huitt- Zollars New Orchard Rd. 3131 McKinney Ave. Suite 600 Armonk,NY 10504 Dallas,TX 75204 Phone: (914)499-4811 Phone: (214)871-3311 Fax: Fax: 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 submitted an aerial photograph which meets the requirements of the Tree rr Preservation Ordinance. 2. From the aerial photograph it looks as though the subdivision has been designed to effect the least amount of existing protected trees as possible. All sewer lines are proposed to be placed in the R.O.W. and most of the Drainage Easements have been located along the back of lots to allow for the water to drain into the sewer and to the creek or 100 year flood plain area. 3. Any areas on lots that will require Cut/Fill will be required to be designated on the Drainage Construction Plan so that any possible tree mitigation can be evaluated. * Residential Subdivision Development: All area within the public R.O.W., utility easements or drainage easements as shown on an approved final Plat and areas designated as Cut/Fill on the Master Drainage Construction Plan approved by the Landscape Administrator shall be exempt from the tree protection and replacement requirements specified in the Tree Preservation Ordinance.All other areas shall be subject to these requirements. * No Disturbance Areas: No disturbance areas must be clearly marked on the plan and surrounded with protective fencing on the ground. A single incidence removal of underbrush and vines is allowed. City of-Southlake, Texas * All requirements and regulations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A, apply to the entirety of the properties. Please be aware of the penalties of not applying the tree preservation protection methods required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A. J a e r City of Southlake, Texas Case No. 99-054 Review No. Two Dated: 06—24- 99 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Kirkwood Hollow Phase II (Preliminary Plat) Contact:Keith Martin, Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 481-5581, x 848 Fax: (817) 421-2175 The following comments are based on the review of plans received on OS - 17 - 99 Comments designated with a (#) 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. TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS: • See attached Tree Preservation Analysis. rn - m rn 06 yy � ON ems. a Mo S IL W ..p c�i'Zz •'+r p dd o \ / . .. r _ 4 41 4@ ;!f •r t ..;:. !` " �` Y�C IT 1444 rAVt d 1 ; 41 V, 7,ry11•l�.. �•Y ... �� t.\ t<. pgZpyyC S � 11}{ "'Ir � �a^ � ,i;!___---•- Iwc�.� ,1 j�� f3{ /M �.BT..'._ SI IOU • s p !i W it a • OyR� E�sRo o�a< � pTp< u OF W Fa!< oO`�}+ gg a� F �!; F7 z' yo no0'Aaa 1 6 A o q 0. 0 it G � a �S � s �ls , fss11111l1 {11 �iS1 il �lhl � ills I'll•ti r�i'�1 '�1�Il1 ile i i I'• it P ,I••i 11•�It• i 1 IN ,,,,s,,s ,s,, s„ s,off I! i! 1## ;. +al I'll ,l oil fit I 1## 1# 11 # al r!a ,a" ,## 1 't ll Y 11 11 11 1r 11l 1111111, 1! 1! 111##1 t## 1. 1. fill I1)E '1 j'.Y" f !# � Sl s dl 3 �l �: I'I i I!i �� •, {.�� '�' .iril• 1,; ;1, ; 1J; i '1! �#',�{'� �� � ,s>>,s>>„sr>>>,t>>>,rr,rr,�r#�� �;�1��� 1��1,1 �;•�� i�'j� i#fir, J=+;tjl ;i! 1 �oosllsifllli��ai�a3�l��ils ';�_� �; i ;,'':1 1'�s !•i#r' 'i�'� 'i#r: �;'1` • •# ' ll!'IIIIIl1111111lIIIIlIIIII��t'1, R+� � 1 , 1 ; ,1 ,+T, •il}}1 11 • iiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiii 1 1l�i �#l1Crtllt�;i ' i t,# i t,� t ti '-+jt#' 1 i'1' � i>>>>t>>a�„i„i>>-a,�aa>>>ilt1, •. ��j � �r 1"#, �S( 1111#1111#1#1 # 1i1111111#111 � .�' �Sli l Ill t�l� 1+1 s�lalc,l•1,1 alas"lsas,aascaasaaaf:lasac,g`i+ 11iii #1 1 1,i 11++ fifj1� 11 1" , ., .i ,,1 fill ,al..,.a.aaa"l..,a.,Ra,:R..,r I jIr+,iir,+ t' t irlr- i• 1 ,1rjlr• ! illill 1i 11tlli�ilit f11�i111 i11# it 181Yi lii llllIISS1SSilo11i11111-1 11, 1111,i111 City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT August 13, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-055 PROJECT: Development Plan—Kirkwood Hollow, Phase III STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Development Plan for Kirkwood Hollow, Phase III, on property legally described as Tracts 1, 1 B, IC, 1 C 1, ID, 1 D 1, 1 E, l E l, IF, 1 F l, 1 G, 1 H,and 1 J 1 situated in the R. D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207; and a portion of Tract 1 situated in the James B. Martin Survey, Abstract No. 1134; and being approximately 29.46 acres. PURPOSE: Development Plan approval is required prior to further development. LOCATION: South and adjacent to Kirkwood Hollow, Phase I, being on the northeast corner of the intersection of Kirkwood Boulevard and Dove Road. OWNER: 300 Convent Corporation. APPLICANT: Huitt-Zollars, Inc. CURRENT ZONING: "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District LAND USE CATEGORY: Medium Density Residential NO. NOTICES SENT: Nine (9) RESPONSES: One (1)response was received from within the 200' notification area: • Thomas K McGregor, PO Box 93025, Southlake, TX, in favor. (Received July 22, 1999.) P&Z ACTION: Approved (6-0) to table and to continue the Public Hearing to the August 5, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. August 5, 1999; Approve (4-1) subject to Development Plan Review Summary No.3, dated July 16, 1999, deleting Item #l.a (provide R.O.W. dedication of 35' on North White Chapel Boulevard and 47' on Dove Road); accepting Item #l.b as shown but requiring any future drive connection to be evaluated with the school Site Plan; deleting Item #2 (provide Type B bufferyard on West Dove Road); deleting Item#5.a(provide radial lines to cul-de-sacs); and deleting City of Southiake,Texas #5.b(provide minimum 30,000 s f.tots adjacent to SF-IA). STAFF CON04ENTS: Attached is Development Plan Review Summary No. 3,dated July 16, 1999. \\SLKSV4001\LOCAL\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEI-MWP-FILESUMEMO\99CASES\99-055DP.DOCdoc ;rpo uas D.BOUTHiT i SURVEY A ! �� IR IA TS Lel a 2e7 _ a Iz k 40M AC ----- - � a 4m a 4C ' 1143 14 AC ' 1 TR 4A1 I I: vhARTI '� a am ?VEY A— �14 V A-120 a M a 23 a 2a a 3e4 l2 AC a3 uw S 3N8 5202 AC ' S]e4e 14 Ac J�,�" �•���'C.�24B k I Th I 0 AC / S is la ' S 1G 20 AC S Tsu ari R AN AC a lC1Sl TR I� �/ a m' ARTlN °�°Tt 1n AuIlk a lmc V a is VEY A-35 i �\ �� S 21 TR lP 7 R tBl 32zu AC TR a77 AC TR IA ISO 10 AC TR 1 ais Flo � TR MD U22 eC � R Iffi 7361 D R 1] — ; a pC� ' \� •R to Vic R sa u i� L.:AC ���. 5L9 ACI I T. elR %m AC TR L43 ll3L AC a m \ � 1&0 AC 48 k I a Zs Ac lu i .WEST R Lc TR 29 h 2A2 �� 2titl AC A-72 VEY A-1620 a TR 2 au ° a w LCHIVMS A.CHlyf F u,Ac SURVEY 300 SL?VEY A TR sc TR m 1 R BA TR 3A4 R+ TR 3 u eC 545 AC ' TR�, R T8 3Ai lUQO AC TR %M AC a 21 G� 1 TR S7 Ac j / Rza / TR61 SKA TR 38 lc -- I TR R2B I '� TRACT MAP 'M38 am53B AC AC lit TR a vU R �6 `���\l� a4czAL R� 940 R 0 AC I r a �r 3 it MA 2LO Ac TR Te n g S'1 CD 2 Aro rob 300 CONVENT I T. STREET CORP O Q � N� 1 Y � I STA cE .sF_1A. �ICOREAOR I pLA _ 300 CONVENT i- STREET CORP CAfVIC -L U30 I "AG' I I I J.TATE '1C1 XAC I 2 AC . I -AG' I R.TATE 1 I 'AG i I I TR I GC 9 AC J.TATE "NR-PUD" SU� (Iiiw I " "SF-1 A , I R 1D 97 FILM FAMILY 1E I i 3.85 A TR 1 LTD PRTNSHP MTP-IBM T 1 E1 1 3 AC 7 AC PHASE II&III,JV , TR 1 1 F "CS" 1 2 AC I- I TR 1 H 49 TR CITY OF 2.15 C C 1. AC "SF-1 A' SOUTHLAKE R 1 R CITY OF .5 ISOUTHLAKE or i � I "S-P-2" o t 6 WESTERRA SOUTHLAKE LP Aid i �- WI / ADJACENT OWNERS ' AND ZONING 1-4 Ei / HUITTL` LL 1� (W Huitt-Zollars.Inc.13131 McKinney Avenue!Suite 600/LB 105/Dallas.Texas 75204-2489!214/871-3311/FAX 214/871-0757 i August 11 1999 i Edward McRoy City Planner City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue i Southlake,TX 76092 Subject: Kirkwood Hollow Phase III Development Plan Case No.ZA 99-055 Dear Mr. McRoy: i The following are our responses to items on your development plan summary review letter dated July 16th and the reasons for the compliance or noncompliance on these issues. I have also included a brief history on the overall Solona Residential Planned Development (RPD) and the initial development (Phase 1)that took place in the RPD. (1W On October 3`d and 17th 1995, the Southlake City Council approved the Solona RPD. On October 19th 1995, the Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Development Plan for Phase I of the Solona RPD now named Kirkwood Hollow Phase I. On November 7th, 1995, the Southlake City Council approved the Development Plan for Kirkwood Hollow Phase I. As you can see by the dates given, the Concept Plan and the Phase I Development Plan essentially were run concurrently through the city approval process. A number of items were approved with the Phase I Development Plan that due to the city review process running concurrently with the RPD, we believed to be a part of the development standards for the entire RPD development. These items are as follows: • 29'street section in lieu of a 31' street section • No internal sidewalks No sidewalks around the exterior of the development except those shown on the Phase I Development Plan along Kirkwood Blvd. Although new ordinances have been put into place since the approval of the Solona RPD and Phase I Development Plan, it is our belief that our existing RPD should supercede any additional ordinances added to the Subdivision Ordinance after the approval of the Solona Residential PD. i Planning Department Comments: !I 1a. Provide ROW Dedication of 47' on East Dove Road: i In 1995, when the Conceptual Plan for the Kirkwood Hollow Planned Development was approved, the Thoroughfare Plan classified East Dove Road as an 84' right of way Arterial Thoroughfare. In 1997, the City widened the right of way to add an extra ten (10) feet to include a sidewalk section on either side of the road, but kept East Dove Road classified as an Arterial with the street section the same width. In 1998, the developer f AUG 131999 j Dallas/Fort Worth/Houston/El Pasn I Phnanir/Ti Min I(lntnrin/AIN im iorno ie/Cnattlo I Tar—I non—, t Edward McRoy Page 2 August 11, 1999 donated 0.6221 acres 84' in width to the City of Southlake for the East Dove Road realignment. We are proposing to provide 84' of right of way together with providing twenty (20)feet of dedicated parkland for the trail system. This configuration provides an additional five feet to the configuration now proposed in the Thoroughfare Plan for the trail system, while allowing for the same street section to ultimately be built. For these reasons we would ask for relief from the 94' right of way requirement. 1 b. Provide Street Stub to Stanford Place: Carroll Independent School District (CISD) currently owns the property to the north, Stanford Place Addition. With this purchase, the property will now be used as a school site and would eliminate the requirement of the street stub, due to the change in land use of the property. I have enclosed a copy of a letter sent to us from John Kraft, Assistant Superintendent for Carroll ISD, verifying the intentions of the district. For this reason, we would ask for relief from this requirement. (Through discussions with CISD, a twenty-five (25) foot private drive will be available, as shown on the Development Plan, off of street "A" into the school site. The need for the private drive will be evaluated during the school's site plan approval process.) 1c. Minimum Pavement Width: Phase I of the Kirkwood Hollow Planned Development was approved and constructed with a street width of twenty-nine (29) feet from back of curb to back of curb as a part of the zoning approval for this planned development. We would request, that this section be maintained to ensure continuity throughout the entire development 2. Provide Type B Bufferyard on West Dove Rd: In lieu of a ten (10) foot Type-B bufferyard along the north right of way line of East Dove Road, we will provide a twenty-foot parkland dedication and a six (6)foot wood fence with stone face columns. This combination serves the intent of the bufferyard ordinance by providing more area for the proposed trail system along East Dove Road and providing added privacy for the residential neighborhood. For these reasons, we would request relief from this item. 3. Sidewalk on North White Chapel: With the park board approval of our proposed open space and parkland dedication, it is our understanding that we have met the requirements of the City of Southlake Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The park board has approved this park land dedication, which is in excess of the amount of parkland required, and did not require that the park sidewalk be constructed as a part of this project. Under the requirements of the existing RPD, the approved Concept Plan, and Phase I Development Plan, the sidewalk would not be required due to the sidewalk ordinance not being in effect at the time the initial approvals took place. No sidewalks were required along North White Chapel with the Phase I development. It is our understanding that the City of Southlake plans to construct the proposed sidewalk as a part of bond package approved by voters in May of 1999. Based on the Solona RPD approvals, the dedication of more parkland than required, the approved bond package, and the history of the developer as a quality corporate citizen we would ask for relief from this item. 4. Provide Pedestrian Access Plan: In order to remain consistent with the internal access provided in Phase I, no internal sidewalks will be provided in Phase III of the development. \\hzda11as2\disk2\pro1101249201\Phase 3\Docs\Dev RespLtrSLPh111081199.doc Edward McRoy Page 3 August 11, 1999 5a. Provide Radial Lines to Cul-De-Sacs: Due to the configuration of the tract,to provide lot lines radial to the cul-de-sacs would be an inefficient use of the lofting configuration. We would ask for relief from this requirement. 5b. Provide Minimum 30,000 sq.ft lots: Carroll ISD now owns the property to the north, Stanford Place Addition. With this purchase, the property will now be used as a school site, changing the land use of the property, and eliminating the requirement for the three (3) lots adjacent to the school site (block 1, lot 1, and block 2 lots 9 and 10) to be 30,00 sq. ft lots. With this change in land use,we would ask for relief from 30,000 sq. ft requirement. Items 6, 7a, and 7b have been addressed. Tree Preservation Comments: Items are informational comments only. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if there are any additional questions on the above addressed items. Sincerely, (aw HUITT-ZOLLARS, INC. Kevin Spraggins, PE Encl. Cc. -Ocie Vest, P.E. HZI Anthony Canonaco—300 Convent Street Corp. L 1� \\hzda11as2ldisk roJ101249201\Phase 3\Docs\Dev RespLtrSLPh111081199.doc CARROLL INDEPENDENT.SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION ANNEX • W51 DiWE R0. • GRAPEVINE.TEXAS 71051 (817)416.1420 • METRO(817)421-9113 -'FAX(817)251-8d22 �. /. 4!` April 16, 1999 p� 7 99S Maguire Partners Ocie L. Vest 3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75204 Dear Mr. Vest: The Carroll Independent School District's intention is to use the Stanford Property for a school site, depending upon the approval of the voters of Carroll Independent School District If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 0,�t�1 . John H. Craft Assistant Superintendent of Financial and Business Operations 46W �:�, ; City Of Southiake,Texas DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA"5 Review No: Three Date of Review: 07/16/99 01 Project Name: Development Plan- Kirkwood Hollow Phase III being 29. 46 acres out of the J.B. Martin Survey,.Abstract No 1134 and the R.D. Price Survey,Abstract No. 1207 APPLICANT: ENGINEER: 300 Convent Corporation Huitt-Zollars,Inc. New Orchard:Road 3131 McKinney Ave, Suite 600 Armonk,NY 10504 Dallas,TX 75204 Phone: (914)499-4811 Phone: (214) 871-3311 Fax: (914)4994804 Attn: A.Canonaco Fax: (214) 871-0757 Attn: Ocie Vest CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 08/10/99 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 N/A Residential Adjacency N N/A Building Articulation N N/A Masonry Standards N N/A Impervious Coverage N N/A Bufferyards Y See Comment No. 2 Interior Landscape N N/A Driveways N Complies 1. The following changes are needed with regard to streets and R.O.W. dedication. a. Show and dimension R.O.W. dedication in accordance with the current Master Thoroughfare Plan. Dimensions must either be from the center line of the apparent existing R.O.W. or the full width of the R.O.W. if the opposite side has dedicated their half. Dove Road is designated as a 94' A5U requiring_ 47' of R.O.W. dedication. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 08105199 Delete) b. Provide sufficient R.O.W. dedication for a street stub to the adjacent Stanford Place Addn. located along the north line of this site. (No. 483-5.03-K-1) A minimum of 50' of R.O.W. is required along this property line. The applicant proposes 35' for a private drive connection. The applicant has indicated that this adjacent property has been purchased by the C.I.S.D.and '1F-q City of SCUM1841-Te"s " that it is intended as future a school site. (vim tanZ-Actu�ts` S/99 Allow street as shown Any future drive convections to ba.,evalued with'srte„ptcur for Stanford Place Addition(School Site)) C. Provide pavement widths in accordance with current city standards. A minimum pavement width of 31' back to back is required. (Variance Requested) 2. Provide minimum 10' Type"B"bufferyard along the north side of W. Dove Road in accordance with the attached Bufferyard Calculation Chart. (Variance Requested) 3. In accordance with the Trail Master Plan,provide a minimum 6' meandering concrete sidewalk along the north side of Dove Road and a minimum 8' meandering sidewalk along the west side of North VNte Chapel Blvd. (Variance Requested) 4. Provide sidewalks and a pedestrian access plan as required for residential developments with average lot sizes of less than one acre. (Variance Requested) 5. The following changes are needed regarding the proposed lotting: a. Provide lot lines radial to the cul-de-sac for the following shown lots Lots 7-10,Blk. 1 Lots 8-11, Blk. 2 Lots 24-27, Blk. 2 (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 08105199-Delete) b. Provide a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. of lot area on the shown Lots 1,9,and 10,Blk. 2. These lots are adjacent to platted property zoned SF-lA(No. 483-A-8.01-G). (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 08105199-Delete) * Staff recommends that at some point in the future,the applicant consider a plat revision to combine the four lots associated with the Community Pool. Specifically,the lots to be combined would include Lots 32, & 33, Blk. 2, Kirkwood Hollow Ph. 1 and the shown adjacent Lots 24 and 25. 6. The following changes are needed with regard to the graphic: a. Note the parties responsible for the maintenance of the screening wall indicated around the boundary of this site. b. Show and label subdivision entry signs within an appropriate easement to be maintained by a home owner's association. * The Development Review-Committee(DRC)-has determined that this pre-submittal is sufficient for a formal submittal. * Nor eyi"_of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to:cppstruction of any signs. i City of Southaks,Texas * It appearsthat this property lies within the 65',DN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone and will requihe construction studs that meet requirements of the Airport Compatible La d Use Zoning Cltdinance No.479. * The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a plat must be processed and filed i'n the County Plat Records,a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and buildirig;plans,must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include but shall not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Street Impact Fee,Water& Sewer Impact and Tap Fees,and related Permit Fees. * A complete revised preliminary water, sewer and drainage plan must be submitted with the platting of this property or any portion of this property. Required and proposed easements for this site will be evaluated at that time. * A Developers Agreement is required prior to construction of any public infrastructure.The Developer's Agreement for this addition should consider streets,drainage,park dedication requirements and fees, off-site sewer extensions, off-site drainage and utility easements and impact fees. * Denotes Informational Comment att: Bufferyard Calculation Chart, cc: 300,Convent Corporation VIA FAX: ABOVE Huitt-Zollars,Inc. VIA FAX: ABOVE L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\REV\#SPLAN-1.WPD t I" i City of So Mm"� Vik"` SUMMARY CHART-BUFFERYARDS Bufferyard Canopy Accent Shrubs Fence/Screening Location Length Width - Type Trees Trees Height&Material South Required 853' 10'-B IV 21' 68' None Provided` 853' 20-B 0 0 0 6'Metal&Wood w Stone Columns West- Required 1,135" 10'-B 18' 27' 91' None Provided' 1,135' 50-B 18 27 91 6'Metal&Wood w Stone Columns *Notes a. Required plant material has been reduced by 20%as allowed for increased bufferyard width. b. Required bufferyard length has been reduced to account for R.O.W.intersecting Kirkwood Blvd. C. The applicant has proposed and approximately 20'wide area of park,recreation and open space with bufferyard plantings in lieu of the required bufferyard. d, The applicant has proposed an approximately 50'wide area of common open space area with bufferyard plantings in lieu of the required bufferyard. Other Comments: Note any additional credits requested for a reduction in required plant materials. Revised July 12, 1999 ��12 City of Southlake, `texas - TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) Case: 99-054 Date of Review: 6-24-99 Number of Pages: I Project Name: Kirkwood Hollow Phase III (Development Plan) OWNWER: PREPARED BY: 300 Covent Corporation Huitt- Zollars New Orchard PA � 3131 McKinney Ave. Suite 600 Armonk,NY 105„04 Dallas,TX 75204 Phone: (914)499-4811 Phone: (214) 871-3311 Fax: Fax: 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 submitted an aerial photograph which meets the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. * This area is not as wooded as Phase II, so not many trees will have to be removed to construct the streets. The only trees that will need to removed are within the R.O.W. of`Street C' and `Street D'. * Residential Subdivision Development: All area within the public R.O.W., utility easements or drainage easements as shown on an approved final Plat and areas designated as Cut/Fill on the Master Drainage Construction Plan approved by the Landscape Administrator shall be exempt from the tree protection and replacement requirements specified in the Tree Preservation Ordinance. All other areas shall be subject to these requirements. * No Disturbance Areas: No disturbance areas must be clearly marked on the plan and surrounded with protective fencing on the ground. A single incidence removal of underbrush and vines is allowed. * All requirements and regulations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A, apply to the entirety of the properties. Please be aware of the penalties of not applying the tree preservation protection methods required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A. 7� r f Q IL is-. I uj g -1 gig E _ Pus o r Sib � U - b -C I IL ,Its 0 pf •\C k 3��;7i K lYI1M*A57F.WIA.NI✓1 • egA3 yy.Fa - ._�.. •`. � Rye IT TF, r -- -.413 $ � 9s•r$■g•��., z3 e i " ; "� !s "t A �^9 4� ^; f. sic7 \ y; -- J�'^[rar9R.R'S r~rr. ILI �y 311 S " ^� "� •� a � z� •Yt� [ I' f3w�� _ Qy M � •�..y! - aJ \/7)7 :i � r���/ k A x 1 ," � 33� M —�E�—r�C � 1� •�,l " I�I I' " 02 rn m g i •: i 10. .. oc IM� IeI Z a J W A �a QAZH 77dM BUHAk N i \-- ----------- -------'--- ------------- -- b�{ r \ � r \ W 14 7 1 1 1 � • 1 1 + \ • • r �' t J' 1;i �1: A IYjly` , 1 1 A----- r---- — ' _ a BLS %--- • O - id aoo p� t� �sf�• ,t, .y CMD - µ' d3 3 3Utw~ 33310 fill ■■ R 11 < 4 6 ¢. $i1 9 9 >? moo � II ` � � � � - • . s ! r • i ii iiE J. QQf� IL , a r a P + ' .. ....... .. - . . `_> - i •+ mow .. .. if-6 fill ;MI � 0p $ a rE a o 5� .......... ._... ....... . ....... ......... ........ ...... . 7 �A� City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT August 13, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-059 PROJECT: Site Plan—Carroll I.S.D. Addition No. 3 STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Site Plan for Carroll I.S.D. Addition No. 3 on property legally described as Tracts 2 and 2C situated in the James L. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 348, and being approximately 30.0 acres. PURPOSE: Site Plan approval is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed school additions. LOCATION: On the northwest corner of the intersection of North Carroll Avenue and East Dove Road. OWNER: Carroll I.S.D APPLICANT: Cheatham and Associates CURRENT ZONING: "CS" Community Service District LAND USE CATEGORY: Public/Semi-Public NO. NOTICES SENT: Twenty-seven (27) RESPONSES: One(1)response was received from within the 200' notification area: • Judy and James Miller, 2405 N. Carroll Avenue, Southlake, TX, opposed, "l.) Variance from Landscape requirements — badly needed on east side and along Carroll Avenue. There is not one single tree, shrub, or flower on the east side. Would greatly improve the looks of the school!" (Received July 19, 1999.) P&Z ACTION: Approved (6-0) to table and to continue the Public Hearing to the August 5, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. August 5, 1999; Approved(3-2)subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated July 16, 1999, deleting Item#1 (horizontal and vertical articulation); deleting Item #2 (provide masonry construction); deleting Item#3 (roof material); on Item#4.a, waiving the west and north bufferyards;requiring the plantings on the south bufferyard and on the south-half of the east bufferyard; and deferring the north-half -IGT'( City of Southlake, Texas of the east bufferyard until completion of the new stadium but allowing for this item to be waived if it is determined that the removal of too many parking spaces is required and the facility could no longer be used for its intended use; deleting Item#4.b(relocate or remove parking sapces, buildings, and drives from required bufferyards); on Item#5 allowing movement of interior plantings per the Landscape Administrator's approval; on Item #7, deferring the sidewalks but requiring the money to be placed in escrow for future construction when the bar ditches are eliminated on Dove Road and Carroll Avenue; requiring the applicant to show the bufferyards and sidewalks on the Site Plan they take to City Council; acknowledging the applicant's agreement to maintain the landscaping in perpetuity; and recommending to ZBA on Item#6,that CISD be required to put in the screening fence when the adjacent property to the west develops. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review Summary No. 4,dated August 13, 1999. NACommunity Development\WP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-059SP.doc (W 01 C�-2 TT �7�1.7��rllr AM �� _•� �'.�; :ate►�.; t �. i�i//1!II �•!ll'i „1 ■iu� Ail— Rffllgzar ►cR . mow■■■■ :� INS MW f Mimi son A.NEW ' MEN WN .:._ LIN We HIM } -I ■I � r 1 ■,t . I V7RESLER:- SF-lA"_ "SF-1 A' �SF-1 A'z IJ.JACOBSENI 1P.O G.BRADDOCKR. BROWN J.THOMAS D. ROSKOSK i I I D. BLASER 2 I J ( TA I I T. ZIPFEL I I I W. MILLS 'SF-1A" TR 1 IvERS 15.0 C 2C 2 I %fey 1 02 AC I A. HERRERA �v I I -S.PYE I J. MILLER I "SF-W I "SF-1 A" M. MILO 1 1 I I B.COTTON 1 I I I TR 1G uo .50 I G.GIST F_SHELBY 1 136 'AG' .AG. �� 11 "0-1" "SF-1 A" "SF-1 A' M.WILSON i AG � z � W J ADJACENT OWNERS I 1.65 TR 1 a ITR1.65 E1 2 1 AND ZONING A-9 1 .99j p 1.993 CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES July 12, 1999 City of Southlake Community Development Attn: Edward McRoy Re: Case No. 99-059 Site Plan Review Summary No. 2 Received by fax 7/08/99 Mr. McRoy: Comments follow for items not previously addressed. 4. Architect to address in submittal. 5.c. Done 6.b. Note added to plan. Area of existing internal landscape to small to show at present scale. 9. Only one drive has internal storage. Storage was dimensioned last submittal. 10. Parking summary added to plan. In addition stadium seat count and practice/baseball areas are noted on plan. 11. Done. 12. Radii labeled at entra-ices on Dove mid N. Carroll. Not--,,,vas added to plan that parking areas on north and west side of main building have no raised landscape islands. Delineated parking for these areas consists of painted stripe only. Painted stripe radius have not been determined in field for the existing parking lot on north side of main building. 13.a. The number of existing teaching stations does not change. Table of floor areas for all buildings added to plan. 14. No connections are planned to public water, sewer, or storm drainage. 15. Architect to revise submittal. If you have any questions or comments,please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Gordon Jo F:\WORD\CARROLL\206Utr.McRoy.rcview2.wpd ,,, fM J U L 121999 ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS A Subsidiary Firm of Southwest Planning and Design, Inc. 1601 E. Lamar Blvd. • Suite 200•Arlington,Texas 76011 817/548-0696•Metro 265-8836 •Fax 817/265-8532 i City of Southlake, Tezas SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA 99-059 Review No: Four Date of Review: 08/13/99 Project Name: Site Plan—Carroll I.S.D.Addition No. 3 being 30 acres out of the J.L. Chivers Survey Abst.No.348 APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: Carroll I.S.D. Cheatham and Associates 110 North:Carroll Avenue 1601 E. Lamar Blvd,#200 Southlake,TX 76092 Arlington,TX 76011 Phone : (8`17)485 -5775 Phone : (817) 548-0696 Fax : (817)251-6622 Attn: John Craft Fax : (817)265-8532 Attn: Gordon Johns CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 08/10/99 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 N/A Residential Adjacency Y See Comments No. 1-3 Building Articulation Y See Comments No. 1 Masonry Standards Y See Comment No. 2 Impervious Coverage Y Complies Bufferyards Y See Comments No. 4a,4b1,4b2, &4b3 Interior Landscape Y See Comment No.5 Driveways N N/A * No formal site plan has ever been approved on this site. A number of existing non-conforming conditions are present at this location. This review is limited to the areas of modification indicated and to fire lane issues. 1. Provide horizontal and vertical articulation meeting the requirements of Ord. 480, Section 43.13.d. on all facades. This affects all new additions with the exception of the proposed concrete block storage building,which is not located within 400' of a residential property line. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 08105199—Delete) r City of Southlake, Texas * The existing school building does not comply with horizontal or vertical articulation requirements. The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement in order to match the existing architecture of the school. 2. Provide masonry construction meeting the requirements of Ord. 557 and Ord. 480, Section 43.13.a on the proposed new portions of the main school building(Bldg. A). The applicant has proposed an undefined type of CMU block for the new additions and for a fagade improvement along the front of the main building. No improvements are proposed on the remaining exterior walls. Clarify the type of material proposed and confirm that it is in conformance with the Masonry Ordinance. (Variance Requested)(P&ZAction 08105199—Delete) 3. _ Provide a roof material in conformance with residential adjacency standards(Sec.43.13b). Metal roofs must be standing seam and shall be constructed of a factory treated non-metallic,matte finish. The applicant proposes a galvanized steel panel mansard along the along the front building fagade. As applicable, specify on the elevation sheet if the proposed panels comply with this requirement 4. The following changes are needed with regard to bufferyards: a. Provide at least the minimum required bufferyards and plantings as specified in the attached Bufferyard Summary Chart. The applicant proposes a 10' Type C bufferyard along the southern 643' of the east property line along N. Carroll Ave in lieu of the 10' Type"C"bufferyard required along the north. If this relocation is approved,the number of ILrequired plantings within this east bufferyard must be at least equal to what would have been required along the north. Correct the Bufferyard Summary Chart to reflect this. (Variance Requested) (P&Z Action 08105199— Waive the west and north bufferyards; require the plantings on the south bufferyard and on the south-half of the east bufferyard; and deferring the north-half of the east bufferyard until completion of the new stadium but allowing for this item to be waived if it is determined that the removal of too many parking spaces is required and the facility could no longer be used for its intended use.) b. Relocate or remove parking spaces,buildings,and drives from required bufferyards. Specifically address the following: 1) Both existing parking lots located along Dove Rd. encroach into the required 10' Type"E"bufferyard. (Variance Requested)(P&Z Action 08105199—Delete) 2) An existing metal building, gravel drive and apparent parking area encroach into the required 10' Type"C"bufferyard along the west property line. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 08105199—Delete) 3) An existing parking area and an asphalt drive encroach into the required 10' Type "C"bufferyard along the north property line. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 08105199—Delete) 5. 1"rovide at least the minimum required interior landscape area and plantings as specified in the attached Interior Summary Chart. Correct the chart to include the required materials and area. i City of Southlake, Texas (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 08105199—Allow applicant latitude to work with Landscape Administrator in placement of plantings and accepting applicant's commitment to maintain all ` landscaping in perpetuity-) 6. Provide a minimum 8' screening device along the north and west property lines. Screening may be accomplished through a solid fence or dense evergreen plant materials. (ZBAVariance Required) (P&Z Action 08105199 Recommend to ZBA that screening be required with future development of adjacent property) 7. Show and label a 6' wide concrete meandering sidewalk within the R.O.W. and along the north side of E.Dove Rd. and along the west side of N. Carroll Ave. (Variance Requested)(P&Z Action 08105199 Defer sidewalk construction until elimination of bar ditches along Dove Road and Carroll Avenue.) * The proposed site does not exceed the maximum permitted impervious coverage area percentage of 65%for the "CS" Zoning District. The impervious coverage area percentage of this is approximately 42%. * This site plan includes a number of existing buildings and structures that do not conform to city standards. Existing non-comforming structures may be continued in their present state, so long as they remain otherwise lawful. Alteration or movement of such structures may however require that they be brought into conformity with current City ordinances and regulations. Contact the City of Southlake Zoning Administrator for additional information and assistance regarding such IL structures. * No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. * The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be processed and filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan,.irrigation plan, and building plans,must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Street Impact Fee, Water& Sewer Impact and Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees. * 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. * Denotes Informational Comment att: Bufferyard Calculation Chart,Interior Landscape Summary Chart cc: John Craft, Carroll ISD VIA FAX ABOVE Gordon Johns,Cheatham& Assoc. VIA FAX ABOVE Scott Ballew, SBI VIA FAX: (214)252-0889 � CT�B r City of Southlake, Texas SUMMARY CHART-BUFFERYARDS Bufferyard Canopy Accent Shrubs Fence/Screening Lacation Length Width - Type Trees Trees Height&Material North Required 899' 10'-C 27 36 108 None Provided None None None None None None East Required None None None None None None Provided None None None None None None Souk- Required 814- 10'-E 8 16 65 None Provided None None None None None None west Required 1,35V 10,-C 41 54 163 None:,,,, Provided None None None None None None a. Excludes driveway curb cut width. Notes 1. The Landscape Administrator will evaluate tree credits prior to the issuance of a C/O. F RY CHART-INTERIOR.LANDSCAPE r Landscape Area %of area in Canopy Trees Accent Trees Shrubs Ground Cover (Sq.ft.) front or side (Sq.Ft.) 1,615 75% 3 5 54 162 Provided None 0% None` None None None *Note any credits used in calculations or variances requested: a. A number of trees depicted on the graphic do not qualify for tree credits. The landscape administrator will evaluate tree credits prior to the issuance of it C/O. L:\COMDEV\WP-FRES\REV\BUF-MM.WPD Revised June 13, 1997 1�`V f City of Southlake, Texas TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (Non-Residential Development) Case:99-059 Date of Review: 6 -21 -99 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Carroll I. S. D.Addition No.3 (Site Plan/Carroll Junior High) OWNER: PREPARED BY: Carroll Independent School District Scott/Ballew Architects 1100 N., Carroll Ave 3511 Cedar Springs, Suite 3 Southlake,TX 76092 Dallas,TX 75219 Phone:'(817)481-8775 Phone: (214)252-0883 Fax: Fax: 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 COMAWNTS: 1. No existing protected trees will be effected by the construction of the proposed additions. * All uir req ements 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. J 1a ■e •I t iR, r� 't '' • t r� f s � 3 11.E p IN Ljf W N N .05Z Q -_ 1 . �pinN �jCCN Ya � •i_ IV Z ww sill G a It I N lIUMOIS311 ALISN30 MOl - •0'n•l Milt l9 �. Sy," ma' Yt j$ 03NO2 � Yd � <_� ■q belalao'9ti 33vd '99t-her 3nmloA #�Y W W o i s31v1s3 OT S3n3 WZm � 10 � �RR•� 8ej� J 0 W ;�� 3• QE R+ pco 44 r aao: �MMtYt{l1�'1 SI'' ,a 001 w..0 waw.,R.. t. ,u..na.. „g la'GE-1 . „n O O.YI _ IOOt-tNO,L•JMINCS I � nm...11•.oa..ln „1 nw•lat j t/1 r i w,wn a« xom 1 < w-.x n 0 TIa.11R. _ � •Eros Dort.[t a \ 1 � r aslm J § y ( I Tw3m - !• pYI 7tOt1 lM1M ` §Ini3 1 0 W [6}$ 0-1 O ' Ha�B I _ I W k .mot-��a by . - ��. a ,�Il,w. 9 wa�w�stwa a-R oltt 1ct ,}601 ►. �� �• 1r — - ——— -------L—.� r —-------I ,.t i= < vna=oi riu to•*n I — �+:e.'�"�" a_j slm.o..vW yrsa-w.l d 8 •,�•• � la as•io•d�'t0i-4e�rn � • wN u,n+ 6r 101t1d •sL'd'Lei-e •A s3� S31Y1S3 MOUMM N 1C�-lt • �� I �� ,-MHJ$XMIN110a21Yo +r In t smuvwo►oa am ONMAN V' e A I I s m q eq fi ■ 3 ' 1� 7 1 , f� e o ' a , W Id 0 , J a ; a s !it's o O t Q O � a SHOLLVAWMUOIKMIXZ ���1IIIII N �. .� � ��i �"'� � J7ptt/g100M�SLAOM>bCNITOIIri� 1100140S XMIN1-n0aavo f 41 T 9 os m :d pd \ J 0 � z � i. U) W Z d z Z a01a> W z W m i �a 0 O l m Q IL o _ Ia z t� Z z 4 N o > O O if W a Z sit � rc zw ` Q a g a o _ _ 0 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM August 13, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager i i FROM: Shelli Siemer, Assistant to the City Manager i SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a participation agreement with the Carroll Independent School District pertaining to their participation in the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake, Texas. Action Requested: Consideration of the participation agreement between the School District and the City of Southlake identifying CISD's level of participation in the Southlake Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone. Background Information: In order to participate in the TIF, the school district must establish their level of participation by August 31, 1999. At the joint City Council/School Board meeting held on July 27, 1999, there were basic understandings met between the School Board and City Council. The school staff and city staff, including financial advisors and attorneys, have worked to produce a document that accurately reflects those agreed upon points in this contract. Both the City Council and School Board will be considering this agreement on August 17, 1999. The city and school staff i are recommending to the City Council and the School Board that this contract in its entirety be adopted as written. Any modifications to the agreement will require the changes to come back to the School Board and City Council for consideration, which will create a timing challenge in order to meet the August 31, 1999 deadline. As you recall, this participation agreement and the amendments to the project and financing plan correspond with one another. The TIRZ Board approved the amended Project Plan and Financing Plan on August 10, which was based on the understanding the CISD and City of Southlake will enter into a participation agreement for the TIRZ. The City Council also approved the amendments on the project and financing plan, for first reading, on August 10, 1999. Attached to my memo is a copy of the participation agreement. A summary of the provisions of the agreement is as follows: i ➢ Termination of School District's Participation. In order to protect the City's financial capabilities and the TIF projects previously d established, the agreement provides assurances that there will not be a negative financial impact, on the City. If paying the school district their "negative financial impact" from TIF funds impairs the City's 10ft- 1 Billy Campbell August 13,1999 Page Two ability to issue debt for the remaining TIF projects, or the overall bonding capabilities of the City, the agreement is null and void. ➢ CISD Contribution. The agreement provides for the school district to pay into the tax increment fund at 100% of their M&O ad valorem tax rate, which is $1.34 per $100 assessed valuation. This section also provides a clause for calculation and of the CISD's "negative financial impact" on the school for participating in the TIF. ➢ TIF Payment of Negative Financial Impact. The process of calculating the negative financial impact is complicated, but in simple terms the CISD will calculate, on an annual basis, the difference of their finances based on contributing to the TIF versus not contributing to the TIF. If there is a negative impact on the school, the City will pay (from TIF funds) the school district the amounts necessary to offset any negative financial impact. This will not exceed the total annual amount paid into the TIF by the school district. The City will not obligate the school district's TIF contribution until that negative financial impact is determined. In addition, the CISD will spend the funds paid to offset the negative financial impact on their TIF projects. This participation agreement includes a detailed calculation methodology for payment to the CISD, and provides details regarding timing and deadlines for both parties to meet. ➢ Use of TIF Funds. The remaining funds, after reduction of negative financial impact, from CISD's participation will be used in the following proportions: 1) 30% of the school district's contributions will be used to pay for any project costs described as Public Improvement Projects 2) 70% of the school district's contributions will be used to pay for school improvement projects. ➢ Boundary. The boundaries include the 408 acres as described in Ordinance 682-A, approved by City Council on December 2, 1997. Attached is a map of the TIRZ Boundaries. ➢ TIRZ Board Representation. Through this agreement, the school district is asking for the right to have two voting members on the TIRZ Board. One will be appointed directly by the school district, and the City will appoint the other member with the school district's recommendation of the board member's name to the City. I OR 2 Bill Campbell August 13,1999 Page Two ➢ Project Costs. The agreement as submitted includes an attached project plan that has been approved by the TIRZ Board on August 10, 1999. Financial Considerations: As described earlier, the participation agreement defines the financial participation of the CISD. The projects identified in the Project Plan and Financing Plan will be funded through the TIRZ. Citizen Input/ Board Review: The TIRZ Board approved the amended Project and Finance Plan prior to the City Council approving the first reading of the Ordinance on August 10, 1999. Legal Review: The city attorneys and bond counsel have been involved in the TIF process and can respond to any legal questions or issues which may arise during the meeting. Alternatives: Not applicable. (W Supporting Documents: Participation Agreement Boundary Map Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the agreement as written by the CISD and City of Southlake staff and attorneys. Please place this item on the August 17', City Council meeting agenda. Approved for Submittal to City Council: ij City Manager's Office IDR -3 r City of Southlake and Carroll Independent School District Agreement to Participate In the Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Southlake ("City"), a municipal corporation, and the Carroll Independent School District ("School District"), a lawfully created independent school district, of Tarrant County, Texas. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Increment Financing Act, V.T.C.A., Tax Code, Chapter 311 (the "Act"), and after due notice to the School District and other taxing units levying real property taxes in the area, the City Council of the City, pursuant to Ordinance No. 682, adopted on September 23, 1997 (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference), and Ordinance No. 682-A (collectively, the "Ordinance"), adopted on December 2, 1997 (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference) created, established and designated "Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake" ("Reinvestment Zone") under the Act; and WHEREAS, the School District adopted a Resolution establishing the General Conditions for Participation in the Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Southlake, on November 17, 1997 at 0% participation; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance 690 at a meeting of the City Council on December 16, 1997, which approved and adopted a Project Plan and a Financing Plan for the Reinvestment Zone (a copy of which Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit C); and WHEREAS, the City and the School District desire to revise the Project Plan and Finance Plan for the Reinvestment Zone (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the Project Plan includes buildings, schools and other educational facilities which will be owned, maintained and operated by the School District and which will benefit the Reinvestment Zone by attracting individuals and businesses desiring to relocate to an area with an exemplary school system which includes quality academic and athletic facilities; and by increasing traffic in the City by those coming to the City to attend School District academic and athletic contests and events; and WHEREAS, the Project Plan will be amended to require that the Board of the Reinvestment Zone make payments to the School District in an agreed amount for the purpose of paying the costs of constructing, equipping, maintaining and/or operating one or more of the School District's buildings, schools or educational facilities located in the Reinvestment Zone; and WHEREAS, conditions precedent listed in the School District's November 17, 1997 resolution have either been satisfied, or are hereby waived by the School District, and the School J 'Ok'4 District desires to increase its percentage involvement subject to the following conditions; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City and the School District to continue this Agreement to the extent permitted by law, as long as it is financially beneficial to both parties; and WHEREAS, Section 311.013(f) of the Act provides that each taxing unit levying taxes on real property in a reinvestment zone may determine the portion of the tax increment produced from property located in the reinvestment zone that the taxing unit will retain from the tax increment; NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the School District, in consideration of the terms, conditions, and covenants contained herein, hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Definitions. The following terms used in this Agreement shall have the following meanings ascribed to them: "Captured Appraised Value" and "Captured Appraised Value Increment" mean the total appraised value of all real property taxable by the tax unit and located in the reinvestment zone for that year less the tar increment base of the unit. "Change in Applicable Law" means any change in law applicable to the School District, to tax increment financing, to reinvestment zones, or to the Texas public school finance program subsequent to the date of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any change in any statutory law applicable to the School District, to tax increment financing, to reinvestment zones, or to the Texas public school finance program, or any interpretation, ruling, order, decree or court decision interpreting prior-existing or then-existing law or any future law enacted during the term of this Agreement which is applicable to the School District, to tax increment financing, to reinvestment zones, or to the Texas public school finance program, provided such interpretation, ruling, order, decree or court decision is made administratively by the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, the Texas Attorney General, or any State agency, or by a court of competent jurisdiction. "Financing Plan" means the reinvestment zone financing plan prepared in accordance with Section 311.011(c) of the Act, as approved by the City and the Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors. "Negative Financial Impact" means any negative financial impact on the School District as a result of its participation in the Reinvestment Zone, calculated annually by determining the "Lost M&O Funding Amount" using the then current Texas Education Agency's State Funding Computer Model Template together with that year's taxable assessed value and attendance data to calculate state funding revenue, state funding recapture and other local revenue. This calculation of state and local funds, net of recapture, shall first be made assuming the School District's participation in the Tax Increment Fund, and second, shall be made assuming that the School District did not participate in the Tax Increment Fund. The difference in total state and local funds, if any, resulting from these two calculations is the "Lost M&O -2- 10A-5 Funding Amount." It also includes any negative financial impact caused by or relating to a "change in applicable law" (as defined herein); any change in state or local revenues as a result of this Agreement; or, any change in the Project Plan or the boundaries of the Reinvestment Zone which adversely affects the School District's participation in the Zone. Negative Financial Impact also includes any change in applicable law that would free or increase the amount of "Robin Hood" or Texas public school finance funds received by or available to the School District but for the School District's participation in the Tax Increment Fund. "Project Costs" means those costs and expenditures permitted by Section 311.002 of the Act, as amended, and as set forth in the Project Plan. "Project Plan" means the project plan prepared in accordance with §311.011(b), Texas Tax Code, as approved by the City, and the Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors. "Public Improvement Projects" means those projects contained within the Project Plan. "School Improvement Projects" means those projects contained within the Project Plan that are, by the agreement of the parties, related to schools and educational facilities. The School Improvement Projects are specifically identified in Exhibit E. "Tar Increment Base" means the total appraised value of all real property taxable by the taxing unit and located in the reinvestment zone for the year in which the zone was designated under this Chapter 311 of the Act. Section 2. Obligations of the Parties. The School District hereby agrees to pay into the tax increment fund established by the City for the Reinvestment Zone (the "Tax Increment Fund") one hundred percent (100%) of the School District maintenance and operations ("M&O") ad valorem tax collections on the captured appraised value of real property in the "Reinvestment Zone," subject to the terms and conditions listed below. Provided, however, nothing herein or below shall be interpreted to mean that the School District shall pay into the Tax Increment Fund any funds attributable to: (a) taxes levied, assessed and collected by the School District on taxable property within the Tax Increment Zone for the payment of debt service on its bonds and similar obligations; (b) any funds attributable to tares levied, assessed and collected on taxable personal property taxed by it within the Tax Increment Zone; (c) any funds which were levied by the School District but were not collected; (d) any funds equal to tax refunds repaid by the School District to taxpayers owning real property in the Tax Increment Zone; (e) any funds which represent penalty, interest, or attorneys' fees on any delinquent tax payments made to the School District by taxpayers owning real property in the Tar Increment Zone; or (f) any takes uncollected by the School District due to agriculture or other exemptions. A. School District Contribution. Each year, the School District shall calculate the Captured Appraised Value Increment and contribute that amount into the Tar Increment Fund no later than 90 days after the delinquency date for the School District's property taxes. The School District's contribution to the Tax Increment Fund shall be calculated based only upon funds generated pursuant to the School District's maintenance and operation tax rate. No School District revenues generated through the School District's 1OA -U interest and sinking fund tax rate shall be deposited in or be used to calculate the School District's deposit to the Tax Increment Fund. The School District shall advise the City of the amount of the Tax Increment Fund contribution. The calculation of the amount of the School District's annual deposit to the tax increment fund shall be determined by multiplying the School District's maintenance and operations tax rate (expressed per One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation) by the Captured Appraised Value Increment in the reinvestment zone. B. TIF Payment of Negative Financial Impact. Each year, within seven (7) business days of receiving the School District's contribution to the Tax Increment Fund, the City shall pay to the School District the amounts necessary to offset any "negative financial impact" on the School District; provided, however, that the City's obligation for each year hereunder shall not exceed the total amount paid by the School District into the Tax Increment Fund for that year. Each fiscal year, the School District shall calculate the amount of the negative financial impact in accordance with the methodology set forth in Section 2(C) below and in Exhibit "F" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as an example only. Each such calculation of negative financial impact shall reflect and specify: i. the anticipated amount of the School District taxes to be deposited to the Tax Increment Fund for the fiscal year; ii. any adjustments to the amount of the negative financial impact calculated for the previous fiscal year to reflect the actual amount of negative financial impact incurred by the School District in the previous fiscal year•, iii. that amount of the negative financial impact calculated for the current fiscal year of the school district; and iv. the amount of the School District's contribution to the Tax Increment Fund for the current fiscal year after deducting the negative financial impact. C. Methodology to Determine "Negative Financial Impact." i. Prior to determining the amount of the School District's contribution to be divided between the Public Improvement Projects and the School Improvement Projects as specified in Section 2(H) of this Agreement, the City shall pay to the School District from the School District's annual tax increment deposited to the credit of the Tax Increment Fund an amount equal to the negative financial impact of the School District's participation in the Tax Increment Zone for that year. The School District shall spend such payment on School Improvement Projects or other project costs in accordance with the Project Plan. ii. Each year, the School District shall provide written notice of the details of its preliminary calculations of its negative financial impact to the Board of Directors of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone and the City not less than 30 -4- MR-9 days before the payment due date specified in Section 311.013 of the Act. The School District shall provide written notice of the final calculations of its negative financial impact to the Board of Directors of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone and the City not later than the payment due date specified in Section 311.013 of the Act. iii. Within seven(7) business days of receiving the School District's contribution to the Tax Increment Fund, the City may advise the School District of any errors or miscalculations which it believes the School District has made. Should this occur, the parties shall agree as to whether there are corrections and/or recalculations of the amount to be paid to the School District. If the parties cannot agree on the correct contribution or negative financial impact, then the parties shall submit the figures to a recognized third party expert on school finance for a non-binding review. iv. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the maximum amount to be paid to the School District from the Tax Increment Fund under this Agreement shall be (i) an amount equivalent to the School District's contribution; and (ii) limited to the year in which the contribution in question is made and not any past or future year. D. Termination of School District's Participation. In the event that the City notifies the School District that it is unable to issue and/or finance debt for public improvements in the Reinvestment Zone, the parties agree that this Agreement shall immediately become null and void and School District shall have no further obligation to make contributions to the Tax Increment Fund. Provided, however, should the parties be unable by then-existing law to declare this Agreement null and void, then the School District's contributions to the Tax Increment Fund shall immediately revert back to zero percent participation. E. Boundarv. The boundaries of the Reinvestment Zone are and shall be those boundaries described in the Ordinance, or an amendment thereto revising the boundaries duly approved by the Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors and the City Council of the City; provided, however, that the City agrees that the boundaries of the Reinvestment Zone shall not be changed to exclude any schools or educational facilities of the School District which are located within the boundaries of the Reinvestment Zone set forth in the form of the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, unless the Board of Trustees of the School District has first approved such boundary change; and provided further that a School District is not required to pay into the Tax Increment Fund any of the tax increment produced from property added to the Reinvestment Zone without the School District's written approval. This shall not preclude the Tax Increment Fund Board from otherwise changing Tax Increment boundaries unless it affects current school Improvement Projects in the Project Plan. F. Purpose and Program. Within the boundaries of the Reinvestment Zone, public infrastructure improvements, school district improvements, public parks and public -5- top( facilities are to be constructed as nearly as possible in conformity with the Plan. Any °`— additions, changes, revisions or modifications to the Project Plan made after the date of this Agreement may only be made by the Board of Directors of the Reinvestment Zone and the City Council of the City; provided, however, that the City agrees that it will not approve any additions, changes, revisions or modifications to the Plan relating to any of the "School Improvement Projects" (as set forth in Exhibit E) included in the form of the Project Plan attached hereto as Exhibit D unless the Board of Trustees of the School District has first approved such addition, change, revision or modification. This shall not preclude the Tax Increment Fund Board from otherwise changing Tax Increment boundaries unless it affects current school Improvement Projects in the Project Plan. G. Appraised Value. The real property within the boundaries of the Reinvestment Zone was appraised in 1998 for ad valorem tax purposes and for establishing the tax increment base referenced in Section 311.012 of the Act. H. Use of TIF Funds. All contributions to the Tax Increment Fund by the School District shall be used solely to repay cash expenditures of a portion of project costs or a portion of the principal of and interest on tax increment or other bonds, or notes, or obligations, or school bonds issued to finance certain project costs under the Act, and to pay direct costs properly chargeable under the Act and under generally accepted accounting principles to the administration of the Reinvestment Zone, all in accordance with the Project Plan. Provided, however, the City agrees and acknowledges that it shall not in any manner pledge Tax Increment Funds contributed by the School District to the payment of debt incurred for improvements in the Reinvestment Zone. It is specifically understood and agreed that even though additional or other projects may be included in the Project Plan, the funds contributed by the School District to the Tax Increment Fund shall and may be used only for the projects described in the Project Plan attached hereto as Exhibit D. Further. the funds contributed by the School District to the Tax Increment Fund shall and may be used only in the following proportions: i. 30% of the School District's contributions after reduction for any negative financial impact shall be used for the payment of project costs of the Public Improvement Projects described in the Project Plan; and ii. 70% of the School District's contributions after reduction for any negative financial impact shall be used for the payment of project costs of School Improvement Projects described in Exhibit E. Such funds may be budgeted and expended in the current or any subsequent year following receipt for such purposes as are set forth herein. 1. City Payment. Each year, within seven (7) days of receiving the School District's contribution to the Tax Increment Fund, the City shall pay the School District the amount specified in Section 2(H)(ii) of this Agreement in consideration for the management and oversight of the construction and maintenance of School Improvement Projects of the Project Plan. Such management and oversight shall be conducted in accordance with this -6- I CA-9 Agreement and the laws, statutes and regulations related to the Texas public school L.... finance program and the Tax Increment Financing Act. J. Limits of Obligation of the School District. Except for payment to the Tax Increment Fund of one hundred percent(100%) of the School District M&O ad valorem tax collections on the captured appraised value of real property in the "Reinvestment Zone" subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, and to expend funds paid to the School District under Section 2 hereof for payment of"project costs" as contained in the Project Plan, the School District shall have no obligation for any costs or expenses associated with the operation of the Reinvestment Zone, including, without limitation, any obligation to pay or repay any debt issued by the City, the Reinvestment Zone, or the Board of Directors of the Reinvestment Zone relating to the Reinvestment Zone. K. Limit of School District's Participation. The School District shall have no obligation to make contributions to the Tax Increment Fund in the event the City, for any reason during the term of this Agreement, does not contribute to the Tax Increment Fund 100% of the taxes collected by the City on the captured appraised value of the real property in the Reinvestment Zone. L. School District Representation. The School District shall have the right to appoint one (1) voting member on the Board of Directors of the Reinvestment Zone at all times. To the extent permitted by law, the City shall allow the School District to name one of the City's appointees to the Board of Directors of the Reinvestment Zone at all times during the term of this Agreement. Failure of the School District to appoint and maintain its representatives on the Board of Directors of the Reinvestment Zone at any time shall not be deemed a waiver of the School District's right to make such appointments at any other time. Section 3. Limitation on Citv's Obligation. The parties agree that in no event shall the City ever be obligated, as a result of this Agreement, to pay the School District any monies except from Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone revenues contributed by the School District. Further, the parties agree that the City shall have no liability to the School District(other than as provided in Section 2 hereof) or to the State of Texas or any other applicable authority resulting from the School District's participation in the Reinvestment Zone. Section 4. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective as of the date of the final signature hereto and shall remain in effect until the earlier of: (i) December 31, 2018, or(ii) the date on which the Project Plan has been fully implemented and all project costs, tax increment bonds, interest on such tax increment bonds and all other obligations, contractual or otherwise, payable from the Tax Increment Fund have been paid in full. Section 5. Waiver of Liability. Only to the extent of their respective liabilities under Texas law, the City and the School District shall each be responsible for the sole negligent acts of their officers, agents or employees. In the event of joint and concurrent negligence of both City and School District, responsibility, if any, shall be apportioned comparatively in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without however, waiving any governmental immunity -7- lort 'ID available to the City and School District and their officers, agents and employees under Texas law and without waiving any defenses of the parties under Texas law. Section 6. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the City Manager or his designees. Both parties agree to create, maintain and preserve such records and documentation as are necessary to assist the parties: (1) in the operation and administration of the Reinvestment Zone and (2) in the calculations required under this Agreement. Section 7. Notice. Whenever this Agreement requires or permits any consent, approval, notice, request, proposal, or demand from one party to another, the consent, approval, notice, request, proposal, or demand must be in writing to be effective and shall be delivered to the party intended to receive it at the addresses shown below: If intended for City, to: If intended for School District, to: City Manager Superintendent of Schools City of Southlake Carroll Independent School District 1725 E. Southlake Blvd. 1201 N. Carroll Ave. Southlake, Texas 76092 Southlake, Texas 76092 or to such other addresses as the parties may request, in writing, from time to time. Section S. Controlling Law. This Agreement is made subject to the Texas Constitution, codes, and statues; and all other applicable state and federal laws, regulations and requirements, as amended. Venue shall be exclusively in Tarrant County, Texas. Section 9. Compliance. School District represents that it has entered into this Agreement in full accordance with its Board policies. City represents that it has entered into this Agreement in full accordance with its charter, ordinances and resolutions. Section 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement embodies the complete understanding of City and School District with respect to the subject matter hereof superceding all oral or written previous and contemporary agreements between the parties relating to matters herein. The Agreement may be amended, modified, or supplemented only by an instrument in writing executed by City, through its City Council, and School District, through its Board of Trustees. Section 11. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable and the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision hereof shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision. It is the intention of the parties that each provision hereof be construed in a manner designed to effectuate the purposes of such provision to the maximum extent enforceable under applicable law. Section 12. No Waiver of Rights. Failure of either party hereto to insist on the strict performance of any of the covenants or agreements herein contained or to exercise any rights or remedies accruing hereunder upon default or failure of performance shall not be considered a -8- lolt - I I waiver of the right to insist on,and to enforce by any appropriate remedy, strict compliance with IN.- any other obligation hereunder or to exercise any right or remedy occurring as a result of any future default or failure of performance. Section 13. No Waiver of Immunity. No party hereto waives or relinquishes any immunity or defense on behalf of itself, its trustees, officers, employees or agents as a result of its execution of this Agreement and performance of the covenants contained herein. EXECUTED this the day of , 1999, by the City, signing by and through its City Manager, duly authorized by Resolution No. approved on , 1999, and by School District through its duly authorized School Board officers by approval at a duly called and noticed Board meeting on ' 1999. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Rick Stacy Dr. Susan Logan Mayor President, Board of Trustees ATTEST: ATTEST: Sandra LeGrand Mr. Steve Harold City Secretary Secretary, Board of Trustees -9- 1opt - �2. Exhibits Exhibit A — City of Southlake Ordinance 682 Exhibit B — City of Southlake Ordinance 682-A Exhibit C — City of Southlake Ordinance 690 Exhibit D — Project Plan and Financing Plan for the Reinvestment Zone Exhibit E — The Only Projects Which Can Be Funded With School District Contributions Exhibit F — Example of Calculation to Determine School District Contribution -10- IoA - 13 Exhibit D Reinvestment Zone#1, Southlake Proposed Capital Improvement Program General General General Educational School knprvi Type Allowable Project Costs Infrastructure A' Infrastructure B Infrastructure C2 Infrastructure Proiect*3 Public Buildings and Facilities Joint City/County Facility $ 12,000,000.00 Educational Facilities $ 1,139,000.00 Parking Facilities i_, . R00000 Public Parks $ 1,134,154.00 $ 1,572,465.00 Land Acquisition Special Structures Landscaping Trails General Infrastructure Water Utilities $ 548,380.00 $ 881,682.00 = .657,000.00 Sewer Utilities $ 216,148.00 $ 350,234.00 Storm Water _1370,G `0� $ 399,669.00 $ 1,010,522.00 $ SO0�00�0 ' Streets and Curbs $ 1,329,972.00 $ 1,925,905.00 $ 2,500,000.00 $13,150,000.00 Traffic Control $ 1,000,000.00 Sidewalks/Streetscape $ 3,484,739.00 $ 4,907,623.00 Demolition 8, Excavation Earthwork/Grading $ 302,540.00 $ 488,585.00 Engineering/Contingency Total Development Infrastructure $ 7,281,448.00 $ 9,564,551.00 400/c ieloper Infrastructure $ 2,S12,579.20 $ 3,825,820.40 Operational and Maintenance Capital Maintenance $ 1,973,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 Operation Costs $ 51,500,000.00 Other Incremental Costs Professional Services5 $ 1,940,000.00 SUB-TOTAL COSTS $ 21,098,733.20 $ 6,398,285.40 $ 7,500,000.00 $15,472,000.00 $113,200,000.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 163,669,018.60 1 The costs categorized as"educational facilities"include initial capital expenditures related to the library facility for resource materials, library automation system, and furnishings. 2 These street costs include road improvements to Carroll Ave. and Kimball Ave. They are either on the periphery of or exterior to the Rialto Development and thus the costs are covered 100%by TIRZ revenues. 3 All projects in this phase are to be funded with CISD contributions only. 4 Capital Maint. Costs described in "General Infrastructure A"includes site work costs associated with construction of Town Hall($500,000), and FF&E costs for Town Hall($1,473,000) 5 Professional services includes($200,000 for services fees; $1,200,000 for Architectural fees; $390,000 for Construction Management fees; and, $150,000 for Technology for Town Hall including AN, sound, computer networking,etc.) 1 opt -1y Exhibit E Reinvestment Zone A", Southlake Proposed Capital Improvement Program To be funded with CISD and City of Southlake Contributions Only Educational Infrastructure School Site(Continental Blvd) South Carroll Avenue Road Construction from 1709 to Continental $4,740,000.00 Brumlow Road Construction from Continental to SH 26 $2,470,000.00 Drainage Improvements for 16 acre school site on Continental $300,000.00 Subtotal Infrastructure for Continental School Site 37,510,000.00 School Sites(South Kimball Ave) South Kimball Avenue Road Construction from 1709 $3,960,000.00 South Kimball Avenue Road Construction from Crooked to Heritage $1,980,000.00 Construct a 12"waterline along Kimball $652,000.00 Sewer for S. Kimball School site $370,000.00 S-7 Sewer Line for 42 acre site on S. Kimball $1,000,000.00 Subtotal Infrastructure for South Kimball School Sites 37,962,000.00 Total Educational Infrastructure $15,472,000.00 Educational Buildings and Facilities Middle School $ 19,500,000.00 Intermediate School $ 15,000,000.00 Elementary School $ 11,000,000.00 Transportation Facility $ 1,600,000.00 Stadium $ 14,600,000.00 Subtotal Buildings and Facilities $ 61,700,000.00 Operating Costs TIF Administrative Costs $ 75,000.00 Middle School $ 800,000.00 Intermediate School $ 500,000.00 Elementary School $ 500,000.00 Transportation Facility $ 200,000.00 Stadium $ 500,000.00 Annual Operating Costs $ 2,575,000.00 Cost for 20 years $ 51,500,000.00 Total Educational $ 113,200,000.00 TOTAL Contribution including Educational Infrastructure $ 128,672,000.00 and Educational Facilities and Operating Costs C*Ity of S Tax Increment Financing District id EAST DOPE ST 1,r M'O id N WEST FML Sf EAST HCH"ST w t No Scale EAST 90 MUn&VD Pa • Public Works - GIS Map 1 IDA - I & City of Southlake, Texas (MOT MEMORANDUM August 13. 1999 i j - To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Ron Harper, Director of Public Works Subject: Masonry color and style for the Southlake Town Hall i Action Requested: Consider masonry color and style for Southlake Town Hall. Background Information: The design and construction of Town Hall was intended to be done in a "staged" manner, where elements would be under construction while other elements were still being designed. i During this process, staff stated that they would seek certain approvals from City Council. The first of these was the j consideration and approval of the overall floor plan and schematic ! j design. This allowed the City to advertise and award bids for excavation, concrete and steel. The next consideration and approval is of the building elevations i and brick color and style. Attached is the most current version of i the building elevations. Jim Zemski from GSI Architects will be available at the August 17, 1999 meeting to discuss and explain the current elevations. In addition, the architect will present several brick samples for consideration. The manufacturing and delivery lead-time for bricks is between twelve and twenty weeks; therefore, brick selection needs to be recommended so that the brick can be i available for January installation. Financial Considerations: The brick will be bid as a supply only element. Installation (labor) will be bid separately at a later time. There will be cost differentials available at the time of the presentation for each type 1 of brick. 1OB-1 Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: None. Alternatives: Approve it, deny it, or modify it. Supporting Documents: Elevations Exhibits Staff Recommendation: Place on the August 13, 1999 City Council agenda for Council to consider. Ron Harper, P.E. Director of Public Works Approved for Submittal to City Council: A 4 ty anager's Office .l 10B-2 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM August 13, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Ron Harper, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Authorization for the Mayor to amend the utility contract with International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) allowing the City to repay IBM for the water utility improvements made for Solana and surrounding development Action Requested: Authorize the Mayor to amend the utility contract with IBM allowing the City to repay IBM for the water utility improvements made for Solana and surrounding development. Background Information: Upon the development of Solana and the surrounding area (1987), the city needed to supply up to one million gallons per day of potable water to the area to accommodate the new growth. At that time the City of Southlake did not have the infrastructure to supply the amount of water needed. As a result, on May 4, 1987, IBM and the City of Southlake entered into a utility contract that allowed IBM to construct the water tower at Dove Road and an 18" water line along Dove Road to the new area. As outlined in the original contract, Southlake was to reimburse IBM for the construction costs through lower water bills and lowered fees. With the acquisition of the Solana Complex by McGuire Partners, the original plan would no longer be appropriate since the original agreement was made with IBM alone. Therefore, the City of Southlake and IBM have created the "First Amendment to Utility Contract of May 4, 1987 Between IBM and the City of Southlake" which is being submitted for Council discussion. This amendment makes five basic changes to the original agreement: 1. updates the Current Credit that Southlake owes to IBM (paragraph 1) 2. allows the Developer to offset any fees due to reduce the Current Credit(paragraph 2) 3. allows the Southlake to install infrastructure at the Site to offset the Current Credit (paragraph 3) 11A-1 K Billy Campbell 08/13/99 Page 2 of 2 4. clarifies that if any part of the Site is sold to a third party, this agreement does not transfer with the sell, but will apply to any part still owned by IBM. (paragraph 4) and 5. assigns cash payments to be made on an annual basis as listed below (paragraph 5). Financial Considerations: As outlined in paragraph five of the amendment, the City shall pay Developer the following amounts by the following dates against the Current Credit: i. By December 15, 1999, the City shall pay Developer $60,000.00; ii. By December 15, 2000,the City shall pay Developer$70,000.00; iii. By December 15, 2001, the City shall pay Developer$80,000.00; iv. By December 15, 2002, the City shall pay Developer the outstanding unpaid balance of the Current Credit. These payments would be budgeted in the CIP budget for each subsequent year. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: The City attorneys have been sent the amendment for review. Alternatives: Approve or Deny Supporting Documents: First Amendment to Utility Contract Utility Contract of May 4, 1987 Developers Agreement Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to amend the utility contract with IBM allowing the City to repay IBM for the water utility improvements made for Solana and surrounding development. VB/vb Approved for Submittal to City Council: ity anager's Office 11A-2 MAY-20-1999 13:17 LAW FIRM 817 332 4740 P.:34-11 FIRSST AMENDMENT� BE"VEEN INTERNA BUSINESS MACHIlVES CORP®I2A'TION . AND THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE THIS FIRST AME mMENT TO LnUXTY CONTRACT OF MAY 4, 1987 (this Yu,,; "Ameodmeat") is made and entered into this day of ; 1999, by and between International Business Machines Corporation, a New York corporation, its subsidiaries, successors and assigns(the« ,doper" and the City of Southlake,Texas, a Texas municipal corporation(the "City"), under the following circumstances: Vir ' 1 of Vf7EREA,S, the City and Developer are the current Parties to a certain Utility Contract May 4, 1987(the"Agreement"). The Developer is, by assignment from MTP-IBM Phase II and 11 joint venture,a Texas general partnership,the current holder of all of the Developer's interest in the Agreement; VMEREAS,the City and Developer desire to modify the Agreement by providing for certain payments by City to Developer as more particularly described below; and WHEREAS the City and Developer agree to offset fees owed by the Developer to the City for the Kirkwood Hollow project being undertaken by Developer's subsidiary,300 Convent St. Corp. as defined below)as per that certain letter dated May 29, 1998,�ched against the Original Credit( - hereto(the"Kirkwood Letter"); attached hereto as Exhibit"A" - - -- NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth hereinafter, and other good and valuable comideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to be legally bound,hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 194901 1 `V 11 A-3 MAY-20-1999 13:17 LAW F i Prl 817 4740 P.05'11 1. Status of Credit Developer has made a financial contribution of SS39,151.90 (the "Origiiwl Credit")to the City to construct water improvements in the City. The Original Credit reflects the amount of the Chit plus the Construction Allowance as defined in the Agreement. The Original Credit has been reduced to and, as of the date of this Amendment, is equal to S501,352.90, (the"Current Credit"). 2. �sct of ees. Ile City agrees that,to reduce the amount of the Current Credit,the Developer will be allowed to offset the amount of any fees (the"Fees"}that may become owed by the Developer to the City against the Current Credit, and the Current Credit will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis by the amount of any Fees which Developer elects to offset, The Fees that may become due to the City by Developer shall include, but not be limited to, costs and fees for inspectioq administrative processing,trench testing, weekend inspection,retesting, gradation tests, operational costs of street lights,installation of all street signs designating the names of streets inside the Site, installation of regulatory signs, installation of sanitary sewerage collection facilities, sewer and water impact fees, road impact fees, zoning change fees, development plan and preliminary plat application fees and final plat filing fee- 3. Infrastrusta With the mutual agreement of City and Developer, the City may install certain k&astructum such as water lines, sewer lines, drainage structures, streets, street lights and sidewalks in the Site at City's cost and offset the mutually agreed amount of such cost (the "Offset Costs')against the Current Credit. City and Developer shall mutually agree upon the scope of such infrastructure to be installed by City and Developer shall have the right to review and approve the bid(s)for such work prior to such offset.. 4. jhj_t51W• From and after the date of this Amendment, the "Site," to which the Fees shall be applied, is the area owned by Developer, its affiliates and/or subsidiaries, shown in �a�oi_ xn�iao� 2 11 A-4 817 332 4740 P.06/11 then tivs Exhibit "B" attached hereto. If Developer sells any part of the Site to a third party, amendment shall not apply to such prt of the Site that is sold, but shall continue to apply to any Part of the Site owned by Developer, its affiliates and/or subsidiaries- 5. PAYMMI• In addition to offsetting the pees and, if approved by City and Developer, the Offset Costs, until the Current Credit is exhausted, the City shall pay Developer the following amounts by the following dates against the Current Credit: (i) By December 15, 1999, the City shall pay Developer$60,000.00; p By December 15, 2000, the City shall pay Developer$70,000.00; (iiii) By December 15,2001, the City snail pay Developer$80,000.00;and (v) By December 15, 2002,the City shall pay Developer the outstanding unpaid balance of the Current Credit. In no event shall the City be obligated to reimburse Developer for more than the Current Credit and if any of the foregoing payments would exceed the Current Credit, then such payment shall be reduced to equal the then unreimbursed amount of the Current Credit. .6 Acknowledoment of Assig=W, The Developer represents that it is the Current owner of all of Developer's interest in the Agreement and that Developer holds all of the right to receive a refund of the Current Credit. 7. egg: Article 14.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete the partnership as an entity requiring notice and to substitute the following as the address for IBM International Business Machines Corporation Real Estate Services New Orchard Road Armonk,New York 10504 Attu Director of U.S.Real Estate Operations and Investments. is.9ot.vs--A1JM71oWZ6" 3 11 A--5 MAY-20-1999 13:19 LAW FIPM 81_-7 �Z2 47,17, P.07/11 8. The Agreement� as amended by this Amendment, is ratified and affirmed in all respects. Except as provided herein, all terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 9. This Amendment contains the entire understanding between the City, on the one hand, and the Developer, on the other hand,with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment;and this Amendment may not be amended, canceled or superseded,nor will any provision of this Amendment be deemed waived, except by a written instrument ex�d by each of the parties to be charged. 10 BlUdingIffsa This Amendment will be binding upon, and inure to the benefit o� the parties hereto and their respective subsidiaries, successors and assigns. 11. Countel•rrarts- This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which, when taken together, will constitute one and the same instrument. IN WTINESS WMIREOF, the parties have executed this instrument as of the date first above written. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACBINTS CORPORATION, a New York corporation By: Name: Title: CM OF SOUTHIATKE, a Texas municipal corporation By: Name: Title: 11A-6 EXHIBIT A 300 Convent Street Corporation New Orchard Road Armonk,NY 10504 May 29, 1998 Ms. Luann Heath City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Ave. Southlake, Texas 76092 RE: Kirkwood Hollow, Phase I Dear Ms. Heath: It is our desire to start construction of the referee ced project on or about Monday April 6, 1998. In accordance with our Developer Agreement dated October 2, 1997, we are required per section II 1 (3) to pay all required fees and expenses to the City prior to the start of construction. Based on our final bids, listed below is a summary of the fees and expenses that the Developer and City must agree to as offsets against the City's obligation to Developer for the Previous Water 1 ro em—an'. Cos' vv...-r;L.�� " ,-1; !a „` , vs th C1ev eI o ff:.Cr Afireer�? 1: - n i r�vw i�i ��. Cos' uJ Jv.... ... .''1...�.v �./ n i l P. �+..Y v er.':. 1. Street light operation cost for 2 years at $12.50 per fixture per month times 32 fixtures....................................................................... $9,600 2. Development plan and preliminary plat application fee............................. $3,150 3. Final plat filing fee (original)....................................................................... $2,420 ,, 4. Final plat filing fee (revised)...................................................................... $2,400 5. Inspection fee $1,260,819 x .03............................................................... $37,825 • 3% of Contract cost for water ($120,780) • 3% of Contract cost for sewer($286,241 less $53,265 for the upgrade from 8" to 27") • 3% of Contract cost for drainage ($342,686) • 3% of Contract cost for streets, concrete only ($564,377) 6. Administrative processing fee $1,260,819 x .02....................................... $25,216 • 2% of Contract cost for water($120,780) • 2% of Contract cost for sewer($286,241 less $53,265 for the upgrade from 8" to 27") 2% of Contract cost for drainage ($342,686) • 2% of Contract cost for streets, concrete only($564,377) 7. Sewer and water impact fees at $2,350 per lot times 68 lots................. $159,800 8. The total cost for the 27" sewer line from the new Kirkwood Branch Pump Station, southwesterly along South Kirkwood Branch Creek to an intersection with Kirkwood Blvd. at a cost of$150,653 will be reimbursed by the City to the Developer. The 8" portion of the line will be an offset..................................................................................................... 9$ 7,388 Total fees and expenses to be offset ................................................. $337,799 11 A-7 Ms. Luann Heath May 29, 1998 Page 2 Street Access Fees are not able to be offset against the Credit, please see Paragraph IV C of the Developer Agreement for how these fees will be handled. As a result of the above offsets, the remaining Credit outstanding of the Previous Water Improvement Cost is as follows: Current Credit Due $839,151.90 Total Fees and Expenses Offset (337,799.00) Remaining Credit Due $501,352.90 If you are in agreement with the above, please acknowledge your acceptance by signing in the space provided returning one original to me. If you would like to discuss this directly, I can be reached at 914-499-4811. 300 Convent Street Corporation By: International Business Machines nthony Ca co - Program Manager City of Southlake, Texas By: Title: Date: cc: Curtis Hawk Robert Whitehead ✓ Rex Whitton 11 A-8 AUG 13 1999 12:21 FR 731 RES FINANCE TO 918174215782 P.02 ' oil w \ lb LL ] SPK-UK yid=� RJOI - {. ea �� d " 7 y► "�t 3 hw a i e a 1t1e i s _ NA >c.4( -OTAL PAGE.02 ** 11 A-9 UTILITY CONTRACT OF MAY 4, 1987 BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, MTP-IBM PHASE II AND III JOINT VENTURE AND THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE THIS CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT (the "Contract") made and entered into this 4th day of May, 1987, by and among International Business Machines Corporation, a corporation duly incorporated in the State of New York and authorized to transact business in the State of Texas, the MTP-IBM Phase II and III Joint Venture, a Texas general partnership (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Developers") , acting by and -� through their duly authorized representatives and the City of Southlake, Texas, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City" ) , acting by and through its duly authorized representative. W I T N E S S E T H• WHEREAS, the City has provided at its own expense, and now owns, operates and maintains facilities for processing and distributing a supply of surface water and subsurface water, and at the present time is qualified to furnish and deliver treated water; and WHEREAS, the Developers have requested that the City supply a quantity of water as required by the Developers not to exceed 1,000,000 gallons per day to be delivered to the site more particularly described in the attached Exhibit "A" (the "Site") ; and WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the parties herein that they enter into a mutually satisfactory �. agreement by which the City agrees to supply treated water to the Site at a reasonable rate; NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That for and in consideration of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and the execution and performance of the mutual covenants herein set forth, the City and the Developers do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. TERMS AND CONDITIONS No later than January 1, 1988, and without interruption thereafter, except as otherwise provided herein, the Developers, their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to receive and the City hereby agrees to make available for delivery to the Developers at the Site up to one million (1,000,000) gallons per day of potable water meeting all applicable governmental and Developers' standards, delivered under the normal operating pressure prevailing in the City's water distribution system to a point of delivery shown by a red arrow on Exhibit "A" and described by metes and bounds in the attached Exhibit "B" (the "Delivery Point") . If at any time during the term of this Contract for reasons beyond the City's control, the City of Fort Worth reduces the amount of water it will provide the City, the City may reduce the amount of water it furnishes the Developers by the same proportion as that by which the City reduces its supply of water to all other customers of the City. If the City of Fort Worth shall ration the use of water, which water rationing or water conservation measures shall be imposed by the City, then the Developers shall institute and 11A-10 apply the same rationing, conservation measures or restrictions to the use of water as required of all other customers of the City. If the City of Fort Worth fails to deliver potable water to the City, then any reduction of supply of potable water to residents generally shall also apply pro rata to the Developers. The City represents and warrants that it presently has a water contract with the City of Fort Worth which permits it to deliver 1,000,000 gallons per day of potable water to the Site and that this quantity of water will be reserved by the City for future use by the Developers on the Site. 2. LOCATION AND MAINTENANCE OF MEASURING DEVICES All water furnished by the City shall be measured by individual meters for different water users within the Site equipped with continuous flow chart recording devices and transmitting and receiving equipment unless Developers and the City agree to use other types of equipment. All meters and recording equipment shall be installed and operated by the City. The Developers shall pay to the City the cost of the meters, the recording and transmitting equipment and appurtenances plus the installation costs thereof. The location of each meter shall be mutually agreed upon by and between the parties hereto, and the meters shall not be moved or relocated except by mutual consent. The Developers shall have the right to request the City to test the meters and appurtenances at any time after first paying any reasonable testing fee assessed by the City. No meter shall be adjusted, changed or tested, in place or elsewhere, unless the party intending to make such adjustment, change or test shall first give notice to the other parties of this intention and thereafter give reasonable opportunity to the parties to have representatives participate in such test, change or adjustment. All meters will be properly sealed, and the seal shall not be broken unless representatives of the parties hereto have been notified and given a reasonable opportunity be present. 3. METER READING AND BILLING The City shall read all meters provided for herein from time to time, but not less than at monthly intervals, and the parties to this agreement shall have free access to read these respective meters daily, if any party so desires. It shall be the duty of the parties to give immediate notice, each to the other, should any meter be found not functioning, and upon such notice repairs to such meter shall be made promptly. Whenever it is evident that a meter has not registered accurately for a period of time, the quantity used shall be estimated in accordance with the usage under similar conditions for an equal period of time. The meter readings or rates of flow shall be added together when more than one meter is in service and the sum thereof shall be used for the purpose of calculating the total water supplied to the Site. However, each meter shall be billed independently. The Developers, and their assignees agree to pay the monthly charge for water service in accordance with the rates specified in paragraph 4 below. Monthly bills shall be due and payable at the office of the City on or before the tenth (loth) day immediately succeeding submission of the bill. The Developers shall not be required to pay for any water unless such water shall be actually received by the Developers or their assignees. 11A-11 4. RATES The rates to be charged for water delivered to the Site shall be the same as the usual and customary rates for similar water users within the City. The rates to be charged for water delivered to the Site shall be reasonably determined by the actual cost for the raw water plus actual costs for operation and maintenance of the water system by the City plus the capital costs, less offsets and depreciation, for the City's water system, but in no event shall the rate charged to the Developers exceed that charged to any other similar water user. 5. PREPAYMENT The parties understand that the Developers, at the time of execution of this Contract, do not presently require the use of any water on the Site. Upon execution of the Contract, the Developers will deliver a check for the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($750,000.00) (the "Credit") to the City as a prepayment for the water to be supplied to the Site in the future. When the Developers, their successors and assigns, require the use of any of the 1,000,000 gallons of water, the Developers shall receive a credit of fifty percent ( 50%) of every water bill received by them until one hundred percent ( 100%) of the Credit and the Construction Allowance (as defined hereafter) has been applied to the water bills delivered to the Developers or their assignees for water used within the Site. If the City's operational costs exceed fifty percent (50%) of every water bill, the City shall send written notice to the Developers setting forth the costs of operation. Upon receipt of such notice, the Developers shall accept a reduction in the amount of credit which reduction shall be only that amount necessary to allow the City to recover its operational costs. Under no circumstances shall such a reduction reduce the Developers' credit on its monthly bills to zero nor shall it in any way affect the Developers' right of reimbursement of the Credit and Construction Allowance (as defined hereafter) . 6. AMOUNT OF WATER While the City shall be required to supply up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per day to the Developers absent any declaration of general emergency or conservation measure imposed by the City of Fort Worth as set forth in paragraph 1 "Terms and Conditions" , no provision of this Contract shall require the City to supply more than 1,000,000 gallons of water per day to the Developers for the Site. Nothing herein shall require the Developers or their assignees to take 1,000,000 gallons of water per day nor to take more water at the Site than the Developers or their assignees deem necessary. Furthermore, nothing herein shall require the Developers or their assignees to take any amount of water whatsoever. 7 . CONSTRUCTION OF LINE At such point in time as designated by the City but not earlier than August 1, 1987, the City, after obtaining competitive bids, shall initiate development on that portion of the Site which lies to the north of Highway 114 and is more particularly described in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and it will lay an eighteen 11A-12 -1- inch (18") line (the "Line") from the water tower presently located at the intersection of Dove Road and White Chapel Road in the City along the most direct route to Highway 114 at a cost for such Line as determined to be reasonable by Carter & Burgess Engineering, Inc. Eighty percent (80%) of the cost of this Line shall be contributed to the City by the Developers within sixty (60) days from the completion of this Line as certified by Carter & Burgess Engineering, Inc. , and Developers agree to provide easements for the Line across their property. At such point in time as designated by the City, the City shall secure the necessary approvals to construct an extension of the Line under Highway 114 to a location at the southwest corner of Dove Road and Highway 114 to a point indicated by a red arrow on Exhibit "D" (the "Line Extension" ) and after obtaining competitive bids shall construct the Line Extension. The \ Developers or their assignees shall contribute a total of $2,000 to the City towards securing the necessary approvals to construct the Line Extension. The reasonable cost for engineering, surveying and construction of the Line Extension shall be paid by the City. The Developers or their assignees shall reimburse fifty-five percent ( 55%) of the reasonable cost of constructing the Line Extension as determined by Carter & Burgess Engineering, Inc. , to the City within sixty (60) days of the completion of the Line Extension as certified by Carter & Burgess Engineering, Inc. All amounts paid to the City by Developers pursuant to this Section 7 shall constitute the "Construction Allowance" for which reimbursement is allowed pursuant to Section 5. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE OF CONTRACT FOR BILLING The City shall bill the Developers for water on the tenth (loth) day of the month following the month in which the City first delivers water to the Developers and on the tenth (loth) day of each succeeding month for the term of this Contract. 9. RESALE OR ASSIGNMENT The Developers and their assignees do hereby covenant and agree not to sell water to users outside the Site. If the permission of the City of Fort Worth and the Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1 is obtained, the City agrees to sell to the Developers or to any partnership in which either or both of the Developers are a partner water for use on the property described in Exhibit "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Developers, their successors and assigns, shall have the right to submeter facilities on their property and to recoup or recover their actual costs for water delivered to third-party users pursuant to leases or other agreements pertaining to all or any portion of the Site or the area described in Exhibit "E". All rights granted under this Contract shall be freely assignable in whole or in part by the Developers and wherever the term "the Developers" is used in this Contract it shall also include any successors or assigns of the Developers. 10. LIFE OF CONTRACT The life of this Contract shall be for twenty-five (25) years from date of execution hereof. If water is not being delivered to the Site at the expiration of this Contract, this Contract may be renewed on terms mutually agreeable to the parties hereto, but if water is being delivered pursuant to this 11A-13 Contract at its expiration, then water shall continue to be delivered to the Site upon the same terms and conditions as imposed by the City on similar water users. 11. `�.. FORCE MAJEURE If, by reason of force majeure, any party hereto shall be rendered unable, wholly or in part, to carry out its obligations under this Contract, other than the obligation of the Developers to make payments required under the terms hereof, then if such party shall give notice with full particulars of such force majeure in writing to the other parties within reasonable time after the occurrence of the event or cause relied upon, the obligation of the party giving such notice, so far as it is affected by such force majeure, shall be suspended during the continuation of the inability then claimed, but for no longer period, and such party shall endeavor to remove or overcome such inability with all reasonable dispatch. The term "force majeure", as employed herein, shall mean acts 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 State of Texas, or any civil or military authority, insurrection, riots, epidemics, landslides, lightning, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, storms, floods, washouts, droughts, or explosions. 12. DUE AUTHORITY The persons signing on behalf of the City and the Developers represent and warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Contract on behalf of the City and the Developers, respectively. 13. REMEDIES Any party hereto shall have the right to specific enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Contract. 14. OTHER PROVISIONS 14.1 Except as altered by the specific provisions of this Contract, all water provided by the City to the Developers shall be subject to the standard rules, regulations, rates and policies in effect for all customers of the City, as amended from time to time. 14.2 This Contract represents the entire agreement of the parties and may not be changed or modified except by written instrument signed by the parties to be charged therewith. 14.3 Any notice provided for herein shall be given in writing hand-delivered or mailed certified or registered United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed, as follows: If to City: City of Southlake •- 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 Attention: City Manager of Southlake 11A-14 If to the Developers: International Business Machines Corporation Real Estate and Construction Division 208 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 10501 Stamford, Connecticut 06904 Attention: Director of Real Estate Development With Copy to: International Business Machines Corporation Real Estate and Construction Division 208 Harbor Drive Post Office Box 10501 Stamford, Connecticut 06904 Attention: RECD Division Counsel and: MTP-IBM Phase II and III Joint Venture 1299 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica, California 90401 Attention: Mr. Richard I. Gilchrist The designation of the person to whom and the place to which notices are to be mailed or delivered may be changed from time to time by any party by written notice to the other parties. 14.4 Notwithstanding any other provisions herein contained, no notice provided hereby shall be effective prior to the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date such written notice is given as required by Section 14.3 and postmarked. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, after proper action by the respective governing bodies of the parties hereto, we have caused these presents to be executed in five ( 5) copies, each of which is considered to be an original and the seals of the respective parties to be hereto affixed on the date above written. ATTEST: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE �i :l By: City Secretary Its: Mayor Pro em APPROVED AS TO FORM: Southlake City orney ATTEST: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, a New York corporation S By: Corporate Secr to Its: R. daJr. , . . Hedge,Jr. C. Holl Y y, Counsel IBM Vice President and President, Real Estate and Construction Division 'teal Estate and C:onstrttction Division 11A-15 MTP-IBM PHASE II AND III JOINT VENTURE, a Texas general partnership BY: MAGUIRE/THOMAS PARTNER - DALLAS, LTD. , a California limited partnership, General Partner BY: MAGUIRE/THOMAS, INC. , a California corporation, General Partner By���•,�z � 1 (�I iKQMI INA Its 11A-16 OFFICIAL RECORD DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT R E C I T A L An agreement ( "Agreement" ) between the City of Southlake, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "Southlake" or "City, " and Maguire/Thomas Partners-Westlake/Southlake partnership, a Texas general partnership, and MTP-IBM Phase II and III Joint Venture , a Texas general partnership, hereinafter jointly referred to as "Developer, " for the installation of certain community facilities and the provision of certain city services to that certain property described as MTP-IBM Addition No. 1 to the City of Southlake as described in that certain plat filed September 10 , 1987 , in Volume 388-211 , Page 23 of the Tarrant County Map and Plat Records and as refiled September 29 , 1987 , in Volume 388-211, Page 68 of the Tarrant County Map and Plat Records and as filed on October 29 , 1987 , in Cabinet G, Page 208 , of the Denton County Map and Plat Records , which property is hereafter referred to as the "Subdivision" with the terms and conditions of this Agreement to apply only to such Subdivision: 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 and the City does hereby agree that Developer has satisfied this requirement . B. The City will issue building permits for lots within the Subdivision. All public streets to be constructed within the Subdivision will be completed prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy. All of the facilities listed in Section II of this Agreement will be constructed within one ( 1 ) year from the date of signing of this Agreement by the City and the Developer. C. The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify the City in an amount equal to 100% of the total cost of the facilities described in Section II of this Agreement against all costs of maintenance of such facilities for one ( 1 ) year from the Developer' s written notice to City of completion of such facilities . Upon the City' s confirmation that the facilities to be constructed under Section II of this Agreement have been constructed pursuant 11A-17 to city ordinances and construction codes, the City shall accept such improvements . If the improvements shall require replacement, repair or reconstruction within one ( 1 ) year from the date of Developer ' s notice described above, then the Developer shall so reimburse the City for such replacement , repair or reconstruction during such one ( 1 ) year period. D. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon acceptance by City, title to all facilities and improvements described in Section II of this Agreement shall vest in the City and the 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. Upon acceptance of the facilities, the City, through its City Manager or Building Official, shall provide Developer with a written acknowledgment that all facilities are complete , have been inspected and approved and are accepted by the City. E. Developer has awarded construction contracts for the facilities covered by this Agreement and, in so doing, the Developer followed the following procedure : 1. Developer employed a construction contractor qualified to bid on public projects of a similar nature. 2 . Developer paid permit fees based upon the construction cost for the buildings to be constructed in the Subdivision as estimated by the City pursuant to the Uniform Building Code. Additionally, Developer will pay a three percent ( 3% ) inspection fee of the construction cost for the water lines , streets, sewage lines and drainage facilities within the Subdivision. 3 . The City shall inspect and approve water mains and water service lines prior to delivery of water to the buildings constructed within the Subdivision. 2. 11A-18 F. The Developer will mow all grass and weeds and otherwise maintain the aesthetics of all land and lots in the Subdivision which have not been sold to third parties. If the Developer fails in this responsibility, the City may contract this service and bill the Developer for the costs, which amount shall become a lien upon all real property of the Subdivision not previously conveyed to third parties . II. FACILITIES: A. On-Site Water: 1 . The Developer hereby agrees to install water facilities to service lots as shown on the final plat of the Subdivision. On-site water mains and service lines installed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by Developer ' s engineer will be approved by the City. Further, Developer agrees to complete this installation in accordance with Ordinance No. 170 of the City and shall pay for all construction costs , materials and the engineering for such on-site water facilities . 2 . It is further agreed and understood that the Developer will comply with Section I , subpart C , of this Agreement . B. Drainage: 1 . The Developer hereby agrees to construct the necessary drainage facilities within the Subdivision. These facilities will be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by Developer' s engineer which have been approved by the City. 2 . It is further agreed and understood that the Developer will comply with Section I , subpart C, of this Agreement . C. Streets: 1 . The Developer will construct streets in the Subdivision, which is understood to be a commercial development , in accordance with ( i) Ordinance No. 217 of the City, and ( ii) plans and specifications prepared by the Developer ' s engineer which have been approved SWI, by the City. 3. 11A-19 2 . The Developer will be responsible for installation of street lights and street signs designating the names of the streets inside the Subdivision with such signs to be of a type, size, color and design approved by the City prior to acceptance of such streets by the City. 3 . All street improvements are subject to inspection and approval by the City prior to acceptance. D. Sanitary Sewers: 1 . The parties anticipate that , in the future , the City will provide sanitary sewer service to the Subdivision. Sanitary sewer service facilities will be installed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. 2 . Any future sanitary sewer facilities required by the City will be located in the easements shown on the attached Exhibit "A. " III. IMPACT FEES: The parties agree that Developer has paid $20 , 007 . 00 in road impact fees and $10 , 103 .50 in sewer impact fees . The parties further agree that water impact fees of $10 , 103 .50 shall be deducted from the $750 , 000 .00 prepayment for water made by Developer pursuant to that one certain Utility Contract by and between the City and Developer dated May 4 , 1987 , and that Developer shall be entitled to a remaining credit of $739 , 896 .50 , under such Utility Contract . It is further agreed by the parties that this constitutes payment in full for impact fees attributable to development on Block B, Lot 1 , of the Subdivision. IV. TERMINATION DATE: The obligations of Developer under this Agreement shall terminate five ( 5 ) years from the date of this Agreement . SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE this � day of 1988 . 4 . 11 A-20 Maguire/Thomas Partners-Westlake/Southlake Partnership, a Texas general partnership By: Maguire/Thomas Partners-Dallas Ltd. , a California limited partnership, general partner By: Maguire/Thomas Partners, Inc. , a California corporation, as general partner of the foregoing limited pa nership By: Its: MTP-IBM Phase II and III Joint Venture, a Texas general partnership By: Maguire/Thomas Partners-Dallas Ltd. , a California limited partnership, general partner By: Maguire/Thomas Partners, Inc. , a California corporation as general partner of the oregoing limited p rship By: its: 1/ International Business Machines Corporation, a New York corporation as general partner of the foregoing two partnerships C YW By: e-r �IBlyl ice re ide rand esi e al.E e- d onscruc ioli�i i�ioA City o ut k By: J n H. Westerholm Mayon 5 . 11 Q-21 ATT ST: Sandra LeGrand City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: John H. Boyle City Attorney 6. 11A-22 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR A PUBLIC ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT BEING AN EASEMENT SITUATED IN THE U. P. MARTIN SURVEY. ABSTRACT NUMYLH 1015. TARRANT COUNTY. TEXALi- LOCATED 1N THAT CERTAIN TRACT UP LAND CONVEYED TO MTP-IBM PHASE 11 AND III JOINT VENTURE AND NLCURUAD IN VOLUME 8995. PAGE 1266. COUNTY RECORDS, TARRANT COUNTY. TEXAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS$ COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO MAGUIRE/TMOMAS PARTNERS. WESTLAKE/SOUTHLAKE PARTNERSHIP AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 8551. PAGE 1743, SAID COUNTY RECORDSI THENCE N 26^ 01' S4' W. 1644.87 FEET TO THE POINT OF AEGINNINC; THENCE N 32^ 06' 29" W. 20.05 FEETI THENCE N 53^ 27' 35' E. 15.40 FEET$ THENCE S 75^ 53' 12' E. 184. 10 FEET$ THENCE W 30^ •O' 08' E. 118. 14 FEETI THENCE N 57^ 32' 20" E. 125.00 FEETI THENCE N 30- ♦0' 08' E. 95.29 FEETI THENCE N 14^ 56' 52" E. 183.53 FEET; THENCE N 20^ 10' 32' E. 355.00 FEET; THENCE N 15^ 12' 25" E. 323.50 FEET; THENCE W 01^ 09' 28" W. 252.89 FEET; THENCE N 17^ 31' 11" E. 355.33 FEET. TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE 20 THE LEFT; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT 27.49 FEET. HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8^ 17' 21". A RADIUS OF 190.00 FEET. AND WHOSE LONG CHORD BEARS W 86' 0' 41' W.-:27.46 FEET; THENCE S 89^ 50' 35' W. 342.98 FEET; THENCE N DO- 09' 22' W. 20.00 FEET; THENCE N 89^ 50' 38' E. 342.98 FEET. TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHTi THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT 53.79 FEET. HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14^ 40' 35'. A RADIUS OF 210.00 FEET. AND WHOSE LONG CHORD BEARS S 82^ 49' 4" E. 53.64 FEET; THENCE S 17^ 31' 11' W. 387.30 FEET: THENCE S 00^ 09' 25' E. 252.48 FEET: THENCE S 15^ 12' 28' W. 327.54 FEET; THENCE S 20^ 10' 31' W. 354.95 FEET: THENCE S 14^ 56' 50" W. 165.48 FEET: THENCE S 30- 40' 08' W. 104.71 FEET; THENCE S 67- 32' 20' W. 125.00 FEET: C1rB Job No. 840564-3001 Sapteaber 2. 1987 Pap• 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A' Page 1 of 3 11A-23 THENCE S 30^ 40' 06' W. 125.40 FEET; THENCE N 75- 53. 12' W. 189.55 FEET; THENCE S 53- 271 35' W. 28.54 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ENCOMPASSING 40.521 SQUARE FEET OR 1. 11 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS. Easements described herewith are common utility easements and are to be snared by sutiple enities. For specific locations is to placement of each utility within said easements. moo approved construction plans prapared by Carter L Burgess. Inc. . 1100 Macon Street. Fort Worth. Texas 75102. CLB Job No. 540564-3001 Septosbsr 2. 1957 Pape 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 'A' Page 2 of 3 11A-24 • t.f[.L.• A•or 'E.S+R.C' NC • c.. to.C�\: Lk 'REVELS VOL.60't or, tc)t\ 0� •t.) •C ^.Sin /:)L .6 . •C',. SS? As 1 4* Icr 35' T \ `;11�1 s % 5 ti JU C' 1 °y"' t R• 210. 00' �1QCK s,,�[• , K / N 00° 9' 22' * T- ii a' •[ -a- - .Sc,•. . N 8 ° 50 38' E. er 49' ' �• E .\ ?ERAS •o•,R • c•• c: S&64' 1 ,a._ •. _ t/ • t••_ T• EW• L.t • t+-C -Y�Orr •r�~do -_�:� . ::.i[`i[s:: - - - S 896 50' 38' w Dr 0• Is 17' 219 R• 1 M 00'PUB n. • �• . esr • - - L. C.• W96' 0' 41'Z'I I y r 2 T.46' N BLOCK 6 u M ILA 0 boN a ` - , Vd ,•r - OD OI�cb to CNN: • % IN Rr � N 1 2 I I r✓► :[. .[ Est (20 W:OIE)E) fir[•/•�. tAS[Y[M• ` •:. .SSE ti.SOS //� 20• e h �' 2 /�ei, 11 A-25 STRASBURGER & PRICE ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS A PARTKERSNF INCLUDING RROFLSSION,4 CORRGRATONS LAS COLINAS OFFICE THE CENTRAL TOWER AT W1--S SOUARE 5215 NORTI O-CONNOR SLID.-SUI-E 100C 4300 FIRST REPUBLICBANK PLAZA -ING.TEXAS 75039-3712 901 MAIN STREET, LB 175 PO. BOX 50100 DALLAS, TEXAS 75250 W. EDWARD WALTS, II, P.C. (214) 651-4300 MEXICO CITY CORRESPONDENT (214) 651-4510 TELEX 4630227 GONZALEZ CALNILLO.ASOCIADOS.S.C. AMSERES NO.A-2 FIRST REPUBLICBANK PLAZA TELECOPIER (2t4) 551-4330 06600 MEXICO 0.!MEXICO January 28, 1988 � O J!j?' RFD CC'r1 � o Mr . Lloyd Latta pFFj 9 City Manager 4'�Iy�pfOr City of Southlake 667 North Carr oll Avenue Southlake , Texas 76092 Re : Southlake Dear Lloyd : Enclosed please find the original and three ( 3 ) copies of the Developer ' s Agreement by and between the two Partnerships and the City of Southlake for MTP-IBM Addition No. 1 to the City of Southlake which has been signed by the partners. After Mayor Westerholm has signed these Agreements , I ask that you return three ( 3 ) fully executed copies of these to me for my file. Thanks . Very truly yours , EW/mg Enclosure 1A-26 -I AVILA _Mf--y2N_r 1r1r1 MY1 n_ Mil ] C Ml n MY1 -M _!Y1 JASF f �i� III 'lif ��ilif lil WAWA FOR FmIMI_ r^r� M ul - I ofT�ofTlnfT 11 1� I US11 11 6' SANITARY SEWER _ 540' — li v �I si Ig s s e I� R I� QNr R11L r WATER Lox I ILOT 8112 B 1 1 ZONED B-1 W OFFICE COIGIER 1AL �`- - — 10�R00-CCNI� r NAIL - -- r� .�„ - L +-�� ties lse9T.oc��'4 h+S'�"'.z•.vr`.i� S�'I^e it •• _ .. Y..pyS/ _- t1':r:a<;vv . -,p. M p11YEWAY `'4.+7F'•. .�� Z:.r ;+s �iA•_.=9_. J N.H. '.tj,• •`' �.I-�i.'' / t' +' _ c - - v �• •,, ` eeAaO L1L� M'7A T,L _._, •K�s. '" s 7E. 4' `CDR — a IMMM EW 07A T.N. I I WI 'vl I I f I Teli 'V NCINITY MAP j �•�j LEGEND,-9 MASONRY WALL ZONED B-1% �j�WALL (VARYING H Zr ?. MOUN70 LIGHTS DIRECTED AT PARKING DRAINAGE ARROW DUMPST a- DETAIL PORCH LIGHTSTYPICAL WALL MOUNTED 30 FENCE SQUARE CUT ON OONORETE MEADWALL AT e CONCRETE LANDSCAPE 11 I.I =TUH DINSrrf RESIDENTEALIA• I'+1 SOV"M OORNM Of WAIJAART LAND USE OFFICE GRAMM OR CITY APPROYED MATERIAL SOUTH SIDE OF' 170 W MT Of SET5403 EAST 2W, SOUTH 20' SUMMARY CHART - BUFFERYARDS f I Teli 'V NCINITY MAP j �•�j LEGEND,-9 MASONRY WALL ZONED B-1% �j�WALL (VARYING H Zr ?. MOUN70 LIGHTS DIRECTED AT PARKING DRAINAGE ARROW DUMPST a- DETAIL PORCH LIGHTSTYPICAL WALL MOUNTED 30 FENCE SQUARE CUT ON OONORETE MEADWALL AT e CONCRETE LANDSCAPE 11 I.I =TUH DINSrrf RESIDENTEALIA• I'+1 SOV"M OORNM Of WAIJAART LAND USE OFFICE GRAMM OR CITY APPROYED MATERIAL SOUTH SIDE OF' 170 W MT Of SET5403 EAST 2W, SOUTH 20' SUMMARY CHART - BUFFERYARDS LOT M3 MRDM owE ADDITION LENGTH BUFFERYARD WIDTHACCENT TYPE TREES SHRUBS TREES FENCE OR SCREENM FE)GHf AND MATERN+L NORTH -is NONE PRWDED 19 S — 2 4 13 NONE 4 — — 12 OAKS. 14 OAK, 1 tr OAK IN BUiFERYARD OR SOX CANOPY IN BUFFFRYARD CREDIT 2 CANOPY AND 4 ACCENTS TREES EAST PROVIDED — — NCAEASE TO 20 WITH 20% REDUCTION OF PLANT MATERIAL 4— 20 OAKS N IN SUFFERYARD CREDIT 7 CANOPY AND 14 ACCEMS TREES SOUTH — — PRONOm _ WFEASE TO 20' WITH 20% REDUCTION OF PLANT MATERIEL 24' ONG 16'OAK. 14' OAK 3-6' CAKS N OUFFERYARD OR WITH SOX CANOPY IN BUFFERYARD CREDIT 4 CANOPY AND 7 ACCENTS TREES WEST — PROVIDED 6-6'-12' OAKS IN BUFFERYARD OR WITH SOX CANOPY IN SUFFTRYARD CREDIT 4 CANOPY AND 4 ACCENT TREES PROVIDED PUNT MATERIAL MAY BE PROLIDED BY E)OSMNG PLANT MATERIAL PER CITY LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY CHART - INTERIOR LANDSCAPE BUILDING AREA - 5904 $0. FT. ZONED 9-1 LANDSCAPE AREA X OF AREA N FRONT OR SIDE CANOPY TREES ACCENT TREES SHRUBS TREES GROUND COVER SO. FT. FRONDED / 0 7SX 3 6 --- 200 66 ASSORTED TREES 6' - 16. 3 CANOPY AND a ACCENT. TOTAL GROUND COVER INCLUDES SO A FT. ANNUAL COLOR PROVIDED PUNT MATERIAL MAY BE PROVIDED SY EXISTING PUNT MATERIAL PER CITY LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATION '1 7 13E INKLERPROMD SYSTEM TO ►7i 1 E PIA BE FRONDED Arrucsi T INIMMIllsm _W1 Buzz ARi �.II� T fewCtJl. NBRRA 1N1NNe m iIi f1111111 CASE NO. Z09-096 REC-D i U N � 11999 t a u L.JiL Ir. .9e d 4 1 or ORP 7.4 E!! ... — .. CA Northwest Facade A J I r A IN 18.83 16.16 tL83 -� c� L fl, 67 N orthwast Facadev II Av�kl W.vt Facedu Il is P R 0 P 0 S E D E L E VATION S II F 0 R LOT 3R3 BLOCK 1 MIRON ADDITIOit N SOUTHLAKE TX IF—J—B—OLTON do ASSOCIATES Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR. Page is too large to OCR.