The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-01-04 CC Packet City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 30, 1999 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Billy Campbell, City Manager SUBJECT: Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Note: Included in your packet are the sales tax report and the 9/30/99 quarterly investment report. Finance is working to complete the financial reports for October and November in time for the next meeting in January. These documents have been delayed for a number of reasons including preparing for the audit, computer conversion, staffing, etc. If you have any questions, contact Finance Director Sharen Elam. 1. Agenda Item No. 4B. City Manager's Report: Cable franchise agreement and rate review. Charter Communications will notify residents in their January cable television bills of a $1.95 monthly rate increase. This increase is being applied only to the expanded basic cable rate, not to the basic cable rate over which cities have some control. Charter is adding the same rate increase to all its full-service communities in Tarrant County, bringing the combined rate for basic and expanded service to $33.95 in all of those cities. We will provide Council with a rate and fee comparison for area cities, including those served by AT&T Cable Services and Paragon. Charter also will be coming to the City in late January or early February asking that its franchise agreement be transferred to AT&T Cable Services as part of a customer swap between the two companies. This is a more complex issue and will require a briefing from the City Attorney. Once the formal request for transfer is received from Charter, the City will have 120 days to respond. f Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 2 of 19 I will make a brief report on these issues on Tuesday. If you have any questions on either of these items, please contact James Kunke. 2. Agenda Item No. 5A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held December 7, 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. 3. Agenda Item No. 5B. Authorize award of bids for sub-trades for the construction of Town Hall and to reject bids for handrails. Additional bids were opened for the Town Hall project on December 21, 1999. Staff is recommending that all bids be awarded with exception of handrails. The architect, construction manager and staff feel that there can be some changes to types of materials in order to lower the bid price on this item. Based upon these bids this project is still anticipated to come in within budget and on schedule. For additional information contact Ron Harper at extension 779. 4. Agenda Items No. 5C. Authorize the Mayor to enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for ambulance service between Denton County and the City of Southlake. The City of Southlake historically enters into an Interlocal Cooperation with Denton County each year for emergency medical services. The northern city limits of Southlake are in Denton County, but does not contain any unincorporated area. This contract provides the legal tool to provide service in the unincorporated areas of Denton County adjoining our jurisdiction. In the event we respond to a mutual aid call in the unincorporated area of Denton County the City of Southlake would be reimbursed at the specified rate through this contract. The contract may be cancelled by either part with a written sixty-day notice. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 3 of 19 5. Agenda Item No. 5D. Resolution No. 99-85, Appointing representatives to the SPIN Standing Committee. These SPIN appointments include all of the representatives in the odd-numbered SPIN areas, whose terms expired in December 1999. As you recall, the SPIN Standing Committee representatives are appointed for staggered two-year terms. The process for which the representatives are selected is unique from all the other City Council appointed boards and commissions. The selection process for SPIN Representatives allows the residents in the SPIN neighborhoods to select an individual to serve as a SPIN representative. The recommendation is then forwarded to the City Council for official appointment to the Standing Committee. The SPIN vacancy meeting was held on November 18, 1999. The meeting was advertised for approximately five weeks and a post card was mailed to residents in all of the odd-numbered SPIN areas notifying them of the vacancy meeting. As a result of the vacancy meeting and additional recruitment efforts, each of the SPIN areas has an individual volunteering to serve. Some of the current SPIN Representatives are seeking reappointment, and the new SPIN Representative for 9w will temporarily serve until a permanent replacement can be found. If you have any questions regarding this item, please contact Shelli Siemer. 6. Agenda Item No. 5E. Award of bid to Brice Systems for the purchase of Cisco routers and switches for the City's fiber optic line. As noted in the memo from John Knight, this equipment will provide for a more efficient transfer of data between city facilities, enhancing our network. The low bid is well under budget, and staff recommends that Council award the bid to Brice Systems for the purchase of the switches and routers. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 4 of 19 Please feel free to call John Knight with questions about this item. 7. Agenda Item No. 5F. Authorize the lease purchase of ruggedized laptop computers and approve Resolution No. 00-09, authorizing the City Manager to enter into a lease purchase agreement for the purpose of procuring laptop computers. This item essentially awards the bid for the laptop computers to Brice Systems (low bidder) and approves the resolution necessary to enter into a lease purchase agreement with Government Capital Corporation. This lease purchase agreement will allow us to spread the cost of these laptops over a three-year period. As pointed out in the memo from John Knight,these laptops will take the place of the mobile data terminals currently in use by DPS. The MDTs are not Y2K compliant and had to be replaced. The ruggedized laptops provide an excellent alternative, providing greater flexibility for field reporting. Questions about this item should be directed to John Knight. 8. Agenda Item No. 5G. Resolution No. 00-02, Appointment of a chairperson for the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors. According to state statute, the governing body of the municipality that created the tax increment reinvestment zone must appoint one member of the board to serve as chairperson for a term of one year that begins on January 1. The next TIRZ Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 13, 2000, at which the new chairperson will preside. Please contact Shelli Siemer if you have questions regarding this item. 9. Agenda Item No. 5H. THIS ITEM LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 5 of 19 10.Agenda Item No. 5I. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional service agreement with Shrickel, Rollins, and Associates for the update to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan and the Bicentennial Park Schematic Design. As noted in the packet item cover memo, the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, as one of the City Master Plan components, is required to be reviewed every four years. It was last approved in 1996, therefore it is necessary to review this plan again. Since we soon will begin the review and update of the Trails System Master Plan, this work also will tie into that effort. The contract also will engage Schrickel Rollins to update the Bicentennial Park master development plan, or schematic design. This will provide us an updated, as- built condition, and make recommendations for site planning of future facilities. This is necessary as we move forward with our capital improvements plan, which envisions future facilities that will probably be located at Bicentennial Park. The contract amount is within the budgeted amount for this professional service. If you have any questions regarding this item, please contact Kevin Hugman or Steve Polasek. 11.Agenda Item No. 5J. Award of bid to Control Specialists, Inc. for the installation of computer-operated valves for the elevated storage tanks at Bicentennial Park and Dove Street. Staff recommends Council award the bid to Control Specialists, Inc for the installation of computer-operated valves for the elevated storage tanks at Bicentennial Park and Dove Street. Before the pump station on T.W. King can be placed in service, computer operated valves must be installed at all water storage facilities in the low pressure plane. Computer-operated valves have been installed at the pump station on Pearson and the Miron elevated storage tank during the (owl construction of these facilities. However, the computer-operated valves must be Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 6 of 19 installed at the existing elevated storage tanks on Bicentennial Park and Dove Street. The computer-operated valves will allow the water department to coordinate the functions of both pump stations. As stated in the memo from Senior Civil Engineer Shawn Poe, the low bid was received from Control Specialists, Inc in the amount of $68,700. The estimated cost for these improvements was $75,000. These improvements will be funded using water impact fees. If you have any questions regarding this item, please call Shawn Poe. 12.Agenda Item No. 5K. Request for the extension of validity for one (1) year of Case No. ZA 97-156, Preliminary Plat for Cornerstone Business Park, Phase II. This Preliminary Plat was approved by the City Council on January 6, 1998. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, the validity of a Preliminary Plat expires two years from the date of approval. This plat will expire January 6, 2000. The Carroll Independent School District has submitted an application to the City for a Final Plat on the Kimball and Silicon Drive right-of-way and the two north lots and request that the validity of the Preliminary Plat be extended one year to allow time for processing and filing of the Final Plat. The City Council may grant up to a one- year extension of its validity. Please be aware that the portion of this site north of the Kimball extension is the proposed location for the CISD Stadium and Transportation Center. A zoning change request and site plan are currently under review by City Staff and is expected to be before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council in the near future. Contact Dennis Killough regarding this request. 13. Agenda Item No. 5L. Resolution No. 00-01, Revising Resolution No. 98-52 in support of the application for related grant funds for a D.A.R.E. officer through the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office. Resolution 00-01 is to seek Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council • Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 7 of 19 continuation of funds from the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office to pay for a portion of one (1) DARE officer. The initial funding of this grant was approved by Resolution 98-52. Approval of this resolution authorizes application of funding for the final two years of the grant. 14.Agenda Item No. 5M. Authorize the City Manager to enter into an addendum to agreement with Tarrant County for tax collection services. For 17 years Tarrant County has collected property taxes for the City. The Council approved the contract with Tarrant County for this fiscal year in September. The purpose for the addendum is to establish and document the consent of the City to the investment of collected tax funds by Tarrant County during the period between collection and payment to the City. Please contact Sharen Elam if you have any questions regarding this item. 15.Agenda Item No. 5N. ZA 99-092, Site Plan for Southlake Marketplace, Phase III. Site Plan for Southlake Marketplace, Phase III: The applicant has requested to table this item to January 18, 2000 in order to address concerns raised during the December 7, 1999 City Council meeting. Contact Dennis Killough regarding this request. 16.Agenda Item No. 7A. Ordinance No. 480-317, 2`' Reading, (ZA 99-057), Rezoning and Development Plan for Crown Ridge Addition. The original request for this item was a zoning change from "AG" Agricultural District to "RPUD" Residential Planned Unit Development. That plan proposed 85 residential lots on 63.4 acres of land with a density of 1.34 dwelling units per acre. The Land Use Designation for this area according to the City Land Use Plan is "Low Density kw Residential." The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (7-0) on Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 8 of 19 September 9, 1999. Their concern appeared to be density and compliance with the Land Use Plan. The applicant amended its zoning change request to "SF-lA" Single Family Residential District prior to the first reading at City Council. The City Council approved first reading of the amended request (7-0) on November 2, 1999. This item appeared before the City Council on December 7, 1999 and was tabled until January 4, 2000, due to the applicant's absence. Despite the amended request and City Council approval of the first reading, since the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial, approval of this item will require an affirmative super majority vote. Feel free to contact Karen Gandy or Dennis Killough regarding this item. 17.Agenda Item No. 7B. ZA 99-109, Site Plan for Johnson Elementary School. This plan proposes a 5,460 sq. ft. classroom addition to Johnson Elementary School located on the east side of N. Carroll Avenue and north of E. Highland Street. The site is subject to Residential Adjacency Standards. The applicant is requesting several variances related to these regulations as well as landscape and sidewalk requirements. Please refer to the attached response letter from the applicant and the plan review. This property is also located in the 65 `LDN' Airport Overlay Zone. Letters from DFW Airport and the FAA are included in your packet. The School District has provided a sound analysis prepared by Acoustic Design Associates, Inc. which also ,.. is included in your packet. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 9 of 19 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this item on December 9, 1999 (5-1-1) subject to the review amended as follows: • deleting Item#1 (articulation); • regarding Item #2 (screening to roof top mechanical units), requiring the applicant to get a bid regarding screening of rooftop equipment and submitting that number to City Council and leaving it up to City Council as to whether or not they want to waive that requirement; • regarding Item #4.a (Bufferyards), giving the applicant until August 1, 2004, to complete the bufferyards; • regarding Item #4.b, (Parking encroachment into bufferyard) instructing the applicant to get a determination of where the final right-of-way would be on Carroll Avenue and have the number of feet between that right-of-way and the existing parking lot available for City Council; • regarding Item #4.d (Interior Landscape), allowing the applicant until August 1, 2004, to complete the interior landscaping; waiving the islands in Item #4.e (Parking landscape islands), but allowing the applicant until August 1, 2004, to install the relocated area and plant materials; • deleting Item#4.f(Hedge Row required along Carroll Avenue); • regarding Item #5 (Screening), requiring the applicant to meet with the neighbors before City Council to find out who wants screening and who does not; • regarding Item #6 (Sidewalks), requiring a 6' sidewalk but allowing the narrowing of the sidewalk to 5' to meet up with the existing sidewalk and not taking up a length of more than 10' when narrowing from 6' to 5' and giving relief to the 6' trail interior to the site; regarding Item #7 (Portable Building Encroachment); • suggesting that ZBA permit a variance to the setback. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 10 of 19 Commissioner Horne abstained due to being an adjacent property owner. Commissioner Boutte dissented, feeling that the bufferyards and landscape should be planted now and that no bufferyards should be required along Highland Street with this site plan. Contact Dennis Killough regarding this request. 18.Agenda Item No. 8A. ZA 99-098, Revised Preliminary Plat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 61, Timarron Addition. The property is located at the southwest corner of Byron Nelson Parkway and East Southlake Boulevard. This Revised Preliminary Plat proposes subdividing the previously approved single lot into two lots. This request is associated with a proposed zoning change and site plan application currently under review by City Staff. The application proposes a change to "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District to include "O-l" Office Uses and a "C-2" Retail Commercial District use, limited to Health Service Facility uses. Radiology Associates of Tarrant County is proposing a radiology services clinic at this location. It is expected to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council in the near future. Please note that the Plat Review addresses an additional 4' of right-of-way dedication required for Byron Nelson Parkway according to the Master Thoroughfare Plan. The existing dedicated width of Byron Nelson is 90' and the Master Thoroughfare Plan calls for 94' of right-of-way. Staff feels that the existing 90' of right-of-way is adequate. However, a variance is required to allow the right- of-way as it exists. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) on December 9, 1999, subject to the Plat Review deleting the requirement for an additional 4' of right-of-way along Byron Nelson Parkway. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 11 of 19 If the City Council or other interested parties have no issues regarding this request, this item could be considered as a consent item, subject to the Plat Review and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Contact Dennis Killough regarding this request. 19.Agenda Item No. 8B. ZA 99-111, Preliminary Plat of Emery Addition. This plat proposes a 3-lot subdivision located at the northeast corner of North Kimball Avenue and SH 114. It includes the existing Texaco Station and retail carpet business and an existing residential building north of the gas station and carpet retailer. The existing zoning on the property is "C-3" Retail Commercial District (proposed Lots 1 and 2) and "AG" Agricultural District (proposed Lot 3). No change of zoning is proposed at this time. The property is being platted in order to comply with State and City regulations regarding platting and conveyance of property. The property owner intends to sell proposed Lot 1 and may sell the other lots in the future. The applicant has requested a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance requirement that the boundary of a plat be appropriately zoned (See Plat Review Summary Comment No. 1). This issue is associated with proposed Lot 3, which is zoned "AG" and does not comply with the development regulations for the "AG" district. The applicant does not have any plans for development of this lot and feels a zoning change would be pre-mature. Please note that the Plat Review Summary Comment No. 2 requires that all lots comply with zoning district regulations. This comment should remain as a requirement of this plat approval. This will prevent any Final Plat from being approved for Lot 3 until a change of zoning or variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustments has been approved for this lot. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 12 of 19 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) on December 9, 1999, subject to the Plat Review Summary deleting Comment No. 1 (appropriate zoning within plat boundary). If the City Council or other interested parties have no issues regarding this request, this item could be considered as a consent item, subject to the Plat Review and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Contact Dennis Killough regarding this request. 20. Agenda Item No. 8C. ZA 99-117, Plat Showing for Lots 5 & 6, W. R. Eaves No. 500 Addition. This plat is associated with the recently approved Site Plan for Walgreen's. The plat proposes two lots at the southwest corner of West Southlake Boulevard and South Peytonville Avenue. The north lot is the site of the Walgreen's store and the south lot is vacant. The existing zoning is "C-2" Retail Commercial District. You may recall that during the approval of the Walgreen's Store, the applicant made a commitment to make application to rezone Lot `B' to the south to a lesser intensity than the existing "C-2" district within 30 days of the plat approval. The applicant has indicated to staff that it will be making application for the zoning change within that 30-day period. There are no issues specifically related to the plat. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0-1) on December 9, 1999, subject to the Plat Review Summary. Vice-Chairman Peebles Abstained. If the City Council or other interested parties have no issues regarding this request, this item could be considered as a consent item, subject to the Plat Review and the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 13 of 19 recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Contact Dennis Killough regarding this request. 21.Agenda Item No. 8D. Ordinance No. 717-B, 1" Reading, Amending Ordinances 717 and 717-A and Chapter 18, Article III, Section 18-79 of the Southlake City Code; designating the speed limit within Cross Timber Hills subdivision and Oak Tree Estates Addition as 25 mph. Homeowners Associations for these two subdivisions have requested the City to lower the speed limit on their streets to 25 MPH. The Public Works and Public Safety staffs have been working with these two subdivisions with increased enforcement and performing speed studies. Both Public Works staff and Public Safety staff are of the opinion that the 25 MPH speed limit will be appropriate in the two subdivisions. This is the same speed limit as previously approved in the subdivisions of Coventry Manor, Southridge Lakes, Timberlake and Country Walk. If you have any questions, please contact Charlie Thomas. 22.Agenda Item No. 8E. Ordinance No. 585-B, l' Reading, Amending Ordinance No. 585-A, Tree Preservation Ordinance. The tree preservation ordinance was originally adopted on June 15, 1993, and amended December 16, 1997. Councilmember Debra Edmondson met with Malcolm Jackson and Keith Martin on several occasions regarding recommended changes to enhance the provisions of the ordinance, and the proposed changes were presented as a discussion item to both the P&Z and City Council. A copy of the proposed ordinance was made available during a meeting with local developers, with one developer responding with suggestions. Based upon the information received, Ordinance 585-B was drafted and presented to P&Z at the December 9, 1999, meeting where it was approved to go to the City Council for the ls` reading. Questions about this item should be directed to Malcolm Jackson. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 14 of 19 23. Agenda Item No. 8F. Ordinance No. 480-II, l' Reading, Revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480 as amended, regarding regulations on carports, covered parking, and parking garages on non-residential property. This ordinance amendment proposes regulations for non-residential carports and garages. The Zoning Ordinance does not currently have any specific regulations for this type of use or structure within the non-residential districts. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) on November 18, 1999. Recommended changes during the Commission's approval and as discussed during the Joint P & Z/City Council work session have been incorporated into the ordinance and are shown in bold and italics. Please refer to the memo and proposed ordinance amendment included in your packet. If the City Council or other interested parties have no issues regarding this request, this item could be considered as a consent item. Contact Karen Gandy regarding this request. 24.Agenda Item No. 8G. Ordinance No. 480-JJ, 1' Reading, Revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, regarding the regulations on impervious coverage in the non-residential zoning districts, and correcting landscaping regulations in Ordinance No. 480 to remove any conflict with the provisions for Landscape Ordinance No. 544-A. This ordinance amendment will revise the impervious coverage regulations by removing the language that allows additional impervious coverage on a lot in exchange for increased bufferyard widths or increased landscape area. This amendment also will remove any conflicts with the current Landscape Ordinance No. 544-A. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 15 of 19 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) on November 18, 1999. Please refer to the memo and proposed ordinance amendment included in your packet. If the City Council or other interested parties have no issues regarding this request, this item could be considered as a consent item. Contact Karen Gandy regarding this request. 25.Agenda Item No. 9A. Resolution No. 00-04, Setting the dates for the public hearings related to water, wastewater, and roadway impact fees. Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code requires the City Council to formally "call" the required public hearing. This resolution will ensure our compliance with the law. Note that we already have begun to publish the required notices, and the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) is preparing its formal comments that are due on January 24. This item could be moved to the consent agenda following worksession if Council feels there are no unresolved issues. Please Note: We are planning a workshop on impact fees for Monday, January 24, to immediately follow the SPDC meeting. This will provide us with an opportunity to review the study with you so you will be prepared for the February 1 public hearing. Please let Shana Yelverton know if you have any questions about this item. 26.Agenda Item No. 10A. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement for Chesapeake Place. This developer agreement is the City's standard developer agreement covering public infrastructure improvements. The agreement also includes city participation in the downstream off-site drainage improvements in an Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 16 of 19 amount not to exceed $100,000. This participation was previously approved by the City Council in a partial developer agreement approved in 1999. The approved construction plans include a retention/detention pond within the subdivisions and drainage improvements under and across South Pearson Lane and west of South Pearson Lane. If you have any questions, please contact Charlie Thomas. 27.Agenda Item No. 10B. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement for Hart Industrial Park. Hart Industrial Park was platted in 1988. This developer agreement covers the construction of an 8" sewer line. This is the City's standard Developer Agreement. A park fee is not included because the final plat was (W approved prior to the ordinance that requires park land dedication. If you have any questions, please contact Charlie Thomas. 28.Agenda Item No. 10C. Carmel Bay Encroachment Agreement. When Carmel Bay Subdivision was originally constructed in the 1980s, a brick and metal entry and a screening fence were constructed within the public street right-of-way. The Carmel Bay Homeowners Association desires to reconstruct the entry and the fence within the street right-of-way. It has requested that the city approve an encroachment agreement for the entry and fence. If you have any questions, please contact Charlie Thomas. 29.Agenda Item No. 11A. Parkwood Drive Issues. Several concerned Timarron residents appeared before the City Council on December 7, 1999, during Public Forum and requested that the City Council consider abandoning the right-of-way and planned continuation and connection of Parkwood Drive to East Southlake Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 17 of 19 Boulevard. A memo, history and exhibit of this area are included in your packet. Potential legal issues will be addressed during Executive Session. Contact Karen Gandy regarding this issue. 30.Agenda Item No. 11B. Revision to subdivision regulations regarding park dedication requirements. These proposed revisions are being brought to Council (as we have done in the past with new or revised ordinance changes), in order to get your input and direction prior to going through the review and approval process. The proposed changes to park dedication requirements were initiated by Park Board member Bill Kemp, who researched ordinances in Plano and Flower Mound. The Park Board reviewed and recommended for approval the changes at its November 8, 1999, meeting. Essentially, the changes were proposed for the following (W reasons: • Require an earlier review of park dedication requirements in the planning process, and allow the Park Board more discretion in requiring alternatives (other land dedication, improvements, and/or fees) to the developer's proposal. • Establish an additional fee that is intended to finance the cost of improvements and development of neighborhood parks. • Establish a method whereby the City can enter into a development agreement and reimburse a developer for improvements and/or land accepted by the City that is in excess of the developer's requirements, based on a "reasonable cost" estimate. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 18 of 19 Some of the concepts have broad implications. One aspect that we need to be careful about is that there is what the lawyers call "a reasonable nexus." In other words, the park dedication requirements to a particular development must be reasonably associated with that development. We cannot, for example, require improvements by a developer to a particular neighborhood park that does not reasonably serve that new development. We have been careful to use park dedication fees when collected to purchase park land that is of benefit to the entire City, or for services related to the city parks. The current Parks Master Plan does not specify where neighborhood parks are to be located. This will be examined when we undertake our review of the Master Plan, although with other Master Plans, designation of specific land uses, can sometimes result in negative citizen response. In the absence of specific designations of park land in the Master Plan, we must be careful in dictating to a developer what is considered to be "acceptable" park land, in order to avoid getting into a "takings" situation. The other aspect to consider is that there are some financial implications for the City, especially in the reimbursement agreement language. When we enter into such an agreement, we will need to be able to earmark funds to reimburse the developer for that project. Given the recent review and approval of the new long- range Parks CIP, you are aware of the planned projects and the funding restraints we were under already in the SPDC fund. If the reimbursements to developers for excess park land and/or improvements are paid from SPDC funds, some projects that are planned may need to be shifted. Questions on the proposed revisions may be directed to Kevin Hugman or Chris �►r Carpenter. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 4, 2000 Page 19 of 19 31.Agenda Item No. 11C. Charter Review Committee. As discussed at your last meeting, this item has been placed on the agenda for discussion. The attached memo from Shelli Siemer describes the process we will follow should you wish to pursue a review. As she points out, Council may serve as the review committee or you may choose to appoint an independent committee. Please let Shelli Siemer know if you have any questions. BC Staff Extension Numbers: Bradley, Valerie, Assistant to the Public Works Director, ext. 773 Campbell, Billy, City Manager, ext. 701 Elam, Sharen, Finance Director, ext. 716 Gandy, Karen, Zoning Administrator, ext. 743 Harper, Ron, Public Works Director, ext. 779 Hugman, Kevin, Director of Community Services, ext. 757 Jackson, Malcolm, Chief of Building Operations, ext. 726 Killough, Dennis, Senior Planner, ext. 787 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, City Engineer, ext. 814 Wilson, Garland, Director of Public Safety, ext. 735 Yelverton, Shana, Assistant City Manager, ext. 705 M:\WD-FILES\Campbell\Meetings\99-10-19.doc City of Southlake, Texas January 6, 1999 DRC Meeting SUBMITTALS CASE DESCRIPTION 99-116 SITE PLAN Shady Oaks Centre Location: 521 West Southlake Boulevard, south of the intersection of Shady Oaks Drive and West Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709) Current Zoning: "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with certain"O-1" uses Applicant: CMPA, Inc. Owner: Paragon - Eagle 99-130 REZONING/SITE PLAN Quicktrip Location: On the southwest corner of the intersection of East Southlake Boulevard (FM 1709) and Commerce Street Current Zoning: "I-1" Light Industrial District Requested Zoning: "C-3" General Commercial District Applicant: Quicktrip Corporation Owner: James R. Stacy NEW SUBMITTALS CASE DESCRIPTION 99-139 SITE PLAN 114 Kimball Square Retail Center Location: On the northwest corner of the intersection of Northwest Highway (S.H. 114) and Shady Lane Current Zoning: "C-3" General Commercial District Owner and Applicant: 114 Kimball Square, Ltd. 99-140 PLAT SHOWING (STAFF REVIEW) Lot 1, Block 1, Corban Addition Location: On the northwest corner of the intersection of Northwest Highway (S.H. 114) and Shady Lane Current Zoning: "C-3" General Commercial District Owner and Applicant: 114 Kimball Square, Ltd. y 4 City of Southlake, Texas 99-141 REZONING Tract 5C, Hiram Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581 C, Location: On the east side of South White Chapel Boulevard, approximately 1600' north of East Continental Boulevard Current Zoning: "AG" Agricultural Requested Zoning: "RE" Residential Estate District Owner and Applicant: Ted and Lesley Holt 99-142 PLAT SHOWING (STAFF REVIEW) Lot 6, Hiram Granberry No. 581 Addition Location: On the east side of South White Chapel Boulevard, approximately 1600' north of East Continental Boulevard Current Zoning: "AG" Agricultural Owner and Applicant: Ted and Lesley Holt 99-143 SITE PLAN IHOP Restaurant Location: On the northwest corner of the intersection of Industrial Boulevard Northwest Parkway (S.H. 114) Current Zoning: "C-3" General Commercial District Owner: IHOP 1419, Inc. Applicant: Monsanto & Associates "t h Sara ors Ea le L.L. I. November 22, 1999 City of Southlake Re: Shady Oaks Centre Southlake Blvd. & Shady Oaks Drive Southlake, Texas To Whom It May Concern: The City traffic department has requested the developer to install their new drive approach for the above-referenced project at the new traffic light at Southlake Blvd. and Shady Oaks Drive in lieu of using the existing drive at the office building to the east. Dr. _ Tim Huckabee owns this drive and property to the east. (W�he City also requested that we contact Dr. Huckabee to work out the closing of his drive and his utilization of our new drive at the traffic light. We have since spoken with Dr. Huckabee and he informed us that he is 100% against closing his drive. We have asked Dr. Huckabee to give us his response in writing for submittal to the city. To date we have not received his written response. The City of Southlake further suggested to us that the cost for closing Dr. Huckabee's drive should be incurred by the new development owner. We feel strongly that Dr. Huckabee's drive has nothing to do with our development. It is not on the property of the new development, and therefore should not be the responsibility of the owners of Shady Oaks Centre. Sincerely, Billy . W lams Architect 17EC'� " J 1999 1450NughesRood,Sure 1X Gropenlie,Texas 7,051 Phone-817/.119-6600 fox—87714814834 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 30, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: James Kunke, Public Information Officer (Ext. 819) SUBJECT: Potential request to transfer city's cable franchise from Charter Communications to AT&T Cable Services, and announced cable rate increase. There are two cable television issues that need to be brought to Council's attention. The issues are related only in that they involve Charter Communications, but as you will see they are not connected in terms of possible Council action. The first issue is a rate increase announced by Charter Communications in a letter to the City dated Dec. 13, 1999. The increase is in the amount of$1.95 for combined basic and expanded basic service, and does reflect the addition of two channels to the expanded basic lineup. Also, the price for premium channels is increasing by 90 cents per month. This increase is set to take effect on Feb. 1, and is the first by Charter since 1998. Annaleslie Muncy has been given a copy of the letter to review. An attached cable rate comparison shows that Southlake's rate for basic cable service is the highest among all Charter Communications cities in Tarrant County, but the expanded basic cable rate is the lowest (the total for both services is the same in all the cities). The combined rate still will be the same for all cities after the increase. Please note that rates for area cities served by AT&T Cable Services could not be obtained in time to include in the chart but should be available for Council before Tuesday's meeting. The second issue is a request from Charter to transfer its cable franchise agreement to AT&T Cable Services. The formal request is expected by the end of January or early February. At that time the city will have 120 days to act on the request. This request is part of a larger deal between the two companies in which Charter is trading its Metroplex customers for AT&T's cable customers in the St. Louis area. It does impact all Charter customer cities in North Texas, so the Cable Consortium that formed during the franchise transfer from Marcus met again in December to discuss the latest change. There are 32 cities represented in the consortium. According to an assistant city attorney from Fort Worth, there are three options for cities once the transfer request is received: to refuse the transfer, to find legal grounds to cancel the franchise and go out for new RFPs, or to accept the transfer to AT&T (possibly with some negotiations). He cautioned that the first two could lead to legal action since AT&T has shown a willingness to sue cities over cable franchises in recent years. City Manager's Report—Cable issues Dec.30,1999 Page 2 The City of Fort Worth has expressed a willingness to again take the lead in any joint negotiations or legal action, if needed. Southlake's Council needs to decide on a course of action before we know whether we will be working within the consortium again this time. Specific items to keep in mind: • The current franchise has among the highest liquidated damages for poor service of any cable franchise in the country. If the cities try to renegotiate the franchise with AT&T, the company likely will try to reduce or remove this portion of the contract. • There is no clause in the franchise specifically prohibiting transfer of the contract to another cable company, so legal grounds would have to be found if the cities tried to oppose the transfer. • This might be a chance to solicit concessions on "open access" for Internet Service Providers to lease use of the cable lines. AT&T has been opposed to this concept in the past, but recently issued a press release announcing that it would begin working toward open access in the cities it serves. (FYI: Open access means other companies could pay AT&T to provide internet service through existing cable lines, similar to open access telephone service.) • Specific to Southlake, this might be a chance to negotiate on the use of home descrambler boxes and/or for wiring of Town Hall, although reopening negotiations could be risky as described above. � 00 •Y O 69 V E 3 a N O = cVi Cd GV7 nr .-r C C O� O\ D\ O� 0\ O� O O� w O C M N o U a � a o a Os6s o � ., � O y l0 N •O. 'L? p * s � * * at +� * * it t # * w at• a 'O � O .a: O � � R CJ N N P N �R. .-• 00 .-� 00 00 .� 00 .• 00 .•i 00 w .-• 00 Z j Z r N N C 69 69 69 69 69 6s 69 69 69 69 6R 6R 69 69 69 69 ` w rC. V ^' O 'C3 y O O 4 a� G 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 E o 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 N 8 a V 6s 69 69 69 69 W1 64 69 0; V QG V 69 69 N v [ N U c � a Cd v v v v v My Ed ❑ qtT 0 o R o oq R o 6M9 6M9 66e 6M9 6M9 666 6M4) 664 CQ Q 6N9 664 w o �V+ C = 0 O O O O O N O O •� G = q p O N O O O O O . O: O O y l— o0 N N N N N en N N V vs O 0 O O N V M M enM M tM en M M �' V V M cn V69 69 69 69 69 66 69 69 C V V � 69 GO) V R .O O O O A O W) 4. V yam" �w. y �•• 4. V q .-+ .� -. .� �.. r. -. E C y C z 00 00 00 00 DO 00 00 00 •� Z .RC 3 .� V'1 u z 4 U V O M qtT O h tn O t. v) N 00 M in 1/7 N R R N N N N a N N 0 cc C � O R R R ^ •"' 69 69 69 V+ 6 69 69 69 s 69 K k �� W " W W h y h zM M M M M M M M z � zsN U V U .� � t -I O vv' yci y cod Co cc 0 0 0 ri y IxR o, o V 69 6s 69 6s 69 9 64 69 �ci 69 69 " — Nocc >, (Aw' w° a �" � ° v w c bA C7 Hcd F' w Cd z C-+ e U � a CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 1% SALES TAX REPORT - 1999 00 collected budget balance budget to date balance percent $ 3,569,839 $ 610,847 $2,958,992 82.89% FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc MONTH 97-98 -Dec 98-99 -Dec 99-00 -Dec October $237,164 46.5% $310,767 31.0% 310,517 -0.1% November 193,664 43.1% 206,887 6.8% 300,330 45.2% December 163,871 42.4% 188,493 15.0% January 266,437 34.0% 313,831 17.8% February 168,914 34.4% 199,573 18.2% March 160,147 52.9% 194,635 21.5% April 215,299 18.0% 311,919 44.9% May 217,760 42.7% 257,679 18.3% June 200,233 16.5% 249,323 24.5% July 2.74,072 22.4% 346,698 26.5% August 224,126 21.2% 245,730 9.6% September 200,169 15.1% 242,010 20.9% TOTAL $2,521,857 30.6% $3,067,546 21.6% $610,847 Actual Budget Actual Estimated (budget-est.) % Month 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 1999-00 Difference Change October $310,767 $356,984 $310,517 $ 310,517 $ (46,467) -13.02% November 206,887 246,319 300,330 300,330 54,011 21.93% December 188,493 214,190 - 214,190 - January 313,831 364,124 - 364,124 - February 199,573 239,179 - 239,179 - March 194,635 224,900 - 224,900 - April 311.919 371,263 - 371,263 - May 257,679 307,006 - 307,006 - June 249,323 292,727 - 292,727 - July 346,698 385,543 - 385,543 - August 245,730 285,587 - 285,587 - September 242,010 282,017 - 282,017 - $ 3,067,546 $ 3,569,839 $ 610,847 $ 3,577,383 $ 7,544 0.25% 16.37% 16.62% �v I V H L O C� ON w CIO � ♦, � M 60 y �_ a k / m ■ �a-) $ 2 � ) 0 ( I ƒ R / D E � § j 2a � 2Co e E _¥ £ E a) 0) \ / I � � � f 2 � r o § OL £ m U- EE \ : qq / & E k ° k E m % m / k n 2 \ ± C $ em c Lo 0 @ q CL 3 Q CL 0m ~ 2om a_ a) CL0 k $ £ k 2 £ 2 kCD f § � / / / 2 � LU Ua " 2 � k kCL v § � = @ ko c k= k f > ®§ �( ( ko k /%k2 /CL c CL b0 m m o (D = � � � C: Z cn k � > �� 0 E XIk0 — U) $ / \ / k 2 a c — 2 � u ¥ £ £ ® o � LE ® o C _ / 2 £ m = 5 � ; > £ _ f / « = 2 o - 2k % f / 2 � $ k / mj 0 � £ 2 �m5 .� / —Cu o E � � / CD0) UQ £ < — -9 - E 7C q - a) E g f m 0 .a) / �o ° § / 22 / o / E E § 0.0 N S / E 0 - � °\ in ƒ kk kcu q 6'3 C07g �00N N « w I!)to If1 IA lA IA In } � pp � T O�fO� Q CD V! � 0 � 880800p�p (O (pNV� Y 7 8O�A C7 r- C14 pR ��Wpp O O� 00 OOQ Mp W M (MNN � �N f7 N M d) O�;Q O I OR at co V d OL6O iA V Q C N N CO C7I �r-�CR � a grn�igig S CA Cl)lA� CII N W I�N f7 Of n C7 pN M-7epN M N M t! N O N U) L 0) 'coo z � 0 § 8 8 �� g p Q O� d (hNM - N f0 N fWf i gal ggggg y c'� r -� wLL CC6� 000 0 Q = « ~ a �co C � W � � ggggg d h N IA IL A 41 C?NN y S'00�0 N 0 ov:0U,0L6 L6 Q� CL a. a T00 y E E e coV n� C7Y j C 2 C A M O � O C y z � _ '� YYYY0 ygzmmma o mzzz~ O C�J J J J C J Q w w w J 0 �0000¢ O O a J J J?J >J 0 zaaaa0 0 a �cnWa:a:a:0 x0 � a d wwww � w LL ww LL wF- a~� O L a CD += O to 0 W 06 O � O ^U+ Y CV W C T � O U O >%CC) _ U O � 00 CCCO O O MCA O 00 C� Cy Q1. N l< 0 O N 00 O co 0 � co � U � O a 0 N 0 ^ 0 s C O O � g u •� m o G s `o e4i n N N C d�9 H H H H H O � o N N G) J O c 1 GOD G7 O f") d W r d V L d a a N 3 T co d V M O fA o U) 7 r W N T G1 0 m o O O) O . r N N O O O O OO M :2 C', > N 7 N O V1 In O 4 O O O O O M Y N N ••• •-• 00 M M O A O O O O oe 00 00 � N CD 00 00 1� Qj M d 9 C � I-1 N d 00 00 � 'm N . N z ° 0 U O O O o p O o 0 o O 0 o 0 0 0 0 00 00 'IT c o .Nr M 00 7.� O enF. d o 0 C 0 � � L J (? M eh (7� �0 3 O M V � o d 7 N M O O O O 00 00 M M 00 O M O 0- M M M 6 O �O �O Cl Ol M .� lO �n N O 00 N N l' � O O O N O S^„ �1 '� 00 0000 C14O\ O O N O O N O 0 0� Oro en M Oi C\ O O 00 � p O � N (V ..r W 00 M M N W z A Q A COD COD C4 � Zozoz F oo Z y a N 00 Q q N '��' W z 4 z 00 z Q z V} pOo0o0o Qo Fdi' � �n F' Oo0000o00 U ]"• d x d x U z N e e abi oyn C7 ` `" o 0 o �q e d oq C7 p Ww � WOWOW Ia o° 04 o opo � X000 d � � Q � A:° QoA �c q >S' o Wwo W ow - wen Qw7wvi Wviwvi ¢ dF UF �' FviF �nFri ¢ y r3-? 00 0 b O C7 M M yy L N N M �olr G cn Men en en O� Cn Cn O' 40 o ~ � a U c � z 0 U o 0 0 a o, In In Qo o o ✓ ,�'O m a 0 0 U N N n a vl Vl Y7 e e (71 r con N N h O� �y O O v�l .fir N Veq Ni N 1� O >u g as C.) en WL � l� iJ as Gn X C., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D y H A A A A A A U U U U U U � q� z z OIR 000 0Qo 0ROo�o0cs 0 0 0 0 0 zAzAzA ZMZAzA dd' o ° XW(� o00 >W�, WWC000 WX05WC000DWWG -_ � F � E-� vM � �-i � � E- vi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 O O O O O O a R � Ao o o 0 0 3 ea e U t� W v, L A xQ 4 4 � 4 4 4 ao 0 o v� o 0 o w L o o o 7 h N c r O 00 Y Obi O O O O O N (4) 00 C1 nM Q 0 00 0 o o o G O •W h OC 7 l- 00 O . Oho 00 C`4 N �? [—' N00 O 0 7 O R h IT m r- 0000 O A 00 00 fV N 1 a s O� o $ o $ ^' CO 0o0 M M 7 vi O Vl 0000 (71 a vi � vi rrr 00 0 �.'t� enO� O Ma �j a o oeo o h .. �— 0000 O T w h 1...� F 11) M M O O N Ooo O 00 d 5gagoqo � � moo N a g o 0 0 o a o 000 ti qFaN ` � cn �C� Q ' or' oono o on z z z a a a O Qaq� o � o� oFao Wzo U x c x c x c z C d O c O` 3 CZW7A w A A c ww �`` TO704 o O OOR ago v vi vi iri vi IT v m « « = N N N N Q., A R O � O N O 0000 I,- N ong 00 of 0 co Y 7 O co ) O 'R 00 cob C) N 00> N OM W CO) N N - N a M m co (3r N 00 0 (M (°) tOj C LO V Cl) {'7 Q � � N d 0 �T N 0 ` 0 O (Dn (Oo C � a 0TTT0 O t 9pp � � N ONO O f 0 A Y 7 OONMONO � a0 (D )ff m > 0O) �)[iqs�Cp7 M 7 m O T O O O O f MN M N M R N 00 r000 R O m tp Z a+ O t b ID It 00 M t O 00 o n Cl) (0 v � U oTOoo(- a (No O d M N M N M Z � 0NN000 OT it) 'TA 00)o00 COI) U C � a ornoo0 �. a W > N O 00000 0 000 0 V O Q (`0 00000 J � d o0000 U MMM-- H T 0g9CONO9 OIO o O 0) W C) 0) W y �f O) C) 0) 'mcp a7 CV thnA m l0 NN9 y O O o 0 0 C OOOOO.pp 0 (D 06 00) C) ONO ONO O av lei Uiu'iv a U 01 m Nn0f p p O (0— ' � inn coU vni m NM ('7 � O z C F- O v U)U)0 CO CO °a .Zr zmmm0 U � •° mzzz0 c 0 t) V Cf gJ JJJwww� m J Mm " 2m2 Ea U. �DOOOQ O �M- mxmz m Q z q J q J J J 19 O0 0 0 0 d 0 - LLLLLLLLFu-J aF- F- City of South lace, Texas MEMORANDUM I December 28, 1999 To: Billy Campbell. City Manager From: Ron Harper, Director of Public Works Subject: Authorize award of bids for Masonry, Ceramic Tile, Painting, Acoustical Panels, Carpet, Toilet Compartments and Operable Partitions and to reject bids for Handrails. Action Requested: Authorize the award of bids for various sub-trades for the construction of Town Hall. Background Information: The City opened bids for eight construction elements of the Town Hall project on December 21, 1999. One of these was the re-bid of the Masonry work that had been rejected on December 7, 1999. Several items need further explanation. Masonry - The re-bid of this item resulted in a savings of $590,750. The new bid is within the original estimate. Painting - The painting bid is over estimate by $111,033 due to the extensive millwork proposed. The funds are available in the project contingency account. Operable Partitions - These partitions are located in the conference area on the third floor. This item is considered FF&E and will be paid for out of the approved FF&E funds. Handrails - The original estimate for handrails is $142,200. The lone bid came in at $250,532. The architect and construction manager both believe that savings can be realized if this item is re-bid with material alternatives. Staff recommends that the bid for Handrails be rejected. Financial Considerations: The individual bid tabulation for each project is attached. Staff is recommending that 7 projects be awarded for a total of$2,623,284. The estimate for these projects is $2,457,677. The Town Hall Building budget will fund $2,599,184 and the FF&E budget will fund $24,100. SR-1 This project is still anticipated to be within budget. Attached is an Overall Budget Analysis sheet that reflects this information. Citizen Input! Board Review: None. Legal Review: None. Alternatives: Council can approve or reject award of bids as recommended by staff. Supporting Documents: Bid Tabulations Overall budget Analysis Bid Award Summary Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that this item be placed on the January 4, 1000 agenda. Staff recommends that all bids be awarded as described and that the Handrail bid be rejected and that staff be instructed to re-bid the item. ARon r of Public Works Approved for Submittal to City Council: City Manager's Office fir M:\WD-FILES\Bids for Town Hall.memo.doc cu IV c O O J O K G O O 0 0 0 0 O U O O O O V O O O O O O'O O O O O 00 10 O O O O O C ID (4tkw 0: O ? O 7 at 1D n m to LQ ? Iq > N 1 O m m z m m m C. m m N N m m T O p m O - w < OJ p Z O m df w H W �A N V3 fA eP. H w H A w to V3 w Mi H O O yj oQ 7 p J � r m a6 m p S O. J J J J Z J J _ ail N Z Z Z Z Z (1) — w w H J w..N O O o O O O O O O O O O O o O0.0 0 O O pp C p O p O O O O O O o O Y O O O O 8 O o O O'O O O ;w'ol !o. �O of o o I'�� (AILq ctIIv o 2 as 16 'gy m w;c O) c0 lh m N I N vi H o � Z•y w T - ; I , O W I IZ m pl W Lu Z I 'Z I� ylWl. U J J a m'ZI 0 O IZ a I F.wl,�i Fw„I1.co)' _ 1 �,1� #, I� a olz Z ZI O Z. .2, ',m N' j p_ I,Z u) H;H W 'U' , I ICI-I J J a W _ CO N'V Y Imo' U �� : yla'a ;ply OI m 7 0 z z',z.a W p a ��ca��aa a �Iv wl algl a � m. IF-lO QI Q KII Lu laI �m 012 0;0 ' , Iz 'Cul Nw i LL:u) W > O) ad zw I z< aii0 z W W j w - Z WIZlz O'ala W ON Ua z U am OWlN -evi;I! C9 a O O O O O o�, N N p''�N O O0' p �O N f-- O O;O O O. O1 Of .01 O O O O O OI O O 10 o- m �i0i O O�O' O O Oc J' to 8.T o of a �,��m o o o � I. m e a cO N m J m C') 1� O N f") O) M F, O NFU O) V �N n O10 O O'N O ImIcy �I�!� �n .v ice. GA I N wNIN� w H HI 'IHw' ':H w w!w''wpw �w' H F N N O O O O ON O O O S po n I��' n i -O I NiI`O]':W Of o �,. ''.w w w w w w •wl w H �wlw�� w I H Z LL LL N (n LL O) W:fN fn N fn u) J J J J J J J O O N F W O _LL Z O� N d w p m O z w 0 LL W Z ~UII Q�c BZY W I z! a W 0: ?z C1. ui LL'l I ° �tt,la,a a wlo< rp Jlz iL wa < U > o h U U y w z , pa~.I, 5B-3 rn _ rn rn o 0 o c o N U o to to•, � o Z o -W 0 .3 O O m U)i 0 w w m J O C m Z U U O = o o n o 6 tri J h Ic v a a v t' z ww LU a o p p Y' U m Z Z O J O' u W ww w'.w w' ww.ww w 0 0 0 0I, 1 0 c J Lu 7 7 ' �{`�') O 'cn N °b 1'� W W;W Ito LL Z 'p'p !�. O 'Jim N U U i li W W �, a ca I 1 H- LL U c H I m LO�IQ' p Ix w',O m O 01.2, � ZI,�IH N' w U C- t 4 J'�I '1¢ Z 3>1 N OI_I� z1. N I,, H x.,pi xx I} Oi X10 IJ N _ w'a a' alw di of U1 a O w lw,w Q',O O: O ¢',OIJ x, O F U O LL m m '� U 1 LL m Iol N o o o o s o N 0 QI a'. O N N'N U) Qi I '. w w-w w w.w w'Go UI c N 1 Z J J J J J J J Z p J Q J K ,W w W V �.m 0 J w 'w.w �,� m U O LL y to F 5B-4 s 0) O O O O N � M oM � � o Z r� a H N 1 N N z Q iL y w w w Y 0 0 of a a z z zI pa = - n z n V> 6 609, to w G ~' } a' z' m�Q a o>> w z N fn 0 N' Vi >+ H IC) N m,W Fa-IZ m C = !n J Z J Q w W!o i <1CL w, Q m OiLLlva)IM j0; O < O lo o of C J 'o of v r U') -i U') O d HI oU U' N fQ cu 161% 64s ICI a c 3o HI oo; o f- Cl) to of a) U, " � m N L_ Z 7 Z; J J! J -J i J�, Z' Q z Q z w Iw!Qi W! Inlw, C9'', 1 _! (o;� J ui w o a w w wJlz �' >!w Ql0 10 ml F Ow`cn:m I ►- 5B-5 0) J O J O I C N Cl) O aC O .r-- ap U'1 COID ycl) M w w W H } p p N W W J D J J J m Z 7 Z - - i W 00 , Q i b9 69 f9 W tA '.fA N' O 0I LLi I m Z a }IOj =; o 1.1, U .� cm Q 2 �. O Z Z Z O XX m J J W N iW WI, W IWO Q ZIZI c QIQ Qi> wQ O O LL d IOio! o 0 0' O O OI o, o 0 0 01 o 0 0 U J oloi o' n n O O 0 NI;O N' 'n m Q ~ ^I cm a f0 2 H 0O100, o' N F00 V o.o S N O' N Y Z 6e w w ea ea 409. U9. fn L O I � ry co n N 0 O w f N m O N C N Q Y O = m U J O U Z j O j z10 W IJ J �,W Q-a'. Z IW WZiQ m a s a'O LL m'm o 5B-6 T o o S c5 u ri o N rO o o r N U v v rn h Octn o in a0 Z O N N O � CO C7 w O O O O O p N O 0 LL O O w w U � 0 ¢ � U U H Z Z Z O U � 2 ¢ 2 y es) 69 69 h9 EA Ef? fHl 69 69 69 to O O o o O O O c00 N IQ co n ' (OD [OOD Vr N'^' Z R O w'w w LL O D 0 0 F- U,U U . O ZZI Z AL: y c, c9 C ¢ ,69'�fA'� 69 69, M i ,to. '�,69 '. ' 'I fA p m f- G ZI 0, U C _ y >' m O�.z O l 4m d U 0 w N•N w co ',OJ IDp RiR F O,, ¢X cmUIU U 0 LL', m w,w d' w iz a� I(L R �i w o ¢ w.w� ¢ o ¢ ¢' alw' wj> w'¢'o 'o, �il�j�j o d U,UI mi LL m U o o c o 0 J o'ol n o r = O c CC C N O V N 3 O o H m 69 69 40 69 » v9. 69 Y L f/) q i c 7 O' O O' o O O O q] C O N'O iH fA I:. to b9 09 69 fA 69 Z J J J J J J J J Z I V Z 0 Z r M N w 0 w U) U U O 0' co ¢ ww w 'Z Wli' ~ � (n J m U U V w w>>''w < 0 'O 5B-7 c� rn 6 0 0 6 oI o cv w m (Q rn o C') o H Cl) N J Q W 0- c c w w c c J U U } w Z N � cC fie sv ws '69'sv rA � j I co m ` cn 1- O H W W Y z z•. W U U) m O ' di U LU W m rn Z:Qi adi U�, M!CL M �' U N NIU'F- W Q. U N IWIYII D m V1 =�IU O, 0; xxI m O,OI z zIQ QI L F-IJ, F-I Q W FI T Q',Q' W WIm fnIQ Q W J'W z H, cr O >'w Qi0 10, i2i LLi F O LLI(AImp W I��S III ' ' Io III; III ) O O; O. I lf) I mo' J 0 I E 0 <n Ivy O��N ccl+J '. O y ? O O O ht9 i.,/A IA di Vi IA N b9 wk N a� a U o',o 0 Q C T cn � Z L" = C4 fA fA V. 69 dl:i 4a VA 6 co a o ~ N <n o wju)lw cn C -- a� co L O U rn U) F. C/)' z Z LU mQ O U cc ,� W Q U 'M of Q O m = T- m U) Y F- O'O z z'0 H J W F Q,• C9 Q Q W W,M to 0 J j wiw L o LLIl<:0 IQ m �' LL F'O U. m F 5B-8 rn rn o of o N o co cn N N W ' H } p p y w w p p Q J U V Z m Z Z Z - W Q ' cry 6C, va 2 O LL y m�Zi N � ai0li c O, a N ° LL, p e�Ic� m Ix co i c z ¢; w g cn W W cn d JI m �Zjw w �'Z is O0 LL � m OI O i co 0 0 0 a. w Q M act O m ol O v� efl vs rn vs rA m H 2 c o LQ o V o F ~ N to N9 ). N9 (n Z; u):U1, J J.J J I }, ,.-ice, •- •- I I Z Q ' CY O O U O O J LL G W IX N.0 -� I w W Q W -1 H m a O' LL cQ m O�, 5B-9 SOUTHLAKE TOWN HALL-OVERALL BUDGET 'ANALYSIS 12/29/99 - - BID PACKAGE DESCRIPTION BUDGET _ BUDGET CONTRACT TOTAL CONTRACT ACCEPTED ALTS.W/ _ TOTAL LOW BID TOTAL ADO ALTS. CONTING. STREET CLEANING $21,000 $21,000 HOISTING/CRANE/EQUIPMENT $50,000 $50,000 PERIMETER PROTECTION $25,000 $25,000 - - DUMPSTERS - - - - -- - - $25,000 $25,000 DUST PROTECTION $38,000 $38,000 - - -------FLOOR ---- OPENING PROTECTION $7,600 $7,600 TEMPORARY NIND_OW'PROTECTION 612,500 _ _ $12,500 CAST STONEPROTECri6N $9,625 $9,625 CLEAN EXTERIOR SKIN $4,111 $4,111 BELOW GRADE WATERPROOFING $13,340 $15,000 $15,000 SIGNAGE_ $12,521 ----- S12,52' Wi GDN W TREATMENT $-19,536 $19,536 EXCAVATION $126,345 $109,101 $109,101 CONCRETE&FORMING $882,259 $989,7301 $989,730 ELEVATORS $148,920 $131,100 $131,100 ELEVATOR PROTECTION&OPERATOR $45,800, $45,800 STEEL $1,063,313' $933,846 $933,846 UNDERSLAB PLUMBING $53,705' $51,3281 $51,328', UNDERSLAB ELECTRICAL $17.3271 $15,0001 $15,000' BRICK-SUPPLY ONLY $114,250' $126,025 $126,025 BRICK PROTECTION 2 400 j2&92 552, 2 400 2 644 223 GYPSUM BOARD/CEILING SYSTEMS $821,315; $783,853 $783,853 1 $3,6281 GLAZING SYSTEMS $376,434 $310,840 $310,840 MECHANICAUPLUMBING SYSTEMS $1,197,5801 $1.178,5331 $1,178,533 1 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS $761,409 $764,617''; $764,617 $65,0291 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS $118,435: $102,0471 $102,047 SCAFFOLDING SYSTEMS $162,500 $145,2041 $145,204 METAL STAIRS $223,584, $202,952'1, $202,952. FIBER REINFORCED POLY $51,000 $46,354'i $46,354' BUILT-UP METAL ROOFING $204,113 $188,4171 $188,417 1 EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM $65.280 $63,2001 $63,200 JOINT SEALANTS $68,340 $64,300 $64,300 DOORS,FRAMES,&HARDWARE $255,267 $363,700' $363,700 L FINISH CARPENTRY&MILLWORK $678,629 $966,910 $966,910 $42,332 TERRAZZO FLOORING 155 766', 139 6521 $143, JIA3 535, 44621 $5,260 MASONRY&CAST STONE $1,998,350' $1,979,650 $1,979,6501 $47,60011 CERAMIC TILE $53,221 $59,160 $59,160 PAINTING&VINYL WALLCOVERING $173,134 $284,167' $284,167 $7,030: ACOUSTICAL WALL PANELS $50,000 $86.817 $86,817 $38,636' CARPET&RESILIENT BASE $129.967 $159,690' $159.690 METAL TOILET COMPARTMENTS &. ACCESSORIES, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS &I CABINETS 32 335 IZA26 807 JZ2 000', 29 000 2 599 1841', HANDRAILS $142,200 $142,200 I SUBTOTAL $10,411,211 $10,294,776 $10,710,069 -- CONTINGENCY JIZ8 889 179 931 lIZ9--9311 $209,515 $389,446 CONSTRUCTION BUDGET $10,890,000 $10,890,000 $10,747,800' OVER/UNDER $0 L 5B-10 Town Hall Bid Award Summary ITEM LONV BIDDER Masonry Texas Stone & Tile $1,979,650 Ceramic Tile Dupont Flooring 59,160 Painting Burns & Park Painting 284,167 Acoustic Wall Panels Haden Building Systems 86,817 Carpet Dupont Flooring 159,690 Toilet Compartments University building 26,700 Specialties Operable Partitions Haden Building Systems 24,100 L M:\WD-FILES\Bids for Town Hall.memo.doc SR_11-1 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 30, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Garland Wilson, Director of Public Safety (Ext. 730) SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to enter into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for ambulance service between Denton County and the City of Southlake. Action Requested: City Council approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for ambulance service between Denton County and the City of Southlake. Background Information: The City of Southlake provides twenty-four (24) hour emergency medical service for the residents of Southlake. We are also called upon to respond to our surrounding cities for mutual aid. This is a reciprocal agreement with our neighboring agencies. This contract is for mutual aid in the county and will not affect our coverage or response in Southlake. For the Interlocal Agreement to apply, the call must take place in the unincorporated area of Denton County. Currently, the City of Southlake does not have unincorporated areas in Denton County. Historically, this contract has not produced significant revenues, however, the Interlocal Agreement does provide direction and structure in the event we answer calls in Denton County. Financial Considerations: This agreement provides financial reimbursement for calls outside the corporate city limits of Southlake. Citizen Input/ Board Review: No citizen input has been received. Not subject to any Board review. Legal Review: This agreement has been reviewed and approved by City Attorney Debra Drayovitch. Alternatives: Decline the agreement and not respond to calls in Denton County. This does not affect our response to calls inside incorporated cities. Supporting Documents: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for ambulance service between Denton County and the City of Southlake. SC-1 Billy Campbell December 30, 1999 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Place the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for ambulance service between Denton County and the City of Southlake on the January 4, 2000 City Council meeting agenda for approval. GW/bls Approved for Submittal to City Council: Al,L 11— ity tanager's Office 5C-2 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF DENTON ) INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT AMBULANCE SERVICE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 311999, by and between DENTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, hereinafter referred to as "County" and the "CITY OF SOUTHLAKE", a municipality located in Denton and Tarrant County, Texas,hereinafter referred to as "City." WHEREAS, County is a duly organized political subdivision of the State of Texas engaged in the administration of county government and related services for the benefit of the citizens ; and WHEREAS, City is a municipality engaged in the provision of ambulance service and related services for the benefit of the citizens of Denton County; and WHEREAS, City is an owner and operator of certain ambulance vehicles and other equipment designed for the transportation of persons who are sick, infirm, or injured and has in its employ such trained personnel whose duties are related to the use of such vehicles and equipment; and WHEREAS, County desires to obtain emergency medical services rendered by City, as more fully hereinafter described for the benefit of the residents of Denton County, Texas; and WHEREAS, the provision of emergency medical services is a governmental function that serves the public health and welfare and is of mutual concern to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, County and City mutually desire to be subject to the provisions of V.T.C.A. Government Code, Chapter 791, the Interlocal Cooperative Act, V.T.C.A. Health and Safety Code, Section 774.003 and other applicable statutes and contracts pursuant thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, County and City for the mutual consideration hereinafter stated, agree as follows: i INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT 1999-00 DENTONY COUNTY - CITY OF SOUTHLARE 5C-3 I. The effective date of this agreement shall be the 1 st day of October, 1999. H. The term of this agreement shall be for the period of October 1, 1999 to and through September 30, 2000. Each party may terminate this agreement by giving the other party written notice of intent to terminate sixty(60) days after receipt of such notice. in. As used herein, the words and phrases hereinafter set forth shall have the meanings as follows: A. "Emergency" shall mean any circumstance that calls for immediate action and in which the element of time in transporting the sick, wounded or injured for medical treatment is essential to the health or life of a person or persons. Whether the aforementioned circumstances in fact exist is solely up to the discretion of the City. For dispatch purposes only, "emergency" f shall include,but not be limited to: f 1. The representation by a person requesting ambulance service that an immediate need exists for such service for the purpose of transporting a person from any location to a place of treatment and emergency medical treatment is thereafter administered; and 2. The representation by a person requesting ambulance service that an immediate need exists for such service for the purpose of transporting a person from any location to the closest medical facility; B. "Rural area" means any area within the boundaries of Denton County, Texas, and without the corporate limits of all incorporated cities,towns and villages within said County. C. "Urban area" means any area within said County, within the corporate limits of an incorporated city, town or village. D. "Emergency ambulance call' means a response to a request for ambulance service by the personnel of City in a situation involving an emergency (as such word is hereinabove 2 INTBRLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT 1999-00 DENTONY COUNTY - CITY OF SOUTHLARE 5C-4 defined) through the instrumentality of an ambulance vehicle. Within the meaning hereof, a single call might involve the transportation of more than one person at a time. IV. A. Services to be rendered hereunder by City are ambulance services normally rendered by City under circumstances of emergency as hereinabove defined to citizens of County. B. THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, Fire Services shall respond to the requests for ambulance services made within its designated area of the County, as set out in exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference. C. It is recognized that the officers and employees of City have duties and responsibilities which include the rendering of ambulance services and it shall be the responsibility and within the sole discretion of the officers and employees of City to determine priorities in the dispatching and use of such equipment and personnel and the judgment of any such officer or employee as to any such matter shall be the final determination. V. The County shall designate the County Judge to act on behalf of County and to serve as "Liaison Officer" between County and City. The County Judge or his designated substitute shall insure the performance of all duties and obligations of County herein stated, devote sufficient time and attention to the execution of said duties on behalf of County in full compliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement and provide supervision of County's employees, agents, contractors, sub-contractors and/or laborers, if any, in the furtherance of the purposes, terms and conditions of this agreement for the mutual benefit of County and City. VI. City shall ensure the performance of all duties and obligations of City as hereinafter stated, devote sufficient time and attention to the execution of said duties on behalf of City in full compliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement and shall provide immediate and direct supervision of the City employees, agents, contractors, sub-contractors and/or laborers, if 3 INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT 1999-00 DENTONY COUNTY - CITY OF SOUTHLARE 5C-5 any, in the furtherance of the purposes, terms and conditions of this agreement for the mutual benefit of City and County. VII. For the services hereinabove stated, County agrees to pay to Provider a fee of $261.00 based on a funding formula as follows: First, the readiness sum is .664 per capita based on population, for a maximum of $261.00 Second, a sum of $444.00 per ambulance run, for a maximum of$0.00. This sum is based upon the number of runs made by Provider in fiscal year 1999. Third, a fixed sum based on size of covered rural area, for a maximum of$0.00. The first and third sums are based upon population and mileage figures obtained from the North Central Texas Council of Governments. The second sum is based upon the definition of an ambulance call for purposes of this agreement. An ambulance call is defined as treatment and transport of a patient to a medical facility. Payment shall not be allowed for instances in which a patient is not transported. Consistent with the reporting procedures described below, the Provider transporting the patient shall receive payment, regardless of the service delivery area in which the call originated. Requests for payment shall be submitted on the standardized ambulance transportation reporting form approved and provided by the County, accompanied by copies of patient admission/registration forms as provided by a hospital or medical facility. It shall be the responsibility of the Provider to fully complete the forms and to provide complete and accurate patient information. Requests for payment shall be submitted timely; that is, within five (5) days of the performance of service by the Provider. Requests not timely submitted shall not be considered for payment. Requests for payment may be submitted by personal delivery, U.S. mail, facsimile, or computer telephone link to the office of the Denton County Fire Marshal. The date of submission shall be the date the fully documented request is received in said office. INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT 1999-00 4 DENTONY COUNTY - CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 5C-6 VIII. County agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, negligence and/or omissions of all County's officers, employees and agents. IX. City agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, negligence and/or omissions of all City's officers, employees and agents. X. In the event of any default in any of the covenants herein contained, this agreement may be forfeited and terminated at either parry's discretion if such default continues for a period of ten (10) days after notice to the other parry in writing of such default and intention to declare this agreement terminated. Unless the default is cured as aforesaid, this agreement shall terminate as if that were the day originally fixed herein for the expiration of the agreement. XI. This agreement may be terminated at any time by either party giving sixty (60) days advance notice to the other party. In the event of such termination by either party, City shall be compensated pro rata for all services performed to termination date, together with reimbursable expenses then due and as authorized by this agreement. In the event of such termination, should City be overcompensated on a pro rate basis for all services performed to termination date and/or be overcompensated reimbursable expenses as authorized by this agreement, then County shall be reimbursed pro rata for all such overcompensation. Acceptance of such reimbursement shall not constitute a waiver of any claim that may otherwise arise out of this agreement. XII. The fact that County and City accept certain responsibilities relating to the rendering of ambulance services under this agreement as a part of their responsibility for providing protection for the public health makes it imperative that the performance of these vital services be recognized as a governmental function and that the doctrine of governmental immunity shall be, and it is hereby, invoked to the extent possible under the law. Neither City nor County waives s INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT 1999-00 DENTONY COUNTY - CITY OF SOUTHLAKE SC-7 nor shall be deemed hereby to waive any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against claims arising from the exercise of governmental powers and functions. XIII. This agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and County and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and/or agreements, either written or oral. This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both parties. XIV. This agreement and any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Xv. In the event that any portion of this agreement shall be found to be contrary to law, it is the intent of the parties hereto that the remaining portions shall remain valid and in full force and effect to the extent possible. XVI. The undersigned officer and/or agents of the parties hereto are the properly authorized officials and have the necessary authority to execute this agreement on behalf of the parties hereto and each party hereby certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions extended said authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. 6 INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT 1999-00 DENTONY COUNTY - CITY OF SOUTHLARE 5C-8 r EXECUTED in duplicate originals,this the day of 11999. COUNTY CITY DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 110 WEST HICKORY 667 NORTH CARROLL DENTON,TEXAS 76201 SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 By BY Kirk Wilson City Manager Denton County Judge Acting on behalf of and by Acting on behalf of and by the authority of DENTON COUNTY the authority of the City of Commissioners Court of SOUTHLAKE, Texas Denton County,Texas. ATTEST: ATTEST: BY: BY: Ccynthia Mitchell City Secretary Denton County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Assistant District Attorney Deputy Director, Fire Services APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Denton County Fire Marshal 7 INTSRLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT 1999-00 DENTONY COUNTY - CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 5C-9 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 29,1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shelli Siemer, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99-85, appointing representatives to the SPIN Standing Committee. Action Requested: City Council appointment of representatives to the SPIN Standing Committee for the expired terms. Background Information: The SPIN Standing Committee representatives are appointed for staggered two-year terms. This year, all of the representatives in the odd-numbered SPIN areas have terms becoming vacant in December of 1999. The process for which the representatives are selected is unique from all the other City Council appointed boards and commissions. The selection process for SPIN Representatives provides the residents in the respective SPIN areas to select an individual to serve as a SPIN representative. The recommendation is then forwarded to the City Council for official appointment to the Standing Committee. Each year a vacancy meeting is held to provide a forum for residents to select their SPIN Representative. The vacancy meeting was held on November 18, 1999. The meeting was advertised for approximately five weeks and a post card was mailed to residents in all of the odd-numbered SPIN areas notifying them of the vacancy meeting. As a result of the vacancy meeting and additional recruitment efforts, each of the SPIN areas have individuals volunteering to serve as a SPIN representative for their area. Some of the current SPIN Representatives are seeking reappointment. The attached resolution provides for the two-year appointment of the following individuals to the SPIN Standing Committee: SPIN # 1 —Kim O'Brien SPIN # 3 — Mary McMahon SPIN # 5 —Jan Francis SPIN # 7 —Darrell Faglie SPIN # 9e — Edith Hutcheson SPIN # 9w— Lynda Warner (temporary until another volunteer is willing to serve) SPIN # 11 —Roger Hutton SPIN # 13 —Bill Stone SPIN # 15 —Wayne Haney Page 5D-1 Billy Campbell, City Manager December 29, 1999 Page 2 Financial Considerations: Not Applicable. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Residents were given the opportunity to attend the SPIN vacancy meeting held on November 18, 1999. The meeting was advertised for approximately five weeks and a post card was mailed to residents in all of the odd-numbered SPIN areas notifying them of the vacancy meeting. Legal Review: Not Applicable. Alternatives: Not Applicable. Supporting Documents: Resolution 99-85. Staff Recommendation: Please place this item on the January 4, 2000 City Council Agenda. Approved for Submittal to City Council: tanager's Office L Page 5D-2 City of Southlake, Texas i RESOLUTION 99-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, APPOINTING NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR THE SOUTHLAKE PROGRAM FOR THE INVOLVEMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS (SPIN); PROVIDING FOR TERMS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, established the Southlake Program for the Involvement of Neighborhoods (SPIN) to provide a more available form of citizen participation in the affairs of the City; and, WHEREAS, the mission statement of SPIN is to provide a forum which fosters open and timely communication between the citizens of Southlake and City Government regarding programs, activities and issues that affect the quality of life in the community; and, WHEREAS, under Ordinance 598, the City Council created the SPIN Standing Committee to represent each of the designated SPIN neighborhoods with residents from each SPIN area selecting a representative; and fir, WHEREAS, The City Council officially name the SPIN Standing Committee members through a resolution after the SPIN area has held a meeting to select a representative; now THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT: Section 1. All of the above premises are found to be true and correct and are incorporated into the body of this Resolution as if copied in their entirety. Section 2. The following is hereby appointed as neighborhood representative for the term specified: SPIN Area # 1 - Kim O'Brien December 2001 SPIN Area # 3 - Mary McMahon December 2001 SPIN Area # 5 - Jan Francis December 2001 SPIN Area # 7 - Darrell Faglie December 2001 SPIN Area # 9e - Edith Hutcheson December 2001 SPIN Area # 9w - Lynda Warner December 2001 (temporary until (W another volunteer is willing to serve) Page 5D-3 Resolution No. 99-85 Page 2 SPIN Area # 11 - Roger Hutton December 2001 SPIN Area # 13 - Bill Stone December 2001 SPIN Area # 15 - Wayne Haney December 2001 Section 3. This resolution is hereby effective upon passage by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE DAY OF 2000. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BY: Mayor Rick Stacy (W ATTEST: Sandra L. LeGrand City Secretary L Page 5D-4 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 13, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: John T. Knight, Manager of Technical Services Ext. 761 SUBJECT: Award of bid to Brice Systems for the purchase of Cisco switches and routers for the citywide network. Action Requested: Council award bid for the purchase of Cisco switches and routers to Brice Systems. Background Information: At the present time the city operates by using a wireless radio frequency system between city locations to transfer data from one site to another. The present system is overcrowded which causes the network to be slow and inefficient and results in numerous problems for network users. The installation of fiber optics will allow more than adequate amount of bandwidth for the transmission of data. The routers and switches are the devices that transmit the data between the sites. Financial Considerations: During the 1999-2000-budget process this problem was discussed. We requested and the City Council approved a budgeted amount of $121,000 for the purchase of this network equipment. Brice Systems submitted the lowest bid of$114,382.16. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: The attorneys approved the state bid process. Alternatives: None. Supporting Documents: The bids submitted by all vendors, and a copy of the specification sheet. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council award the bid to Brice Systems be accepted for Cisco switches and routers. Approved for Submittal to City Council: 144- ity, anager's Office 5L -1 Brice Systems Inc Quotation SLK-CISCO-01 P.O.Box 210967 Bedford, Texas 76095-7967 817-358-9505 fax 817-685-7002 QUOTE -- Customer Name City of Southlake Date 11/24/99 Address 667 N Caroll Avenue Quotation# SLK-CISCO-01 City Southlake State TX ZIP 76092 Rep Ken Phone Mr.Johnny Knight FOB BSI Qty Description Unit Price TOTAL 1 WS-C6006 Catalyst 6006 Chasis 3,229.69 3,229.69 1 WS-CAC 1000W 2,048.71 2,048.71 1 WS-CAC-1000W/2 2,216.88 2,216.88 1 CAB-7KAC 17.78 17.78 1 SFC6K-SUP-5.3.2 - 1 WS-X6K-SUP1A-MSFC 19,223.10 19,223.10 1 SFC6-MSM-12.0.1 W - _ 1 SWC-6KSUP5.3.1 1 WS-X6408-GBIC 6,836.31 6,836.31 2 WS-X66248-RJ-45 8,681.40 17,362.80 10 WS-G5484 339.53 3,395.30 10 WS-G5486 1,010.14 10,101.40 (W WS-X6302-MSM 1 CON-SNT-WS-C6006 4,693.91 4,593.91 18 WS-C3524-XL 2,440.63 43,931.34 1 WS-C3512-XL-EN 1,971.73 1,971.73 13 WS-X3500-XL 172.25 -2,239.25 1 CIM-LST= 1,251.04 1,251.04 18 CON-SNT-WS-C3524 259.41 4,669.38 1 CON-SNT-WS-C3512 333.53 333.53 1 2 Days of Training Supplied By Cisco - - Tradein Allowance for 3Com Componets as Listed Allow 4 to 5 Weeks for Delivery from the Date of Order SubTotal 123.422.16 Shipping &Handling Taxes Trade In 9,040.00 TOTAL 114.382.16 Texas Tax Permit #1-75-2437837-3 Federal Employees# 75-2437837 Thank you for the order Visit our web site at www.bricesystems.com Revised quote for City of Southlake 11-29-99 PART NUMBER PRICE QTY. EXTENDED WC-C6006 $ 3,321.67 1 $ 3,321.67 WS-CAC-1000W $ 2,000.00 2 $ 4,000.00 CAB-71KAC $ 19.02 1 $ 19.02 SFC6K-SUP-5.3.2 $ - 1 $ - included per Jane Bales WS-X6K-SUP1A-MSFC $20,996.50 1 $ 20,996.50 SFC6-MSM-12.0.3W $ - 1 $ - included per Jane Bales SWC6K-SUP-5.3.1 $ - 1 $ - included per Jane Bales WS-X6408-GBIC $ 6,650.00 1 $ 6,650.00 WS-X6248-RJ-45 $ 9,018.67 2 $ 18,037.34 WS-G5484 $ 327.19 10 $ 3,271.90 WS-G5486 $ 997.50 10 $ 9,975.00 CAB-71KAC $ 18.61 1 $ 18.61 CON-SNT-WS-C6006 $ 2,823.45 1 $ 2,826.45 WS-C3524-XL $ 2,391.08 18 $ 43,039.44 WS-05312-XL-EN $ 1,973.13 1 $ 1,973.13 WS-X3500-XL $ 163.89 13 3 2,130.57 CIM-LST $ 1,312.20 1 $ 1,312.20 CON-SNT-WS-05324 $ 310.80 18 $ 5,594.40 CON-SNT-WS-C3512 $ 266.50 1 $ 266.50 TOTAL $123,432.73 Cisco Net Credit per Jane Bales $ (9,040.00) Total less Cisco Credit $114,392.73 .True Technology Solutions QUOTATION Dennis Cranford/Pat Taylor Ofc: 817.424.1455 Fax: 817.410.1699 DATE quotation# 325 Miron Drive Suite 140 11/22/99 9911499 Southlake,Texas 76092 NAME/ADDRESS City of Southlake Attn: Andrew Burt 817.481.0036 fax PROJECT Cisco ITEM DESCRIPTION OTY RATE TOTAL Cis SFC6K-SUP Cisco SFC6K-SUP-5.3.2 Catalyst 6000 Supervisor Flash 1 13,152.70 13,152.70 Image,Release 5.3(2) BUNDLE PKG.INCLUDES=SFC6K-SUP-5.3.2, WS-C6006,WS-CAC-l000W,WS-X6K-SUPIA-MSFC, SFC6-MSM-12.0.1W,SWC6K-SUP-5.3.1=) WS-C6006 Cisco Catalyst 6006 Chassis 1 3,326.22 3,326.22 WS-CAC-1000W Cisco Catalyst 1000W AC Power Supply 1 2,097.91 2,097.91 WS-CAC-1000W/ Cisco Catalyst 6000 2nd 1000W AC Power Supply 1 2,271.74 2,271.74 Cisco CAB-7KA Cisco AC Power Cord North America 1 17.39 17.39 CAB-7KAC WS-X6K-SUPIA Catalyst 6000 Supervisor Engine I-A,2GE,plus MSFC& 1 20,783.44 20,783.44 amp;PFC WS-X6K-SUPIA-MSFC WS-X6408-GBIC Catalyst 6000 8-port Gigabit Ethernet Module 1 6,924.19 6,924.19 WS-X6248-RJ45 Catalyst 6000 48 port 10/100 RJ45 Module 2 8,864.485 17,728.97 WS-G5484 Cisco 1000Base-SX"Short Wavelength"GBIC 10 344.579 3,445.79 (multimodeOnly)(spare) WS-G5486 Cisco 1000Base-LX/LH"Long Haul"GBIC(Singlemode 10 1,028.302 10,283.02 or Multimode) Cis CON-SNT-W Cisco CON-SNT-WS-C6006 8x5xNBD Service,Catalyst 1 4,663.23 4,663.23 (CON-SNT-PKG 16) WS-C3524-XL Cisco Catalyst 3524 XL Standard Edition 18 2,396.835 43,143.03 WS-C3512-XL-E Cisco WS-C3512-XL-EN Catalyst 3512 XL Enterprise 1 2,074.67 2,074.67 Edition WS-X3500-XL Cisco Catalyst 3500 Gigabit Module 13 180.44231 2,345.75 Cis CIM-LST= Cisco LAN Switching Self-Paced Simulation Learning 1 1,319.98 1,319.98 CD Cisco CON-SNT Cisco CON-SNT-WS-C3524 8x5xNBD Svc,WS-C3524, 18 331.535 5,967.63 8 port 10/100 switch(CON-SNT-PKGS) CisCON-SN3512 Cisco CON-SNT-WS-C3512 8x5xNBD Svc,WS-C3512 1 260.88 260.88 (CON-SNT-PKG4) TOTAL Paqe 1 True Technology Solutions QUOTATION Dennis Cranford/Pat Taylor Ofc: 817.424.1455 Fax: 817.410.1699 DATE Quotation# 001,325 Miron Drive Suite 140 11/22/99 9911499 Southlake, Texas 76092 NAME/ADDRESS City of Southlake Attn: Andrew Burt 811.481.0036 fax PROJECT Cisco ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY RATE TOTAL NOTE 1: Trade-in Allowance of 3Com Equipment is $20,520.00 per Cisco NOTE 2: Delivery time will be approximately three weeks NOTE 3: Training to be supplied by Cisco,configuration of the above should it be needed will be at a cost of $3,500.00 NOTE 4: Additional pieces will be at the above rates TOTAL $139,806.54 Paqe 2 PURCHASE AGREEMENT This Agreement made and entered into on this the 5th day of January, 2000 by and between the City of Southlake, Texas (City), 1725 E. Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas 76092 and Brice Systems, Inc. (Vendor), 3901 Airport Freeway Ste 310, who agree as follows: 1. Vendor agrees to furnish City with the equipment specified in Exhibit"A" attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein, in compliance with to the following conditions: a. Delivery shall be made on or before February 29, 2000 b. All delivery charges shall be prepaid by the Vendor. Title and risk of loss of the goods shall not pass to the City until the City actually receives, takes possession and accepts the goods at the point of delivery. C. The goods shall be subject to the warranties provided by Cisco. d. Vendor shall provide systems configurations and administration training for two city employees at a Cisco facility located in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex area within 30_days of award of this purchase. 2. Vendor shall invoice City at the City of Southlake, 667 N. Carroll Ave. Southlake, Texas 76092. Payments are processed weekly. Payment terms are net 30 days, with payment postmarked by the City no later than 30 days after receipt of correct invoicing or receipt of ordered goods, whichever occurs later. 3. Prior to acceptance of the goods, the City reserves the right to verify compliance with all bid specifications and operational requirements. Should the equipment fail to meet the specifications set forth in Exhibit "A", the City may elect to do any of the following: a. Reject the contract and void the purchase as to any and all goods so bid. b. Require specific performance by Vendor at no additional cost to the City. 4. All notices and other communications must be in writing and shall be deemed delivered, whether actually received or not, on the earlier of. (i) actual receipt if delivered in person or by messenger with evidence of delivery; or(ii) upon deposit in the United States Mail as required below. Notices delivered by router.doc Page 1 mail must be deposited in the U.S. Postal Services, first class postage prepaid, and properly addressed to the intended recipient as set forth in the Preamble hereof. SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, By: BRICE SYSTEMS, INC., By: router.doc Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SPECIFICATIONS Attachment A Part Number Description of Product Quantity WS-C6006 Catalyst 6006 Chassis 1 WS-CAC-1000W Catalyst 6000 1000W AC Power Supply 1 WS-CAC-1000W/2 Catalyst 6000 2nd 1000W AC Power Supply 1 CAB-7KAC AC Power Cord- North America 2 SFC6K-SUP-5.3.2 Catalyst 6000 Supervisor Flash Image, Release 5.3(2) 1 WS-X6K-SUPIA-MSFC Catalyst 6000 Supervisor Engine I-A, 2GE, plus MSFC 1 & PFC SFC6-MSM-12.0.1W Catalyst 6000 MSM IP/IP-Multicast Routing Feature 1 Set SWC6K-SUP-5.3.1= ^Catalyst 6000 Supervisor Flash Image, Release 5.3(la) 1 WS-X6408-GBIC Catalyst 6000 8-port Gigabit Ethernet Module 1 WS-X6248-RJ-45 Catalyst 6000 48-port 10/100 RJ-45 Module 2 WS-G5484 1000BASE-SX "Short Wavelength GBIC (Multimode 10 only) WS-G5486 1000Base-LX/LH "Long Haul" GBIC (Singlemode or 10 Multimode) CON-SNT-WS-C6006 8x5xNDB Service, Catalyst 1 WS-C3524-XL Catalyst 3524 XL Standard Edition 18 WS-C3512-XL-EN Catalyst 3512 XL Enterprise Edition 1 WS-X3500-XL GigaStack Stacking GBIC and 50cm cable 13 CIM-LST= LAN Switching Self-Paced Simulation Learning CD 1 CON-SNT-WS-C3524 8x5xNBD Svc, WS-C3524 18 CON-SNT-WS-C3512 8x5xNBD Svc, WS-C3512 1 Quotes from vendors must include trade-in allowance for the City's current equipment listed below: Description of Product Ports Quantity 3Com Linkbuilder FMS II 12 1 3Com Linkbuilder FMS II 24 1 3Com SuperStack II Switch 1000 (w/Mgt Module) 12 1 3Com SuperStack Hub 10 (w/Mgt Module) 12 1 3Com SuperStack Hub 10 (w/o Mgt Module) 12 1 3Com SuperStack II Hub 10 (w/o Mgt Module) 24 6 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 13, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: John T. Knight, Technical Services Manager Ext. 761 SUBJECT: Authorize the lease purchase of ruggedized laptop computers and approving Resolution No. 00-09, authorizing the City Manager to enter into a lease purchase agreement for the purpose of procuring laptop computers. Action Requested: Council award a contract for the lease/purchase of Rugged Panasonic brand laptops from Government Capital Corporation. Background Information: In our preparation for replacing the non-compliant Y2K Mobil data system, we researched rugged laptops. These are devices designed to be utilized in the field by fire and police personnel. This equipment is designed to work in extreme temperatures and as well to exposure to the elements of the weather. These devices will be mounted into the Police, Fire and EMS vehicles to allow them in interact with the Computer Aided Dispatch system for the purpose of exchanging data between the field units and the emergency communications center. Financial Considerations: During the 1999-2000-budget process this problem was discussed. We requested and the City Council approved a budgeted amount of $41,865 for one year the lease/purchase of this equipment. We utilized the State purchasing program and negotiated pricing with qualified dealers. Government Capital Corporation submitted a lease purchase price of $34,510.61 per year for a lease purchase for a three-year period. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: The attorneys approved the state bid process and the content of the attached contract . Alternatives: None. Supporting Documents: The bids submitted by all vendors, and a copy of the specification sheet and contract are attached for council review. Staff (W Recommendation: Staff recommends that council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Government Capital Corporation for the purchase of ruggedized laptops 5F- � Approved for Submittal to City Council: CityManager's Office g (W J�-a City of Southlake, Texas RESOLUTION NO. 00-09 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE REGARDING A LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURING LAPTOP COMPUTERS. WHEREAS, the City of Southlake wishes to enter into that certain Lease-Purchase Agreement dated as of January 1, 2000, by and between the City of Southlake and Government Capital Corporation, for the purpose of procuring laptop computers; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to designate Billy Campbell, City Manager, as an authorized signer of the agreement NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Southlake: Section I. That the City enter into a Lease Purchase Agreement with Government Capital Corporation for the purpose of procuring laptop computers. Section H. That the City designates Billy Campbell, City Manager, as an authorized signer of the Lease Purchase Agreement dated as of January 1, 2000, by and between the City of Southlake and Government Capital Corporation. PASSED AND APPROVED this fourth day of January, 2000. Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary ` Y ' SIGNING INSTRUCTIONS If you have any questions,please call Judy Foote at 800-883-1199. Enclosed find our Municipal Lease-Purchase Agreement for the financing of your current equipment needs. Please sign the following documents as indicated by red"x"and have a witness sign(Attest) as indicated. ♦ FINANCIAL INFORMATION Please send the most current two(2)years audited financial statements(complete,bound)and a budget for the current fiscal year. ♦ MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT Review and verify information contained in this document. The Agreement requires signature by an authorized individual with the signature witnessed/attested. ♦ EXHIBIT"B" Review the Payment Schedule and sign as indicated. ♦ INCUMBENCY CERTIFICATE To be signed by the authorized individual with the signature witnessed by the "Keeper of the Records", i.e.,Secretary of the Board,Clerk of the Board,City Secretary, or other Administrative Official. ♦ INSURANCE CERTIFICATE Must provide current Insurance Information,i.e.,Company name,Address,Policy Number,etc. If you are Self-Insured,please indicate. ♦ ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE Sign as indicated and date if equipment has been received. If equipment has not been received LEAVE (W THE DATE BLANK. ♦ ATTORNEY'S OPINION Provided by your attorney on fi m's letterhead using format provided. Urge your attorney to call us with any questions, comments,or suggestions. ♦ RESOLUTION Authorizes the actual transaction and the signing individual(s)authority. Sign as indicated. ♦ 8038 FORM Either an 8038G or 8038GC required by the IRS. Sign and date the form. We will file on your behalf. ♦ UCC FORM Requires signature as "Debtor". We will file on your behalf. ♦ ADVANCE PAYMENT Include any Advance Payment or Fee as invoiced"Due At Signing"with the return documents. Please return all original documents and any payments due to: Ms.Judy Foote,Documentation Department GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION 1200 Walnut Hill Lane,Suite 3400 Irving,Texas 75038 ` 1 ' TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT(hereafter referred to as"Agreement")dated January 1,1999,by and between Government Capital Corporation,a Texas corporation(herein referred to as"Lessor"),and City of Southlake,a political subdivision or agency of the State of Texas(hereinafter referred to as"Lessee"). WITNESSETH: In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Term and Payments. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee and Lessee hereby leases from Lessor the property described in Exhibit A hereto (hereinafter,with all replacement parts,substitutions,proceeds,increases,additions,accessions,repairs and accessories incorporated therein or affixed thereto, referred to as the"Property")for the amounts to be paid in the sums(the"Lease Payments")and on the dates(the"Lease Payment Dates")set forth in Exhibit B hereto. Except as specifically provided in Section 2 hereof,the obligation of the Lessee to make the Lease Payments called for in Exhibit B hereto shall be absolute and unconditional in all events and shall not be subject to any set-off,defense,counterclaim or recoupment for any reason. The term of the lease hereunder shall commence upon the acceptance of possession of the Property by Lessee(or acceptance by Lessee of delivery of the first item of Property if this Agreement involves multiple items of Property)and shall continue until the end of the Lessee's current fiscal period and thereafter for such additional fiscal periods as are necessary to complete the anticipated total lease term as set forth in Exhibit B,unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Lessee will evidence its acceptance of the Property by executing and delivering to Lessor a Certificate of Acceptance(hereinafter so called)in the form provided by Lessor. 2. Non-Appropriation and Right of Termination. The obligations of Lessee to make Lease Payments(called for in Exhibit B)and to make any other payments to Lessor(or to any other person)pursuant to this Agreement are subject to appropriation by the Lessee of funds that are lawfully available to be applied for such purpose. If Lessee fails to make such an appropriation prior to a fiscal period of Lessee,for the Lease Payments scheduled in such fiscal period,Lessor may terminate this Agreement. Lessee may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to Lessor not less than forty five(45)days prior to the first day of any fiscal period of Lessee during which Lessee Payments are scheduled. Upon any such termination of this Agreement, all of Lessee's right,title and interest in and its obligations under this Agreement and to the Property shall terminate effective on the last day of the last fiscal period of Lessee for which such an appropriation was made. 3. Taxes. In addition to the Lease Payments to be made pursuant to Section 1 hereof,Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from and against and to pay Lessor,as additional rent,on demand,an amount equal to all licenses,assessments,sales,use,real orpersonal property,gross receipts or other taxes,levies,imposts,duties or charges,if any,together with any penalties,fines,or interest thereon imposed against or on Lessor,Lessee or the Property by any governmental authority upon or with respect to the Property or the purchase,ownership,rental,possession,operation,return or sale of,or receipt of payments for,the Property,except any Federal or state income taxes,if any,payable by Lessor. Lessee may contest any such taxes prior to payment provided such contest does not involve any risk of sale,forfeiture or loss of the Property or any interest therein. 4. Lessee's Covenants and Representations. Lessee covenants and represents as follows: (a)Lessee represents,and will provide an opinion of its counsel to the effect that,it has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement which has been duly authorized,executed,and delivered by Lessee and is a valid and binding obligation of Lessee enforceable in accordance with its terms,and all requirements for execution,delivery and performance of this Agreement have been,or will be,complied with in a timely manner; (b) All Payments hereunder have been,and will be,duly authorized and paid when due out of funds then on hand and legally available for such purposes; Lessee will,to the extent permitted by State law and other terms and conditions of this Agreement,include in its budget for each successive fiscal period during the term of this Agreement a sufficient amount to permit Lessee to discharge all of its obligations hereunder,and Lessee has budgeted and available for the current fiscal period sufficient funds to comply with its obligations hereunder; (c) There are no pending or threatened lawsuits or administrative or other proceedings contesting the authority for,authorization of performance of,or expenditure of funds pursuant to,this Agreement; (d) Information supplied and statements made by Lessee in any financial statement or current budget prior to or contemporaneously with the Agreement are true and correct; (e) Lessee has an immediate need for,and expects to make immediate use of,substantially all the Property,which need is not temporary or expected to diminish in the foreseeable future. 5. Use and Licenses. Lessee shall pay and discharge all operating expenses and shall cause the Property to be operated by competent persons only. Lessee shall use the Property only for its proper purposes and will not install,use,operate or maintain the Property improperly,carelessly,or in violation of any applicable law,ordinance,rule or regulation of any governmental authority,or in a manner contrary to the nature of the Property or the use contemplated by its manufacturer. Lessee shall keep the property at the location stated on the Certificate of Acceptance executed by Lessee upon delivery of the Property until Lessor,in writing,permits its removal,and the Property shall be used solely in the conduct of the Lessee's operations. Lessee shall obtain,at its expense,all registrations,permits and licenses,if any,required by law for the installation and operation of the Property. Any license plates used on the Property shall be issued in the name of the Lessee. If a certificate of title is issuable with respect to the Property,it shall be delivered to the Lessor showing the interest of the Lessor. 6. Maintenance. Lessor shall not be obligated to make any repairs or replacements. At its own expense,Lessee shall service,repair and maintain the Property in as good condition,repair,appearance and working order as when delivered to Lessee hereunder,ordinary wear and tear from proper use alone excepted,and shall replace any and all parts thereof which may from time to time become worn out,lost,stolen,destroyed,or damaged beyond repair or rendered unfit for intended use,for any reason whatsoever,all of which replacements shall be free and clear of all liens,encumbrances and claims of others and shall become part of the Property and subject to this Agreement. Lessor may,at its option,discharge such costs,expenses and insurance premiums necessary for the repair,maintenance and preservation of the Property,and all sums so expended shall be due from Lessee in addition to rental payments hereunder. 7. Alterations. (a) Lessee may,at its own expense,install or place in or on,or attach or affix to,the Property such equipment or accessories as may be necessary or convenient to use the Property for its intended purposes provided that such equipment or accessories do not impair the value or utility of the Property. All such equipment and accessories shall be removed by Lessee upon termination of this Agreement,provided that any resulting damage shall be repaired at Lessee's expense. Any such equipment or accessories not removed shall become the property of Lessor. (b)Without the written consent of Lessor,Lessee shall not make any other alterations,modifications or improvements to the Property except as required or permitted hereunder. Any other alterations,modifications or improvements to the Property shall immediately become part of the Property,subject to the provisions hereof. Without the prior written consent of Lessor,Lessee shall not affix or attach any of the Property to any real property. The Property shall remain personal property regardless of whether it becomes affixed or attached to real property or permanently rests upon any real property or any improvement thereon. 8. Liens. Lessee shall not directly or indirectly create,incur,assume or suffer to exist any mortgage,security interest,pledge,lien,charge, t encumbrance or claim on or with respect to the Property,title thereto or any interest therein,except the respective rights of Lessor and Lessee hereunder. r STATE OF TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT 1 r 9. Damage to or Destruction of Property. Lessee shall bear the entire risk of loss,damage,theft or destruction of the Property from any and every cause whatsoever,and no loss,damage,destruction or other event shall release Lessee from the obligation to pay the full amount of the rental payments or from any other obligation under this Agreement. In the event of damage to any item of the Property,Lessee will immediately place the same in good repair, with the proceeds of any insurance recovery applied to the cost of such repair. If Lessor determines that any item of Property is lost,stolen,destroyed or damaged beyond repair,Lessee,at the option of Lessee,will either(a)replace the same with like property in good repair or(b)on the next Lease Payment Date,pay Lessor (i)all amounts then owed by Lessee to Lessor under this Agreement,including the Lease Payment due on such date,and(ii)an amount equal to the applicable Option to Purchase Value set forth in Exhibit B. 10. Insurance. Lessee shall either be self-insured with regard to the Property or shall purchase and maintain insurance with regard to the Property. Lessee shall indicate on each Certificate of Acceptance executed in relation to this Agreement its election to be self-insured or company insured with regard to the Property listed on that Certificate of Acceptance. Whether Lessee is self-insured or company insured,Lessee shall,for the term of this Agreement, at its own expense,provide comprehensive liability insurance with respect to the Property,insuring against such risks,and such amounts as are customary for lessees of property of a character similar to the Property. In addition,Lessee shall,for the term of this Agreement,at its own expense,provide casualty insurance with respect to the Property,insuring against customary risks,coverage at all times not less than the amount of the unpaid principal portion of the Lease Payments required to be made pursuant to Section I as of the last preceding Payment Date specified in Exhibit B on which a Lease Payment was made. If insurance policies are provided with respect to the Property,all insurance policies shall be with insurers authorized to do business in the State where the Property is located and shall name both Lessor and Lessee as insured as their respective interest may appear. Insurance proceeds from casualty losses shall be payable solely to the Lessor, subject to the provisions of Section 9. Lessee shall,upon request,deliver to Lessor evidence of the required coverage together with premium receipts,and each insurer shall agree to give Lessor written notice of non-payment of any premium due and ten(10)days notice prior to cancellation or alteration of any such policy. Lessee shall also carry and require any otherperson or entity working on,in or about the Property to carry workmen's compensation insurance covering employees on,in or about the Property. In the event Lessee fails,for any reason,to comply with the requirements of this Section,Lessee shall indemnify,save harmless and, at Lessee's sole expense,defend Lessor and its agents,employees,officers and directors and the Property against all risk of loss not covered by insurance. 11. Indemnification. Lessee shall indemnify,to the extent permitted by law,and save harmless Lessor and its agents,employees,officers and directors from and,at Lessee's expense,defend Lessor and its agents,employees,officers and directors against all liability,obligations,losses,damages,penalties, claims,actions,costs and expenses(including but not limited to reasonable attorneys'fees)of whatsoever kind or nature which in any way relate to or arise out of this Agreement or the ownership,rental,possession,operation,condition,sale or return of the Property. All amounts which become due from Lessee under this Section 1 I shall be credited with any amounts received by the Lessor from insurance provided by the Lessee and shall be payable by Lessee within thirty (30)days following demand therefor by Lessor and shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 12. No Warranty. EXCEPT FOR REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, AND SERVICE AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE PROPERTY MADE OR ENTERED INTO BY THE MANUFACTURERS OR SUPPLIERS OF THE PROPERTY,ALL OF WHICH ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO LESSEE,LESSOR HAS MADE AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY,EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,AND ASSUMES NO OBLIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE TITLE,MERCHANTABILITY,CONDITION,QUALITY OR FITNESS OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPERTY TO SPECIFICATION OR PURCHASE ORDER,ITS DESIGN,DELIVERY, INSTALLATION OR OPERATION. All such risks shall be borne by Lessee without in any way excusing Lessee from its obligations under this Agreement,and Lessor shall not be liable to Lessee for any damages on account of such risks. All claims or actions on any warranty so assigned shall be made or prosecuted by Lessee,at its sole expense,upon prior written notice to Lessor. Lessor may,but shall have no obligation whatsoever to,participate in such claim or action on such warranty,at Lessor's expense. Any recovery under such a warranty shall be made payable jointly to Lessee and Lessor. 13. Option to Purchase. Provided Lessee has complied with the terms and conditions of this Agreement,Lessee shall have the option to purchase not less than all of the Property which is then subject to this Agreement,"as is"at the payment date,for the Option to Purchase Values set forth in Exhibit B by giving written notice to Lessor not less than sixty(60)days prior to the date specified in Exhibit B for the exercise of such option; provided that upon Lessee's timely payment of all Lease Payments specified in Exhibit B,Lessee shall be deemed to have properly exercised its option to purchase the Property and shall be deemed to have acquired all of Lessor's right,title and interest in and to the Property,free of any lien,encumbrance or security interest except such liens, encumbrances or security interest as may be created,or permitted and not discharged,by Lessee but without other warranties. Payment of the applicable Option to Purchase Value shall occur on the applicable Lease Payment Date specified in Exhibit B hereto,at which time Lessor shall,unless not required hereunder, deliver to Lessee a quitclaim bill of sale transferring Lessor's interest in the Property to Lessee free from any lien,encumbrance or security interest except such as may be created,or permitted and not discharged,by Lessee but without other warranties. Upon Lessee's actual or constructive payment of the Option to Purchase Value and Lessor's actual or constructive delivery of quitclaimbill of sale covering the Property,this Agreement shall terminate except as to obligations or liabilities accruing hereunder prior to such termination. 14. Default and Lessor's Remedies. (a) The occurrence of one or more of the following events shall constitute an Event of Default, whether occurring voluntarily or involuntarily,by operation of law or pursuant to any order of any court or governmental agency: (i) Lessee fails to make any payment hereunder when due or within ten(10)days thereafter; (2) Lessee fails to comply with any other covenant,condition or agreement of Lessee hereunder for a period of the ten(10)days after notice thereof, (3) Any representation or warranty made by Lessee hereunder shall be untrue in any material respect as of the date made; (•) Lessee makes,permits or suffers any unauthorized assignment,transfer or other disposition of this Agreement or any interest herein,or any part of the Property or any interest therein;or (5) Lessee becomes insolvent;or admits in writing its inability to pay its debts as they mature;or applies for,consents to or acquiesces in the appointment of a trustee,receiver or custodian for the Lessee or a substantial part of its property;or,in the absence of such application,consent or acquiescence,a trustee,receiver or custodian is appointed for Lessee or a substantial part of its property and is not discharged within sixty(60)days;or any bankruptcy,reorganization,debt arrangement,moratorium,oranyproceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency law,or any dissolution orliquidation proceeding is instituted by or against Lessee and,if instituted against Lessee,is consented to or acquiesced in by Lessee or is not dismissed within sixty(60)days. (b) Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default specified herein,Lessor may,at its sole discretion,exercise any or all of the following remedies: (i)Enforce this Agreement by appropriate action to collect amounts due or to become due hereunder,by acceleration of otherwise, or to cause Lessee to perform its other obligations hereunder in which event Lessee shall be liable for all costs and expenses incurred by Lessor; (z) Take possession of the Property,without demand or notice and without court order or any process of law,and remove and relet the same for Lessee's account,in which event Lessee waives any and all damages resulting therefrom and shall be liable for all costs and expenses incurred by Lessor in connection therewith and the difference,if any,between the amounts to be paid pursuant to Section 1 hereof and the amounts received and to be received by Lessor in connection with any such reletting; (3)Terminate this Agreement and repossess the Property,in which event Lessee shall be liable for any amounts payable hereunder through the date of such termination and all costs and expenses incutTed by Lessor in connection therewith; STATE OF TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT 2 (4) Sell the Property or any portion thereof for Lessor's account at public or private sale,for cash or credit,without demand on notice to Lessee of Lessor's intention to do so,or relet the Property for a term and a rental which may be equal to,greater than or less than the rental and term provided herein. If the proceeds from any such sale or rental payments received under a new agreement made for the periods prior to the expiration of this Agreement are less than the sum of(i)the costs of such repossession,sale,relocation,storage,reconditioning,reletting and reinstallation(including but not limited to reasonable attorneys'fees),(ii)the unpaid principal balance derived from Exhibit B as of the last preceding Lease Payment Date specified in Exhibit B,and (iii)any past due amounts hereunder(plus interest on such unpaid principal balance at the rate specified in Section 20 hereof,prorated to the date of such sale), all of which shall be paid to Lessor,Lessor shall retain all such proceeds and Lessee shall remain liable for any deficiency;or (s) Pursue and exercise any other remedy available at law or in equity,in which event Lessee shall be liable for any and all costs - and expenses incurred by Lessor in connection therewith. "Costs and expenses,"as that term is used in this Section 14,shall mean,to the extent allowed by law: (i)reasonable attorneys'fees if this Agreement is referred for collection to an attorney not a salaried employee of Lessor or the holder of this Agreement;(ii)court costs and disbursements including such costs in the event of any action necessary to secure possession of the Property;and(iii)actual and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with any repossession or foreclosure,including costs of storing,reconditioning and reselling the Property,subject to the standards of good faith and commercial reasonableness set by the applicable Uniform Commercial Code. Lessee waives all rights under all exemption laws. (6) Under no circumstances shall Lessee be liable under this subsection 14(b)for any amount in excess of the sum appropriated pursuant to Section 1 hereof for the previous and current fiscal years,less all amounts previously due and paid during such previous and current fiscal years from amounts so appropriated. 15. Termination. Unless Lessee has properly exercised its option to purchase pursuant to Section 13 hereof,lessee shall,upon the expiration of the term of this Agreement or any earlier termination hereof pursuant to the terms of this Agreement,deliver the Property to Lessor unencumbered and in at least as good condition and repair as when delivered to Lessee,ordinary wear and tear resulting from proper use alone excepted,by loading the Property,at Lessee's sole expense,on such carrier,or delivering the Property to such location,as Lessor shall provide or designate at or within a reasonable distance from the general location of the Property. If Lessee fails to deliver the Property to Lessor,as provided in this Section 15,on or before the date of termination of this Agreement,Lessee shall pay to Lessor upon demand,for the hold-over period,a portion of the total payment for the applicable period as set forth in Exhibit B prorated from the date of termination of this Agreement to the date Lessee either redelivers the Property to Lessor or Lessor repossesses the Property. 16. Assignment. Without Lessor's prior written consent,Lessee will not either(i)assign,transfer,pledge,hypothecate,grant any security interest in or otherwise dispose of this Agreement or the Property or any interest in this Agreement or the Property; or(ii)sublet or lend the Property or permit it to be used by anyone other than Lessee or Lessee's employees. Lessor may assign its rights,title and interest in and to this Agreement,the Property and any other documents executed with respect to this Agreement and/or grant or assign a security interest in this Agreement and the Property,in whole or in part. Any such assignees shall have all of the rights of Lessor under this Agreement. Subject to the foregoing,this Agreement inures to the benefit of and is binding upon the heirs,executors,administrators,successors and assigns of the parties hereto. No assignment or reassignment of any of Lessor's rights,title or interest in this Agreement or the Property shall be effective with regard to Lessee unless and until Lessee shall have received a copy of the document by which the assignment or reassignment is made,disclosing the name and address of such assignee. No further action will be required by Lessor or by Lessee to evidence the assignment, but Lessee will acknowledge receipt of such assignments in writing if so required. During the term of this Agreement,Lessee shall keep a complete and accurate record of all such assignments in form necessary to comply with the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986,Section 149(a),and the regulations,proposed or existing,from time to time promulgated thereunder. 17. Personal Property. The Property is and shall at all times be and remain personal property. 18. Title. Upon acceptance of the Property by Lessee hereunder,Lessee shall have title to the Property during the term of this Agreement; however,in the event of(i)an Event of Default hereunder and for so long as such Event of Default is continuing,or(ii)termination of this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 hereof,title shall be reverted immediately in and shall revert to Lessor free of any right,title or interest of Lessee unless Lessor elects otherwise. 19. Lessor's Right to Perform for Lessee. If Lessee fails to make any payment or perform or comply with any of its covenants or obligations hereunder,Lessor may,but shall not be required to,make such payment or perform or comply with such covenants and obligations on behalf of Lessee,and the amount of any such payment and the expenses(including but not limited to reasonable attorneys'fees)incun•ed by Lessor in performing or complying with such covenants and obligations,as the case may be,together with interest thereon at the highest lawful rate,shall be payable by Lessee upon demand. 20. Interest on Default.If Lessee fails to pay any Lease Payment specified in Section 1 hereof within thirty(30)days after the due date thereof, Lessee shall pay to Lessor interest on such delinquent payment from the due date until paid at the highest lawful rate. 21. Notices. Any notices to be given or to be served upon any party hereto in connection with this Agreement must be in writing and may be given by certified or registered mail,and shall be deemed to have been given and received forty-eight(48)hours after a registered or certified letter containing such notice,postage prepaid,is deposited in the United States mail,and if given otherwise shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to and received by the party to whom it is addressed. Such notice shall be given to the parties at their respective addresses designated on the signature page of this Agreement or at such other address as either party may hereafter designate. 22. Security Interest. As security for Lessee's covenants and obligations hereunder,Lessee hereby grants to Lessor,and its successors,a security interest in the Property,all accessions thereto and proceeds therefrom,and,in addition to Lessor's rights hereunder,all of the rights and benefits of a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect from time to time hereafter in the State in which the Property is located or any other State which may have jurisdiction over the Property. Lessee agrees to execute,acknowledge and deliver to Lessor in recordable form upon request financing statements or any other instruments with respect to the Property or this Agreement considered necessary or desirable by Lessor to perfect and continue the security interest granted herein in accordance with the laws of the applicable jurisdiction. 23. Tax Exemption.Lessee acknowledges and agrees that the Lease Payments have been calculated by Lessor assuming that the interest portion of each Lease Payment is exempt from Federal Income Taxation. Lessee represents,warrants and covenants that it will do or refrain from doing all things necessary or appropriate to insure that the interest portion of the Lease Payments is exempt from Federal Income Taxation,including,but not limited to,executing and filing all information statements required by Section 149(e)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,as amended,and timely paying,to the extent of available funds,amounts required to be rebated to the United States pursuant to Section 148(f)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,as amended. 24. Miscellaneous. (a) Lessee shall,whenever requested,advise Lessor of the exact location and condition of the Property and shall give the Lessor immediate notice of any attachment or other judicial process affecting the Property,and indemnify and save Lessor harmless from any loss or damage caused thereby. Lessor may,for the purpose of inspection,at all reasonable times enter upon any job,building or place where the Property and the books and records of the Lessee with respect thereto are located. (b) Lessee will take no action that would cause the interest portion of the Lease Payments to become coverage in gross income of the recipient for federal income tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") and Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (the "Regulations"),and Lessee will take and will cause its officers,employees and agents to take all affirmative actions legally within its power necessary to ensure that the interest portion of the Lease Payments does not become coverage in gross income of the recipient for federal income tax purposes under the Code and Regulations. (c) Lessee agrees to equitably adjust the payments payable under this Agreement if there is a determination for any reason that the interest payable pursuant to this Agreement(as incorporated within the schedule of payments)is not excludable from income in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,as amended,such as to make Lessor and its assigns whole. STATE OF TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT 3 (d) Time is of the essence. No covenant or obligations hereunder to be performed by Lessee may be waived except by the written consent of Lessor,and a waiver of any such covenant or obligation or a forbearance to invoke any remedy on any occasion shall not constitute or be treated as a waiver of such covenant or obligation as to any other occasion and shall not preclude Lessor from invoking such remedy at any later time prior to Lessee's cure of the condition giving rise to such remedy. Lessor's rights hereunder are cumulative and not alternative. (e) This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with,and governed by,the laws of the State in which the Property is located. Venue in any proceeding relating to this Agreement should be in Tarrant County,Texas. (f)This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and shall not be modified,waived,discharged,terminated,amended, altered or changed in any respect except by a written document signed by both Lessor and Lessee. (g) Any term or provision of this Agreement found to be prohibited by law or unenforceable shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without,to the extent reasonably possible,invalidating the remainder of this Agreement. (h) The Lessor hereunder shall have the right at any time or times,by notice to Lessee,to designate or appoint any person or entity to act as agent or trustee for Lessor for any purposes hereunder. (1)All transportation charges shall be borne by Lessee. Lessee will immediately notify Lessor of any change occurring in or to the Property, of a change in Lessee's address,or in any fact or circumstance warranted or represented by Lessee to Lessor,or if any Event of Default occurs. 0) Use of the neuter gender herein is forpurposes of convenience only and shall be deemed to mean and include the masculine or feminine gender whenever and wherever appropriate. (k) The captions set forth herein are for convenience of reference only and shall not define or limit any of the terms or provisions hereof p) Except as otherwise provided herein,this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto respective heirs,executors,administrators,legal representatives,successors and assigns,where permitted by this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day of in the year LESSOR: Government Capital Corporation ATrEST SIGNATURE PRIMED NAME BY: Stewart C.Shirey,Senior Vice President OR Timothy G.Temple,President PRYWED MLE: 1200 Walnut Hill Lane,Suite 3400 Irving,TX 75038 LESSEE: City of Southlake ATTEST SIGNATURE: PRINTEDNAME Y BY: �^ Bilb ampbell,City Manager PRIxrBDrrrlr- K 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake,TX 76092 STATE OF TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT 4 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT(THE"AGREEMENT")BY AND BETWEEN LESSOR,Government Capital Corporation and LESSEE,City of Southlake Dated as of January 1, 1999 QTY DESCRIPTION LAPTOP COMPUTERS as follows fourteen(14) Rugged Laptop with Touch Screen fourteen(14) 24xCD ROM twenty-four(24) Mounting Port Rep with High Gain Antenna fourteen(14) AC Adapter fourteen(14) DC/AC Auto Adapter fourteen(14) Sierra Wireless MP200 Modem PROPERTY LOCATION: In Police Vehicles within City Limits STATE OF TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT 5 GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION EXHIBIT B >> SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS & OPTION TO PURCHASE PRICE< ,r LESSEE: City of Southlake , PMT PMT DATE TOTAL INTEREST PRINCIPAL OPTION TO PURCHASE NO. MO. DAY YR PAYMENT PAID PAID after pmt on this line 1 02/15/2000 $34,510.61 $1,221.18 $33,289.43 $64,397.42 2 02/15/2001 $34,510.61 $3,790.49 $30,720.12 $32,945.69 3 02/15/2002 $34,510.61 $1,950.36 $32,560.25 $1.00 Grand Totals $103,531.83 $6,962.03 $96,569.80 ACCEPTED BY LESSEE: Billy Campbell, City Manager INCUMBENCY, INSURANCE, AND ESSENTIAL USE CERTIFICATES MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT(THE"AGREEMENT")BY AND BETWEEN LESSOR,Government Capital Corporation a LESSEE,City of Southlake Dated as of January 1, 1999 I,Sandra Legrand,(NAME),do hereby certify that I am the duly elected or appointed and acting City Secretary(Keeper of the Records)(TITLE),of City of Southlake,a political subdivision or agency duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, that I have custody of the records of such entity,and that,as of the date hereof,the individual(s)named below are the duly elected or appointed officer(s)of such entity holding the office(s)set forth opposite their respective name(s). I further certify that(i) the signature(s) set opposite their respective name(s) and title(s) are their true and authentic signature(s), and(ii) such officers have the authority on behalf of such entity to enter into that certain Municipal Lease-Purchase Agreement dated as of January 1, 1999,between such entity and Government Capital Corporation. NAME TITLE SIGNATURE BMW C'aniphell� QtV fan ppr IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have duly executed this certificate and affixed the seal of such entity hereto this,< _'day of sY: San a Legrand,City Secretary Lessee certifies that property and liability insurance,if applicable,have been secured in accordance with the Agreement and'such coverage will be maintained in full force for the term of the Agreement. "Lessor or its Assigns"should be designated as loss payee until Lessee is notified,in writing,to substitute a new loss payee. The following information is provided about insurance: INSURANCE COMPANY/AGENTS NAME: X INSURANCE COMPANY ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBERA POLICY NUMBER:j/ I,Billy Campbell,City Manager,of City of Southlake("Lessee"),hereby certify that the Equipment,to be leased to the undersigned under the certain Lease Agreement, dated as of January 1, 1999, between such entity and Government Capital Corporation ("Lessor"),will be used by the undersigned Lessee for the following purpose: The undersigned hereby represents that the use of the Equipment is essential to its proper,efficient and economic operation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this j�day of 19 BY LESSEE: Billy Calapbell,City Manager FOR LESSEE: City of Southlake STATE OF TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT 7 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT(THE"AGREEMENT")BY AND BETWEEN LESSOR,Government Capital Corporation and LESSEE,City of Southlake Dated as of January 1, 1999 1. ACCEPTANCE: In accordance with the Agreement,Lessee hereby certifies that all of the Property described herein(i)has been received by Lessee,(ii)has been thoroughly examined and inspected to the complete satisfaction of Lessee,(iii)had been found by Lessee to be in good operating order,repair and condition, (iv)has been found to be of the size,design,quality,type and manufacture specified by Lessee,(v)has been found to be and is wholly suitable for Lessee's purposes,and(vi)is hereby unconditionally accepted by Lessee,in the condition received,for all purposes of this Agreement. 2. PROPERTY: LAPTOP COMPUTERS,see Exhibit A herein for detail 3. USE: The primary use of the Property is as follows: 4. PROPERTY LOCATION: In Police Vehicles within City Limits 5. INVOICING: Invoices shall be sent to the following address,including to whose attention invoices should be directed: 6. INSURANCE:Lessee certifies thatproperty and liability insurance have been secured in accordance with the Agreement and such coverage will be maintained in force for the term of the Agreement. Lessor will be designated as loss payee until Lessee is notified,in writing,to substitute a new loss payee. Company Insured Election to self-insure in accordance with Section 10 of the Agreement. 7. MAINTENANCE:In accordance with Section 6 of the Agreement,Lessee agrees to,at its own expense,service,repair and maintain the Property for the term of the Agreement as follows: Maintenance Contract Election to self-maintain BY LESSEE illy Campbell, City Manager FOR LESSEE: City Of SOuthlake ACCEPTED on this the' day of , STATE OF TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT 8 [to be retyped on letterhead of lessee's counsel] Government Capital Corporation 1200 Walnut Hill Lane,Suite 3400 Irving,TX 75038 RE: Municipal Lease-Purchase Agreement dated as of January 1, 1999: Dear Lessor, I have acted as Counsel to City of Southlake with respect to that certain Municipal Lease-Purchase Agreement dated as of January 1, 1999, by and between Government Capital Corporation as Lessor and City of Southlake as Lessee. I-have reviewed the Agreement and such other documents,records and certificates of Lessee and appropriate public officials as I have deemed relevant and am of the opinion that: 1. The Lessee is a political subdivision or agency of the State of Texas with the requisite power and authority to incur obligations, the interest on which is exempt from taxation by virtue of Section 103(a)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; 2. The execution,delivery and performance by the Lessee of the Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of the Lessee; and 3. The Agreement constitutes a legal,valid and binding obligation of the Lessee enforceable in accordance with its terms. 4. The above opinions may be relied upon by the Lessee,Lessor,or its Assigns. Sincerely, Attorney at Law STATE OF TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT 9 Form 8038-GC Information Return for Small Tax-Exempt Governmental Bond Issues, Leases, and Installment Sales (Rev. May 1995) OMB No. 1545-0720 ► Under Internal Revenue Code section 149(e) ► For calendar year ending 19 ..... Department of the Treasury internal Revenue Service (Use Form 8038-G if the issue price of the Issue Is$100,000 or more.) -Reporting Authority Check box if Amended Return ► ❑ 1 Issuer's name 2 Issuer's employer Identification number CITY OF SOUTHLAKE -775 : 1251142 3 Number and street(or P.O.box If mail is not delivered to street address) Room/sulte 667 North Carroll Avenue 4 City,town,or post office,state,and ZIP code Southlake, TX 76092 Description of Obligations 5 Issue price of small tax-exempt governmental obligations reported on this form. 5 $96,569.80 6 Check the box that most nearly approximates the weighted average maturity of the obligation(s): a ❑ Less than 5 years b ❑ From 5 to 10 years c ❑ More than 10 years 7 Check the box that most nearly approximates the weighted average interest rate on the obligation(s): a ❑ Less than 5% b ❑ From 5% to 10% c ❑ More than 10% 8 Total issue price of the obligation(s) reported on line 5 that is/are: a Obligation(s) issued in the form of a lease or installment sale . . . . . . . . . 8a $96,569.80 b Obligation(s) designated by the issuer under section 265(b)(3)(B)(i)(III) . . . , • • 8b c Obligation(s) issued to refund prior issues . . . . . , , , • , . . . . Sc d Loans made from the proceeds of another tax-exempt obligation . . . . _ . • . , , 8d 9 Check box if issuer has elected to pay a penalty in lieu of arbitrage rebate Under penalties of perjury,I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements,and to the best of my knov+ledge•,•, Please and belief,they are true,correct,and complete. Sign Here ' >` ' BILLY CAMPBELL, CITY MANA' 6'.' Issuer's authorized representative Date Type or print name and title Paperwork Reduction Act Notice General Instructions an issue price of less than$100,000. Each such separate return should specify the We ask for the information on this form to Section references are to the Internal calendar year in which the issue was issued. .carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the Revenue Code unless otherwise noted. United States. You are required to give us the An issuer of a tax-exempt bond used to information. We need it to ensure that you are purpose of Form finance construction expenditures must file a complying with these laws. separate Form 8038-GC for each issue to The time needed to complete and file this Form 8038-GC is used by issuers of give notice to the IRS that an election was form varies depending on individual tax-exempt governmental obligations to made to pay a penalty in lieu of arbitrage circumstances.The estimated average time provide the IRS with the information required rebate(see line 9 instructions). is: by section 149(e)and to monitor the Filing a consolidated return.—For all Learning about the requirements of sections 141 through 150. tax-exempt governmental obligations with law or the form . . . , 1 hr., 46 min. Who Must File issue prices of less than$100,000 that are Preparing the form 2 hr., 50 min. not reported on a separate Form 8038-GC, Issuers of tax-exempt governmental an issuer must file a consolidated information Copying,assembling,and obligations with issue prices of less than return including all such issues issued within sending the form to the IRS 16 min. $100,000 must file Form 8038-GC. the calendar year. If you have comments concerning the Issuers of a tax-exempt governmental Thus, an Issuer may file a separate Form accuracy of these time estimates or obligation with an issue price of$100,000 or 8038-GC for each of a number of small suggestions for making this form simpler, we more must file Form 8038-G, Information issues and report the remainder of small would be happy to hear from you. You can Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental issues issued during the calendar year on one write to the Internal Revenue Service, Obligations. consolidated Form 8038-GC. However,a Attention:Tax Forms Committee, PC:FP, Filing a separate return.—Issuers have the separate Form 8038-GC must be filed to give Washington, 20224. DO NOT send the option to file a separate Form 8038-GC for the IRS notice of the election to pay a penalty File onn page 2. form this address. Instead, see Where To any tax-exempt governmental obligation with in lieu of arbitrage rebate. Cat. No.64108E Form 8038-GCi (Rev.5-95) THIS SPACE FOR USE OF FILING OFFICER FINANCING STATEMENT - FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY his Financing Statement is presented for filing pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code and will remain effective,with certain exceptions,for 5 years from the date of filing. A.NAME 8 TEL.#OF CONTACT AT FILER(optional) B.FILING OFFICE ACCT.#(optional) ANGIE LEIJA (972) 518-1199 C.RETURN COPY TO:(Name and Mailing Address) F GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION 1200 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 3400 Irving, TX 75038 L OPTIONAL DESIGNATION(if applicable]: ESSOR/LESSEE ONSIGNOR/CONSIGNE NON-UCC FILING 1.DEBTOR'S EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one debtor name(1a or 1b) Ia.ENTITY'S NAME CITY OF SOUTHLAKE OR 1b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 1c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY POSTAL CODE 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake TX 176092 td.S.S.OR TAX I.D.# OPTIONAL le.TYPE OF ENTITY 1f.ENTITY'S STATE 1g.ENTITY'S ORGANIZATIONAL I.D.#,if any 7 5-12 5114 2 ADD'NL INFO RE OR COUNTRY OF ENTITY DEBTOR ORGANIZATION NONE 2.ADDITIONAL DEBTOR'S EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one debtor name(2a or 2b) 2a.ENTITY'S NAME OR 2b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 2c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY POSTAL CODE 2d.S.S.OR TAX I.D.# OPTIONAL 1e.TYPE OF ENTITY 2f.ENTITY'S STATE 2g.ENTITY S ORGANIZATIONAL I.D.#,if any ADD'NL INFO RE OR COUNTRY OF ENTITY DEBTOR ORGANIZATION NONE 3.SECURED PARTY'S(ORIGINAL S/P or ITS TOTAL ASSIGNEE)EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one secured party name(3a or 3b) 3a.ENTITY'S NAME OR 3b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 3c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY POSTAL CODE TX 4.This FINANCING STATEMENT covers the following types or items of property: LAPTOP COMPUTERS as follows fourteen (14) Rugged Laptop with Touch Screen fourteen (14) 24xCD ROM twenty-four (24) Mounting Port Rep with High Gain Antenna fourteen (14) AC Adapter fourteen (14) DC/AC Auto Adapter fourteen (14) Sierra Wireless MP200 Modem 5.CHECK This FINANCING STATEMENT is signed by the Secured Party instead of the Debtor to perfect a security interest 7 7.If filed in Florida(check one) BOX L (a)in collateral already subject to a security interest in another jurisdiction when it was brought into this slate,or when the Documentary Documentary sfairip'. [if applicable] debtor's location was changed to this state,or(b)in accordance with other statutory provisions[additional data may be required] stamp tax paid tax not apb6Cabte' 3.REQUIRED SIGNATURESB ILLY CAMPBELL, CITY MANAGER 8. This FINANCING STATEMENT is to be fled[forrP (or recorded)in the REAL ESTATE RECORDS , Attach Addendum [if applfcab 9.Check to REQUEST SEARCH CERTIFICATE(S)on Ptbtb;(51 [ADDITIONAL FEE] (optional) 11 All Debtors eblor 1 Dedtof 2' ' 1 FILING OFFICER COPY -NATIONAL FINANCING STATEMENT FORM UCC1 RANS REV.12/18/95 Printed by UCC Control-LibraSoft,Inc. O ( )(T )( ) 229 Johnson St.,Suite C,Santa Fe,NM 87501 THIS SPACE FOR USE OF FILING OFFICER �INANCING STATEMENT - FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY his Financing Statement is presented for filing pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code and will remain effective,with certain exceptions,for 5 years from the date of filing. A.NAME&TEL.#OF CONTACT AT FILER(optional) B.FILING OFFICE ACCT.#(optional) ANGIE LEIJA (972) 518-1199 C.RETURN COPY TO:(Name and Mailing Address) GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION 1200 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 3400 (IIrving, TX 75038 L OPTIONAL DESIGNATION[if applicable]: ESSOR/LESSEE ONSIGNOR/CONSIGNE NON-UCC FILING 1.DEBTOR'S EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one debtor name(1 a or 1 b) la.ENTITY'S NAME CITY OF SOUTHLAKE OR 1b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 1c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY �POSTALCODE 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake TX 76092 1d.S.S.OR TAX I.D.# OPTIONAL 1 e.TYPE OF ENTITY 1f.ENTITY'S STATE 1g.ENTITY'S ORGANIZATIONAL I.D.#,if any 7 5-12 5114 2 ADD•NL INFO RE OR COUNTRY OF ENTITY DEBTOR ORGANIZATION NONE 2.ADDITIONAL DEBTOR'S EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one debtor name(2a or 2b) 2a.ENTITY'S NAME OR 21b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 2c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY POSTAL CODE 2d.S.S.OR TAX I.D.# OPTIONAL I 1e.TYPE OF ENTITY 2f.ENTITY'S STATE 2g.ENTITY'S ORGANIZATIONAL I,D.#,if any ADD'NL INFO RE OR COUNTRY OF ENTITY DEBTOR ORGANIZATION NONE 3.SECURED PARTY'S(ORIGINAL S/P or ITS TOTAL ASSIGNEE)EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one secured party name(3a or 31b) 3a.ENTITY'S NAME OR 3b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 3c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY POSTAL CODE TX 4.This FINANCING STATEMENT covers the following types or items of property: LAPTOP COMPUTERS as follows fourteen (14) Rugged Laptop with Touch Screen fourteen (14) 24xCD ROM twenty-four (24) Mounting Port Rep with High Gain Antenna fourteen (14) AC Adapter fourteen (14) DC/AC Auto Adapter fourteen (14) Sierra Wireless MP200 Modem 5.CHECK LJ This FINANCING STATEMENT is signed by the Secured Party instead of the Debtor to perfect a security interest 7.If filed in Florida(check one) BOX (a)in collateral already subject to a security interest in another jurisdiction when it was brought into this state,or when the Documentary Documentarj.st. . . [if applicable) debtor's location was changed to this state,or(b)In accordance with other statutory provisions[additional data may be required] stamp tax paid tax not n arc' ' o REQUIRED SIGNATURESB ILLY CAMPBELL, CITY MANAGER 8.0 This FINANCING STATEMENT is to be filed If (or recorded)in the REAL ESTATE RECORDS• Attach Addendum [if applicabrej 9.Check to REQUEST SEARCH CERTIFICATES)on a lore [ADDITIONAL FEE] (optional) 11 All Debtors[]Debtor 1 Debtor (2)ACKNOWLEDGMENT COPY -NATIONAL FINANCING STATEMENT(FORM UCC1)(TRANS)(REV.12118195) Printed by UCC Control•LibraSoft,Inc. 229 Johnson St.,Suite C,Santa Fe,NM 87501 THIS SPACE FOR USE OF FILING OFFICER FINANCING STATEMENT - FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY :his Financing Statement is presented for filing pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code and will remain effective,with certain exceptions,for 5 years from the date of filing. A.NAME 8 TEL.#OF CONTACT AT FILER(optional) B.FILING OFFICE ACCT.#(optional) ANGIE LEIJA (972) 518-1199 C.RETURN COPY TO:(Name and Mailing Address) F_ 7 GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION 1200 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 3400 Irving, TX 75038 L .OPTIONAL DESIGNATION[if applicable]: ESSOR/LESSEE ONSIGNOR/CONSIGNE NON-UCC FILING 1.DEBTOR'S EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one debtor name(1a or 1b) la.ENTITY'S NAME CITY OF SOUTHLAKE OR 11b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 1c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY POSTAL CODE 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake TX 76092 1d.S.S.OR TAX I.D.# OPTIOINNAL RE 1e.TYPE OF ENTITY 1f.ENTITY'S STATE 1g.ENTITY'S ORGANIZATIONAL I.D.#,if any 7 5-12 5114 2 ADD'NL FO OR COUNTRY OF ENTITY DEBTOR ORGANIZATION NONE 2.ADDITIONAL DEBTOR'S EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one debtor name(2a or 2b) 2a.ENTITYS NAME OR 2b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 2c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY POSTAL CODE 2d.S.S.OR TAX I.D.# OPTIONAL 1 e.TYPE OF ENTITY 2f.ENTITY'S STATE 2g.ENTITY'S ORGANIZATIONAL I.D.#,if any ADD'NL fNF0 RE OR COUNTRY OF ENTITY DEBTOR ORGANIZATION NONE 3.SECURED PARTY'S(ORIGINAL S/P or ITS TOTAL ASSIGNEE)EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one secured party name(3a or 3b) 3a.ENTITY'S NAME OR 3b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 3c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY POSTAL CODE TX 4.This FINANCING STATEMENT covers the following types or items of property: LAPTOP COMPUTERS as follows fourteen (14) Rugged Laptop with Touch Screen fourteen (14) 24xCD ROM twenty-four (24) Mounting Port Rep with High Gain Antenna fourteen (14) AC Adapter fourteen (14) DC/AC Auto Adapter fourteen (14) Sierra Wireless MP200 Modem 5.CHECK LJ This FINANCING STATEMENT is signed by the Secured Party instead of the Debtor to perfect a security interest 7.If filed in Florida(check one) BOX (a)in collateral already subject to a security interest in another jurisdiction when it was brought Into this state,or when the ID Documentary Doc imentdry•st. .•• [if applicable] debtor's location was changed to this state,or(b)in accordance with other statutory provisions[additional data may be required] stamp tax paid11 tax not applicable. 6.REQUIRED SIGNATURESB ILLY CAMPBELL, CITY MANAGER 8.❑This FINANCING STATEMENT is to be filed[for racor (or recorded)in the REAL ESTATE RECORDS • Attach Addendum [if app is 9.Check to REQUEST SEARCH CERTIFICATE(S)on De6tor(s [ADDITIONAL FEE] (optional) All Debtors ebtor 1 'DAblb,2 Printed by UCC Control-Lib aSoft,Inc. (3)SEARCH REQUEST COPY -NATIONAL FINANCING STATEMENT(FORM UCC1)(TRANS)(REV.12/18/95) 229 Johnson St.,Suite C,Santa Fe,NM 87501 THIS SPACE FOR USE OF FILING OFFICER FINANCING STATEMENT - FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY his Financing Statement is presented for filing pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code and will remain effective,with certain exceptions,for 5 years from the date of filing. A.NAME&TEL.#OF CONTACT AT FILER(optional) B.FILING OFFICE ACCT.#(optional) ANGIE LEIJA (972) 518-1199 C.RETURN COPY TO:(Name and Mailing Address) F GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION 1200 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 3400 ( Irving, TX 75038 L .OPTIONAL DESIGNATION[if applicable]: ESSOR/LESSEE ONSIGNOR/CONSIGNE NON-UCC FILING 1.DEBTOR'S EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one debtor name(1 a or 1 b) 1a.ENTITY'S NAME CITY OF SOUTHLAKE OR 1b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX tc.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY IPOSTALCODE 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake TX 76092 1d.S.S.OR TAX I.D.# OPTIONAL 1a.TYPE OF ENTITY If.ENTITY'S STATE 1g.ENTITY'S ORGANIZATIONAL I.D.#,if any 7 5-12 5114 2 ADD'NL INFO RE OR COUNTRY OF ENTITY DEBTORI ORGANIZATION NONE 2.ADDITIONAL DEBTOR'S EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one debtor name(2a or 2b) 2a.ENTITY'S NAME OR 2b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 2c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY �POSTALCODE 2d.S.S.OR TAX I.D.# OPTIONAL 1e.TYPE OF ENTITY 2f.ENTITY'S STATE 2g.ENTITY'S ORGANIZATIONAL I.D.#,if any ADD'NL INFO RE OR COUNTRY OF ENTITY DEBTOR ORGANIZATION NONE 3.SECURED PARTY'S(ORIGINAL S/P or ITS TOTAL ASSIGNEE)EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME--insert only one secured party name(3a or 3b) 3a.ENTITY'S NAME OR 3b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 3c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY �POSTALCODE TX 4.This FINANCING STATEMENT covers the following types or items of property: LAPTOP COMPUTERS as follows fourteen (14) Rugged Laptop with Touch Screen fourteen (14) 24xCD ROM twenty-four (24) Mounting Port Rep with High Gain Antenna fourteen (14) AC Adapter fourteen (14) DC/AC Auto Adapter fourteen (14) Sierra Wireless MP200 Modem 5.CHECK L This FINANCING STATEMENT is signed by the Secured Party instead of the Debtor to perfect a security interest 7.If filed in Florida(check one) BOX (a)in collateral already subject to a security interest in another jurisdiction when it was brought into this state,or when the Documentary Documenlary�ta. . .'.•.'. [if applicable] debtor's location was changed to this state,or(b)in accordance with other statutory provisions[additional data may be required] stamp tax paid tax not applicable• i.REQUIRED SIGNATURESB ILLY Of CAMPBELL, CITY MANAGER 8.E This FINANCING STATEMENT is to be filed Ifpr Leca (or recorded)in the REAL ESTATE RECORD Attach Addendum [if appXcp 9.Check to REQUEST SEARCH CERTIFICATE(S)on Deptut(s) [ADDITIONAL FEE] (optional) All Debtors[]Debtor 1 (4)DEBTOR COPY NATIONAL FINANCING STATEMENT(FORM UCC1)(TRANS)(REV.12/18/95) Printed by UCC Control-LibraSoft,Inc. 229 Johnson St.,Suite C,Santa Fe,NM 87501 THIS SPACE FOR USE OF FILING OFFICER PINANCING STATEMENT - FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY Phis Financing Statement is presented for filing pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code and will remain effective,with certain exceptions,for 5 years from the date of fling. A.NAME&TEL.#OF CONTACT AT FILER(optional) B.FILING OFFICE ACCT.#(optional) ANGIE LEIJA (972) 518-1199 C.RETURN COPY TO:(Name and Mailing Address) F 7 GOVERNMENT CAPITAL CORPORATION 1200 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 3400 Irving, TX 75036 L OPTIONAL DESIGNATION[if applicable]: ESSOR/LESSEE ONSIGNOR/CONSIGNE NON-UCC FILING 1.DEBTOR'S EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one debtor name(1a or 1b) la.ENTITY'S NAME CITY OF SOUTHLAKE OR lb.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 1c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY POSTAL CODE 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake TX 76092 ld.S.S.OR TAX I.D.# OPTIONAL 1e.TYPE OF ENTITY If.ENTITY'S STATE tg.ENTITY'S ORGANIZATIONAL I.D.#,if any 7 5-12 5114 2 ADD'NL INFO RE OR COUNTRY OF ENTITY DEBTOR I ORGANIZATION NONE 2.ADDITIONAL DEBTOR'S EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one debtor name(2a or 2b) 2a.ENTITY'S NAME OR 2b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX itl 2c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY rOSTALCODE 2d.S.S.OR TAX I.D.# OPTIONAL 1e.TYPE OF ENTITY 2f.ENTITY'S STATE 2g.ENTITY S ORGANIZATIONAL I.D.#,if any ADD'NL INFO RE OR COUNTRY OF n ENTITY DEBTOR( (ORGANIZATION I NONE 3,SECURED PARTY'S(ORIGINAL S/P or ITS TOTAL ASSIGNEE)EXACT FULL LEGAL NAME-insert only one secured party name(3a or 3b) 3a.ENTITY'S NAME OR 3b.INDIVIDUAL'S LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME SUFFIX 3c.MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE COUNTRY �POSTALCODE TX 4.This FINANCING STATEMENT covers the following types or items of property: LAPTOP COMPUTERS as follows fourteen (14) Rugged Laptop with Touch Screen fourteen (14) 24xCD ROM twenty-four (24) Mounting Port Rep with High Gain Antenna fourteen (14) AC Adapter fourteen (14) DC/AC Auto Adapter fourteen (14) Sierra Wireless MP200 Modem 5.CHECK This FINANCING STATEMENT is signed by the Secured Party instead of the Debtor to perfect a security interest 7.If filed in Florida(check one) BOX (a)in collateral already subject to a security interest in another jurisdiction when it was brought into this state,or when the Documentary Documentary stamp•,',•,'. (if applicable] debtor's location was changed to this slate,or(b)in accordance with other statutory provisions[additional data may be required] stamp tax paid tax not aplilica 6.REQUIRED SIGNATURESB ILLY CAMPBELL, CITY MANAGER 6.❑This FINANCING STATEMENT is to be filed If , (or recorded)in the REAL ESTATE RECORDS Attach Addendum [if appkcablej•• ,••'. 9.Check to REQUEST SEARCH CERTIFICATE(S)on Debto(s)•,•,•,'. [ADDITIONAL FEE] • • • • • • • (optional) 11 All Debtors[]Debtor 1 Debtor 2 Printed by UCC Control- (5)SECURED PARTY COPY -NATIONAL FINANCING STATEMENT(FORM UCC1)(TRANS)(REV.12/18/95) Santa F oft,Inc. 229 Johnson St.,Suite C,Santa Fe,NM 87501 Brice Systems Inc P.O.Box 210967 Quote Johnny Knight � - 0 Bedford, Texas 76095-7967 817-358-9505 fax 817-685-7002 Customer Name City of Southlake Date 10/26/99 Address 667 N Caroll Avenue Order No. Verbal City Southlake State TX ZIP 76092 Rep Ken Attention: Johnny Knight FOB BSI Qty Description Unit Price TOTAL 14 CF-27NT Rugged Laptop PII 300 12.1 Touch Screen 4,615.30 64,614.20 14 �CF-VCD271 24X CD-Rom 335.64 4,698.96 24 !CF-WEB273CBL Mounting Port Rep,W/High Gain Ant 469.40 11,265.60 14 CF-AA1639M AC Adapter Desktop Use 87.91 1,230.74 14 CF-1088 DC/AC Auto Adapter 74.97 1,049.58 14 Sierra Wireless MP200 Modem With Cell.Ant.Ser Cbl 961.48 13,460.72 SubTotal 96,319.80 Payment Details Shipping & Handling 250.00 Q Cash Taxes Texas QQ Check O Credit Card TOTAL $96,569.80 Name CC# Office Use Only Expires Texas Tax Permit # 1-75-2437837-3 Federal Employees# 75-2437837 Thank you for the order Visit our web site at www.bricesystems.com Pricing for the City of Southlake 11/23V99 Panasonic CF-27 [PII 3001VIhz, 12.1 DESCRIPTION PART NO. M.C. Oty Price Ea. Total Panasonic CF-27 CF-27EB6GCAMNT 14 $4.731.68 $66,243.51 Pentium II 300MHz 12.V SVGA Non-Glare TOUCHSCREEN 64MB RAM Shock Damped 6.3GS Hard Drive Sound Blaster Pro Compatible Sound Card USB Port 1 Lithium Battery 3 Year Warrant AC Adapter: AC 100V-240V Auto sensing Preloaded with Microsoft NT Workstation Monaural Speakers built-in Built in 1.44 floppy drive TOTAL FOR 300Mhz.,12.1"Model $66,243.51 Panasonic CF-27 Accessories DESCRIPTION PART NO. M.C. oty Price Ea. Total Sierra Wireless MP-200 CDPD Modem with CDPD Antenna. Does NOT include coax 0010036 538119 14 $1,075.32 $15,054.54 cable and installation. Serial Cable 16f1 6000083 586262 14 $20.72 $290.13 24x max CD-ROM CF-VCD271 561142 14 $347.44 $4864.20 Pao ris n Port Re licalor with high gain antenna CF-WEB273CBL 24 521.60 12 518.44 Panasonic AC Adapter for Desktop use CF-AA1639M 14 $94.91 $1 328.80 TOTAL FOR ACCESSORIES $34,056.11 Total for Southlake Quote $100,299.61 Optional Equipment DESCRIPTION PART NO. M.C. oty Price Ea. Total Targus NotePac Nylon Carrying Case CN01 1 $31.09 31.09 FDD Cable /You will need this cable if you want to use the floppy drive and CD-ROM CF-VCF271 561145 1 $60.09 $60.09 at the same time with a CF-27. 3Com Megahertz 10/100 LAN PC Card Five Pack 3CCRE5746T-005 1 $645.89 $645.69 11tegrated om Megahertz 10/100 LAN PC Card (Single) 3CCFE574BT 1 $137.01 $137.01 cklit Keyboard CF-WMKB711 1 356.91 $356.91 hium ION Batter CF.VZSU04W 561146 1 225.53 225.53 Wireless Solution CF-WMED271CDP 1 $1 044.24 $1 044.24 NOTE: This pricing does not include GTE maintenance. The laptop comes with a three warranty and if a problem occurs the Department would contact Panasonic directly for a return box. This service Is provide free from Panasonic. GTE Is not a company who drop-ships equipment and then leaves. GTE Is committed to ensuring our customers are happy and we'll provide support whenever necessary. Feel free to call me If you have The information contained In this proposal is proprietary and confidential. Information contained herein shall not be made available or disclosed unless written permission is given by GTE. w City of Southlake, Texas 4 MEMORANDUM December 29, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shelli Siemer, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution No. 00-02, appointment of a chairperson for the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One Board of Directors. Action Requested: Consideration of Resolution No. 00-02, appointing a chairperson for the Board of the Directors of the TIRZ. Background Information: According to the state statute, the governing body of the municipality that created the tax increment reinvestment zone must appoint one member of the board to serve as chairperson for a term of one year that begins on January 1 of the following year. This resolution provides for the City Council to appoint a chairperson for the TIRZ Board. As you recall, the chairperson position has been vacant since the resignation of Scott Martin from the TIRZ Board of Directors. The next TIRZ Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 13, 2000, in which the new chairperson will preside at the meeting. Financial Considerations: Not Applicable. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Not Applicable. Legal Review: The city attorneys 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: Resolution No. 00-02. 5G-1 billy Campbell December 29, 1999 t Page Two Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends placing this item on the January 4`", City Council meeting agenda. Approved for Submittal to City Council: City an er's Office 5G-2 City of Southlake, Texas (W RESOLUTION NO. 00-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS APPOINTING A CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER ONE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas (the "City"), after public hearing, 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 WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 682 established a Board of Directors to administer the Zone; and WHEREAS, the City passed Resolution No. 97-70 appointing eight (8) members to the Board of Directors of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone on November 5, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City passed Ordinance No. 761, amending Ordinance No. 682 relating to the manner of appointment and terms of office of the members of the Board of Directors of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One on December 7, 1999; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 311.009(f) of the Act, the governing body of the municipality that created the reinvestment zone must appoint one member of the board to serve as chair for a term of one year that begins on January 1 of the following year; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: Section 1. That all matters stated in the preamble of this resolution are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into the body of this resolution as if copied in their entirety. Section 2. That the City Council hereby appoints to serve as chairman of the Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors for one year to begin January, 2000. (W 5G-3 Resolution 00-02 Page 2 Section 3. That the City of Southlake authorizes and directs that this action be made part of the City's permanent records. �r Section 4. That this resolution shall become effective from and after the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS on this the day of , 2000. APPROVED: Rick Stacy Mayor ATTEST: Sandy LeGrand City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney (W 5G-4 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 29, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services (ext. 757, 772) SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional services agreement with Schrickel, Rollins and Associates for the update of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan and the Bicentennial Park Schematic Design Action Requested: City Council approval of a professional services agreement with Schrickel, Rollins and Associates for the update to the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan and the Bicentennial Park Schematic Design. Background Information: The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan was originally developed and adopted in January of 1992, and updated and adopted in November of 1996. The Parks Master Plan serves as a guide for the orderly development and acquisition of parks, recreational facilities, and open space. The purpose of the plan is to provide long range development direction for a parks and recreation system that serves the needs of the citizens of Southlake. Section 11.06 (d) of the City Charter addresses the review process for Master Plans and states, "The Master Plan Components shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and updated as necessary to reflect changing City conditions and requirements every four (4) years." Section 11.06 (b) (4) lists the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan as a master plan component. As noted previously, the Plan was last updated in November of 1996 and is scheduled for review and revision. The Bicentennial Park Master Plan was developed in March of 1997 and serves as a tool to guide the development of park and recreational facilities within the Park. Recent additions such as the Tennis Center, in-line hockey court, and the basketball courts have dramatically changed and improved the recreational opportunities for the citizens of Southlake. In order to continue with the planning and development of remaining and future park land within Bicentennial it becomes necessary to update the schematic master plan design. The update would reflect the developmental changes that have occurred within Bicentennial Park and provide recommendations for future improvements. Staff sought a proposal from Schrickel, Rollins and Associates to provide professional consulting services for the update to the Parks Master Plan and to revise the Bicentennial Park Schematic Master Plan. Schrickel, Rollins is a well-known firm providing a variety of planning and engineering services Billy Campbell, City Manager December 29, 1999 Page 2 within the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The firm was established over thirty years ago and has over forty employees. They specialize in park and recreation plan development and have successfully completed numerous design projects, grant applications, and master plans for communities throughout the state. Schrickel, Rollins has recently worked on park system master plans or updates for local area cities such as Arlington, Coppell, Colleyville, Euless, Hurst, and Stephenville. Reference checks with several area cities (Arlington, Euless, Coppell, Hurst) were all favorable. Financial Considerations: Funding in the amount of$50,000 for the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Update and the Bicentennial Park Schematic Design is identified in the FY 1999-00 General Fund Operating Budget. Total fees associated with the Parks Master Plan Update and the Bicentennial Schematic Design are not expected to exceed $43,400 (contract summary below). Parks Master Plan ■ Data Collection $ 4,090 ■ Assessment of Current Plans and Conditions $ 4,090 ■ Public Involvement $ 8,180 ■ Plan Development and Refinement $20,450 ■ Plan Adoption $ 4,090 Sub-total $40,900 Bicentennial Park Schematic Design ■ Data Collection $ 750 ■ Plan Development and Refinement $ 1,750 Sub-total $ 2,500 Total $43,400 Citizen Input/ Board Review: The Parks and Recreation Board reviewed the proposal at their December 13, 1999 meeting and recommended entering into a professional services agreement with Schrickel, Rollins and Associates. The Board unanimously recommended approval on Consent agenda (8-0). Legal Review: The agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Alternatives: Alternatives include the following: ■ Rejection of Schrickel, Rollins and Associates and request staff to review other engineering and consulting firms. fl§PZM Billy Campbell, City Manager December 29, 1999 Page 3 Supporting Documents: Supporting documents include the following: ■ Draft contract for professional services with Schrickel, Rollins and Associates. Staff Recommendation: Place as an item on the January 4, 2000 City Council agenda to authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional services agreement with Schrickel, Rollins and Associates for the update of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan and the Bicentennial Park Schematic Design. KH (WWI ��•3 THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OFTARRANT SERVICES CONTRACT MASTER PARK, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE PLAN and BICENTENNIAL PARK SCHEMATIC DESIGN City of Southlake Project No. 00.162.001A THIS CONTRACT, By and between the CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, a municipal corporation located in Tarrant County, Texas, hereinafter called "City", and Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc., a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Texas, hereinafter called "Consultant", evidences the following: WHEREAS, CITY desires the professional planning services of CONSULTANT for the evaluation and update of the Master Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan and the Bicentennial Park Schematic Master Design in order to serve as a guide for the orderly development and acquisition of parks, recreation facilities, and open space within the City of Southlake, County of Tarrant, Texas hereinafter called "Project"; and WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it is qualified and capable of performing the professional planning services proposed herein for this Project and is willing to enter into this Contract with CITY to perform said services; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein agreed as follows: 1 . EMPLOYMENT OF THE CONSULTANT CONSULTANT agrees to perform professional services in connection with the Project as set forth in the following sections of this Contract, and CITY agrees to pay, and CONSULTANT agrees to accept fees as set forth in the following sections as full and final compensation for all services provided under this Contract. 1 2. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION This Contract shall be administered on behalf of the CITY by the Director of Community Services or his designated representatives (hereinafter called "Director"), and on behalf of the CONSULTANT by its duly authorized officials. 3. CONSULTANT'S SERVICES The CONSULTANT agrees to render services necessary for the development of the Project as outlined herein. 3.01 Scope of Project Services The CONSULTANT's professional services coupled with the information provided by the CITY will result in two separate documents, the "Southlake Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan," dated 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Plan), and the "Bicentennial Park Schematic Master Design," dated 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Bicentennial Schematic Design). These documents will be prepared so as to provide a basis for acquisition, development and preservation of parks and recreation and open space within the corporate limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Southlake. a. As a reference, the Plan will consist in general of similar information and like quantities of photographs, text, illustrations, and tables as contained within the City of Hurst Master Park Plan Update dated January of 1997, as previously prepared by the CONSULTANT. The Plan will contain photographs, text, illustrations, and tables in a format that is: (1 ) compatible with the CITY's program responsibility for parks, recreation, and open space services; and (2) the preparation suggestions for local park, recreation and open space master plans by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Further, the Plan will be prepared so as to be compatible with the project priority scoring systems for indoor and outdoor applications for grants funded by the Texas Recreation and Parks Account Program. b. The Plan will consider the CITY's needs for the following periods: (1 ) existing; (2) 2005; (3) 2010; (4) 2015; (5) buildout. C. The Plan will be formatted into the following sections: (1 ) introduction; (2) goals and objectives; (3) plan development process; (4) area and facility concepts and standards; (5) inventory of land and facilities; (6) needs assessment and identification; (7) plan recommendations and implementation; and 2 rr (8) Appendix - NRPA Guidelines. d. The Plan will include the following illustrations: (1 ) Existing Conditions and Resources; (2) existing and proposed parks plan; (3) open space and environmental preservation plan; (4) concept plans for each existing City owned and proposed park site. e. A scientific phone survey will be performed to establish the parks, recreation, and open space needs and desires of the CITY's population. f. The Bicentennial Schematic Design will be based on an as-built survey to be provided by CITY to CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT will provide an accurate depiction of recommended park improvements and proposed future land acquisition. The CONSULTANT will review the previous Bicentennial Park Master Plan and discuss the various improvements and facilities recommended for the park. g. The meetings to be attended by the CONSULTANT are as follows: (1) one pre-plan preparation meeting; (2) five workshop meetings; (3) one site observation with the City staff of each existing and proposed park site; (4) two Park Board meetings; (5) one meeting with the City Council; and (6) two miscellaneous meetings as may be determined by the CITY. All meetings will take place within the City of Southlake. h. Assumptions 1 . Fee includes provision to CITY of up to 20 copies of the Plan, and 20 (81/2" x 11 ") color copies and 4 (24' x 36") color prints of the Bicentennial Schematic Design, to be delivered within forty-five (45) days after final plan or schematic design is approved. Additional copies may be ordered in lot quantities for cost of production based on quantities in a given request. The CONSULTANT will also provide to the CITY one camera ready copy and an electronic copy of the Plan and Bicentennial Schematic Design. 2. No site surveying, boundary work, or legal descriptions will be prepared under this scope of work. 3. Additional requested meetings will be outside of this scope of work and will constitute additional services. 3 37wL 4. Expenses including mileage, photography, telephone, photocopying, and other out-of-pocket expenses are included in the compensation for professional services as indicated in Article 4.01 . 3.02 Professional Services by Consultant a. The CONSULTANT shall perform for CITY Basic Professional Services for the planning elements of the "Plan" and "Bicentennial Schematic Design" to which this contract applies. Services include providing professional consultation and recommendations and furnishing landscape architectural and planning services incidental hereto. 3.03 Preliminary Planning Phase a. The CONSULTANT shall review the parks and recreation program furnished by the CITY to determine the requirements of the "Plan" and the "Bicentennial Schematic Design" and the CITY and the CONSULTANT shall arrive at a mutual understanding of such requirements. b. The CONSULTANT shall advise the CITY as to the necessity of CITY's providing or obtaining from others data or services of the types described in paragraph 6. 3.04 Additional Professional Services a. Additional services by the CONSULTANT shall be provided if authorized by the CITY in writing. Compensation for the additional services, unless otherwise agreed, shall be a multiple of direct personnel expenses. Direct personnel expenses shall be calculated using the rates shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto. b. Making revisions in plans, drawings, or other documents, when such revisions are inconsistent with approvals or instructions previously given, shall be additional services. 4. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES CONSULTANT shall submit itemized monthly statements for Service Costs incurred. CITY shall make payments within 30 days of the statement date in the amount shown by the CONSULTANT's monthly statements and other documentation submitted and no interest shall ever be due on late payments. 4 sr- 7 4.01 Compensation for Professional Services for the Master Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan shall be $40,900; and, compensation for the Bicentennial Park Schematic Master Design shall be $2,500. Total compensation for professional services (excluding additional services) as outlined in this contract shall not exceed $43,400. 4.02 Compensation for Other Additional Services that may be authorized shall be a multiple of direct personnel expense. Direct personnel expense shall be calculated using the rates shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 4.03 Compensation for Reimbursable Expenses means the actual expenses incurred by CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT's independent professional associates or sub-consultants directly in connection with the Project. Reimbursements by CITY to CONSULTANT shall be based on the following: a. Not applicable. b. Other reimbursable expenses may become due if the CITY requests or authorizes such payment. However, the CITY will not be separately charged for transportation, telephone communication charges, or postage and delivery charges normal to the project; nor for the use of computer-aided design and drafting equipment normal to the project. 5. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 5.01 All information and other data given to, prepared, or assembled by CONSULTANT under this Contract, and other related items shall become the sole property of CITY and shall be delivered to CITY, without restriction on future use. CONSULTANT may, at its cost, make copies of any and all documents and items for its files. A set of reproducible documents shall be filed with the CITY prior to final payment. CONSULTANT shall have no liability for changes made to or use of the drawings, specifications, and other documents by anyone subsequent to the completion of the Project. CITY shall require that any such change or other use shall be sealed by the CONSULTANT making that change or use and shall be approximately marked to reflect what was changed or modified. 5 5;r. 8 6. SERVICES BY CITY CITY shall provide the following available information and/or services under this Contract: 6.01 Mylar and electronic copy of the CITY's base map, Bicentennial Park Master Plan, and other information available. 6.02 Existing and future population by planning period and service zone. 6.03 Vacant land inventory. 6.04 Goals and objectives. 6.05 Support information for plan development process. 6.06 Inventory of park and school land, and facilities. 6.07 Inventory of municipal land and facilities. 6.08 Inventory of public buildings. 6.09 Inventory of streetscape and beautification sites. 6.10 Aerial photograph(s) of City. 6.11 "Redline" of existing conditions of park sites. 6.12 Copy of previously prepared Park Master Plans, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Bicentennial Park Master Plan. 6.13 Participants in the park planning process. 6.14 Other information as may be identified in the planning process. 6.15 Print, collate, and bind copies of the final plans beyond those copies to be provided by CONSULTANT as part of this contract. Additional copies may be ordered through the CONSULTANT in lot quantities for cost of production based on quantities in a given request. 7. COMPLETION SCHEDULE The services furnished by the CONSULTANT under this Contract will be completed in accordance with the following: For the purposes of this Contract, a month is defined as thirty (30) calendar days and a week as seven (7) calendar days. If any of the following submissions fall on a CITY non-working day, then the submission shall be due the following CITY working day. 7.01 . The CONSULTANT shall complete the Master Park Plan within seven (7) calendar months and shall complete the Bicentennial Schematic Design within three (3) calendar months. If warranted due to delays caused directly as a result of the CITY, a request to extend the completion schedule may be submitted by the CONSULTANT for review and approval by the CITY. a. Day count for the Plan and the Bicentennial Schematic Design shall begin on the date the Letter to Proceed is received. b. Timelines and corresponding payment for services on the Master Park Plan are as follows: 1 . Data Collection Months 1 — 2 (10%) 2. Assessment of Current Plan and Conditions Months 1 — 2 (10%) 3. Public Involvement Months 3 — 4 (20%) 4. Plan Development and Refinement Months 4 — 6 (50%) 5. Plan Adoption Months 6 — 7 (10%) C. Timelines and corresponding payment for services on the Bicentennial Schematic Design are as follows: 1 . Assessment of Current Plan and Conditions Months 1 — 2 (30%) 2. Plan Development and Refinement Months 2 — 3 (70%) 8. NOTICE TO PROCEED CITY shall have complete control of the services to be rendered and no work shall be done under this Contract until the CONSULTANT is instructed in writing to proceed. 9. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT CITY may indefinitely suspend further work hereunder or terminate this Contract or any phase of this Contract upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the CONSULTANT with the understanding that immediately upon the 7 spi-/a receipt of such notice all work and labor being performed under this Contract shall cease immediately. Before the end of the thirty (30) day period, CONSULTANT shall invoice the CITY for all work accomplished by him prior to the receipt of such notice. No amount shall be due for lost or anticipated profits. All plans, field surveys, and other data related to the Project shall become property of CITY upon termination of the Contract and shall be promptly delivered to CITY in a reasonably organized form without restriction on future use except as stated in Article 5. Should CITY subsequently contract with a new consultant for continuation of services on the Project, CONSULTANT shall cooperate in providing information. 10. RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES Approval by CITY shall not constitute nor be deemed a release of the responsibility and liability of the CONSULTANT, its employees, associates, agents, and consultants for the accuracy and competency of their designs or other work; nor shall approval be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility by CITY for any defect in the design or other work prepared by the CONSULTANT, its employees, subcontractor, agents and consultants. 11 . EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 11 .01 The CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, age, color, religion, sex, ancestry, national origin, or place of birth. The CONSULTANT shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during their employment without regard to their race, age, color, religion, sex, ancestry, national origin, or place of birth. 11 .02If the CONSULTANT fails to comply with the Federal Laws relating to Equal Employment Opportunity, it is agreed that the CITY at its option may do either or both of the following: a. Cancel, terminate, or suspend the contract in whole or in part; b. Declare the CONSULTANT ineligible for further CITY Contracts until he is determined to be in compliance. 12. AMENDMENTS This Contract may be amended or supplemented in any particular only by written instrument and only as approved by resolution of City Council or the City Manager, except for termination under Article 9, Termination of Contract, which may be accomplished by the Director of Community Services or his designated representative as identified in Article 9, Termination of Contract. 8 SOTS.,l 13. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, CHARTERS, AND ORDINANCES, ETC. The CONSULTANT, his consultants, agents and employees, and subcontractors shall comply with applicable Federal and State Laws, the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Southlake, and with applicable rules and regulations promulgated by all local, state, and national boards, bureaus, and agencies existing and published before date of this agreement that are known by the CONSULTANT or that are known by the CITY which shall make copies available to the CONSULTANT. 14. RIGHT OF REVIEW CONSULTANT agrees that CITY may review any and all of the work performed by the CONSULTANT under this Contract. CITY is hereby granted the right to audit at CITY's election, the consultant's records and billings related to the performance of this contract. CONSULTANT agrees to retain such records for a minimum of three (3) years following completion of this contract. 15. CONFLICT OF INTEREST No officer or employee shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in any contract with the CITY or be financially interested, directly, in the sale to the CITY of any land, materials, supplies, or services, except on behalf of the CITY as an officer or employee. Any violation of this section shall constitute malfeasance in office, and any officer or employee guilty thereof shall thereby forfeit his office or position with the CITY. Any violation of this section with knowledge, expressed or implied, of the person or corporation contracting with the CITY shall render the Contract involved voidable by the City Manager or the City Council. 16. CONTRACT PERSONAL This Contract is for personal and professional services; and the CONSULTANT - shall not assign this Contract, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the CITY. 17. NOTICES All notices, communications, and reports required or permitted under this Contract shall be personally delivered or mailed to the respective parties by depositing the same in the United States Mail at the address shown below unless and until either party is otherwise notified in writing by the other party at the following addresses. Mailed notices shall be deemed communicated after five days. 9 S'T.tL If intended for CITY, to: If intended for CONSULTANT, to: Kevin Hugman Hershel Lindly Contact Person Contact Person Director of Community Services Vice President Title Title City of Southlake Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. City Firm Name 400 N. White Chapel 1161 Corporate Drive West, Suite 200 Address Address Southlake, Texas 76092 Arlington, Texas 76006 City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code (817) 481-5581 ext. 756 (817) 640-8212 Telephone No. Telephone No. (817) 421-2175 (817) 649-7645 Fax No. Fax No. 18. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR In performing services under this Contract, CONSULTANT is performing services of the type performed prior to this contract; and CONSULTANT by the execution of this contract does not change the independent status of the CONSULTANT. No term, or provision hereof, or act of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Contract shall be construed as making CONSULTANT the agent, servant, or employee of Southlake. 19. INDEMNITY CONSULTANT agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold CITY whole and harmless against any and all claims for damages, costs, and expenses of persons or property that may arise out of, or be occasioned by, or from any negligent act, error or omission of CONSULTANT, or any agent, servant, or employee of CONSULTANT in the execution or performance of this Contract, without regard to whether such persons are under the direction of CITY agents or employees. 20. INSURANCE CONSULTANT agrees to maintain, with reasonable deductibles, in full force 10 Sr' �� and effect for the duration of this agreement and any extensions hereof, at the CONSULTANT's sole expense, insurance coverage written by companies approved by the State of Texas and acceptable to CITY. Coverage shall include the following types and minimum amounts: MINIMUM TYPE AMOUNT 1 . Workers' Compensation Statutory and Employer's Liability $100,000/500,000/100,000 2. Commercial General Combined Single Limit of Liability Insurance $500,000 per Occurrence 3. Comprehensive Automobile Minimum State Financial Liability Insurance Responsibility Limits 4. Professional Liability $500,000 Per Claim (Errors and Omission) Insurance REQUIRED PROVISIONS 1 . CONSULTANT shall furnish a completed Insurance Certificate to CITY which shall be completed by an agent authorized to bind the named underwriting companies to the coverage's, limits, and termination provisions shown hereon. 2. Name the City of Southlake and its officers, employers, and elected representatives as additional insureds on the General and Automobile insurance coverage's. 3. CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT's insurance provider shall notify CITY in the event of any material change in coverage, cancellation, or nonrenewal and shall give such notices not less than 30 days prior to the change. 4. For coverage's that are written with claims made policies, the required period of coverage shall be continuous coverage for the life of the contract, plus an extended discovery period of 5 years to begin at the end of the contract period. Should CONSULTANT change insurance carriers during this entire insuring period, the replacement policy shall include a prior acts provision to eliminate any lapse in coverage. 21 . VENUE The obligations of the parties to this Contract are performable in Tarrant County, Texas; and if legal action is necessary to enforce it, exclusive venue 11 5,.r. ,y shall lie in Tarrant County, Texas. 22. APPLICABLE LAWS This Contract is made subject to the provisions of the Southlake Code, other City Ordinances, Standards, Southlake Specifications for materials and construction, as amended, and all State and Federal Laws. 23. GOVERNING LAWS This contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws and decisions of the State of Texas. 24. LEGAL CONSTRUCTION In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Contract 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 provisions thereof; and this Contract shall be considered as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this Contract. 25. PUBLISHED MATERIAL CONSULTANT agrees that the CITY shall review and approve any written material about CITY projects and/or activities prior to being published by the CONSULTANT. 26. CAPTIONS The captions to the various clauses of this Contract are for informational purposes only and shall not alter any substance of the terms and conditions of this Contract. 27. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS This Contract shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and, except as otherwise provided in this Contract, their assigns. 28. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION LAW The following consumer information is required by the Landscape Architects Registration Law, Article 249c, VTCS: The Texas Board of Architectural Examiners has jurisdiction over individuals licensed under the above named Act. Their address and telephone number are: 8213 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 12 � ` is 107, Austin, Texas 78758-7589; (512) 458-4126. 29. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Contract (page 1 through 13, and Attachment) embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto, superseding all oral or written previous and contemporary agreements between the parties and relating to matters in this Contract, and except as otherwise provided herein, cannot be modified without written agreement of the parties to be attached to and made a part of this Contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have executed this agreement in triplicate originals on this date, the day of , 2000. Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: Firm Name Signature Signature Hershel Lindly, Vice President Rick Stacy, Mayor Name and Title Name and Title 1161 Corporate Dr. West, Suite 200 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Address Arlington, Texas 76006 City, State, Zip Code City Attorney ATTEST ATTEST WCONTRACTSTARKSM STPLN.ENG.DOC 13 ATTACHMENT "A" SCHEDULE OF CHARGES- 1999 BILLABLE SALARY RATE & EXPENSE CHARGES RANGE OF BILLABLE SALARY RATE CLASSIFICATION: LOW HIGH PRINCIPAL $125 $145 ASSOCIATE 86 120 SENIOR ENGINEER 102 115 ENGINEER 111 88 100 ENGINEER 11 65 88 ENGINEER 1 55 65 SENIOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 90 115 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 111 65 90 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT It 55 85 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 1 50 60 SENIOR PLANNER 90 115 PLANNER 75 90 ARCHITECT 80 95 DESIGNER 70 85 SURVEY COORDINATOR 60 75 SENIOR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 55 68 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 50 68 PLANNING TECHNICIAN 48 66 PRODUCTION COORDINATOR 70 90 DRAFTSMAN III OR CAD OPERATOR 55 70 DRAFTSMAN 11 OR CAD OPERATOR 45 58 DRAFTSMAN I OR CAD OPERATOR 35 50 SENIOR SECRETARY 45 65 SECRETARYAVORD PROCESSOR 35 48 CLERK 27 36 The ranges and individual salaries are adjusted annually. OTHER SERVICES(invoiced at rate shown): Four Man Field Party $102/hour Three Man Field Party 92/hour Two Man Field Party 78/hour PC CAD Station $12/hour PC Station 8/hour PRINTING SERVICES(in house): COMPUTER PLOTTING SERVICES(in house): BLACK INK ON COLOR ON MYLAR FILM SQ. FT. PER ORDER BLUE LINE MYLAR SIZE BONDAIELLUM BOND,VELLUM OF INK PLOT PRICE VARIES ACCORDING TO SIZE OF ORDER up to 11"xl7" S 10.50 $ 13.00 S 13.30 24"x36" 11.00 15.50 21.00 6 $3.70 $10.00 30"x42" 12.50 22.00 27.00 I oversize add 2.50/SF 3.50/SF 4.50/SF 100 25.71 139.00 101-200 0.18/S.F. 1.30/S.F. 201-300 0.14/S.F. 1.25/S.F. 301-1000 0.13/S.F. 1.20/S.F. 1001 -up 0.1 1.S.F. 1.15/S.F. In-house Xerox copies provided at$0.07 per single side copy or$0.14 per double side copy. OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES: Other direct expenses are reimbursed at actual cost times a multiplier of 1.10. They include outside printing and reproductions expense,communication expense,travel, transportation and subsistence away from Arlington and other miscellaneous expenses directly related to the work,including costs or laboratory analysis,tests,and other work required to be done by independent persons other than staff members. 5,41 99 SRA-1 City of 5outhiake, Texas MEMORANDUM (W December 30, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shawn Poe, Senior Civil Engineer i 0 I SUBJECT: Award of bid to Control Specialists, Inc. for the installation of computer- operated valves for the elevated storage tanks at Bicentennial Park and Dove Street Action Requested: Staff seeks Council to award the bid for the installation of computer- operated valves for the elevated storage tanks at Bicentennial Park and Dove Street to Control Specialists, Inc. Background Information: The pump station located on Pearson controls the water levels in the City's existing elevated storage tanks. When the second pump station on T.W. King (currently under construction) is completed this winter, valves will need to be added to the four water storage facilities on the low pressure plane to coordinate the functions of both pump stations. (W These computer-operated valves were added to the T.W. King ground storage and Miron elevated storage tanks during construction. However, computer-operated valves must be installed for the elevated storage tanks at Bicentennial Park and Dove Street before the second pump station becomes operational. Financial Considerations: There were two bidders for this project (see attached bid tabulation). The low bid was from Control Specialists, Inc. of Roanoke in the amount of $68,700. This is below the $75,000 estimated to install the two computer-operated valves. This water system improvement is an eligible impact fee expense. There are adequate funds in the current water impact fee fund for this expenditure. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: None. Alternatives: Install manually operated valves. ,,, Supporting Documents: Bid tabulation Map 5J-1 Y City of Southlake, Texas I Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council award the bid to Control Specialists, Inc. to install computer-operated valves for the elevated storage tanks at Bicentennial Park and Dove Street in the amount of $68,700. Please place this item on the January 4, 1999 City Council Agenda for approval. SP/sep (W 5J-2 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS JOB NO. 001-539 CHEATHAM & ASSOCIATES BID TABULATION OWNER: City of Southlake Control Specialist 14591 Triple D, IncP.O. Box 141 Keller Hasler Dr. JOB TITLE: Elevated Storage Cortro!Valves, %certennial Park Roanoka, TX 76262 Keller, T)C 76248 Elevated Tank and Dove Road Elevated Tanis PHONE: 8171638-2629 PHONE: 8171430-9900 PROJ. MGR: Bill Lohrke FAX. 8171430-1798 FAX 8?71130-9911 AMT. BID: $68,700.00 AMT BID: $80,000.00 BID DATE: December 21,1999 JOB NO. 001-539 ITEM PLAN UNIT UNIT NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. PRICE COST PRICE COST 1 16"ELECT CONT VALVE @ BICENT. PARK L.S. 1 31100.00 $31,100.00 38000.00 $38,000.00 2 16"ELECT CONT VALVE @ DOVE ROAD L.S. 1 37600.00 $37,600.00 42000.00 $42,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT BID $68,700.00 $80,000.00 ITEM NOS.1 &2 (W 5J-3 :III ''':_ :Ilf�llll:il■■�j lnitinii t11�ii ■■ 1 �� p'�I ,� 1 1 1 I"a : ` I + j:=1 1 li��lll�lj�rl■II(II/�/!^� . �ii■■•■■li�l�■■or-. � ■ 'sVla��111: ■■y .�I , II■�, 1�I III/17� ��1 GIII�� i■ a_I■■■ �r _ 11111■1►►�� r�C ll nos MOO IIIIIIIIIII►�n1"�p.w.u1=�_Il 11 I 1�`�= � J■ , .III` ►��Ir -�I��I�a/�li. ..�1I�/1\ r�u �-\�� ■..■..� -•'� ��r��lll'I',•ii� ri�� j ■u■■:.1� � nu■Irt�� NOW ■■■______ 1 1■1■■■■.��.; ':1;. �. �■■� ■If/I11111111111� _ •■■■ �1?c:�1: gym, _" 1 - _ - -ci...i:u:"i ��•.' r� 7�I�•�: ■alh� :'1 ■• �; �i, �l\w --f j��I■�1�CC 1�''I�_■.,'u.�1.�O.n,lllh,■�•_��■1 _� ■...T.f■, _�,�■=:.e., :IIIII' •II',�II�IIII�t��.Illl;�t. � =,�P''—`:!-�!j■j j.LflwQ �jII'!•�-� 1+��♦ 'i•• - - _ �.��,a•■■': /` '�,� �� a,�r ....- -_^mom �, �" • � �.��.� ___ - e ,--"_ ',:� / - ail�•_ aaa■. �� ■-� to � loll,,�LI� _ __ �.........�r� �".I'.u'll��I■�••\Ii.�u�c11_�%,': _ �I�"�� i�,�� - "=II■IIII', f �� ` ►gib: :�: _:.,.... �` �J �� ut��141c- 1 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 29, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner CASE NO: ZA 97-156 SUBJECT: Request to Extend the Validity of Case ZA97-156, Preliminary Plat — Cornerstone Business Park, Phase II, 67.64 Acres in the C. B. McDonald Survey, Abstract No. 1013,Tracts 1 and 3 On January 6, 1998 the City Council approved the above referenced plat. This plat has not yet been filed and will expire on January 6, 2000. The Carroll Independent School District is requesting a one-year extension of the validity of the plat. The purpose of this extension is to allow time for processing and filing of the final plat. The Subdivision Ordinance No. 483-G, Section 4.01(I)3 (shown below) permits the City Council to extend the expiration date of a plat which has not yet expired up to one year. Subdivision Ordinance 483-G, Section 4.0](1)3 `Extensions: The City Council may extend the expiration date of an approved plat upon written petition for such extension by the owner prior to the expiration of the plat but not to exceed one (1)year. " The City Staff Report for this case, location map (tract map) and a reduced copy of the plat are attached for your convenience. Please place this item on the next Council agenda for their consideration. DKK att: City Staff Report Location Map Reduction of the Final Plat N:\Community Development\WP-FILES\MEMO\97CASES\97-156PE.doc 5K� � City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT January 7, 1998 CASE NO: ZA 97-156 PROJECT: Preliminary Plat- Cornerstone Business Park, Phase II STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Planner II, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Preliminary Plat of Cornerstone Business Park, Phase II, being approximately 67.64 acres out of the C. B. McDonald Survey, Abstract No.1013, Tracts 1 and 3. LOCATION: Approximately 200' southeast of Crooked Lane, southwest of Cornerstone Business Park, Phase 1, and north of the Dart railway right-of-way and State Highway No. 26. OWNER: John R. McDearman APPLICANT: Southlake Cornerstone Business Park, L.P. CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural District LAND USE CATEGORY: Industrial NO. NOTICES SENT: Twelve (12) RESPONSES: Two (2)responses within the 200' notification area were received: James F. Lunsford, P. O. Box 1685, Dallas, Texas, in favor. Pamela Morrison, 710 Whispering Woods Circle, Southlake, Texas, opposed. P&Z ACTION: This item appeared on the November 20, 1997, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting agenda but was not heard due to Case Resolution No. 97-22. It was continued to the December 4, 1997, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. December 4, 1997; Approved (5-0-1) subject to Preliminary Plat Review Summary No. 1, dated November 26, 1997. COUNCIL ACTION: December 16, 1997;Approved(7-0) to table to the January 6, 1998, City Council meeting. K-2 City of Southlake, Texas January 6, 1998; Approved(7-0) subject to Preliminary Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated January 2, 1998. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has met the requirements of Preliminary Plat Review Summary No. 1, dated November 26, 1997,with the exception of the requirements in the attached Preliminary Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated January 2, 1998. NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENI�WP-FILES\MEMO\97CASES\97-156PP.WPD -.r IQ � J1 f � / i - ' _ r Y TRACT MAP ,qo Mox-tnl� I , _ a c a a l a i man 1 L t.• xx• ,o..,r.,.. �� j o,o` I i... H, ':..I ��j a e i i a ►...� C C z I I FL 1 I 4 v 11 110 _ lu1 g ZY Z a Sig I I I^ C 1 cG �QQ. y� � a,L • .. pp_.. I w I ... 0 u ' ial• � Sa �.„ o � Ili �il a i I I I , O r a ! I I• I I• W I tlt �€i ii3 !!!s k if T;C�SIL pa � .•.. �� -__ —__ __. R H ti R� {ti AtEg}afd +� � tt�s y�;qiq,!5r�F�'Sl�).d;t5!p'! a�� _ _•, ,» t� t t!!t'!iE t �• 4 � r�a: � �� Rtlf��tr�l lt�Sa i}tt tilts !!! t}t I e �Iz 9 i.j i • N d"I : ;;tt?�}�} }i5}L xl}! �t�lt;a i1 �; Ir •• z:� � � yds's it t�t ija�a��^il��:� !.�{s' I• �� 3'" � � , 1,ilt�111 p'Ftfx if;d!�{RdG Yt Yt!�e " I / "4 n. ' I le L-nl`1 i � Apr. � y � � �ti►!�"�� q�• � 3 I � I i i __ 4g City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 30, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Garland Wilson,Director of Public Safety(Ext. 730) SUBJECT: Resolution No. 00-01, Revising Resolution No. 98-52 in support of the application for related grant funds for a D.A.R.E. officer through the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office. Action Requested: City Council consideration of Resolution No. 00-01. Background Information: This resolution is a revision of Resolution No. 98-52 showing support of the application for related grant funds for a D.A.R.E. officer through the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office. Financial Considerations: City would receive funds of$14, 939 in 2001 and$7,469 in 2002. Citizen Input/ Board Review: No citizen input has been received. Not subject to any Board review. Legal Review: Not Applicable Alternatives: Not Applicable Supporting Documents: Resolution 00-01 Staff Recommendation: Place Resolution No. 00-01, showing support for the D.A.R.E officer funding on the January 4, 2000 City Council meeting agenda for approval. GW/bls Approved for Submittal to City Council: ity anager's Office 5L-1 RESOLUTION NO. 00-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,TEXAS,REVISING RESOLUTION 98-52 IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR RELATED GRANT FUNDS FOR A D.A.R.E. OFFICER THROUGH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION OF THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake concurs with efforts to make America's neighborhoods safe places in which to grow, live, and work, and WHEREAS, the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office provides funding for programs designed to assist communities in the development of innovative, locally-designed, long-term community policing programs designed to promote community-based problem-solving, prevent crime, and enhance public safety with a focus on the youth, and WHEREAS, the City of Southlake has adopted Resolution 98-52 in support of this program and to conform to all of the requirements of such grant program upon being awarded such funding, and WHEREAS,the City of Southlake agrees that in the event of loss or misuse of the Criminal Justice Division funds the City of Southlake assures that the funds will be returned to the Criminal Justice Division in full, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Southlake, that the City Council of Southlake,Texas revises Resolution 98-52 to reflect continued support for the application for related grant funds through the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office, and authorizes the Southlake Department of Public Safety to apply for grant funding for the continuation of existing programs and development of initiatives consistent with those program goals. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE DAY OF , 2000. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra L. LeGrand, City Secretary 5L-2 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Sharen Elam, Director of Finance Ext. 716 SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to enter into an addendum to agreement with Tarrant County for tax collection services Action Requested: Approval of the addendum to agreement with Tarrant County for tax collection services Background Information: Since 1982, the Tarrant County Tax Assessor/Collector has collected property taxes for the City of Southlake. The renewal contract was presented and approved by City Council at the September 7, 1999 meeting. The purpose for the addendum is to establish and document the consent of the City to the investment of collected tax funds by Tarrant County during the period between collection and payment to the City. The County agrees that it will invest the funds in compliance with the Public Funds Investment Act. Also, the County agrees that it will pay to the City all interest or other earnings attributable to taxes owed to the City. The City received $17,650 of interest earnings from Tarrant County for the 1999 tax year collections. Financial Considerations: Estimated interest earnings of$20,000 Citizen Input/ Board Review: None required Legal Review: The addendum has been sent to the City Attorney for review. Alternatives: Approve or deny agreement Supporting Documents: Addendum to agreement with Tarrant County Staff Recommendation: Approval of the addendum to agreement with Tarrant County. ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION OF AD VALOREM TAXES (W- This Agreement is made this the Day of , 1999, by and between June Garrison, Tarrant County Tax Assessor-Collector, Tarrant County, and hereinafter referred to as the "City". PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT The purpose of this Agreement is to establish and document the consent of the City to the investment of collected tax funds. This Agreement shall serve as an addendum to the Agreement dated entered into by the parties hereto for the collection of ad valorem taxes by the County on behalf of the City. This Agreement shall not void any of the terms of the aforesaid Agreement between the parties. AGREEMENT The City hereby agrees that the County, acting through the County Auditor,may invest collected ad valorem tax funds of the City during the period between collection and payment. The County agrees that it will invest such funds in compliance with the Public Funds Investment Act. The County further agrees that it will pay to the City all interest or other earnings attributable to taxes owed to the City. The Tax Assessor-Collector agrees to deliver to the County Auditor all ad valorem taxes collected on behalf of the City for investment on a timely basis.All parties agree that this Agreement will not be construed to lengthen the time period during which the County or the Tax Assessor-Collector may hold such funds before payment to the Citv. The parties agree that the term of this agreement shall begin on the date the last parry signs this agreement and terminate on the last day of the 2000 tax year. EXECUTION This Agreement is executed on the day and year first above written,in Tarrant County, Texas. JUNE GARRISON TOM VANDERGRIFF TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR COUNTY JUDGE TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS TARRANT COUNTY,TEXAS CITY OF BY: City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT December 30, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-092 PROJECT: Site Plan—Southlake Marketplace, Phase III STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 Attached is a letter from the applicant requesting to table the above case to the January 18, 2000, City Council meeting. NACommunity Development\WP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-092SP.doc . 12/28/1999 14:29 817-416-8418 DREWS REALTY GROUP PAGE 02 Orews. Realty Group Real Estate Investment and Devebpment December 28, 1999 via ace;mild Mr. Dennis Killough Senior Planner City of Southlake 807 N.Carroll Avenue Southlake, Texas 76M Re. Case No: ZA 99-M2 Sft Plan-Southlake MarketptaCO, Phase III Door Dennis: We request that the above Case be tabled until the January 18,2000 City Council Meeting Please let us know if you need anything also from us in order to process this request. Sincerely. n M ng Partner S lake Joint Venture cc: Michael F. Twicheli, L.P. Via facsimile REC'D E EC 2 81999 5W Commme SbW,Suite 400•Sou1takt,Tom 76092-9113•Tikphont:(817)251-2258•Mgro: ;617)329-1664•Fox(817)4W6410 45 ''2- City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT December 30, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-057 PROJECT: Ordinance No.480-317/Second Reading/Rezoning and Development Plan - Crown Ridge Addition STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning on property legally described as Tracts 8, 9, 18, and 19, situated in the R. D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 992, and being approximately 63.43 acres. A Development Plan for Crown Ridge Addition will be considered with this request. PURPOSE: To establish zoning and development concepts for future development of a residential P.U.D. LOCATION: On the west side of North White Chapel Boulevard approximately 700' south of West Bob Jones Road. OWNER: Southlake/Solana, Ltd. APPLICANT: Huitt-Zollars CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural District REQUESTED ZONING: "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District AMENDED ZONING REQUEST: "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District(see attached letter) LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential NO. NOTICES SENT: Fourteen(14) RESPONSES: Four (4) responses were received from within the 200' notification area: • W.E. Lamoreaux Jr., 6967 Blackwood Drive, Dallas, TX, in favor, "I would like to see more development in Southlake." (Received August 31, 1999.) • Barbara G. Lamoreaux, 6967 Blackwood Drive, Dallas, TX, in favor, "It stands to reason that the entire area needs encouragement to develop since Southlake wishes Sabre to bring in so many new people who will need housing." (Received -7Q "( City of Southlake, Texas August 31, 1999.) • Jim Makens, Copper Line JV, 2300 Airport Freeway #230, Bedford, TX, in favor, "in favor so long as developer addresses the additional water flow being dumped on my property." (Received September 10, 1999.) • Marzell F. Evans, 9426 Braddock Road, Fairfax, VA, undecided. (Received September 10, 1999.) Three (3)responses were received from outside the 200' notification area: • Peter and Marilyn Hye, 4522 Saddle Ridge Road, Roanoke, TX, in favor, "Because the above addition is adjacent to Lakewood Ridge Subdivision where the houses are on 1.3 to 1.5 acre lots, we do not want to have 85 homes on 65 acres in the neighborhood (including roads?!) The new addition should have no less than 1 acre lots for the houses excluding the roads." (Received September 9, 1999.) • Judy Howell, 460 Brooks Court, Southlake, TX, opposed. See attached letter. (Received September 9, 1999.) • Cara O. White, 4475 Homestead Drive, Southlake, TX, opposed, "Does not conform to the Land Use Plan. Removal of a huge # of old established trees-unnecessary. Drainage issues & traffic issues." (Received September 9, 1999.) P&Z ACTION: September 9, 1999; Denied(7-0). COUNCIL ACTION: October 5, 1999; Approved (7-0) on consent applicant's request to table. October 19, 1999; Approved (7-0) on consent applicant's request to table to the November 2, 1999, City Council meeting. November 2, 1999;Approved(7-0)First Reading amending the zoning request from "PUD" Planned Unit Development District to "SF-IA" Single Family Residential District. December 7, 1999;Approved(6-0)to table and to continue the Public Hearing to the January 4, 2000, City Council meeting due to the applicant not being present. STAFF COMMENTS: Please note that a change of zoning to the "SF-IA" Single Family Residential District does not require a Concept Plan Review by Staff. -7A -Z City of Southlake, Texas Because of a recommendation for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission, a super majority vote for approval by the City Council is needed in order to approve this zoning change request. NACommunity Development\WP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-057ZD.doe 7A -3 TERRA LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. October 18, 1999 Karen Gandy, Interim Planning Director Planning City of Southlake 1721 East Southlake Boulevard Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: Crown Ridge Estates Dear Karen: Please put Crown Ridge on the list for the next Southlake City Council meeting. We request that our zoning for the Crown Ridge Development he changed from a PTJD to SF-IA. I have met with Cara White, the representative of Spin 1. She states that Spin 1 is in agreement to support this zoning change request. Please let me know when the next City Council meeting is scheduled. Thank you for your help and patience through this process. Sincerely, gaul Spain PS/mka Cc: Cara White IM OCT 211999 Terra Land Development Co. ** 700 Lakeview Blvd. * Denton,Texas * 76207 * 972-410-5000 * Fax 940-383-1340 7A—tj l r 09;07, 99 .4: 2 E .-1 70a 3a5l JUCv HJIJELL :s5. kWWW Insurance CMXM*.' iTATI FARM �• Cr MAC JUi Y HOW-t 1 , CI U, Chr n °C@+`1�✓� a-= �' .-i INiURANI� � n 6 W f�,U S.��il��.>.!+ .IlANTI, tlilE i1 P W1v:, I F ' IX /5116 ='KAL (9721 7::0-15Y6 FAX Sou Lr:l3k-,, Planning & Zoring Cona,rlttcc: W on rrr husband and l moved to SouLhla<e t.hr(ae anc real{ years agcT, l.� had lc►cyked for over tmo year, for a grey}t. lo^ation- r �,:ral jtn�usp�c�rc. loAi- donsity housing. and acreagE We found our droam pruporty on r-')aks Cour--. and WETS, l(-ad to gel l eve thtit t.h�, zoning in Vie area vas 'or Inw density housing and no less than One acre per dwel rn , h;nv vxe are faced w0..h a dluvclupt,r who has purchased property fc;r, r2sident.ial lots. Ile was aware of the minimum acreage zoninq when he tfii5 land and is now trying to steam ro11 a chap e through 'or higr-dens,.ty residential . We have mct with him several ,.inlet, arrU r,ade our Vnouahts quite plain as to our desire to leave tho zoni nc, a i t. s roar, and obviously, he criouses poi, to pay at;enti on to our dos f 'vs. Sin;:e my husband and 1 wi I'l b(I Out of town Or the 9th of Sep'.e b' r•, unis !et.t.er will serve, as ou^ vote for mPPt.ina. WF, arcs ORY oppo":-c" to the Crcrwn Ridge zon'irg plan Uue %o its tai lure to curl�t�ly with the (it y's ! end Else P i an, that. ;s i n p l ace now, and it.; e r re;;t, an t.rc�ct. i of rasa r ucture and our quality of 1-i`e. l as sure that th(� developer feels that if he corgi. ti n:;es to harass the current. residents that, wo will r% l erit and fa; + to appear and express our fecelings. Please be assured that. our opposition to this change of zoring will n:)t change and we. wi11 not co away. Sinrcr�ly. �-viax I DO ,103 Fin _ FWW , I on 111 i9 ul 511I11 ES SE "_ 111 == 1118i1 :� �► � 1 � � �glpp1111B��t11111111\ EL JA �11111111111IIIIIIIIilil�lli�fii ..� �.-• - � �IIIt11111111111111111111�11 1 I I I I I t 111111111111111111111! �unm uAU�,►11a!ulillu�tl� �Illllllir�: . I �Illilllll\�� ,. ,� �'111111t111�i111111\ y y�i111Ulltrr�tuuii� I ♦ 1 n , • , v y 7.72 AC 20 001 ACTR � E SURVEY2Umm TR , TR am . TRACT MAP � . .►� Lu I __ 4xRR7tR �tR � :, RA _ let O Nna Xnxru �1 -°-- 3)IviHinos 3o u�o i Y A A R 7S R R » R A r wd wa =y -co E„ LLI $ ^Y a Q z --------------- U) Q NOSN3H '3 L8 .Y C Z a NOSN3H "3 Z ! 1 •Y `Y O Z 1131nUd 'a s �. O Q } Z N � a - in 0 Z � 0 Q na W� 7� Q a \ a Ucr •Y Y 5 - - � — -- ---X -_ CC r Q w O'- w � a .Y w CO 0 J — 05 ''-^^ - } v, «Y --=- as cunr F-.?rM/ 1s I 6$ emo AHdoal 30 A1l0 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480-317 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS 8, 9, 18, AND 19, SITUATED IN THE R. D. PRICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 992, AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 63.43 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "SF-IA" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 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 (W NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Cityof Southlake, Texas is a home rule City actin under its Charter Y g adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned "AG" Agricultural District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a N:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENRWP-FILES\ORDINANCES\CASES\480-317.DOC Page 1 � A -S person or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called by the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether these changes should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and damages; noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off-street parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off-street loading spaces, and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the promotion of health ad the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the over-crowding of the land; effect on the concentration of population, and effect on transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public facilities; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the view to conserve the value of the buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout this City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that there is a public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'RWP-FILES\ORDINANCES\CASES\480-317.DOC Page 2 7A-1 at the time their original investment was made; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over-crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 480, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Southlake, Texas, passed on the 19th day of September, 1989, as originally adopted and amended, is hereby amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and amended as shown and described below: Being Tracts 8, 9, 18, and 19, situated in the R. D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 992, and being approximately 63.43 acres, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" from "AG" Agricultural District to "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ORDINANCES\CASES\4W317.DOC Page 3 'J (A,10 SECTION 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning. SECTION 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, words, phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance are not amended hereby, but remain intact and are hereby ratified, verified, and affirmed. SECTION 4. That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed, with respect to both present conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen congestion in the streets; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent over-crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs and development of the community. They have been made after a full and complete hearing with reasonable consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake, N:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN7\WP-FILES\ORDINANCES\CASES\480-3I7.DOC Page 4 IA ►r r Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. SECTION 7. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 8. All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. SECTION 9. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a N:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ORDINANCES\CASES\480-317.DOC Page 5 public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if (W this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 1999. (W MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY (W NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ORDINANCES\CASES\480-317.DOC Page 6 7A -G APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ORDINANCES\CASES\480-317.DOC Page 7 -7A-Iq EXHIBIT "A" (W BEING all that certain lot,tract,or parcel of land situated in the R.Price Survey Abstract Number 992 in the City of Southlake,Denton County,Texas,being a part of that certain "First Tract"and all of that certain"Second Tract"conveyed by deed from Garvis Doyle Gilbert to Mary Veda Gilbert,recorded in Volume 3232,Page 515 and all of that certain tract of land conveyed by deed from June Jones Jr.to Darwin Larue Jones et al recorded in Volume 2426,Page 284,Real Property Records,Denton County,Texas,and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at an'iron rod found for corner in the east line of the J.Henry Survey Abstract Number 528 and in the west line of said Price Survey Abstract Number 992, said point being the northwest comer of that certain tract of land conveyed by deed from W.B.Downing to the City of Southlake recorded in Instrument No.0066058,Deed Records,Denton.County,Texas; THENCE N 00deg 00' 14"W,677.15 feet with said cotnmon Survey line to an iron rod found for corner; THENCE EAST, 1335.15 feet with Bob Jones Road,a public roadway,to an iron rod found for corner; THENCE S 00deg 00' 10"E,677.22 feet to an axle found for corner; THENCE S 89deg 39'20"F., 1857.31 feet to a fence comer for corner in the west line of White Chapel Road,a public roadway; THENCE S 00deg 24' 20"W,674.18 feet with said west line of said White Chapel Road (W to a fence comer for corner; THENCE N 89deg 37'44"W,2540.89 feet to an iron rod found for comer,said point being the southeast comer of that certain tract of land conveyed by deed from June Jones to Linnie Johnson,recorded in Volume 373,Page 195,Deed Records,Denton County, Texas; THENCE N 00deg 06' 04"E.211.63 feet with the east line of said Johnson tract to a fence comer for comer,said point being the northeast corner of said Johnson tract; THENCE N 89deg 53' 56"W,420.00 feet with the north line of said Johnson tract to an iron rod found for comer in T.W. King Road,a public roadway; THENCE N 25deg 25'34"E,43.12 feet with said T.W.King Road to an iron rod found for comer, THENCE N 25deg 25' 35"E,46.92 feet with said T.W.King Road to an iron rod found for corner; THENCE N 23deg 03'04"E,300.57 feet with said T.W.King Road to an iron rod found for comer; THENCE N 07deg 50'45"E,99.46 feet with said T.W.King Road to an iron rod found for corner in the northeast corner of said W.B.Downing tract; THENCE N 89deg 58'40"W,397.17 feet with the north line of said W.B.Downing tract to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 63.43 acres of land,more or less. (W NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480-3I7.DOC Page 8 - City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT December 30, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-109 PROJECT: Site Plan— Johnson Elementary School STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Site Plan for Johnson Elementary School on property legally described as Tract 5H situated in the Francis Throop Survey, Abstract No. 1511, and being approximately 14.89 acres. PURPOSE: Site Plan approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit. LOCATION: On the northeast corner of the intersection of North Carroll Avenue and East Highland Street. OWNER/APPLICANT: Carroll Independent School District CURRENT ZONING: "CS" Community Service District LAND USE CATEGORY: Public/Semi-Public and 65 LDN Overlay Corridor NO. NOTICES SENT: Twenty-two (22) RESPONSES: Two notices were received from outside the 200' notification area: • Otis T. Welch, U.S. Department of Transportation, See attached letter. (Received December 9, 1999.) • Karen L. Robertson, Manager Noise Compatibility Office, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, opposed, "The Airport Board does not support the development of a school, or any other noise sensitive land uses, at this proposed site." See attached letter. (Received December 9, 1999.) P&Z ACTION: December 9, 1999; Approved (5-1-1) subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated December 3, 1999, deleting Item #1 (articulation); regarding Item #2 (screening to roof top mechanical units), requiring the applicant to get a bid regarding screening of rooftop equipment and submitting that number to City Council and leaving it up to City Council as to whether or not they want to waive that requirement; regarding Item #4.a, giving the applicant until August 1, 2004, to complete the bufferyards; regarding Item #4.b, instructing the applicant to get a determination of where the final right-of-way would be on Carroll Avenue and have the number of City of Southlake, Texas feet between that right-of-way and the existing parking lot available for City Council; regarding Item #4.d, allowing the applicant until August 1, 2004, to complete the interior landscaping; waiving the islands in Item#4.e,but allowing the applicant until August 1, 2004, to install the relocated area and plant materials; deleting Item #4.f, regarding Item#5,requiring the applicant to meet with the neighbors before City Council to find out who wants screening and who does not; regarding Item #6, requiring a 6' sidewalk but allowing the narrowing of the sidewalk to 5' to meet up with the existing sidewalk and not taking up a length of more than 10' when narrowing from 6' to 5' and giving relief to the 6' trail interior to the site; and regarding Item #7, suggesting that ZBA permit a variance to the setback. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated December 30, 1999. NACommunity Development\WP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-109SP.doc t� 13 sa TR 1 L TR 3 n TR 11J25 n w a R y a TR 4 TR 1PoA fl0 AC 1R 50� iR 4► 519 AC TR WE TR 1B TR 1ffi n� 4 P,./. TR @6 a0 AC ' :3 TR 21 Ac fl n 4 TR 4D TRSD!' +r VTR R3 F AC 265 Ac xi TR 4D1 l 00, am AC TR 2A1 A 29 TR 1gnu 141AC 4ETR 2m TR TR 2 t TR 50 E S 40.D Ac A.CHI RS 16 Ac n f TR 5B IQO AC OZ AC n m w► ,3oo SURVEY A-299 TR 5m IQo Ac F T TR 3 � D %m AC im E TR se►5G iR y41c3 TR TR WK TR W2 1556 AC 3 5 AC C 18 auffi TR 22 1Q41 AC TR 3R 365A AC TR `TR 3AIfi TR 38R17! TR 3RU, 73 au AC 1R MO fR 4F3A TR mm TR m TR 3m 4=R T TR 4C1 6.43 AC TR 4C � TR 4F2TR TR 3A112 2L0 At TR ao AC 65 Ac TR 3Ai1 TR uw �U4 3AU1 TR a 3w �a TR IB2 C.� TR 13 TR 1fl n ffi lk ,; 1c TR IC t 2fl77 Ac TR 1E 1997 AC TR M mm AC 0>a12 mi 601 AC 1766►C 1064 AC 23345 Ac � its TR 3A A SA2 TR 1 TRIA161 34A Ac 521 Ac C�' �`e`• TR3A R.EA ES T.MfAH rR 1e VEYr A-481 SURVEY A— i 1Uk TRa TR 5D QO� T&2RLA rR } 1119 TR"1 TR 5C1 R004►C TR 5 i TR 3 629 AC TRACT MAP cm ��- "N R—PU D" I WIIISPCRING OOP LN "SF-1 All WiRA TIMARRON LP I x o U /1 O I x_ a wcc o G. PAYNE o g � a J ! J "SF-1 A" so ! / D. BURGESS K. HORNE "AG" A. LARSON J. HUGHLING = TR 5H 15.6 AC 3 1 y "AG ; S. LORIO 317 A„ Q ro G. HODGES E 2 PLEASANT HILL N7 CHRISTIAN CH I OOp D. WALSH csll lal F o � 1 ! 1" K.STOSBERG I j CARROLL ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH ' „C F-1 A" CHEATHAM , g PARTNERS I I „cs„ O 3N 12 1 1s1 r� Q � TR 4H J_ BROWN I p' 1.0 AC 5 11 ;a "AG" I 4---------------------------! 2W 207 r------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 320 2so 130 133 21 30 so 30 I CARROLL-114 LIMITED a Q I TR 1F1 LL w U1 .83 AC PRTNSHP ! N LTARRANT COUNTY CARROLL ISD I locsif licsil — — T-311L ; j TR 1C 1 A 5.0 AC I 15.282 0 i ADJACENT OWNERS AND ZONING W W Dec-09-99 05:20P 329 1747t P-03 DVC-09-89 16- 30 FROMsPUBLIC AFFAIRS/NOISE OFC . ID•972 674 0644 PACE 3/3 nF"Woo` Ir Jam pFWD Dallas / Fort Worth International Aisr,u. t (W b�ecutirc Dsrocwr ___ December 9,1999 Ms.Ana Creighton.ChaiMAD Planning&Zoning Commission City of Southlake 1721 F.Southlake Blvd.,Suite 100 Southlake,Texas 76092 RE: Planning&Zoning Commission Agenda item Reference No_ ZA-99-109 Dear Ms Creighton: Please allow me to address an agenda item slated for the December 9, 1999 meeting of Souttiiake`s Planning&Zoning Commission- The agenda is to consider a site plan for Johnson Elementary School to be located on the northeast corner of North Carroll Avenue and Fast Highland Street, Case No. ZA-99-109. For reasons stated below, the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board("Dk W")does not support the proposed site plan. The subject property is situated irk DFW's 65-75 DNL noise contour and is located on the extended runway centerline for Runway 131.I31R,approxiiiu tely 4.1 statute miles from the north end of this runway. The Property is subject to routine and regular overflights by aircraft operating to and tram DFW International Airport_ If extrapolated, the proposed location is at the 72 DNL noise contour and the site's compatibility and appropriateuess should be considered based on land uses at this level of noise. the Airport Board does not support the development of a school, or any other noise sensitive land uses, at this proposed site. However,in the event the City determines the project and its location are in the City's best interest,the Airport Board sawgly recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. An avigation casement for the property be obtained naming the DFW International Airport Board and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth using laAguage to be provided by DFW. 2. The City require mandatory building shell noise reduction be incorporated into the building design,noted on the final building plans,and verified during the building inspection process. 3- The City require a minimum building shell design of 40 NLR(Noise bevel Reduction). Greater values would afford additional sound attenuating properties to the school. Thant;you for your consideration of this matter. Please contact me at your convenience should you like to discuss our comments further. Sincerel , Karen L.RobertsoA Manager Noise Compatibility Office RECD t3 ©FgC1 ee: Dr.Ted Gillian,Mary Emma Karam e� .7.7J A*1iniw4ri1e CWK= ► 3200 FW AUfW8 one a ram oeroa 0%%W 6rmg y DPw Appm'c.Tom.7520-"28 . 9R1574-6M `I�-5 Dec-09-99 05: 13P 329 1747t P.02 DEC 09 199 1s-17 FP FAR TX ADO AS61-650 81'72225989 TO 932917,17 P.02,'03 US 09parhT em SauinWQ$A09,on Fora Wang Teals 76193.0000 0mr4porr lloo 4rkaftgs Lowvana. New mer-co.OKi.noma Fed@ Arfalan T0.28 Adnwds.t,— -: December 9, 1999 City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission 1721 E. Southlake Blvd. Suite 100 Southlake,TX 76092 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: It has come to our attention the City of SoxAhlake is currently considering rezoning and site plans for two schools proposed by the Carroll Independent School District(ISD). The specific actions are being considered at the Planning and toning Commission Mwing scheduled for December 9, 1999 and are as follows' Site Plan for Johnson Elementary School(ZA 99-109)pwposcd fur the:Northeast comer of the intersection of North Carroll Avenue and East Highland Street. Rezoning and site plan for Carroll ISD Middle/Intermediate School (ZA 99-120) proposed for the west side of South Kimball Avenue approximately 900-feet south of East SouthIake Boulevard(F-M. 1709). The Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)does not attempt to influeace local land use decisions. We do,however,want to take this opportunity to make sure you are aware of the fact that the proposed school sites are directly on the extended centerline of Runway I3R131L at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Specifically,the proposed Carroll ISD Middle/Intermediate School is approximately 2.5 miles from the Runway 13R threshold,while the proposed Johnson Elementary School is approximately 4.1 miles from the Runway 13R threshold. Both school sites will experience routine and regular aircraft overflights by all types of aircraft and will be subject to aircraft noise on a regular basis. Review of DFW Airport noise contours as stipulated in the 1988 settlement agreement, and as used by the City of Southlake,the Middlellntermediate School is located adjacent to the 75 DNL noise contour,while the Johnson Elementary School is located in approximately the 72 DNL noise contour. ?lease note that,per FAA Put 150 recommended land use compatibility guideline$(as duplicated in the City's zoning mdinance)the 75 DNL is the maximum exterior, noise that is recommended to be mitigated for a tolerable interior noise environment_ COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE---OUR COMMITMENT TO YOU UD D E C 0 91999 �� lo Dec-09-99 05: 13P 329 1747t P.03 DEC. 09 '99 14=18 FP. FAA TN aDp A541-6W 8172225589 TO 93291747 P.03/03 2 The FAA recommends that communities consider aircraft noise impacts when making land use decisions. If communities determine that residential or school Uses must be allowed in areas impacted by aircraft noise 65 DNL or greater,measures should be incorporated into the building structures to sclueve minimum outdoor to indoor noise level reduction. In both cases, a minimum of 35 dB NLR should be achieved in all structures at both proposed school locations Greater noise level reduction values are encouraged. Please be aware that exterior nose levels will not be affected by the noise level reduction,and that aircraft noise will be relatively loud in outdoor areas. We encourage you to thoughtfully consider the proposed locations for the schools sad the aircraft noise impacts that may be experienced at the sites. If your ultimate decision is to approve the rezoning and site plans,we would encourage you to require an outdoor to indoor noise level reduction to enhance the tcaching/lea ning environment inside the buildings. Sincerely, Otis T. welch Manager, Texas Airports Development Office cc, Ms.Karen Robertson,Manager Noise Compatibility Office DFW International Airport P.O.Drawer 619428 DFW Airport,TX 75261-947R COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE—OUR COMMITMENT TO YOU +� TOTAL PAGE.03 «» Dec-08-99 04:21P Total Program Management. 972-671-8640 P.02 (lliw December B. 1999 Community Development RE: Case dumber ZA 89•189--Site Plan Johnson Elementary School stern 1 a: Request Variance T(>Ial Program Item 2: Request Variance Marageme:rt, Inc. item 3 a:Will comply,with dedication for the R.0.V11, provided parking would remain as indicated until road exp::nsion and improvement is initiated. 860 S1.Airjxtrt Suite tilt Item 3 b:Will comply, knowing that the existing structure will not meet the ordinance 3inryt. A "61154 setback requirement at the time of street dedication for the R.Q.W. 1W)427-7501) Pix i8171 427-4708 Item 4:,a, thru f. Request Variance. Ktvti+.tut�3-nttt.rom Item 5: Request Variance. Will review with neighbor's wishes individually for requirement. Item 6: Request Vari-'MCO, Would request that walk be allowed to approach building as indicated. Will reroute trail at time of street improvements when parkway will be required. Item 7:Will request review by ZBA. Item 6:Will comply. Itern .9.:Will comply after meeting with Fire Marshall to review options. Iternl 0: Will comply, Item 1 t'Will comply. ltertt 12:Will comply. Item 13: Will comply. Regar rr- Mark J Daniels, AIA,CSt, CCCA Project f4lanager Auwtin,'11A DEC 0 81999 ACOUSTIC DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. a C O N S U L T A N T S I N A C O U S T I C S REPORT OF ANALYSIS OUTSIDE TO INSIDE SOUND ATTENUATION JOHNSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT SOUTH LAKE, TEXAS . November 10, 1999 Prepared by: Acoustic Design Assoicates, Inc. Dallas, Texas ,,,coustic Design Associates, Inc. Voice: 214-350-4546 2520 Electronic Lane, Suite 812 FAX: 214-350-4586 Dallas, Texas 75220 e-mail: "acousdsn@flash.net" OUTSIDE TO INSIDE SOUND ATTENUATION JOHNSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Page 2 INTRODUCTION: This is a summary report of the results of our analysis of the"outside to inside sound attenuations" of the building envelope for the Johnson Elementary School in the Carroll Independent School District in South Lake, Texas, based on drawings provided to us. Because of its proximity to the Dallas/FortWorth Airport, the city of South Lake requires an analysis of the outdoor-to-indoor sound attenuation through the shell of the building. Verification is required that the structure, outside to inside, meets a sound attenuation of 35 dB. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY: The total areas of the exterior walls and windows around a typical classroom, with a door opening directly to the exterior, were measured from the architect's plans, and a calculation was made for the sound losses through the building envelope. Calculations were made following the methodology outlined in ASTM Standard E-1332- 90, Standard Classification for Deterrnitiation of Outdoor-Indoor Transmissiofi Class. The laboratory tested sound attenuation through each different material (windows, door, brick walls, roof) was used in a computer program which calculates the composite sound attenuation as a basis of the percentage area of each material. A reference sound spectrum based on aircraft noise was then used to determine sound levels on the outside and sound levels on the inside of the building after the sound was attenuated through the composite construction. The difference in sound levels is the outside to inside sound attenuation. RESULTS: The calculated composite outside to inside sound attenuations for the proposed materials, as listed below, is 37.9 dBA for the wall and windows and door, and 38.8 dBA for the composite of the walls, windows, door and roof. The composite sound transmission class ratings (STC) are STC-40 and STC-41 respectively. Door STC-28 Windows/lite/transom STC-24 Brick wall STC-57 Roof STC-43 ACOUSTIC DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. DALLAS, TEXAS OUTSIDE TO INSIDE SOUND ATTENUATION JOHNSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Page 3 CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis of the proposed building envelope, it is our conclusion that the outdoor to indoor sound attenuation meets or exceeds the required 35 dBA. ACOUSTIC DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. William B. ohnson Principal onsultant ACOUSTIC DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. DALLAS, TEXAS City of Southlake, Texas SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY { Case No.: ZA 99-109 Revised Review No: Two Date of Review: 12/30/99 Project Name: Site Plan- Johnson Elementary School,being 14.9 acres out of the F. Throop Survey Abstract No. 1511 APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: Carroll I.S.D. Belcheff Associates Inc. 3051 W. Dove Rd. 1200 S. White Chapel Blvd. STE A Grapevine Rd. Southlake,TX 76092 Phone : (817) 251-6622 Phone : (817)421-4891 Fax : (817) 251- 6622 Attn: John Craft Fax : (817)421-4828 Attn: George Belcheff CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 11/15/99 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. 1,2, Building Articulation Y See Comment No. 1 Masonry Standards Y Complies Impervious Coverage Y Complies Bufferyards Y See Comments No. 4 Interior Landscape Y See Comments No. 4 Driveways NA Existing drives do not exceed 20% increase in traffic impact. 1. Provide vertical building articulation on all facades in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance 480, Section 43.13d. The Plan conforms to the required horizontal requirements. However,there is no vertical articulation on any of the proposed facades. (P& ZAction:delete) 2. Provide screening of the roof top mechanical units. Screening method must be integral to the building architecture. (P&ZAction:requiring the applicant to get a bid regarding screening of rooftop equipment and submitting that number to City Council and leaving it up to City Council as to whether or not they want to waive that requirement) 3. Show and dimension R.O.W. dedication in accordance with the current Master Thoroughfare Plan. Dimensions must either be from center line of apparent existing R.O.W. or full width from across '16'h City of Southlake, Texas R.O.W. if opposite side has dedicated their half Specifically the following items must be addressed: a. Confirm the location of the N. Carroll Ave. centerline with regard to the dedication shown on this plan. It appears that the dedication indicated may not reflect the correct centerline of N. Carroll Ave. Additional R.O.W. may be required along the west of this site. b. East Highland St. is shown as a 70' C2U requiring a minimum dedication of 35' from the centerline of the street. 4. The following changes are needed with regard to bufferyards and landscape areas: a. Provide at least the minimum bufferyards plantings as indicated by the chart on the plan. The chart indicates a request for waiver of all bufferyards. (P& ZAction:giving the applicant until August 1, 2004, to complete the bufferyards) b. Remove all parking from required bufferyards. A number of Spaces along N. Carroll appear the encroach within the required 10' Type E bufferyard. (P&ZAction: instructing the applicant to get a determination of where the final right-of-way would be on Carroll Avenue and have the number of feet between that right-of-way and the existing parking lot available for City Council) C. Show and label the width and type of proposed bufferyard on the graphic. Distinguish the bufferyard areas with dashed lines and cross hatch or shading. Provide the attached bufferyard calculation chart on the plan. d. Provide the required interior landscaping areas and plant materials in accordance with the chart shown on the plan. The applicant has noted a request for waiver of all interior landscape. (P&ZAction:allowing the applicant until August 1, 2004, to complete the interior landscaping) e. Provide a minimum of 20 square feet of landscape parking island area per parking space on the site. Parking lot landscaping is credited toward the required interior landscape area. See Landscape Ordinance No. 544 for interior landscape requirements and Ordinance 480. Provide island for each row of parking on the site. Islands must be a minimum width of 12' back to back if curbed or 13' in width if uncurbed and equal in depth to the space(s). (P& ZAction: waiving the, but allowing the applicant until August 1, 2004, to install the relocated area and plant materials) f. A hedge row with shrubs reaching a mature height of 3' planted a maximum of 30"on center is required along all pavement edges adjacent to N. Carroll Ave. (P& ZAction: delete) 5. Provide a minimum 8' screening device along the north lot line and along the east lot line where adjacent to the SF-IA zoned property. (P&ZAction:requiring the applicant to meet with the neighbors before City Council to find out who wants screening and who does not) City of Southiake, Texas 6. Provide a 6' meandering concrete sidewalk in accordance with the Master Trail Plan along the east side of N. Carroll Ave. and within the interior of the site. The trail along N. Carroll Ave must generally follow and be within close proximity to the street(>2' from street pavement). The applicant has proposes sidewalk that diverts from the street narrowing to 5' in width and located so that it runs adjacent to the existing school building. No interior trail connection to the adjacent CS zoned property along the east is indicated. See attached letter from Ben Henry,Park Planning and Construction Superintendent. (P& ZAction:requiring a 6'sidewalk but allowing the narrowing of the sidewalk to 5'to meet up with the existing sidewalk and not taking up a length of more than 10'when narrowing from 6'to S'and giving relief to the 6'trail interior to the site) 7. The portable building in the south portion of the lot encroaches the adjoining property and the required building setback and should be relocated to comply with setback requirements. (P & Z Action.-suggesting that ZBA permit a variance to the setback) * Building B is a temporary structure currently operating with an approved temporary SEU that will expire on 10/01/2000. It appears that the building was inadvertently placed across the property line. 8. Correct the zoning designations for properties across Carroll Ave and label all Land Use Designations. 9. Label the width and curve radii on all drive ways and fire lanes. Provide fires lanes within 150'on a hose-lay basis of all exterior portions of the building or note that the building will be sprinkled. It appears that an approximately 35' gap exists in this requirement along the east side of the existing building. 10. Confirm the area and percentage of impervious coverage on this site. The impervious coverage noted in the Summary Chart does not appear to be correct. Impervious coverage appears less than what has been indicated. 11. Provide or correct Site Data Summary Chart information as indicated below. Do not remove existing information unless it is indicated below: Site Data Summary Percentage of site coverage (include all Bldg's on site) 16% Area of Open Space Percentage Open Space Existing Bldg.Area (Bldg.foot print of all buildings on site) in Sq. Ft. Seating Capacity of Largest Auditorium/Cafeteria/Assembly Area Required Parking Provided Parking- Standard 107 Total 117 12. Dimension the distance between the main school building and the proposed addition. City of Southlake, Texas 13. Show the orientation,type and height of any intended lighting. Any new lighting must conform to the current lighting ordinance No. 693-B. P& ZAction December 9, 1999.Approved (5-1-1) subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. Z, dated December 3, 1999 amended as noted above. * The proposed site does not appear to exceed the maximum permitted impervious coverage area percentage of 65%for the"CS" Zoning District. * Although not required by ordinance, staff would appreciate placing the City case number"ZA99- 109" in the lower right comer for ease of reference. * No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior to construction of any signs. * 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. * Denotes Informational Comment IL cc: Carroll I.S.D. VIA FAX: ABOVE Belcheff Associates Inc. VIA FAX: ABOVE NXOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT1WP-FILES\REV\99\99109SP1 JOHNSON ELEMENTARY SITE PLAN.DOC -417 OCT 25N99 . City of Sout IL October 5; 1999 Mark Daniels Mayor. Total Program Management Rick Stacy Mayor Pro Tem:Gary Fawks Mr. Daniels: Deputy Mayor Pro Tem: As discussed October 1, 1999, the Trwil Sy �ste Master Plan r-e-qL:res an. Ronnie Kendall off-road trail of 6-foot along the Carroll Avenue right-of-way and to loop Councilmembers: around the Johnson Elementary / CISD Administration facilities. Wayne Moffat Rex Potter Debra Edmondson The Community Services Department su orts the request by Carroll Patsy DuPre Independent School District to dela tqAUation of the loop trail only. As City Manager: ��; Billy Campbell the CISD facilities improve within this area and with.improvement of adjoining land owners,alignment of the trail can be better determined. Assistant City Manager: Shana K.Yelverton Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. G0'Sandra ty Secretary: L.LeGrand Sincerely, -�- Ben Henry Park Planning & Construction Superintendent Kevin Hugalail, Direcio of Clufiununi:y Sc vices Steve Polasek, Deputy Director of Community Services I I I i I I I Community Services Department• Parks and Recreation Division Bicentennial Park Community Center 400 North White Chapel • Southlake, Texas 76092-6242 (817) 481-5581, Ext. 756• FAX (817) 421-2175 parkrec@airmail.net ��'I AN EOU.4L OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" 1. i 11 Z iIt✓!tiil! � �l�;a Ifr t � � 1 t , y �Y I�ftAS. .f' t f t tom- )1.� •, Att-� _ 1 fll tf , fAl I� it ti�i 111 III '/�' / j�/'�'�!�y t r i tom`,� � , `T�, i F I F_�� 4'I�,i E•, _✓ i,; , �.,,�;�`.-/ ' Ii �-'- �, .. . r••�,:: ,; p f"Its`! , ":s � ' � `_. { r::"`.•::�:`:: � I s d — -i � III ,� I � ,, ! .l��.�� , S• .., \�l i .' �,�� 1 ..i-'III t. •i i y . �. :..k.:. . •,.:.:� _ �:.r��..::.. 1 ��• �`;�4 .r.T _ Y' lid"�i, t�. I..—� �E. � r 1 .. �.��•��• .r yam_ �. :r �+T'S4 t. * •'-� °_.r�i tiilE s a rira //11 a m•�: vnisJ I'm wPa1dFP!a ( 1 ',!. a a J a rel I,-eC: f I I I{ ':f1111iji 11M�MaMa I I I I III II.:{ i' s" City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT December 30, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-098 PROJECT: Revised Preliminary Plat- Lots 1 & 2, Block 61, Timarron Addition STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Revised Preliminary Plat of Lots 1 &2, Block 61,Timarron Addition, on property legally described as Lot 1A2A1, Block 1, Dilg Place Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and Tract 5D2 situated in the Obediah W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, and being approximately 2.6824. PURPOSE: Preliminary plat is required in order to final plat. LOCATION: On the southwest corner of the intersection of Byron Nelson Parkway and East Southlake Boulevard (F. M. 1709). OWNER/APPLICANT: Westerra Timarron, L.P. CURRENT ZONING: "PUD" Planned Unit Development District, being P.U.D. No. 1, Timarron LAND USE CATEGORY: Office Commercial NO. NOTICES SENT: Nine (9) RESPONSES: One (1)response was received from within the 200' notification area: • Bob Stevenson, 2113 Taxco Drive, Carrollton, Texas, in favor. "Good use of property. Increased tax base." (Received December 9, 1999.) P&Z ACTION: December 9, 1999; Approved (7-0) subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated December 3, 1999, deleting Item#1 (94' of right-of-way for Byron Nelson Parkway). STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated December 3, 1999. \\SLKSV4001\Loca1\Community Development\WP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-098PP.doc 8R-1 11111►�/F"�� 1I �� oil 10 , EMERALD BLVD A 6 Ra g A 5 14A 3 GATES 6 5 4 A 10 R.STEVENSON 4 14B 3 11 „AG„ „C_2„ „C_2„ „0_1 „ 4 TR 3 W. HALL SOUTHERN SOUTHERN q Y 13A 4.47 AC SURVEY: 1 J. HOLT HOME HOME Z J W. RYNE I A-687 REALTY INC. REALTY INC. O q SCHROEDER 1RR O R O ----------- r-------- -� --„�_^„ - i OxY ----------�------------ --------- L [ J.M. TEVEWON .409 AC 1 B 28 B ' A-2040 STATE OF TEXAS I ------------------------------------------------------------) -•----------------- SOUTHLAKE BUD DjL 'J. RICHARDS R D2 VENUS P "R-PUD" g25 (DREWS) TR 5D5 1• 8 PARTNERS 1.945 ® "AG" 1 Al V LP 6 AC R R O N 3R 4IiwTIM DDN Of C:3 CITE �� VENUS (DREWS) f f+ �p L PARTNERS V LP /�' L A CO D L L go 247 tJ A 6 0 so �CIp 1 3g 2A 1 4.723 AC 12.829 @ 2R CITY OF SOUTHLAKE „nsn 478 La PARKWOOD DR "RRp H 9 p 2 24 U 33 rf�T IVL1' 22 0 32 5` ADJACENT OWNERS �6° 22 E-, 25 a O C�`Z z ,v 31 AND ZONING 15,357 21 26 : Q ,as _ a 27 t ! �:++aassa:ssea:a � aI F � �K i �SSSiiiisSii;Siiita! ! � � aa � : •'' �q • llt i .i :.ii..3l!!ll ' yy � yy 4 {Y�d Y i Q� � SSt � f#�� t•t � I • t� � —. r •• / e I � A / i . b y j q -�Y�� i ��e�� .lei� I • b .. . � r� k .b' c I � ' id As Igo Net it fie IL it 4 7 •' 1 � nY � •r`l� my __ _ _ l7 f� f MB. • � bj �Y6 c y� � I . I b I . . I p_• Jf ieY�!!��! i i i��rp�• �iY�� ' lI aI�! l�ai`ifffilf}llilifffflf:7fyf 311fflffi " I ..1 t :t. * I • ( II itt'��Z�'i�`t1Filki:,?512iPii ; .#`S��PiiPil$; a YS ri I .�• l lit 9+tt1 t::s:bsl:s:.::.:1:1�'�: f; �::::s::• I •Y � � u . . .,. .... ... Ili�r`ti'+ {'•I11tttti(tifttifftit`'i�ti`•!(,{{t!!!l��tt i �� ' tip:t:•iPl�f}tttiiifi+ il(ttSi�li{PSf3ifFi.+ Sf S ! ) f � - t�itli••i•^tittfitiliiJlticitf„!tlEl•blttililidFf� itl'It i sf Y f{i t;i•e i i i w:. •Y i t jf i 7j'{i i i .baM iitlb b,}t, .ttb. .. Y.. E g s• �i�[Iiltlltlllll:lil6Pll6fCPliirllcllclllllllli � �� '� �"� ; — I — — VnA 12/03/99 FRI 10:00 FAX 21.4 638 0447 C & B DALLAS Q 002 Carter .. Burgess Consultants in Planning, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Management, and Related Services December 3, 1999 City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission 1721 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 100 Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: Timarron Addition, Lot 1 & 2, Block 61 Revised Preliminary Plat Submittal Response Letter Members of the Commission: This letter is in response to the staff comments for the Revised Preliminary Plat dated December 2, 1999 and were addressed as follows: 1. We are requesting that Byron Nelson Parkway right-of-way be approved as shown. We agree with staff that the additional 4-foot right-of-way is not necessary. 2. A. Will comply. B. Will comply. Tree Preservation Comments: 1. Will comply. Sincerely, CARTER & BURGESS, INC. Richard R. Payne, P.E. Associate RRP/shb 99201601123.doc RED DEC 0 3 1999 Carter&Burgess,Inc. 7950 Ombrook Suite 250 Dollos,Texas 75747-4951 (214)638-0145 Metro(972)263-2019 Fox(2141 638-0"7 a 9-5 City of Southiake, Texas PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY No: A"-098 Review No: Three Date of Review: 12/03/99 'Project Name: Revised Preliminary Plat—Lots 1 &2,Block 61,Timarron Addition, being 2.684 acres out of the O.W. Knight Survey,Abstract No 899 APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: Westerra Timarron,L.P. Carter&Burgess, Inc. 6900 W.Viginia Parkway#206 7950 Elmbrooks Drive, Suite 250 McKinney,TX 75070 Dallas,TX 75247 Phone: (817)481-0135 Phone: (214)638-0145 Fax: (817)424-0974 Attn: Steve Yeatts Fax:(214)638-0447 Attn: Richard Payne CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 11/19/99 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 LISA SUDBURY AT(817)481-5581,EXT.862. 1. The current Thoroughfare Plan requires 94' of right-of-way for Byron Nelson Parkway. Prior to adoption of the current plan 90' of right-of-way was dedicated. The ultimate street width has been constructed and adequately fits within the existing right-of-way through this section. Staff recommends no additional right-of-way dedication be required. (Variance Requested) (P&ZAction 1219199: Delete Item #1 (94'of right-of-way for Byron Nelson Parkway). 2. The following changes are needed regarding easements: a. Provide easements for water, sewer and/or drainage as required by Public Works. b. Provide common access easements,as required on any site plan approved for this property. 3. Change the title to Revised Preliminary Plat. P&ZAction, December 9, 1999:Approved(7-0)subject to Plat Review Summary No. 3, dated December 3, 1999, as noted above. * 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 \\SLKSV4001\Loca1\Community Development\WP-FILES\REV\99\99098FP3.doc 1 R6 City of Southlake,Texas TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS (Non-Residential Development) Case: 99 098 Date of Review: 11 — 11 - 99 Number of Pages: 1 Project Name: Lots 1 & 2,Block 61,Timarron Addition(Final Plat Resubmittal) OWNER: PREPARED BY: Westerra Timarron,L.P. Carter&Burgess 6900 W. Virginaia Parkway, Suite 206 McKinney,TX 75070 Phone: (972)529-5988 Phone: 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 two (2) 18" diameter Oak trees which are in the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 61; are not located within the area of the 5' Utility Easement. Any future installation of utilities within the area of the trees critical root zone will be required to be bored at a minimum depth of 48". * 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 80 1g01it z r t t _N W001/ NOVVVMi 111Id ivmd 1 e C" Z., $ i `Tne MR T ,�jj■■ er ea W op 41 bib 1 f �� i@i8 a idi g� ia�g :Tip Km s R aai e� ��fi (woti.a) � I� mc=nrs mstixj ► ��pp p■■ moo T2l�P T�i i - i2 N i 4j 0 II I 1! i j 14 I I I -tit � I I as s : I pl ¢� u——�.. — ■.— a-...L-J NaI City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT December 30, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-111 PROJECT: Preliminary Plat- Emery Addition STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Preliminary Plat of Emery Addition on property legally described as Tracts 3C, 3C1, 5131, and 513213 situated in the Samuel Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 525, and being approximately 4.47 acres. PURPOSE: Preliminary plat is required in order to final plat. LOCATION: On the northeast corner of the intersection of North Kimball Avenue and State Highway 114. OWNER/APPLICANT: Leonard Douglas Emery CURRENT ZONING: "C-3" General Commercial District; "AG" Agricultural District LAND USE CATEGORY: Retail Commercial NO. NOTICES SENT: Nine (9) RESPONSES: None P&Z ACTION: December 9, 1999; Approved(7-0) subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated December 3, 1999, deleting Item #1 (proper zoning of property). STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Revised Plat Review Summary No. 2,dated December 30, 1999. NACommunity Development\WP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-11 I PP.doc r I z a.rT.g1a� =� ■. IN G'1I�� s TR 5B4 ADD1Y COPAL A .53 AC , r l� 1`i 7 I p1 TR 5B4D �s TR 2K 5g15 E �� 65 1.05 AC 1 AC 1R A 1 I 5.574 1.6743 ® TR 5B4F GRTR SB6 TR 5B4E 2.1 AC 4 AC 1 � I TR WA ; 4.2825 TR 5B2D i �� 1.42 AC -rot I (� G_ MARKWOOD I S. HAGAR ANDERSON G. MARKWOOD I IND INC I "SF-1 A" LIQUIDATING 700 I $ 1996 SPCI ; KIMBALL LTD' T 5 213 " j , R. DUNN F-1 All q�'� .6 AC SCE rrs_P_^n ; B1 A� O 4 8 1 CARBAN 6 TEXAS PETRO: I CAPITAL LLC CORP III 1°0 inT 3 8 C 3R Al rrn_r)u I I j (STATE HWY 114) I w I an Igo re STATE STATE ,,, OF OF I TEXAS TEXAS j 1 R1 ,�o TRACT 2A2 { 1.4391 ® n p ^" 2.8441 1 � /`1 V i I ,5 Lu 2 003 .0 d 1.0331 22605 � 't7 09 ADJACENT OWNERS ND O ING i 3 December 2, 1999 Leonard Douglas Emery P.O. Box 326 Justin, Tx 76247 917-430-4347 City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Ave. Southlake, Tx 76092 817-481-5581 Re: Emery Preliminary Plat Case No. ZA99-111 In response to your transmittal of December 1, 1999, we are requesting exceptions to comments 1 and 2. We are platting the property at this time to sell lot 1 to current tennants. We have no immediate plan for the remaining property. A zoning request for lot 3 would be premature. We understand we will not be able to process a final plat on lot 3 until proper zoning is approved. In response to#3 we assure that lot 1 contains 40,000 square feet and we will remove the+/-from the plat. In response to#4A we have common access easement along property line extending into lot 2 shown on the preliminary plat. Common access easement is for access to lots 1, 2, &3 to be built in the future. We have not decided plans for lot 2 so access to property on east side of that lot should not be in question. Common access easement is on east property line of lot 1 and is accesable to lot 2 to be built in the future. In response to#413 Conner Stevens of Delta Survey will provide dimensions you are requesting. In response to#5A and#56 Conner Stevens of Delta Survey will provide information you are requesting. In response to#6 existing land use is Retail/Commercial, existing zoning is Ag&C3, no zoning changes,total acres 4.47. Leonard Douglas Emery WCD DEC 0 3 1999 86-q City of Southlake, Texas PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY Case No: ZA 99-111 Revised Review No: Two Date of Review: 1250/99 Project Name: Preliminary Plat—Emery Addition, being 4.47 acres out of the Samuel Freeman Survey,Abstract No 525 APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: Leonard Douglas Emery Conner Stevens Delta Surveying PO Box 326 607 N. Las Vegas Trail Justin,TX 76247- Ft. Worth,TX 76108 Phone: (817)430-4347 Phone: (817)246-7766 Fax: (940)648-2775 Fax: (817)246-7767 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 11/22/99 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 LISA SUDBURY AT(817)481-5581,EXT.862. 1. No plat shall be approved until proper zoning embracing this property shall be approved and duly adopted by the City in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 4.01 C. The applicant proposes retaining the current zoning of"Ag"on Lot 3 and"C-3"on the southern lots. Proper zoning is not proposed at this time. (Variance Requested) (P&Z Action 1219199: Delete Item #1 (proper zoning of property). 2. All lots must meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Proposed Lot 3 does not comply with the"Ag"district regulations.A change of zoning to an appropriate zoning district must be approved by the City prior to processing a Final Plat on this property, Ordinance No. 483, Section 8.01J. 3. Insure that Lot 1 contains a minimum of 40,000 square feet to accommodate the gas station use,per the zoning ordinance requirements.This plat shows 40,000 4. The following changes are needed regarding easements and rights-of-way: a. Provide common access easements along the north property line, extending into Lot 2 and between Lots 1 & 2 and between Lot 2 and the property to the east. Common Access Easements should be 2' wider and centered over existing drive lanes. The 30' ingress and egress shown,does not appear to encompass the existing drive and does not extend over to the adjoining property. b. Dimension the right-of-way for North Kimball. A dimension should be established from the property pins set for the property across Kimball. Dimensions must either be from center line of apparent existing right-of-way or full width from across right-of-way if opposite side has dedicated their half. NOTE: Although required by ordinance, staff recommends the applicant verify the need for any interior easements with the franchise utility companies and avoid placing unnecessary easement on properties, especially vid* �trees. , VV� J 1 1 City of Southlake, Texas 5. . The following changes are needed regarding adjacent properties within 200' to include properties acrossaany adjacent right-of--way: a. Show and label existing easements for all platted properties within 200 feet of this property. b. Show the Kimball/1709 Addition property correctly. 6. Provide a quantitative land use schedule in accordance with the following format: Quantitative Land Use Schedule Phase - Existing Land Use Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Gross Acreage 1 Retail/Commercial Ag&C3 NA 4.47 P&ZAction, December 9, 1999:Approved(7- 0)subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated December 3, 1999, and as noted above. * It appears this property lies within the 75 'LDN D/FW Regional Airport Overlay Zone, requiring construction standards in compliance with the Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance No. 479. Additionally,the"Avigation Easement and Release" shown in Appendix 3 of the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483 should be executed on subsequent Plats to be filed in the County Plat Records. * 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 cc: Leonard Douglas Emery VIA FAX: ABOVE Conner Stevens Delta Surveying VIA FAX: ABOVE 2 8g-6 rn y;vS LO w�� y It ---=M F" 04lip y 5x E W�Z Z W mm ,N • U > z Ni � C) S�44 oU rA �w� a Uy a� oaeC [ t Y j 5 All � � i Qr VW c,; � e Z 90 s� 8 eh f� w a Ai 01, ;^ 3• tall _ 1 , kO 3 � Ll 9.i �3e] 38Es � 1=�7E EF E, 4 ps $ ya I�E �.}E �3JAg � 1 3 2 a # � D• $ i • � '�C� 5 .�� ; 9sa ,� 111 _ 13 ; s� ai ail a 1 11 11 = ai fill s • R ,{f 3• �ad 1'A Mile T � 1 :. !• � Ii 01 ,LA e0Z y to,IC,Z,S r— --.e.._ . I --- I !g 1 I r ml I 1 1 Jrrir,I a.9o,er-M s 15 rL 1y Nt � s I 1 I y it I 71 ad � 1�• 1 ail W I II I sl I .l �0. 1 I i�.as_nr A.oe_er ooer raua r.oe.er.00 r( i VON --------- ----------- n►o&crartr a�!►n � - City of Southlake, Texas STAFF REPORT December 30, 1999 CASE NO: ZA 99-117 PROJECT: Plat Showing- Lots 5 and 6, W. R. Eaves No. 500 Addition STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787 REQUESTED ACTION: Plat Showing of Lots 5 and 6, W. R. Eaves No. 500 Addition on property legally described as Tracts 3, 3C, and 3C1 situated in the W. R. Eaves Survey, Abstract No. 500, and being approximately 3.799 acres. PURPOSE: Platting is required for issuance of a building permit. LOCATION: On the southwest corner of the intersection of South Peytonville Avenue and West Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). OWNER: Conner Lam APPLICANT: Wilson& Stonaker, L.L.C. CURRENT ZONING: "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District LAND USE CATEGORY: Retail Commercial NO. NOTICES SENT: Eight(8) RESPONSES: One(1)response was received from within the 200' notification area: • Donald G. Davis, 200 S. Peytonville Avenue, Southlake, TX, in favor. "We are in favor of Walgreen's. We live next door to the property. We have had the high school across the street, which has been a lot of traffic, lights from the parking lot, and band practice (no sleeping in) so Walgreen's would be alright to have as a neighbor. We don't see any problem." (Received December 8, 1999.) P&Z ACTION: Approved (6-0-1) subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated December 3, 1999. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated December 3, 1999. NACommunity Development\WP-FILES\MEMO\99CASES\99-117PS.doc �� ; _'1��"►� .� �/��"ill►�.��s� �� I" r '' ,� f� °ram`�� I ■� /� ► �� . ■:.I�q'� ■ ':, irk ��;`� =�� J:.. 28 s 19 7 =� I 29 w a 6 0 I Vw 2C 1�8 B ' i �(1 a 10 11 29 = 21 17 8 g ( 01jrf g,l� a ,>o S 6 +� ,b i Q 28 J 22 a s 1 s s 10 I CORPORATE CIRCLE N 0 «' of ZO ue n z 23 15 27 C4 8 11 s I 9 8 5 p F ,« IS3 7 U 10 cn i 24 q4.964 14 ® 26 12 _ I+« tss FARMER4R1R „ 25 13 is ,ts MADISON 1.2340 ' , `—PUD `. S TURNER I LTD. i I I rr rr MYERS MEADOW HOMEOWNERS AS$N � t STATE OF TEXAS STATE OF TEXAS I STATE OF TEXAS TR 3C TR 3D1 t 1.834 AC 1 V/77 I rrs_P_1 r, t t rr�_�rr CARROLL ISD zp- D. DAVIS o a w p rr — I W&B KIDD FAMILY LTD PRNTSHP AG , t R. GREENWOOD I rrA ^n LL 420 CAS L � �00 ARD SC ATRACT 3 i TRACT 2 C—3 ADJACENT OWNERS AND ZONING BR % 7 = 6 A S 5 - 4 3 I 2 \ a s u a . 4 113 u 76 �.0 12/02/1999 16:35 9723591833 RLK ENGINEERING PAGE 02 ENGINEERING 803 E.Main St.,Suite B -Allen,Texas 75002 972-359-1733 Fax 972-359-1833 December 2. 1999 Ms. Lisa Sudbury City of Southlake Planning Department 667 N. Carroll Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 RE: Walgreen's(Case No.ZA 99-117) Southeast Corner of FM 1709/PeytonviUe Intersection Dear Ms. Sudbury As requested,I have reviewed the final Plat Showing staff comments for the referenced development and am in agreement with all commems. It is understood that these revisions must be made prior to filing the plat. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sinvily, c o W_ Spiars, Project Manager \R3- s�-�f City of Southlake, Texas PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY , Case No: ZA 99-117 Review No: Two Date of Review: 12/03/99 Project Name: Plat Showing,-W. R. Eaves No. 500 Addition, Lots 5 and 6, being 3.609 acres out of the W.R. Eaves Survey,Abstract No 500 APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: Wilson& Stonaker,L.L.C. Surdukan Surveying,Inc. P.O. Box 1955 5120 North Colony Boulevard Grapevine,TX 76099 The Colony,TX 75056 Phone: (817) 329-7300 Phone: (972)625-0206 Fax: (817) 329-7301 Attn: Bill Stonaker Fax: (972)625-0392 CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 11/23/"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 LISA SUDBURY AT(817)481-5581,EXT.862. 1. Correctly identify this plat as Lots 5 & 6,W. R. Eaves No. 500 Addition. Add Lots 5 & 6 to the title block,and include the following in the dedication statement: "...above described property as Lots 5 & 6 of the W. R. Eaves No. 500 Addition,an addition...". 2. The POB must be tied to a survey corner or previously filed subdivision corner. 3. Show and label the lot lines, lot & block numbers, street names, and existing easements, and subdivision name and plat record (volume & page) (or cabinet & slide, or cabinet & page) for all platted properties within 200 feet of this property, including Myers Meadows. 4. The following changes are needed regarding right-of-way dedications and interior street geometry: a. Dimension the distance across the full width of the right-of-way from the property boundary corners for S. Peytonville Avenue. b. Dimension all property comers to the centerline of the apparent existing right-of-way. 5. A "Certificate of Taxes Paid" indicating that there are no delinquent taxes owed on the subject property from each taxing authority must be provided to the City prior to filing this plat in the County records.A copy of this information may be obtained from the Tan-ant county Tax Assessor/Collector's Office located at 100 E. Weatherford St. in Ft. Worth(across from the old red courthouse). There is a service charge of $10 per account for this certificate. For more information contact the Assessor/Collector's office at(817) 884-1103. P&ZAction, December 9, 1999:Approved(6—0—1)subject to Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated December IL 1 3, 1999. 1 City of Southlake, Texas * Please submit a revised blueline "check print" prior to submitting blackline mylars with original signatures'. * Original signatures and seals will be required three blackline mylars prior to filing the plat. Also required are two sets of owner's dedications and notaries (8.5" x 11" or 14" paper) with original ` signatures and seals on each. Mylars will not be accepted if any erasures or original ink, other than signatures or seals, appear on the plat. * 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 cc: Bill Stonaker,Wilson& Stonaker, L.L.C. VIA FAX: ABOVE Conner Lam VIA FAX: 817-488-3347 R. L. K. Engineering VIA FAX: 972-359-1833 [� 2 8e" a cra f!•( a. Ea � ..I I � i i� O Z g -,3 apj O y zscc•a F35 fE€ fiS i ! ; Z O F�}•4 s� j $ � d _ `f x o E$ s 1 -< Z o f �' -�`jEF �� aj f . aa� i� y�� uu•S�p1n It p E 8 =.jzt a- a all 5€e P a nl g a+E Ill-i €€ s z•g : °� .i: S'3 ` 4 - 3j�� Ab 74t SFeypgfi a g5 a .01 . ij_SI Him 6 El I / / I .._oar�•ons'v-o^i u a n y a I I ! n u 0 1 A a d 4 a n o S \ Ra9_• t jjr ------------------- 01 .80 . A�. 5 Z� ln.•�� =3.n-10!" ---- Nni X sor 3.05•90.10N n l SC -� -- — City of Southlake, Texas — i MEMORANDUM December 29, 1999 i To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Charlie Thomas, City Engineer Subject: Ordinance No. 717-B, 1" Reading, Amending Ordinances 717 and 717-A and Chapter 18, Article III, Section 18-79 of the Southlake City Code; designating the speed limit within Cross Timber Hills subdivision and Oaktree Estates Addition as 25 mph. Action Requested: Consider amending ordinance 717 to designate all streets within the Cross Timber Hills Addition, specifically Morgan Rd, Forest Lane, Lakeview Dr., Hidden Glen Ct., Wood Creek Lane, Cross Timber Dr., Twin Creek, Woodbrook Lane, Woodbrook Ct.,. Holland Hill, Estalla Way, Ten Bar Trail, Ten Bar Ct., Meadow Glen, and Glen Cove, as 25 miles per hour speed limit and designate all streets within Oaktree Estates, specifically Westmont Dr. Westmont Ct., Kings Brook Ct., Kings Brook Dr., Milton Drive, Lakeside Ct., Forrest Hills Ct., and Forrest Hills Drive. Background Informatiion: City staff, Department of Public Safety, and Public Works, have been working with the Homeowners Association to investigate and reduce the speeding problem in the Cross Timber Hills and Oaktree Estates. DPS has placed the "smart trailer" and conducted additional enforcement to attempt to educate the offending drivers. City offices have received letters of request for the City to consider reducing the speed limit to 25 mph. Financial Considerations: The cost of the signs will be in the range of$400 to $600, depending upon the number needed. This amount of funds is available in the current budget. I Citizen Input/ Board Review: City staff has been working with the Homeowners Associations. 8D-1 Legal Review: Legal staff is reviewing the amended ordinance. Alternatives: None. Supporting Documents: Ordinance 717-B Map Exhibit Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that this request for Ordinance 717-13, amending Ordinance 717-A, establishing the speed limit in Cross Timber Hills Addition and Oaktree Estates, be 25 miles per hour be placed on the January 4, 2000 Regular City Council Agenda for consideration. Should City Council approve the request, City Council will need to state that the speed limit has been lowered to 25 miles per hour due to the special hazard that exists. Charlie Th as, P.E. City Engineer Approved for Submittal to City Council: City Manager's Office 8D-2 ORDINANCE NO. 717-B AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18, "TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES", OF THE SOUTHLAKE CITY CODE (1996), AS AMENDED, BY; DESIGNATING THE SPEED LIMIT NViTHIN THE CROSS TIMBER HILLS AND OAKTREE ESTATES AS 25 MILES PER HOUR; DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO POST APPROPRIATE SIGNS; 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 Local Government Code; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 545.352(b) and 545.356, Texas Transportation Code, the City of Southlake, Texas has the authority to establish prima facie maximum reasonable and prudent speeds within its corporate boundaries for vehicles on streets and highways; and WHEREAS, a special hazard exists that required a slower speed in order for an operator to drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing circumstances in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS,the prima facie maximum reasonable speed limits adopted herein are not in conflict with any order of the Texas Transportation Commission declaring speed limits along any roadways within the city limits of Southlake; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,TEXAS: SECTION 1. SPEED LIMITS ESTABLISHED That section 18-79 of Chapter 18, "Traffic and Vehicles", of the Southlake City Code is amended by adding the following streets and speed limits to the list of designated streets regulated therein: 8D-3 (W Street Speed Limit (mph) All portions of streets located within the Cross 25 Timber Hills Addition, specifically Morgan Rd, Forest Lane, Lakeview Dr., Hidden Glen Ct., Wood Creek Lane, Cross Timber Dr., Twin Creek, Woodbrook Lane, Woodbrook Ct., Holland Hill, Estalla Way, Ten Bar Trail, Ten Bar Cr., Meadow Glen, and Glen Cove, and designate all streets with Oaktree Estates, specifically Westmont Dr. Westmont Ct., Kings Brook Ct., Kings Brook Dr., Milton Drive, Lakeside Ct., Forrest Hills Ct., and Forrest Hills Drive SECTION 2. POSTING SIGNS; INVENTORY The Director of Public Works is hereby directed to ensure that appropriate signs are erected and maintained giving notice of the speed limits adopted in this ordinance and to file an updated inventory indicating the new speed limits with the City Secretary as provided in Section 18-82 of the City Code. (W SECTION 3. 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. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE 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 its ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence,paragraph or section. Le SECTION 5. 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 two hundred dollars($200.00)for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. 8D-4 (W SECTION 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Southlake, or any other ordinances or statutes adopting prima facie reasonable and prudent speed limits which have accrued at the time of tht 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 7. PUBLICATION The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the _ proposed ordinance or its caption rand penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing theieon 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. SECTION 8. 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. PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF . 1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY 8D-5 PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF , 1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY EFFECTIVE DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney (bwl 8D-6 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 30,1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Garland Wilson, Director of Public Safety(Ext. 730) SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 585-B, Vt Reading,Amending Ordinance No. 585-A, Tree Preservation Ordinance. Action Requested: City Council consideration of Ordinance No. 585-B, amending Ordinance No. 585-A, Tree Preservation Ordinance on first reading. Background Information: This ordinance was originally adopted on June 15, 1993 and amended December 16, 1997. Councilmember Debra Edmondson met with Malcolm Jackson and Keith Martin on several occasions regarding current enforcement action and related tree preservation ordinance procedures. Based upon the analysis of the ordinance, several suggested changes were presented to enhance the operational procedures towards improved efficiency and effectiveness. During the development of the suggested changes, the City experienced several tree preservation issues that exemplified the areas needing modification. These ideas were presented to P&Z and to City Council for discussion. Staff subsequently conducted additional reviews with Councilmember Edmondson, in conjunction with extensive review and research with the City Attorney's office. As a result of those discussions, the original ordinance underwent a modification to its general structure in order to minimize duplicity, enhance comprehension, and better clarify specific points while maintaining the original core of the ordinance provisions. The following key points are made regarding the changes: (1) The term "remove"has been changed to the word "alter" and defined to include removal for clarification. (2) The definition for drip-line was improved to better address a proper critical root zone. (3) An owner has been defined to include the property owner or any person acting on behalf of the owner. (4) Revision in 3.3 eliminates a loop-hole in which builders improperly claimed the residence was their "homestead" and thereby exempted them from the provisions. (5) Section 6.2 (and the wording is repeated in other locations) eliminates the indiscriminate clear cutting of utility easements and allows only the removal or damage to trees required for the actual installation of the specific utility being installed. (6) Section 6.4 eliminates a potential loop-hole in which a developer could acquire agricultural property, claim an exemption to clear-cut, and then develop the property. (7) Section 7.3 expands the use of tree mitigation funds received to include use for landscape and wildlife nature preserves. (8) Wording was included to allow large undisturbed areas to be labeled on plans as such in lieu of conducting a tree survey for that area. 8E-1 Billy Campbell December 30, 1999 Page 2 Financial Considerations: Not Applicable Citizen Input/ Board Review: A draft of the ordinance was made available to developers attending a City meeting,with only one developer responding with suggestions. P&Z approved 585-B to be forwarded to City Council. Legal Review: These changes have been forwarded to the City Attorney for legal review and comment. Alternatives: The City Council may approve the ordinance at first reading on January 4, 2000 as submitted or they may deny or recommend changes or conditions they deem appropriate. Supporting Documents: Ordinance 585-B, Tree Preservation Ordinance Staff Recommendation: Place Ordinance 585-13, amending Ordinance No. 585-A, Tree Preservation Ordinance, on the January 4, 2000 City Council meeting agenda for first, reading. GW/bls Approved for Submittal to City Council: r SE-2 7 DRAFT 12/20/99 ORDINANCE NO. 585-B AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AMENDING ORDINANCE 585-A, WHICH ESTABLISHES REGULATIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF TREES; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR PERMIT REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING A REVIEW PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR TREE PROTECTION AND REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR RESTRICTIONS ON PRUNING AND PLANTING OF TREES; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND CIVIL PENALTIES; 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 Local Government Code; and WHEREAS,on December 16, 1997,the City Council adopted Ordinance No.585-A, (W revising regulation relating to the protection of trees; and WHEREAS, trees are of great value in the maintenance of the public health and welfare of the citizens and in the conservation of natural resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake has determined that tree preservation continues to be necessary to adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend Ordinance 585-A to provide for clarification of the provisions of the existing ordinance, to establish the requirements for submitting a tree survey, and to provide for civil penalties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: 1.0 PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of this ordinance is to promote site planning which furthers the preservation of mature trees and natural areas;to protect trees during construction; to facilitate site design and construction which contribute to the long term viability (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 1 8E-3 of existing trees; and to control the removal of trees when necessary. It is the further purpose of this ordinance to achieve the following broader objectives: a. Prohibit the indiscriminate clearing of property. b. Protect and increase the value of residential and commercial properties within the City. C. Maintain and enhance a positive image for the attraction of new residences and business enterprises to the City. d. Protect healthy quality trees and promote the natural ecological environmental and aesthetic qualities of the City. 2.0 DEFINITIONS 2.1 GENERAL RULES: The following rules shall be applied in constructing, interpreting or otherwise defining the terms hereof: a. Words used in the present tense shall include the future,words used in the singular number shall include the plural number and words used in the plural shall include the singular. (W b. The word "shall" is mandatory and the word "may" is permissive. C. The word "person" shall include any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, joint venture, organization, or any other entity. 2.2 DEFINITIONS: Certain words or terms applicable to this Ordinance are defined as hereinafter provided.Words and terms used in this ordinance, but not defined in this ordinance shall have the meanings contained in the Zoning Ordinance, Landscape Ordinance or other ordinances of the City. Words and terms defined in two ordinances shall be read in harmony unless there exists an irreconcilable conflict, in which case the definition contained in this ordinance shall control. ALTER: ALTERS: ALTERATION: The uprooting, severing the main trunk of the tree,or any act which causes or may reasonably be expected to cause a tree to die. It includes, but is not limited to: damage inflicted upon the tree's root system by machinery, storage of materials, or the compaction of soil above the root system of a tree; a change in the natural grade above the root system of a tree; an application of herbicidal or other lethal chemicals; excessive pruning; placement of nonpermeable pavement over the root system of a tree; and trenching within the critical root zone. A protected tree shall be considered to be altered if less than 75% of the critical root zone is maintained at undisturbed natural grade, or more (W H:\LIBRARY\Southiake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12120/99) PAGE 2 8E-4 than 25% of the canopy is removed, or the tree is disfigured to the extent a (W reasonable person would conclude the tree will not survive. BUILDING PAD: The actual foundation area of a building and a reasonable area not to exceed six feet (6') around the foundation necessary for construction and grade transitions. CLEAR-CUTTING: The removal of all of the trees or a significant majority of the trees within an area of land. CRITICAL ROOT ZONE: The area of undisturbed natural soil around a tree defined by a concentric circle with a radius equal to the distance from the trunk to the outermost portion of the drip line. (See Appendix D.) CUT/FILL: Areas where the natural ground level has been excavated (cut) or fill has been brought in. DRIP LINE: Whichever is greater of: (1) a vertical line run through the outermost portion of the canopy of a tree and extending to the ground, or (2) if the tree is damaged or deformed as a result of tree growth or other cause, a circular area with a radius of Y2 the height of the tree extending outward from the centerpoint of the tree. LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR: The person appointed by the City Manager to (W serve as the person to administer the plans and City ordinances related to landscape and the person's designated representative. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: A person licensed to use the title of "landscape architect" in the State of Texas in accordance with the state law. MUNICIPAL/PUBLIC DOMAIN PROPERTY: Property in which title is held in the name of a governmental entity. Examples of this include City Hall, public parks, Corps of Engineers property, State of Texas R.O.W., libraries, fire stations, water tower sites or similar properties. OWNER: Any person with an interest in land, or a lessee, agent, employee, or other person acting on behalf of the Owner. PROTECTIVE FENCING: Snowfencing,chain linkfence,orangevinyl construction fencing or other similar fencing at least four feet high and supported at a maximum of ten-foot intervals by approved methods sufficient enough to keep the fence upright and in place. The fencing shall be of a highly visible material. (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12120/99) PAGE 3 8E-5 PUBLIC UTILITY: A business that offers a public utility service such as gas (W electricity, cable or telecommunications servic and that installs facilities within public right-of-way or easements. TREE: Any self-supporting woody perennial plant which will attain a trunk diameter of two inches or more when measured at a point four and one-half feet above ground level and normally an overall height of at least 15 feet at maturity, usually with one main stem or trunk and many branches. It may appear to have several stems or trunks as in several varieties of oaks. TREE BOARD: A board appointed by the City Council to carry out the duties and responsibilities set forth in this Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall constitute the Tree Board unless the City Council appoints a separate tree board. TREE. MARGINAL: A tree which the City has determined may or may not be worthy of preservation depending on the individual characteristics of the tree. (See Appendix A.) TREE, PARK: Trees, shrubs, and all other woody vegetation in public parks and all areas owned by the City to which the public has free access as a park. (w TREE. PROTECTED: (1) A quality tree that has a trunk with a diameter of six inches or greater at four and one-half feet above the ground, or(2)a marginal tree that has a trunk with a diameter of six inches or greater at four and one-half feet above the ground and that the Landscape Administrator has determined should be saved due to individual characteristics of the tree, or(3)an understory tree that has a trunk with a diameter of two inches or greater at four and one-half feet above the ground. (See Appendix A.) The diameter of a multi-trunk tree shall be determined by adding the total diameter of the largest trunk to Y2 the diameter of each additional trunk. (See Appendix E.) TREE PROTECTION SIGN: A sign furnished to a person by the City's building official upon approval of a tree survey or tree permit which describes prohibited conduct detrimental to trees. TREE. QUALITY: A tree which the City has determined typically has significant positive characteristics worthy of preservation. (See Appendix A.) TREE, STREET: Trees, shrubs, and all other woody vegetation on land lying between property lines on either side of all streets,avenues,or ways within the City. TREE SURVEY: A plan drawing that provides legend details about the location and details of trees and contains the information set forth in Schedule"B"hereto. It shall (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 4 8E-6 include drawings by a licensed surveyor, a licensed architect, or, if few trees are (W involved, a person approved by the Landscape Administrator. TREE TOPPING: The severe cutting back of limbs to stubs largerthan three inches in diameter within the tree's crown to such a degree so as to remove the normal canopy and disfigure the tree. TREE. UNDERSTORY: A tree which the City has determined has significant positive characteristics worthy of preservation and that does not typically attain great size. (See Appendix A) UTILITY COMPANY: A company or entity, or agent for a company or entity, that provides a utility service such as the provision of gas, electric, cable, or telephone service within the City. 3.0 TREE PERMIT 3.1 GENERALLY: Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.3, below, a person must obtain a tree permit from the Landscape Administrator before altering any tree (including any protected tree, quality tree, marginal tree, or understory tree), park tree, or street tree in the City. 3.2 OFFENSE: A person commits an offense if the person alters a protected (W tree that does not meet an exception listed in Section 3.3, below,without first obtaining a tree permit from the City that authorizes alteration of that tree. A person commits an offense if the person alters a tree in violation of the permit. 3.3 EXCEPTIONS: It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for a violation of Section 3.2 if the person altered a tree for one of the reasons listed below. No tree permit is required if: a. The tree endangers the public health,welfare or safety and immediate alteration is required. b. The tree has disrupted a public utility service due to a tornado, storm, flood or other act of God. Alteration shall be limited to the portion of the tree reasonably necessary to reestablish and maintain reliable utility service. C. The tree is located on the prolerty of a licensed plant or tree nursery which has trees planted and growing on the premises for the sale or intended sale to the general public in the ordinary course of the nursery's business. (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 5 8E-7 d. The tree is located on property zoned SF20, SF30, SF1, R-PUD and (W RE on which there is a residence used as a homestead. However, builders, contractors and owners are subject to the requirements of this Ordinance for all new construction prior to moving into and living on the homestead. e. The tree is located on property which is zoned 'AG' (agricultural)and being actively used for agricultural purposes, as long as the tree is located within a total area of two acres surrounding the owner's residence and the residence is used as a homestead. f. The tree must be altered to allow construction of improvements in accordance with a building permit and in compliance with Section 6.7 of this Ordinance. 4.0 PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS 4.1 AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW: The Landscape Administrator shall be responsible for reviewing all requests for tree permits submitted in accordance with the requirements specified herein. 4.2 DEFERRAL OR APPEAL TO TREE BOARD: The Landscape Administrator may defer the approval of a tree permit to the Tree Board for any reason. A (W person aggrieved by a decision of the Landscape Administrator may appeal the decision to the Tree Board. The decision of the Tree Board shall be final. 4.3 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The Landscape Administrator shall establish administrative procedures necessary to facilitate the implementation and enforcement of this Ordinance. a. Fees: A person shall submit, with the person's application for a tree permit, payment of a fee to the City of Southlake in the amount specified by City Council in a fee schedule, unless Section 9 of this Ordinance is applicable. b. Required Documents: An applicant for a tree permit shall submit an aerial photo, map exhibit, or survey as required by Schedule A or as noted in Subsection 1 and 2 hereof, and must include the described in Schedule B. 1. Alternative to Tree Survey: For property containing large, heavily wooded areas, the Landscape Administrator may, in lieu of a tree survey, authorize the submittal of an aerial photograph accompanied by 'a transparent plan of the development at the same scale as the photograph showing all H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 6 8E-8 areas that are exempt from the tree replacement and/or tree (W protection requirements, provided that a tree survey is submitted to the Landscape Administrator prior to any grading or construction. The Landscape Administrator may approve the submission of photographs in phases for a multi-phased project. 2. Non-Disturbance Areas: If the Applicant designates a nearly wooded area as a non-disturbance zone in which no construction will occur, the Landscape Administrator may approve a non-disturbance zone and trees within the zone are not required to be individually identified on the survey. C. Permit Expiration: A tree permit issued in connection with a building permit shall be valid for the period of that building permit's validity. A tree permit not issued in connection with a building permit plan shall become void 180 days after the issue date on the tree permit. 4.4 POSTING TREE PROTECTION SIGN: After the tree permit is issued, the permit holder shall post a "tree protection sign" at each entrance to the property upon which one or more trees is situated, and at any other location designated by the Landscape Administrator. 4.5 ACTION ON PERMIT APPLICATION: The Landscape Administrator or the Tree Board shall grant a tree permit based on the following criteria: a. Whether or not a reasonable accommodation or alternative solution can be made to accomplish the desired activity without the alteration of the tree; b. The cost of preserving the tree; C. The increased development costs caused by preserving the tree; d. Whether the tree is worthy of preservation; e. The effect of the alteration on erosion, soil moisture, retention,flow of surface waters, and drainage systems; f. The need for buffering residential areas from the noise, glare, and visual effects of nonresidential uses; g. Whether the tree interferes with a utility service; H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 7 8E-9 h. Whether the proposed tree replacement procedures pursuant to (W Section 7 of this Ordinance adequately mitigate the alteration of the tree; and i. Whether the alteration adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare. 5.0 ONGOING REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT BY LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR 5.1 EVALUATIONS: The Landscape Administrator shall evaluate any plans required by this Ordinance to determine whether the developer has made a good-faith effort to preserve as many protected trees as possible. The Landscape Administrator shall prepare an analysis and forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council for their consideration regarding denial or approval of any concept plan, site plan, and preliminary plat that is necessary for development. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall take into consideration the criteria for tree preservation listed in Section 4.5 of this Ordinance in determining whether to deny or approve any concept plan, site plan, or preliminary plat. 5.2 NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES: The Landscape Administrator shall be authorized to work with owners, developers, and builders to make nonsubstantive changes, within the scope of this Ordinance, to plans, permits and other requirements throughout the development and (W construction processes that will provide the greatest reasonable protection toward achieving the purposes of this Ordinance. 6.0 TREE REPLACEMENT AND TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 6.1 GENERALLY: If a tree permit is required forthe alteration of a protected tree pursuant to this Ordinance, the tree replacement procedures set forth in Section 7 of this Ordinance and the tree protection procedures set forth in Section 8 of this Ordinance must be followed as prescribed in this Section. 6.2 PUBLIC UTILITY PROJECTS: For any project conducted by a public utility (except in a capacity covered by Section 3.3.b,herein), all protected trees that the Landscape Administrator determines must be altered in order to install utility lines within public R.O.W. or utility easements shall be exempt from the tree replacement and tree protection requirements listed in Sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance. Any protected trees within public R.O.W. or utility easements that the Landscape Administrator determines do not have to be altered shall be subject to the tree protection requirements listed in Section 8 of this Ordinance, but not to the tree replacement requirements listed in Section 7 of this Ordinance. The public utility's application for a tree permit (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12120/99) PAGE 8 8E-10 must be accompanied by a permit fee and a site plan or construction plan (W that contains the information specified in Schedules A and B herein. 6.3 SELECTIVE THINNING AND REMOVAL OF UNDERBRUSH: a. The Landscape Administrator may issue a single tree permit allowing the alteration of certain protected trees from a densely forested area when the Landscape Administrator determines that the selective thinning is being done in a professionally accepted manner that will enhance the environment and the likelihood of survival for the remaining trees. If the Landscape Administrator issues a permit for selective thinning, the protected trees covered by the permit shall be exempt from the tree replacement and tree protection requirements of Sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance. b. The Landscape Administrator may issue a permit allowing the clearing and grubbing of brush located within or under the drip lines of protected trees subject to reasonable conditions to insure the maximum protection for the trees. The Permit Holder shall clear or __grub by hand or with mowers. The use of dozers, loaders, or other moving equipment is prohibited. 6.4 CLEAR-CUTTING: The Landscape Administrator may issue a single tree (W permit allowing the clear-cutting of protected trees from property zoned"AG" (agricultural)after the Landscape Administrator makes an on-site inspection of the property to be cleared and receives a written statement from the applicant describing the purpose and reason for the clear-cutting, but only if the Landscape Administrator determines that the clear-cutting is for a legitimate, agricultural reason. If the Landscape Administrator issues such a permit, the protected trees covered by the permit shall be exempt from the tree replacement and tree protection requirements of Sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance. If the land ceases to be used for agricultural purposes at any time within three years after the permit is obtained to remove the trees, the owner of the land must comply with the tree replacement requirements contained in Section 7 of this Ordinance. This requirement runs with the land. 6.5 DISEASED, DAMAGED, OR DANGEROUS TREES: The Landscape Administrator may issue a tree permit for any tree that is diseased, infected or damaged beyond the point of recovery, or in danger of failing (except as described by Section 3.3.a herein) as determined by the Landscape Administrator prior to the alteration of the tree. A diseased tree may be altered by the City or an individual to reduce the chance of spreading the disease to adjacent healthy trees. If the Landscape Administrator issues such a permit, the protected trees covered by the permit shall be exempt (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 9 8E-11 from the tree replacement and tree protection requirements of Sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance. 6.6 AGRICULTURAL: The Landscape Administrator may issue a tree permit for the alteration of up to seven protected trees per calendar year on property zoned 'AG' (agricultural) and being actively used for agricultural purposes. If the Landscape Administrator issues such a permit, the protected trees covered by the permit shall be exempt from the tree replacement and tree protection requirements of Sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance. (However, protected trees altered in excess of seven per calendar year are not excepted under this section and will require tree permits and must comply with tree replacement and tree protection requirements.) 6.7 NEW DEVELOPMENTS: a. Residential subdivision: In a residential subdivision, all protected trees that the Landscape Administrator determines must be altered in order to install utility lines within public R.O.W. or utility easements or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, or to achieve the cut/fill drainage as designated on the master drainage construction plan,shall be exempt from the tree replacement and tree protection requirements listed in Sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance. Any protected trees within these areas that the Landscape Administrator determines do not have to be altered shall be subject to the tree protection requirements listed in Section 8 of this Ordinance, but not to the tree replacement requirements listed in Section 7 of this Ordinance. All other areas of the subdivision shall be subject to both the tree replacement and the tree protection requirements, and all other provisions of this Ordinance. b. Single Lot Residential Development: In a single lot residential development, all areas within the building pad site, driveways, public sidewalks, patios, septic tank and lateral lines, parking area, and pool and associated deck area shall be exempt from the tree replacement and tree protection requirements of Sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance. All other areas of the lot shall be subject to both the tree replacement and the tree protection requirements, and all other provisions of this Ordinance. C. Non-residential Development: In a non-residential development, all protected trees thatthe Landscape Administrator determines must be altered in order to install utility lines within public R.O.W. or public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final Plat, or to install fire lanes, required parking areas and building pad sites as shown on an approved Site Plan, shall be exempt from the tree H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 10 8E-12 protection and tree replacement requirements listed in Sections 7 and (W 8 of this Ordinance. Any protected trees within these areas that the Landscape Administrator determines do not have to be altered shall be subject to the tree protection requirements listed in Section 8 of this Ordinance, but not to the tree replacement requirements listed in Section 7 of this Ordinance. All other areas of the development shall be subject to both the tree replacement and the tree protection requirements, and all other provisions of this Ordinance. 1. Mitigation for Parking: If a person provides parking spaces in addition to the required number of parking spaces,the person shall be required to replace trees which are required to be altered due to the parking or to make payment to the City Reforestation Fund, or a combination thereof, as directed by the Landscape Administrator. The following formula shall be used to calculate the number of trees to be replaced or the payment due: The Landscape Administrator shall identify the total number of parking spaces above the number required by the Zoning Ordinance and calculate the number of trees to be replaced or mitigated based on an equivalent number of spaces in the lot containing the greatest number of trees. 6.8 PRUNING: The Landscape Administrator may issue a tree permit to allow (W pruning of a protected tree that alters the tree if such pruning is necessary to allow construction or demolition of a structure. If the Landscape Administrator issues such a permit, the protected tree covered by the permit shall be exempt from the tree replacement and tree protection requirements of Sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance. For all other pruning for which a tree permit is required, Sections 7 and 8 shall apply. 7.0 TREE REPLACEMENT PROCEDURES 7.1 GENERALLY: If required by Section 6,above,the following procedures shall apply to any person who alters a protected tree for which a permit is required. 7.2 TREE REPLACEMENT: If a person alters a protected tree for which a permit is required, the person shall replace the protected tree with a quality tree as designated in the Landscape Ordinance and approved by the Landscape Administrator. This tree replacement requirement is not meant to supplant good site planning. Tree replacement will be considered only after all design alternatives which could save more existing trees have been evaluated and reasonably rejected. (W H:\LIBRARY\Southiake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12120/99) PAGE 11 8E-13 a. Size and Number: A sufficient number of trees shall be planted to equal or exceed, in caliper, the diameter of each tree altered, measured at 4.5'above ground level. Each replacement tree shall be a minimum of 3" caliper at one foot above ground level, and seven feet in height when planted. b. Location: Each replacement tree should be planted on the same property as the tree which was altered. However, if the replacement tree cannot be planted on the same property in accordance with universally accepted arborists' standards, the Landscape Administrator may: 1. require replacement on private property if also approved by the Chief of Building Services, 2. require replacement on public property, or 3. require payment to the Reforestation Fund in accordance with Section 7.3, below. C. Responsibility for Replacing Trees: The Landscape Administrator will determine the agent responsible for replacing the trees, the time of replacement, and the location of the replacement trees. The (W requirement to replace trees shall run with the land. d. Delayed Replacement: If the Landscape Administrator approves the planting of replacement trees more than 30 days after the alteration of protected trees, the applicant shall provide the Landscape Administrator with an affidavit that all replacement trees will be planted within six months. The Landscape Administrator may require the person to furnish the City a cash deposit or surety bond in the approximate amount of the cost to replace the trees. e. Duration: A replacement tree that dies within three years of the date it was planted must be replaced by another replacement tree. This requirement runs with the land. 7.3 REFORESTATION FUND: If required by the Landscape Administrator, the applicant, instead of compliance with Section 7.2, above, shall make a payment into the Reforestation Fund or other specifically dedicated fund. The funds shall be used only for purchasing and planting trees on private property approved by the Landscape Administrator and the Chief of Building Services, on public property, for acquiring wooded property which shall remain in a naturalistic state in perpetuity, or for establishing a landscape or wildlife preserve or similar nature area. (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12120/99) PAGE 12 8E-14 a. The amount of the payment required for each replacement tree shall be calculated based on a schedule published and reviewed annually by the Landscape Administrator which sets forth the average cost of a quality tree added to the average cost of planting a tree. b. The Landscape Administrator shall submit quarterly reports to the City Council of the deposits and disbursements from the Reforestation Fund. 7.4 OFFENSE: A person commits an offense if the person fails to replace a tree or make a payment in accordance with the Landscape Administrator's direction pursuant to this Section 7. 8.0 TREE PROTECTION PROCEDURES 8.1 GENERALLY: If required by Section 6,above,the following procedures shall apply to protect any protected tree for which a permit is required. 8.2 CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: All construction plans shall include the requirements listed in Appendix 'C.' 8.3 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES IN CRITICAL ROOT ZONE: The following activities are prohibited within the limits of the critical root zone of any (W protected tree subject to the requirements of this ordinance. a. Material Storage: No materials intended for use in construction or waste materials accumulated due to excavation or demolition shall be placed within the limits of the critical root zone of any protected tree. b. Equipment Cleaning/Liquid Disposal: No equipment shall be cleaned or other liquids deposited or allowed to flow overland within the limits of the critical root zone of a protected tree. This includes, without limitation, paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar or similar materials. C. Tree Attachments: No signs, wires or other attachments, other than those of a protective nature, shall be attached to any protected tree. Fencing attached to a tree via "U" nails or bent nails is allowed only if the fencing is parallel to and contiguous with the tree. d. Vehicular Traffic: No vehicular and/or construction equipment traffic or parking shall take place within the limits of the critical root zone of any protected tree other than on existing street pavement. This restriction does not apply to single incident access within the critical root zone for purposes of clearing underbrush, establishing the (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 13 8E-15 building pad and associated lot grading,veh icu lar traffic necessaryfor routine utility maintenance, emergency restoration of utility service, or routine mowing operations. e. 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. f. Impervious Paving: No paving with asphalt, concrete or other impervious materials that may reasonably be expected to kill a tree shall be placed within the limits of the critical root zone of a protected tree except as otherwise allowed in this Ordinance. 8.4 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES IN DRIP-LINE: No heavy equipment, including but not limited to trucks, tractors, trailers, bulldozers, bobcat tractors, trenchers, compressors, and hoists, shall be allowed inside the drip-line of any protected tree on any construction site without the specific approval of the Landscape Administrator. 8.5 PROCEDURES REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION: The following procedures shall be followed on all types of construction projects ( including without limitation residential, commercial, and municipal / public domain projects). a. Protective Fencing: Prior to construction, the contractor or subcontractor shall construct and maintain,for each protected tree on a construction site, a protective fencing which encircles the outer limits of the critical root zone of the tree to protect it from construction activity. All protective fencing shall be in place prior to commencement of any site work and remain in place until all exterior work has been completed. b. Bark Protection: In situations where a protected tree remains in the immediate area of intended construction and the Landscape Administrator determines the tree bark to be in danger of damage by construction equipment or other activity, the contractor or subcontractor shall protect the tree by enclosing the entire circumference of the tree with 2" x 4" lumber encircled with wire or other means that do not damage the tree. The intent is to protect the bark of the tree against incidental contact by large construction equipment. H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 14 8E-16 8.6 CONSTRUCTION METHODS: a. Boring: Boring of utilities under protected trees shall be required in 9 9 P q those circumstances where it is not possible to trench around the critical root zone of the protected tree. When required, the length of the bore shall be the width of the critical root zone at a minimum and shall be a minimum depth of 48 inches. b. Grade Change: In situations in which the Landscape Administrator approves the grade change within the critical root zone of a protected tree, the procedures noted in the City's standard detail sheet shall be followed. C. Trenching: All trenching shall be designed to avoid trenching across the critical root zone of any protected tree,unless otherwise approved by the Landscape Administrator. Trenching within the critical root zone requires a tree permit. The placement of underground utility lines such as electric, phone, gas, etc., is encouraged to be located outside of the critical root zone of protected trees. Trenching for an Irrigation system shall be placed outside of the critical root zone, except the minimum required single head supply line is allowed to extend into the critical root zone perpendicular to the tree trunk and in the manner that has the least possible encroachment into the (W critical root zone. d. Root Pruning: All roots two inches or larger in diameter which are exposed as a result of trenching or other excavation shall be cut off square with a sharp medium tooth saw and covered with pruning compound within two hours of initial exposure. 8.7 OFFENSE: A person commits an offense if the person violates or fails to comply with this Section 8. 9.0 EXCEPTIONS TO PERMIT FEE REQUIREMENT 9.1. CITY: When altering any protected tree, the City is exempt from the tree permit fee, but must obtain a permit and comply with all tree replacement and tree protection procedures as listed in Sections 7 and 8. Protected trees proposed to be altered must be shown on construction plans approved by the Landscape Administrator. 9.2. DISEASED,DAMAGED,OR DANGEROUS TREE: A person is exemptfrom the tree permit fee if altering a diseased, damaged, or dangerous tree pursuant to Section 6.5, above. (W H:\LIBRARY\Southiake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 15 8E-17 9.3 PUBLIC UTILITIES: When altering any protected tree, a public utility is exempt from the tree permit fee, but must obtain a permit and comply with all tree replacement and tree protection procedures as listed in Sections 7 and 8. Protected trees proposed to be altered must be shown on construction plans approved by the Landscape Administrator. 10.0 COMPREHENSIVE TREE PLAN It shall be the responsibility of the Tree Board to study, investigate, counsel and develop and/or update periodically, and administer a written plan for the care, preservation, pruning, planting, replanting, removal or disposition of trees and shrubs on all municipal/public domain property. The Board shall present the plan to the Council and, when adopted by the Council, the plan shall represent the comprehensive tree plan for the City. 11.0 STREET AND PARK TREES 11.1 ACCEPTABLE TREES: The Landscape Administrator shall maintain a list of trees acceptable for planting on municipal/public domain property. Trees other than those listed as acceptable may only be planted upon written (W approval of the Landscape Administrator. 11.2 STREET TREE SPACING: The spacing of street trees will be in accordance with recommendations of the Landscape Administrator. 11.3 STUMP REMOVALS: All stumps of street and park trees shall be removed below the surface of the ground so that the top of the stump shall not project above the surface of the ground. 11.4 PERMIT REQUIRED: A person,other than an agent of the City, must obtain a tree permit before the person may prune, treat, remove, damage, or destroy a street or park tree (regardless of whether it is a protected tree and regardless of whether if is significant enough to "alter" the tree) within the City. A person commits an offense if the person violates this Section 11.4. 12.0 TREE PRUNING 12.1 OFFENSE: A person commits an offense if the person alters or significantly disfigures a protected tree by pruning. 12.2 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES: Unless pruning is requested by the owner of the tree or excepted from this Ordinance pursuant to Section 3.3.b herein, the public utility shall obtain a tree permit before H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 16 8E-18 beginning any pruning (regardless of whether the pruning will alter or 4L significantly disfigure the tree). 12.3 PRUNING TECHNIQUE: When allowed, all pruning shall be conducted in accordance with universally accepted arborists' standards and the recommendations contained in Appendix G. 12.4 REQUIRED PRUNING: The owners of all trees adjacent to public R.O.W. shall maintain a minimum clearance of ten feet (10') above the traveled pavement or curb of a public street. Said owners shall remove all dead, diseased or dangerous trees, or broken or decayed limbs which constitute a menace to the safety of the public. (Cross-reference: Section 3.3 of this Ordinance regarding exceptions.) 12.5 TREE TOPPING: It shall be unlawful for any person to top any tree without having a tree permit approved by the Landscape Administrator, unless an exception listed in Section 3.3 of this Ordinance applies. However, if the Landscape Administrator determines that topping the tree is necessary because the tree has been severely damaged by storms or other causes, or is under utility wires or other obstructions, making other pruning practices impractical, the Landscape Administrator may issue a tree permit allowing topping of the tree. 12.6 GROUND LEVEL CUTS: Where protected tree removal is allowed through (W exemption or by a tree permit, and the root system is intertwined with protected trees which are intended to be saved, the tree shall be removed by flush cutting with the natural level of the surrounding ground. Where stump removal is also desired, stump grinding shall be allowed or, upon approval by the Landscape Administrator, a trench may be cut between the two trees sufficient to cut the roots near the tree to be removed, thereby allowing removal of the remaining stump without destruction of the root system of the saved tree. 13.0 TREE PLANTING RESTRICTIONS A person commits an offense if the person: a. plants any required replacement tree within an area such that the mature canopy of the tree will interfere with overhead utility lines; b. plants any required replacement tree or street tree within an area such that the mature root zone of the tree will interfere with underground public utility lines (including water lines, sewer lines, transmission lines or other utilities); H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 17 8E-19 C. plants a tree within ten feet (10') of a fire hydrant; or d. plants a street tree closer than 35 feet (35') to any street corner, (W measured from the point of nearest intersecting curbs or curblines. 14.0 TREE SURVEY REQUIRED BEFORE GRADING A person commits an offense if the person grades or causes grading on any property in the City prior to obtaining a grading permit. No grading permit shall be issued until a tree survey, if required, has been submitted to and approved by the Landscape Administrator. 15.0 ENFORCEMENT 15.1 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT: The City shall not approve a developer's agreement unless it provides that all construction activities shall meet the requirements of this Ordinance. 15.2 BUILDING PERMIT: No building permit shall be issued unless the applicant signs an application or permit request which states that all construction activities shall meet the requirements of this Ordinance. The Building Official shall make available to the applicant: a. a copy of the tree preservation ordinance or a condensed summary (W of the relevant aspects pertaining to the type of permit requested;and b. a tree protection sign. 15.3 ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS: The City may refuse to accept any public improvements until the person pays all civil penalties for violations of this Ordinance or complies with Section 7 of this Ordinance; provided, however,that acceptance of public improvements shall be authorized before all trees have been replaced if,with the Landscape Administrator's approval, the person furnishes the City with a cash deposit or surety bond in the approximate amount of the cost to replace the trees. 15.4 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: No Certificate of Occupancy(C.O.)shall be issued until all civil penalties for violations of this ordinance have been paid to the City. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until all replacement trees have been planted or appropriate payments have been made to the Reforestation Fund; provided, however, that a Certificate of Occupancy may be granted before all trees have been replaced if, with the Landscape Administrator's approval, the person furnishes the City with a cash deposit or surety bond in the approximate amount of the cost to replace the trees. (W H:\LIBRARY\Southiake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(ReVd 12/20/99) PAGE 18 8E-20 16.0 VIOLATIONS 16.1 Any person who: (1) violates Section 3 of this Ordinance by altering a (W protected tree without first obtaining a tree permit from the City,or by altering trees in violation of the permit, or(2)violates Section 7 of this Ordinance by failing to follow the tree replacement procedures, shall: a. be assessed a penalty by the Landscape Administrator equal to One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per diameter inch of the tree(s) altered; and b. be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined One Hundred Dollars($100.00)perdiameter inch of the tree(s)altered ,not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00)per incident. The unlawful alteration of each protected tree shall be considered a separate incident and each incident subjects the violator to the maximum penalty set forth herein for each tree. 16.2 Any person, firm, corporation, agent or employee thereof who violates any other provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction hereof shall be fined not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00)for each incident. The unlawful alteration of each protected tree shall be considered a separate incident and each incident subjects the violator to the maximum penalty set forth herein for each tree. ,, 16.3 A person is criminally responsible for a violation of this ordinance if the person alters , or permits or causes to be altered , a protected tree without complying with the requirements of this Ordinance. (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 19 8E-21 Schedule A - SUMMARY OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTS Ref Activity Item Required Document Aerial Map Survey Photo Exhibit RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION A. With submittal of a Concept Plan, Site Plan, and Preliminary Yes' Note' Plat. RESIDENTIAL HOMES B. With submittal of a building permit request for any construction Yes that occurs within forty feet(40')of any protected tree on lots Yes' 20,000 square feet or larger. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS C. With the submittal of a Concept Plan, Site Plan and Yes' Yes Preliminary Plat. COMMERCIAL BUILDERS D. With submittal of a Concept Plan, Site Plan and Preliminary Yes Yes Plat for building permit request. UTILITY COMPANY E. With request for tree removal or pruning to maintain services. Yes Notes: 1.The aerial photo must be accompanied by a transparent plan of the development(at the same scale as the photo)showing all information required by this Ordinance. 2. The Landscape Administrator has the authority to require a detailed tree survey on particular areas when determined to be needed to evaluate the impact on trees. 3. An aerial photograph may be required or approved in lieu of a tree survey for large heavily wooded areas or large projects completed in phases. H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 20 8E-22 i (W Schedule B - SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS Ref Required on Document Item Aerial Map Survey Photo Exhibit 1 Yes Yes Appropriate Title i.e."Tree Removal Map Exhibit,"or"Tree Survey") 2 Yes Yes Title block which includes street address, lot and block, subdivision name, city and date of preparation. 3 Yes Must be prepared by a licensed surveyor, licensed architect, or, depending on the number of trees, another person if approved by the Landscape Administrator 4 Yes Yes Yes North arrow, graphic and written scale in close proximity 5 Yes Scale at a size no larger than 1"=200' i.e. 1"=100'OK 6 Yes Yes Name, address and phone of owner and person preparing the document 7 Note' Yes Yes Location of all ROW lines and public easements 8 Yes Yes Location of all buildings, structures, pools, parking and other improvements which are existing or intended on the lot 9 Yes Areas of cut/fill with amount of each shown and flow lines shown 10 Yes Existing and proposed spot elevations, grades and major contours, (W along with existing landscaping, streams, ponds and major natural features. 11 Yes' Yes' Yes' Areas of no disturbance labeled as"No Disturbance Area." This area 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. 12 Yes All protected trees shown individually on the plan.3 Trees in close proximity that all have a caliper of less than four inches(4")may be designated as a group of trees with quantity of quality, marginal and understory trees shown. see a endix'A' 13 Yes Yes Trees must be tied by horizontal control (i.e. dimensions from lot lines, or placed through coordinates determined via survey.) 14 Yes All protected trees shown with diameter(4.5'from the ground), common name and condition. 15 Yes Any proposed replacement trees shown with caliper size, common name of tree and mature size. 16 Yes Yes Yes Graphic representations as required by Appendix"H"herein. 17 Yes Phasing of tree survey along with phasing of the development is permitted. H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) 8E-23 PAGE 21 Notes: (W 1. The aerial photo must be accompanied by a transparent plan of the development(at the same scale as the photo)showing all information required by this Ordinance. 2. The Landscape Administrator shall have the authority to designate areas as"no disturbance"areas where a tree survey would not be required due to no intended construction. 3. An area may be designated as a`No Disturbance Zone"on the plan when approved by the Landscape Administrator and trees within that zone are not required to be individually identified on the plan. 17.0 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. 18.0 CONFLICTING ORDINANCES This Ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City; and this Ordinance shall not operate to repeal or affect any (W of such other ordinances except insofar as the provisions thereof might be inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance, in which event such conflicting provisions, if any, in such other ordinance or ordinances are hereby repealed. Specifically Section 3.4 of Ordinance No. 585-A,which provides that all developments which have not submitted final construction plans as of December 17, 1997 shall be subject to the requirements for tree protection and replacement specified herein is saved from repeal. Further, the first sentence in Section 3.5 c. of Ordinance No 585-A which provides that all builders who have not submitted a request for a building permit as of December 17. 1997 are subject to the requirement of the Ordinance is hereby saved from repeal. Said sections shall continue in full force and effect. 19.0 SAVINGS CLAUSE All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of any ordinances affecting the regulations for the preservation of trees that 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 bythis ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) 8E-24 PAGE 22 a a 20.0 PUBLICATION CLAUSE (W 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. 21.0 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. This ordinance shall not apply to any development or construction activity performed pursuant to a building permit for which an application was made prior to the effective date of this ordinance. For such development or construction the requirements of Ordinance 585-A shall continue to apply. PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF (W ATTEST: MAYOR CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF ATTEST: MAYOR CITY SECRETARY (W H:\LIBRARY\Southiake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) 8E-25 PAGE 23 V 10 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney Date Adopted: Effective Date: (W H:\LIBRARY\Southlake\Ordinances\trees.wpd(Rev'd 12/20/99) PAGE 24 8E-26 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 22, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, ext. 743 Art Wright, Zoning Assistant, ext. 828 SUBJVCT: Ordinance No. 480-II, Non-Residential Carports and Parking Garages Action Requested: Consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 480-II regarding provisions for carports and multi-level parking garages on non-residential properties. Background Information: City Council requested that staff prepare regulations for non-residential carports and parking garages as a result of several recent requests for covered parking in development projects. Presently, there are no specific development regulations regarding carports and covered parking in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended. A 120-day moratorium was enacted to allow sufficient time for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to study, discuss, review and take appropriate action on this matter. The moratorium was due to expire on December 29, but was extended to February 2, 2000 due to the cancellation of the second regular Council meeting this month. Legal Reviews: A draft of this ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney. The current draft reflects any recommended revisions. Financial Considerations: Not applicable. Alternatives: May recommend such changes or add conditions to the ordinance as deemed appropriate. Supporting Documents: Proposed Ordinance No. 480-II C:\TEMP\480-11 MEMO.DOC S F- I City of Southlake, Texas Consideration of Ordinance No. 480-II, Carports and Parking Garages Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator December 22, 1999 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Discuss ordinance as approved (7-0) by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 18, 1999 and the changes recommended during the Joint Work Session of the Council and Commission. These recommendations are shown in bold and italics in the current draft ordinance. Specifically, these include: 1) the creation of another SUP (separating carports and multi-level parking garages) and eliminating the option of carports in the 0-2 and commercial districts; 2) the addition of the requirement that the square footage of parking structure footprints shall count toward lot coverage, impervious coverage and required interior landscape area; 3) the limitation of height of attached carports to 20 feet; 4) the option to allow more than 4 spaces under a carport if the structure is not visible from a public R.O.W. nor from a single family property; and 5) the addition of "or similar" building materials, but specifically excluding cement and concrete tilt wall or similar materials. CATEMP\480-II MEMO.DOC 8 F-2 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS (W ORDINANCE NO. 480-II AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; AMENDING SECTION 4 DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 45 C"SPECIFI US"E PERMITS" BY ADDING PROVISIONS FOR CARPORTS .AND PARKING GARAGES .FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 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. Section 4, "Definitions" of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding CATEMP\480-11MDOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99) V` J Page 1 the following new definitions thereto: "CARPORT - A permanent.-roofed structure, attached to or detached from the principal structurP�baiggeoslesad°ea net more'than 2 sides apAFr_o*aim which provides'space;for the parking and storage of motor vehicles{as provided for;in this ordinance). GARAGE, lVML7LTI=LEVEL PARKING (NON-RESIDENTIAL) - A structure, attached to or detached from the principal structure,'having two or more levels, and being used.,.primarily for the parking and storage 'of':motor vehicles f as provided for~in this ordinance)'for which a fee may be charged by the owner or operator of such,structure. GARAGE, SINGLE-LEVEL PARKING.(NON-RESIDENTIAL) - An accessory structure, attached to or detached from the„principal structure, being fully enclosed'wlth a door, and used primarily for the parking and storage of.motor vehicles (as provided for in this ordinance)." SECTION 2. Section 45.1 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding paragraphs (W (41) and (42) to read as follows: "41. Carports for non-residential property, subject to CS,0-1, the requirements set forth in Section`45.12 of this 1G,B-1,B-2,I-1,.1-2,and S-P-1,S- ordinance. P-2 and PUD districts with CS,0-1 B-1,B-2,1-1;and 1=2 uses. SITE PLAN REQUIRED CS,0-1,0-2,;C-1;C-2,C-3, C-4, 42. Multi-level parking;garages for non-residential HC,B-;1,B-2,I-1,1-2S-P-1,S-P-2' property, subject to the; requirements set forth in and PUD Section 45.12 of this ordinance, SITE PLAN REQUIRED SECTION 3. Section 45 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding Section 45.12, to read as follows: "45.12 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CARPORTS AND MULTI-LEVEL PARKING GARAGES FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY C:\TEMP\480-11D9.D0C (Draft 8, 11/18/99) S r Page 2 Inz addition to the underlying zoning district regulations and any other applicable regulations, multi-level parking garages and carports (collectively referred to as parking structures) shall meet the requirements set forth herein prior to issuance of a building permit. >In the event that there are;,conflicting requirements, the more stringent regulations shall apply:; General Criteria 1) No parking structure shall be located closer to the front building line--than the principal structure on the property. 2) No parking structure shall encroach into a designated bufferyard. 3) Parking structures shall comply with,any required'setback for the principal buildings ;in the underlying zoning'district and the 4.1 slope line where applicable. 4) The footprint of parking structures shall be included when calculating maximum lot coverage and maximum impervious coverage for any lot. 5) .The footprint of parking structures shall be included when calculating the amount of landscape area required on the interior of a lot, according to the provisions of the landscape ordinance, as amended. Development Regulations for Non-Residential Carports 1) Height Attached Carports: Carports attached to the principal structure'shall moot LW haigig;@"irQwAPt& not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. The height of an attached carport shall be measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the roof of the carport. Detached Carports: No detached carport shall.exceed one story or fourteen (14) feet in height. The height of a detached carport shall be measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the roof. 2) Structure Design:' Roof:: The roof of a detached carport shall be pitched and constructed with the same materials as the roof of the principal building. The roof of an CATEMP\480-11MDOC (Draft 8,11/18/99) S�r� Page 3 attached carport shall be constructed in the same (W roof style and with the same materials as the roof of the principal building. Maximum Number of Spaces and Size: The maximum number of spaces that may be covered by a carport shall not exceed four(4) spaces. However, where a carport is not visible from a public right- of-way or from single-family residential property, as defined by Section 43 of this ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend and the City Council may approve an increase in the number of spaces allowed in a,carport. The minimum size of each space shall be'9' by 20'. Maximum Number of Structures: There shall be no more than one (1).carport, attached or detached, per lot`,; Building Materials: All exterior fafades and any exposed structural support columns of a carport shall be constructed with the same or similar (W materials as the principal building. Exposod Q12d ire +l-n;aemn masq;Wy mntewi.il ag tho P;iar., l Wig. However, such building materials shall exclude the use of cement, concrete tilt wall and other masonry materials of similar characteristics. Articulation: Any exterior fagadeshall comply with Section 43.13.d. Paving: No carport shall be erected over any parking space not constructed of an all-weather surface. Development Regulations for Non-Residential Multi-Level` Parking Garages 1) Height: In all districts, multi-level parking garages shall conform to height restrictions for the underlying zoning districts. ' Height shall be measured from grade. 2) Structure C:\TEMP\480-IID9.DOC (Draft 8, 11/18/99) Page 4 Design: Building Materials: Any wall, exposed structural (W support column or other architectural feature of a parking garage shall comply with Section 43.13 (a) and shall be constructed of the same or similar masonry material as the principal building. Articulation: Any exterior fagade shall comply with Section 43.13.d. Compact Parking Spaces: If permitted, no compact parking space shall be less than eight one-half(8 1/a) feet in width by eighteen (18) feet in length. Vehicular Ingress and Egress Points: The;distance from ;parking garage vehicular ingress and egress points to a" corner of a street -intersection shall conform to the driveway ordinance, as amended. Ingress: The required minimum.stacking;depth shall conform to the driveway ordinance, as amended. If there are ingress control gates,;the stacking distance shall be measured from the edge of the right-of-way to the ingress control gate. The required stacking distance may be met by'providing a right turn lane (of adequate length as determined by the City Engineer) leading to the entrance of the parking garage. Egress: A>minimum of twenty (20) feet shall be provided between an egress control gate and either the ;inside edge of a sidewalk or the inside of the right-of-way to minimize conflicts between exiting vehicles and pedestrians`. 3) Commercial Uses: Multi-level parking garages may contain commercial uses which are reasonably related to the principal uses located on the lot with the',parking garage. No additional parking shall be required for such commercial'uses." SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the City of Southlake, CATEMP\480-11MDOC (Draft 8,11/18/99) $" --7 Page 5 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. SECTION 5. 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. (W SECTION 6. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 7. 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 parking structures or land use 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. CATEMP\480-11MDOC (Draft 8,11/18/99) GI -0 Page 6 SECTION 8. 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 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 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. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its date of passage and publication as required by law, and shall apply to any project for which an application for site plan approval for the construction of a carport or multi-level parking garage is filed after the effective date of this ordinance, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 2000. MAYOR ATTEST: C:\TEMP\480.11D9.D0C (Draft 8,11/18/99) S(+-Cl Page 7 CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2000. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY EFFECTIVE: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY (W CATEMP\480-11MDOC (Draft 8,11/18/99) op-0 Page 8 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 21,1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, ext. 743 Art Wright, Zoning Assistant, ext. 828 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 480-JJ, Revisions to Impervious Coverage and Landscape Regulations Action Requested: Consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 480-JJ regarding revisions to the impervious coverage regulations and revising the landscaping regulations in Ordinance No. 480 to remove any conflicts with the provisions of Landscape Ordinance No. 544-A Background Information: This ordinance will revise the impervious coverage regulations by removing the language that allows additional impervious coverage in exchange for additional bufferyard or landscape area. The percentage of maximum impervious coverage in each district will not be changed; no increase in impervious coverage will be permitted unless the Board of Adjustment grants a variance. The "I-1" and "1-2" industrial districts will not be affected by this ordinance. In addition, the ordinance will also address conflicts between the zoning ordinance and Landscape Ordinance No. 544-A, such as minimum plant sizes, existing tree credits and maintenance issues. The intention of these revisions is to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. Legal Reviews: A draft of this ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney. The current draft reflects any recommended revisions. Financial Considerations: Not applicable. Alternatives: May recommend such changes or conditions to the ordinance as deemed appropriate. \\SIKSV4001\L0CAL\C0MMUNITY DEVELOPMEMI\WP.FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480-JJ MEMO.DOC City of Southlake, Texas Consideration of Ordinance No. 4804J, Impervious Coverage and Landscaping Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator December 21, 1999 Page 2 Supporting Documents: Proposed Ordinance No. 480-JJ Staff Recommendation: Discuss ordinance as approved (7-0) by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 18, 1999. \\SLKSV4001\L0CAL\C0MMUNITY DEVELOPMEMI�WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480-JJ MEMO.DOC g G -2— r ORDINANCE NO. 480-JJ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480,AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; REVISING CERTAIN SECTIONS REGARDING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE; AMENDING"APPENDIX A'I BY REVISING CERTAIN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE REGULATIONS; REVISING CERTAIN SECTIONS REGARDING`LANDSCAPING;REQUIREMENTS; 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 Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the city has adopted Ordinance No. 480, as amended, as the Comprehensive ZoningOrdinance for the city; and Y� 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 further determined that by establishing certain maximum lot coverage and maximum impervious coverage regulations the intensity of development can be controlled; and WHEREAS, the city council has determined that it is in the best interest of the community to preserve natural areas and maintain areas of open space in order to enhance the natural resources of the community, to increase the survivability of existing native trees and to lessen the impacts of (W parking areas; and \\SLKSV4001\Local\Community Development\WP-FILES\Z.BA\PENDING\480JJ-2.doc(Draft 1,November 10,1999) Page I S&-9 WHEREAS, the city adopts these regulations to ensure a desired level of groundwater recharge and to reduce the impacts of surface drainage run-off, 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. Section 4, "Definitions," of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by adding the following definition, to read as follows: "LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR— The City Manager or his designee." SECTION 2. Section 16.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph (k), Maximum Impervious Coverage, to read as follows: "Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed forty (40%) percent of the total lot area. , if the fellewing efker-i t, 0 and a adds :, nal 1 feet „fy.4d i, to the required side and r-eaf buf .-ya-as shall be added te the site. This r-equir-ement may also be satisfied by pfeviding an equivalent afneufA ef hind area in the kent ef:sides of the site(exelusive ef the buffefyffd afeas) SECTION 3. Section 17.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph(1), Maximum Impervious Coverage, to read as follows: (W \\SLKSV4001\Local\Community Development\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480JJJ--2..d/occ(Draftft 22,,November I2,19") Page 2 vim+ — 1 "l. Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed fifty (50%)percent of the total lot area. , if the following 0 eever-age shall—be-peffrkte& fer-eaM addifienal-ene-perC ff+ "04` F required Vim{ V{./11V1 JCL1 Qtii7J width e the-regeifed side and rear e>-jwds shall be added tethe site. P�_s ., the front e sides eft a site (exel, siye of t e buffi..a fd areas) eit e f 111 VCL 111 {,11V front V�7I�iVJ Vl C-liV islands, greves of tfees, by enhanesing natufal dr-ainage-area,ete. Any-altefflat-ive ed sfiag+fee., en the site-" SECTION 4. Section 22.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph(1), Maximum Impervious Coverage, to read as follows: 1. Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed seventy-five(75%)percent of the total lot area. Howeye. ;f*1.e 0 0 ef';inpefyieus e e pfeyide.l, a .,.l.li enal twe feet Mil of..4&1, eft e vAdth to the f:equired side and rear beffieryar-ds shall be added te the Site. his gr-eves ef trees, by enhaneing natural drainage area, ete. Any akemativ +..ees n the site-." SECTION 5. Section 28.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph Maximum Impervious Coverage, to read as follows: CT Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed seventy (70%) percent of the total lot area. However- ;fellewing eFker-ia is met, up r .l,e > but net exeeeding, an addifiefW o \\SLKSV4001\Loca1\Commurdty Development\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480JJ-2.doc(Draft 2,November 12,1999) Page 3 0 of imps wer-age l.JVY14 a Vli s, an LL114 difi V1 . 1 two f (2') f dt f the 1L1 �,:a+lam,;�Teq ed side, ids-shall be added to the site. This .. the frent a sides of the site(exel, siye of the buffs r-yard areas) either- by KaVa�aaa ,.aaV as Vaal Va sides VI LIlV�iGi islands, gFeves ef tfees,-by-ems..' damage-afea;-ete. A altemative Frees e the site-." SECTION 6. Sections 8.5, 18.5, and 20.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, are hereby amended by revising paragraphs(0, (i) and (1), respectively,Maximum Impervious Coverage, to read as follows: "Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed sixty-five(65%)percent of the total lot area. , if the fell 7 7 7 an addifienal 0 0 , additional twe feet 7 (W and an addifie" 1 feet ef width te the required side and r-eaf: bti�r-yar-ds shall b sd by p :ding an equivalefit be a e ked t t, the eyal of the T „as,.., a A,i ' t + enstir-e that the �:1:: .. > as ..aa a�aYYi Lu a Laa a_•wau.7Vu�V �>asaalaaaaaL pr-e ,l ' ti 1 Milty of a s trees t1, site. ' r. i_� i7r ic,,c e,, and will �nhnnF�the--�:�i>•u�v�.._-._,_• SECTION 7. Sections 21.5, 24.5, and 25.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, are hereby amended by revising paragraphs (1), (p), and (i), respectively Maximum Impervious Coverage, to read as follows: "Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed seventy(70%)percent of the total lot area. However7 ifthe folio 7 7 7 % FlVa1iIIL e pefeent e:agepfeMe , �.difi.na ewe feet (2) ef.,,:.t efthe required buffs r-yar-d(s) ,..jaeefA to ., sire t(s) CLYlla L1V11LL1 LYYV >VVL`4 l V> YY lti Lal Va L11V 1Vli l.illN and n .,.�ldifiena 1 feet of width to the r red side and r r buffiar-y r-ds shall b L4111{ LLll LL4lia L1V11L4[ I IVVL Vr YY IIi Lll LV LI e e added te the site. Pis r-e*r-ement may also be satisfied by pfeviding an equivalent amount ef land afea in the ffent er-sides ef the site(exel"ve ef the btiffefyafd afeas) \\SLKSV4001\Loca1\Commmity Development\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDINM480DQ-2.doc(Draft'2,November 12,1999) Page 4 V&^(/V y `f5 the numbefislands, by - - - or-eves e f t fees; �e�� ur.-ffl A crv=e 31� (W be required+e have the approval f the Landseape A d a a a aL L f,V iL ft llltenstife Y Yesal is rr-aefieal and will eahmee the sufvivabilky b trees vu the arcs SECTION 8. Section 23.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph (o),Maximum Impervious Coverage, to read as follows: "Maximum Impervious Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the total lot area. 14ewevef, if the fellewing efiter-ia is met, tip te, but net eEeeeding, an addifienal 0 0 buffer-yaMs sha4l be added te the site. This fequir-ement may alse be satisfied b by y p eseMag naWr-al ar-eyes e€tfees,,bye have ng natural -m cam, ete. alternative e—re�edte- have the -ef tr_ T A a. -A - +1,n+ +Lf +' 1 ll ewe--�n��a�e�repA ��--��;�—epee—tie (W oui r'r ability of existing trees n the site," SECTION 9. APPENDIX A, "Schedule of District Regulations" of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by deleting footnote"O" and re-lettering footnote"P" to "O", to read as follows" «n Up to ..ddit: ..1 CO% of imnarvietta eeyeFage may be emit ed- t + Zoning �l-.^`---r __ �_ ---'-'""-" _._ �. ....Y_...�-_ _...-..-D- may .,- Y-........., f .,� �aa� ..t.t.a..t.a a..w �YOt RegHlatiOR$ R 0- Certain areas of the city that are designated for industrial use may be allowed 85% impervious coverage;see the appropriate Zoning District Regulations" SECTION 10. Section 42.4 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph g, Existing Plant Credits, to read as follows: "Existing Plant Credits: Existing trees which are within fifty feet (50) of the property line and have a minimum of fifty percent(50%) of the drip line within a landse-ape the \\SLKSV4001\Local\CommuniryDevelopment\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480JJ-2.doc(Draft 2,Novmber 12,1999) Page 5 S 6-7 bufferyard area shall be granted credits toward reducing the required plantings as €ellews as set forth in the Landscape Ordinance, as amended. ize-e€Tree Saved Ganep Aeeent 6"-12" e-alipe - - 2 er- 3 11 "eah.-eaT _ er---4 Existing trees between "2"'caliper and 6" caliper which are within the bufferyard may be granted credits on a l for 1 basis." SECTION 11. Section 42.5 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph a to read as follows: "Minimum plant size when planted shall be nos.meet the requirements set forth in the Landscape Ordinance, as amended.. Plant Matefiala ize Single SterPJTfunk 1 1/2" v'`c+`'IiYP Multi T-Funk Clump 6 feet (height) .A—P.e.efit. Tree 4 feet (height) Shmb Deeiduetis 15 inehes (heigh OreundeeLer- 4" ee i7aine rJ The T .,«Jwane Ad11«1st1ate1 may o smaller- size sh b based Y1IYJY Ymstaneen and/e- e a speeifirs. design. .eh r-efl , to the .+ rnll i«to«t of tL.is ,.-.inane" SECTION 12. Section 42.13 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising paragraph a, deleting paragraphs b, c, d, and e, and re-lettering paragraph f to b, to read as follows: cca. The-ew-heft' , agent, if afiy, shall be iein y .. �y-- d�-sever-all . Maintenance of bufferyards shall be in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Landscape Ordinance, as amended. (W \\SLKSV4001\Local\Commmuty Development\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDINGG^\\44�80JJJ-2.ddoocc((Draft 2,November 12,1999) Page 6 VV V b. Buffefyar-ds shall be reasonably maintained but net fifaited 7 , 111V YY111.�. `Vl bl LLJ , edgi 7 , F3T1 tAri a, weeding,eedi g, and ethe.. . 1. 4:..:4: simen 4 t 4 F Kull VL11Vl JLIVll LLV Ll Y1L1VJ VVl �tk1�2F�afd� i]„ alas shall be kept F f tf:as, d 1:440� d t 1. 4 1 ef V. YMll Vl'L1.1 L1J J11LL11 VV G�7�rCi�i��'r12-�[J1'1�I1�1T[[GT�Q[rT<r�Tj/�j�R[ d. in undefgfee£2d autemated-'b� eifirg�`,�cciir-design"lvd by a lieensed Texa -�'.mate egist fed l ands pe arahitr rt nr r-egiste fed f.sie 1 o===_-, ==o=-===_� _-�=__=�i== ---_------ --, ---- -_a_�...�..� ta.,l.,.,.,1.,11L.1 .115111.�.1 maintainedshall be installed and fa—Aifit—ained in in a healthy and g� diten ass Ee fe' 4�aien-e -y shall r-eplaeed within sixct (6A) days-e€its-d f abeve the fifinkauffl fequired buffefyafd prevision, death ef a plant er- plant fnet-dees-net-neeessitate-feplaeei •n 4he lessee, (W f-. b' Lack of maintenance shall constitute a violation of this ordinance." SECTION 13. Section 42.16 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: "42.16 ENFORCEMENT - All bufferyards shall be installed, irrigated and properly maintained prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction described in Section 42.4 of this ordinance. All other construction not required to install bufferyards prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not encroach into these areas with uses described in Section 42.10 of this ordinance. It shall be the responsibility of the Building Offieial Landscape Administrator to confirm the adequacy of the installed bufferyard." SECTION 14. Section 42.17 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: (W \\.SLKSV4001\Local\CommunityDevelopment\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480JJT2.doc(Draft 2,November 12,1999) Page 7 W "42.17 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE - All the requirements within the Landscape Ordinance numbef 544, as amended, shall apply to the bufferyards. Where any conflict does exist, the more restrictive requirement shall apply." SECTION 15. Section 43.9.c.3.c of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising Plant Material Sizes to read as follows: "Plant Material Sizes: The fel e:A- ir-ements shall be r-equira Plant .materials shall meet the size requirements set forth in the Landscape Ordinance, as amended. E&R9py Trees: wok n of 4" eali ef: Aeeent Trees: 4' (feet) height SECTION 16. Section 43.9.01 of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, is hereby amended by revising Parking Lot Impacts to read as follows: "Parking Lot Impacts: The parking lot landscape area shall meet the requirements as set eut forth in the Landscape Ordinance,Ne. 544,seEtien 3.4-s;a'� ified-as as amended. Less than 0 25-07,6 0 Greater-thnn 75% — 23 sq. ft. per-par-king stall" SECTION 17. 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. \\SLKSV4001\Local\Commurdty Development\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480JJ-2.doc(Draft 2,November 12,1999) Page 8 S&—I,O SECTION 18. 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 19. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 20. 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 lot coverage or landscaping 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 21. 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 \\SLKSV4001\Local\Community DevelopmentlWP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480JJ-2.doc(Draft 2,November 12,1999) Page 9 g&—tr ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof than the production thereof. SECTION 22 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. SECTION 23. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 2000. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 2000. \\SLKSV4001\Loca1\Community Development\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\480A-2.doc(Draft 2,November 12,1999) Page 10 8&-(Z r i MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: (W EFFECTIVE: �ww- MLKSWOORLocahCommunity Development\WP-FILES\ZRA\PENDING1480JJ- (Draft 2,November 12,1999) Page II SG-(3 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 21, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution No. 00-04, Setting the Dates for Public Hearings Related to Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fees Action Requested: Approval of Resolution No. 00-04, Setting the dates for the Public Hearings related to water, wastewater and roadway impact fees. Background Information: For almost one year, the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) has studied materials necessary to update the City of Southlake's impact fee ordinance. The major components of the update include: Revised Land Use Assumption Report. This report examines population and housing counts, as well as employment population, projected through the ten- year planning window specified by Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. This report is the cornerstone for the study, establishing the future demand on water, wastewater and roadway systems. Revised Capital Improvement Projects. This is the plan that identifies water, wastewater, and roadway capital improvements or facility expansions expected during the ten-year planning window. Equivalency Tables. The law requires cities to establish a standard service unit (standardized measure of consumption, use, etc. attributable to an individual unit of development). There is a further requirement to develop a definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use of a service unit for each category of capital improvements or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial or industrial. Ten Year Projection of Service Units. Amending the impact fee study required another projection of the single family land use equivalent for water and wastewater and vehicle miles for roadways. The study also required the allocation of capacity of the CIP to serve the ten-year period growth in service units. Recalculation of Maximum Impact Fees. The maximum allowable impact fees are calculated once the other components of the study are completed. These fees are published with the notice for the public hearing for the adoption of the impact fee ordinance. Council will establish the actual fee level to collect. Billy Campbell, City Manager December 2?, 1999 t Page 2 (WWI The CIAC has thoroughly studied the major components of the study with the staff/consultant team and is now working to draft its comments, which will be forwarded to the City Council prior to the public hearing. The public hearing has tentatively been set for February 1, 2000. This will be the date Council will act on the amended ordinance on first reading. Staff has begun publishing the required notices in accordance with deadlines established by Chapter 395. This resolution has been placed on your agenda to meet the requirements of the law that the governing body "adopt an order setting a public hearing to discuss and review the update and shall determine whether to amend the plan." Financial Considerations: Setting the date for the public hearing has no financial impact. Citizen Input/ Board Review: The CIAC is aware of the proposed public hearing for February 1, 2000 and plans to meet the associated deadline for submitting its formal comments. (W Legal Review: The resolution has been reviewed by the city attorney. Alternatives: Any date may be chosen for the public hearing, provided that the date allows for adoption of the ordinance on second reading within thirty (30) days of the first public hearing. However, notices have been published within the timelines established by the law for a February 1, 2000 hearing. Supporting Documents: Resolution No. 00-04 Transportation Impact Fee Update: Technical Report Water & Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan Land Use Assumption Report - November 23, 1999 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 00-04, setting the dates for public hearings related to water, wastewater and roadway impact fees. Approved for Submittal to City Council: City Manager's Office ac)-a } RESOLUTION NO. 00-04 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE SETTING THE DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS RELATED TO WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the City of Southlake has initiated a process to update the water, wastewater and roadway impact fees for new developments in Southlake; and WHEREAS, Chapter 395 of The Local Government Code sets forth the process for calculating such water, wastewater and roadway fees, and WHEREAS, the process calls for certain notices to be published and hearings to be held within prescribed time periods, and WHEREAS, the study process for the development of these impact fees has been underway for several months, a Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) has been appointed and has reviewed information prepared by the city staff and consultants in advance of reports that have been published and are ready to be made available to the public. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Southlake hereby adopts this resolution in order to set forth the key dates for public hearings and document Cw dates required notices have been published. Section I. Establishment of Date For Public Hearing. g The City shall hold a public hearing on February 1, 2000 to consider updating land use assumptions, capital improvements plans and impact fees for water, wastewater and roadway facilities. A subsequent public hearing will be held on February 15, 2000 to consider the ordinance on second and final reading. Section II. Publication Dates. The City shall have published in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the City lies, the Fort Worth Star Telegram meeting such requirements, the notice of the hearing date set forth in Section I once a week for three consecutive weeks, the first notice to appear before the 30th day but on or after the 60th day before the date set for the hearing, those publication dates being December 26, 1999, January 2, 2000 and January 9, 2000. Section III. Wording for Public Hearing. 3.1 Headline. The headline for the notice by publication reads as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES FOR WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY FACILITIES." } 3.2 Text of Notice. The text of the notice was prepared to comply with the notice requirements of Chapter 395 of The Local Government Code, having the appropriate dollar amounts entered and stating in substance, "The City of Southlake intends to amend a water, wastewater and roadway capital improvements plan, amend the water, wastewater and roadway impact fees at a public hearing on February 1, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, 667 North Carroll, Southlake, Texas 76092. Maps separately showing the service areas for water, wastewater and roadway impact fees are being published as part of this notice. The maximum amount of the water impact fees to be considered for amendment is $3,609 per service unit. A water service unit is defined as a residential Living Unit Equivalent water meter. The maximum amount of the wastewater impact fees to be considered for amendment is $2,249 per service unit. A wastewater service unit is defined as a residential Living Unit Equivalent water meter for new customers receiving wastewater service. The maximum amount of the roadway impact fee is different for each service area identified on the roadway service area map being published. The definition of a service unit for roadway impact fees is the vehicle-mile of demand generated during the afternoon peak hour of travel. A single-family residence generates approximately 3.03 vehicle miles. The maximum roadway impact fee for each service area is as follows: Service Area 1 - $898 per roadway service unit. Service Area 2 - $1,045 per roadway service unit. Service Area 3 - $2,641 per roadway service unit. Service Area 4 - $1,181 per roadway service unit. Service Area 5 - $1,442 per roadway service unit. Service Area 6 - $988 per roadway service unit. Service Area 7 - $1,520 per roadway service unit. Service Area 8 - $3,557 per roadway service unit. Any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the capital improvement plans or the proposed fees to be amended or adopted. A copy of the water and wastewater impact fee report and the roadway impact fee report are available at the City Secretary's office." 3.3 Location For Notice. The notice specified in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 was not published in the part of the newspaper in which legal notices and classified ads appear and was not be smaller than one-quarter page of a standard-size or tabloid size newspaper. Section IV. Written Notices Sent By Certified Mail. The City Secretary shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the city requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of this resolution setting the public hearing. These notices by certified mail shall be mailed by December 27, 1999. PASSED AND APPROVED this fourth day of January, 2000. (W Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary . Draft Report - Draft Report - Draft Report City of Southlake Water & Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan Prepared For 1999 Impact Fee Update Prepared By Eddie Cheatham, P.E. Cheatham & Associates Lewis F. McLain, Jr. Fiscal Planning Consultant November 17, 1999 c Contents Introduction ..................................................... 1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities .............. 23 Data From Land Use Assumption Report ..... 1 Denton Creek Drainage Basin ................... 24 Population 2 Maui Interceptor .................................. 25 Non-residential ........................................... 2 N-1 ......................................................... 25 N-2 .......................................................... 25 Standard Service Unit ..................................... 4 N-3 .........._............................................... 25 N-4 .......................................................... 25 Definition and Requirements 4 N-5 ........................................................... 26 Table of Equivalencies ............................... 5 N-6 ............................................................ 26 Existing Service Units ............................... 5 Meters In Service as of 1/1/99..................... 6 Big Bear Creek Drainage Basin .................... 26 Water SFLUEs as of 1/1/99......................... 6 Projection of SFLUEs ........................... 6 Main Interceptor .................................... 27 S-1 ............................................................ 27 System Sizing and Capacity Allocation .......... 8 S-2 ............................................................ 27 S-3 .............................. 2 (W SFLUE Distribution ................................:.. 8 S-4 ............................................................. 27 S-5 ............................................................ 27 The Bottom Line (Water) ................................ 9 S-6 ............................................................ 27 S-7............................................................. 27 Water Capital Improvements Plan ................. 10 Summary of Wastewater Costs ........................... 28 Water Treatment Facilities ....................... 10 Elevated Storage Tanks ................ 10 Financing Costs..................................................... 28 Ground Storage Tanks ............................... 13 Pumping Facilities 15 Other Eligible Costs............................................. 31 Water Supply Lines ....:............................... -17 Transmission System 19 Maximum Impact Fee .......................................... 31 Grand Total For Water.............................. 21 Equilibrium Impact Fee .................................... 31 Wastewater Service Units ................................ 21 Remaining Adoptive Steps .................................. 32 The Bottom Line (Wastewater) ....................... 23 Appendix A-Technical Explanation of Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan ......... 23 Financing Costs Introduction This Capital Improveiment Plan (CIP) has been prepared to fulfill the impact fee calculation requirements of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. These requirements are met in the context of the City's entire water and wastewater master plan.There is a specific requirement to produce the cost of the capacity that will be ab- sorbed (used) over a ten-year period with the land use and growth assuunptions for that same period of time. Another way of viewing the requirement is to exclude the cost of the capacity of the water and wastewater systems that is presently being used by the ex- isting customers as well as the cost of the capacity that will be used beyond the ten-year period. Therefore, the CIP cost allocation requirement for impact fee calculation pur- poses are produced as a subset of the City's utility master planning efforts. There are several reasons for taking this approach to satisfy the Chapter 395 re- quirements. The City's methodology for extending the utility system has always been to first view the expected requirements for the entire system. This master planning effort is critical for such decisions as general site locations for water tanks and easements for fiiture lines. The City also has to make timely commitments for water and wastewater treatment facilities well in advance of the needs since these capital needs are not only large and expensive, but are done in conjunction with other cities being provided treat- ment services by a central agency such as the Trinity River Authority (TRA) and the City of Fort Worth. Finally, the City has the need to balance expansion plans with the (W assurance that the ultimate customer revenue base will be in accordance with the needs to pay for those facilities that are built totally or partially with long-term bonds. There are some other benefits of viewing the ten-year capital requirements as a subset of the master plans. There can be a test of reasonableness or at least a compari- son of the cost of providing services to the existing customer base to the cost of serving new development. And lastly, the efforts to satisfy Chapter 395 can be extended to serve a broader need, making the expense of an impact fee update more cost effective. Or the preferred way of looking at the picture is that Chapter 395 requirements are similar to what the cities should do and what Southlake does do: Chapter 395 looks at a ten-year slice of what the City conducts in their utility master planning exercises - the City sizes and expands the systems in accordance to expected growth plans. Data From Land Use Assumption Report The City's planning staff conducted a study to produce projections of land use, growth and densities for the City of Southlake's water and wastewater service area.' 'This report is entitled"City of Southlake, Texas Land Use Assumptions For Impact Fees" dated November 24, 1999. This report should be consulted for details of the methodology and results used to conduct the study. References to this report will be designated as the"LUA Report." 1 { The service area is the city limits since there is no extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) area to be annexed or served by Southlake. Population. There are population, housing and acre estimates that are made or that can be derived from the land use study for three periods of time: • Existing as of January 1, 1999. • Growth for the ten-year period from January 1, 1999 to January 1, 2009. • Ultimate capacity or growth for the City. • The key numbers from the land use assumption report that are used in the engi- neering work to prepare the water and wastewater CIP are shown graphically be- low: • The ultimate population estimate is 36,945 people. • The current population is estimated to be 21,050 people. This represents 57.0% of the ultimate population and the ultimate water and waste- Population ; water requirements for the 40,000 residential sector, the pre- ; 35,000 dominate land use projected 30,000 for Southlake. 25,000 20,000 The growth for the ten-year 15,000 period is estimated to be 10,000 12,010 people. This means that 5,000 32.5% of the ultimate residen- 0 tial sector utility demands will 1999 2009 Ultimate Population 21,050 33,060 36,945 be added in the ten-year pe- riod. When added to the exist- Time Period - ing residential base, 89.5% of the utility demands from the residential sector are estimated to be made by the end of the ten-year period. • The remaining population, 3,885 or 10.5% of the ultimate utility demand from the residential sector, is projected to occur beyond the ten-year period, mostly within the subsequent five years. Non-Residential Growth. The other major land use sector that was used to deter- mine the requirements on the utility system is referred to as the "Non-Residential" sec- tor. The more specific land use data that is found in the LUA Report presents a sepa- 1 rate acreage accounting and projection by three categories: commercial, industrial. and public (priivarily schools and government) for the benefit of better defining the fore- casts. • Office Commercial acreage is presently estimated to total 64 acres as of January 1, 1999 and 191 acres to be added in the next ten years. The ultimate projection is for about 398 acres of Office Commercial land use. • Retail Commercial acreage is presently estimated to total 207 acres as of January 1, 1999 and 89 acres to be added in the next ten years. The ultimate projection is for about 463 acres of Retail Commercial land use. Non Residential-Acreage 1,800 • Mixed Use Com- 1,600 mercial acreage is presently esti- 1,400 mated to total 698 acres as of Janu- ary 1, 1999 and 1,000 435 acres to be (W added in the next 800 ten years. The ul- timate projection 600 ■Retail 0 Mixed is for about 1,770 400 Olndust acres of Mixed Use Commercial land 200 Public use. 0 1999 2009 Ultimate • Industrial acreage Office 64 255 398 is presently esti- Retail 207 296 463 mated to be 294 Mixed 698 1,133 1,770 acres with 18 acres Indust 294 312 1 488 to be added in the Public 192 379 1 474 next ten-years. Time Period The Ultimate acre- age for industrial land uses is projected to be approximately 488 acres. • Public land usage is presently about 192 acres. It is estimated that 187.acres will be added in the next ten years. The ultimate public land use is estimated to be 474 acres. 3 For purposes of the impact fee study, these non-residential uses are compiled in the aggregate and are separated into the three time period designations with the follow- ing results: • There are presently 1,455 acres, which accounts for about 40.5% of the ultimate non-residential land usage. This acreage distribution is not believed to be repre- sentative of the utility demand uses, however, as will be explained later. • The non-residential sector is estimated to grow by 920 acres in the next ten years. This represents 25.6%of the non-residential land acreage that is estimated to be ultimately located in Southlake. • The period beyond the ten-year impact fee period is when the non-residential growth is expected to continue. However, most of the water and sewer utilities will be in place prior to the end of the ten-year period. The estimated acreage to- tals 1,218 beyond the ten-year period, which represents about 34.9% of the land usage for this sector. The land use growth projections for the non-residential sector are shown graphi- cally on page 3. There is a lagging of the growth of this sector behind the residential sec- tor, with the ultimate build-out shown to be reached in approximately 2022, some eight years after the residential sector is shown to be built out. Again, the projections by year are for illustration purposes since the impact fee calculations deal with the next ten years. The perspective, however, is helpful and important for evaluating the impact fee in the context of the master plan. Standard Service Unit Definition and Requirements. Chapter 395 defines a service unit to mean a stan- dardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an indi- vidual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements or facility ex- pansions. There is a further requirement to develop a definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, or discharge of a service unit for each category of capital improvements or facility expansions and an equivalency or conver- sion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial and industrial. And lastly, there is a requirement that service units be projected based on the LUA Report. The standard service unit is very important in the impact fee calculation process because it becomes the denominator in the maximum fee formula. The City of Southlake has established the water meter size as the basis for determining a service unit for water 4 and wastewater purposes. While wastewater is not typically metered, there is a direct relationship to the water usage. Therefore, the water meter is used as a basis for estab- lishing and defining a wastewater service unit. This basis and application of the service unit is used extensively in the North Texas region and is based on generally accepted engineering and planning standards. The standard service unit is the typical meter for a Single Family residential Living Unit Equivalent (SFLUE), which is a one-inch meter in Southlake. The ra- tios of the one-inch meter to all meter sizes used by the residential, commercial, indus- trial and public sectors are established by professional engineering associations to meas- ure the sustained flowage capacity of each size of meter. The results established by Southlake and used since the development of impact fees under Chapter 395 are as fol- lows: - Table I - Table of Equivalencies Meter Ratio of Other Meter Sizes Size To A 1-Inch Meter (SFLUE) 3/4 Inch 0.6 times 1-Inch Standard Service Unit (W 1-1/2-Inch 2.0 times 2-Inch 3.2 times 3-Inch 6.4 times 4-Inch 10.0 times 6-Inch 20.0 times 8-Inch 32.0 times 10-Inch 64.0 times Existing Service Units. The first step is to calculate the number of SFLUEs as of January 1, 1999 and then to associate the current level of water and wastewater usage to the number of SFLUEs. There were 6,454 water meters connected to the water sys- tem as of January 1, 1999. These were distributed as follows: 5 Table II - Meters In Service January 1, 1999 Meter Non- Size Residential Residential Total 3/4Inch 981 0 981 1-Inch 5,068 336 5,404 1-1/2-Inch 0 3 3 2-Inch 0 59 59 3-Inch 0 1 1 4-Inch 0 4 4 6-Inch 0 0 0 8-Inch 0 2 2 10-Inch 0 0 0 Total 6,049 405 6,454 When the water meters in Table II are multiplied by the meter ratios found in Table I, the results are the number of SFLUEs connected to the water system as of the beginning of the ten-year impact fee period. The resulting SFLUEs are shown in Table III. Table III - Water SFLUEs As of January 1, 1999 Meter Non- Size Residential Residential Total 3/4Inch 589 0 589 1-Inch 5,068 336 5,404 1-1/2-Inch 0 6 6 2-Inch 0 189 189 3-Inch 0 6 6 4-Inch 0 40 40 6-Inch 0 0 0 8-Inch 0 64 64 10-Inch 0 0 0 Total 5,6571641 6,298 Projections of SFLUEs. The current residential SFLUEs were placed on a per acre basis. That is, the residential SFLUEs found in Table III (5,657) can be restated as ,, 6 0.8431 SFLUEs per acre. This ratio value, however, is lower than expected for the re- (W growth since the city uses one-inch meters only for residential customers.When considering the estimate of population increase over the next ten years (12,010) and an average of 3.33 persons per household, the resulting residential SFLUE increase would be 3,607 SFLUEs.'-Using the same approach applied to the ultimate population and housing counts, the ultimate residential SFLUEs total 11,095. The non-residential SFLUEs were computed similarly, except that the current 641 SFLUEs appeared to be lower on an acreage basis than is expected in the future due to the more intense commercial development potential in Southlake. Non-residential SFLUEs now equal 0.441 per acre based on 1,455 acres of developed area. The typical SFLUE density per non-residential acre ranges from 1.0 to 3.0 or more. However, with the weighting of public and quasi-public acreage in the calculations, these values will be somewhat lower than pure commercial and industrial properties. The new non-residential development is projected to rise such that the average by 2009 is 1.00 SFLUEs per acre and 1.38 SFLUEs per acre at ultimate build out. These numbers were used as a planning factor that produced a total of 1,734 non-residential SFLUEs added for the ten- year period to reach 2,375 SFLUEs. The ultimate non- residential projections are calcu- Cumulative Single Family Living lated to be 4,958. Units Equivalents (SFLUEs) 12,000 (W This provides for a total of 10,000 10 5,331 SFLUEs to be added in the ten-year period. The ulti- mate build-out under this scenario 6,000 is for the water system to serve 4,000 16,053 SFLUEs. In the 1996 re- port, it was estimated that the 2,000 number of water SFLUEs would 0 1999 2009 Ultimate be 16,257 ultimately. This esti- mate has been reduced to 16,053 ®Res 6,3z1 9,918 11,09s in this 1999 update. This is pri- marily due to a major reduction in - Time Period population estimates and almost a corresponding increase in the non- residential categories. The system has not been resized nor should it be with small variations such as has been registered compared to the prior studies. Therefore, this study will assume an ultimate system ca- pacity capable of handling 16,257 SFLUEs at ultimate build-out. 2 The arithmetic is as follows: Estimated population in 2009 (33,060) minus 1999 population (21,050) or 12,010 additional population divided by 3.33 persons per household equals 3,607 new SFLUEs. When added to the current connections of 6,321 SFLUEs, the result is 9,918 SFLUEs in 2009. (W 7 System Sizing and Capacity Allocation The total of 16,257 SFLUEs for the Ultimate demand for Southlake is also very similar to the ultimate estimates used in previous studies. The water SFLUEs projected for ultimate build out in the 1993 study were 16,227 and the 1990 study used an esti- mate of 16,138 Ultimate SFLUEs. The ultimate SFLUE estimate is an important number for several reasons. The calculation has to be in direct correlation to the land use assumptions, of course,but the ultimate SFLUEs will also form the basis for the ultimate sizing of the utility systems. The tests of reasonableness that are the by-products of the ultimate system calculations are to determine if the ca aci allocations for the utility systems are consistent with the SFLUE allocations. - If the capital improvement plan (CIP) includes all of the projects needed for ulti- mate system connections, then there should be a strong relationship between the SFLUE distribution and the utility facility capacity allocation. The costs may be differ- ent, as will be shown in forthcoming tables,but the capacity usage or absorption should be similar to the SFLUE distribution. For instance, the 1999 water SFLUE allocations that have been explained in a previous section are distributed as follows: Table IV - Water SFLUE Distribution Period SFLUEs Percent Existing 6,962 42.82% Ten-Year Period 5,331 32.79% Beyond Ten-Year 3,964 24.39% Total 16,257 100.00% In the following sections, the water CIP will be described and justified.Each cate- gory will also be allocated in terms of capacity and cost into the three periods under dis- cussion for impact fee purposes: existing, ten-year period, and beyond ten-year. The cost of the capacity for the ten-year period will be divided by the SFLUEs for the same time period, 5,331 SFLUEs. However, the cost of the capacity that is allocated to the existing period can also be divided by the SFLUEs for the same period, 6,962. The same can be done for the beyond ten-year period. 8 The Bottom Line (Water) (W The 1999 update follows a more complete allocation process established in the 1996 update,because the ten-year capacity allocation is reconciled to the entire time pic- ture -from present to ultimate build out. The 1999 update also continues the most com- plete listing of eligible capital projects, both existing and planned. The result is a more complete accounting and cost allocation. However, since there is always a need to com- pare the results of one study update with previous studies, an explanation will be pro- vided with each category of expenditures. The maximum water impact fee calculations, before financing costs are consid- ered, have been computed as follows: For 1990 - $1,582 o For 1993 - $1,643 • For 1995 - $1,903 For 1999 - $2,716 There are several reasons the maximLun water impact fee has increased so signifi- cantly in this 1999 update. The capital project changes will be explained in detail later. However, part of the reason also lies in the heavier allocation of costs to the existing Kw SFLUEs in the two previous studies. While the focus on all impact fee studies will al- ways be on the ten-year period, the test of reasonableness will have to include the cur- rent cost of serving an SFLUE compared to the impact fee period and beyond that pe- riod. For instance, the 1990 capacity and cost allocation to the existing SFLUEs would have produced the following results: The existing SFLUEs cost $2,486 to serve com- pared to $1,582 estimated for the ten-year period. The 1993 study allocated the cost similarly: The existing SFLUE cost $3,064 to serve compared to $1,643 for the ten-year period. The beyond ten-year periods for both the 1990 study and the 1993 study update showed the cost per SFLUE to be even lower than the ten-year costs. This could have been possible if some of the future costs to serve the ultimate users were not included, which was the case. However, this 1999 update will show that there are direct costs as- sociated with the capacity in each time period. The final test will be to show that the capacity for each of the water system components are allocated such that the overall weighted percentage of the capacity used is in direct proportion to the percentages shown in Table IV. The costs will be different,but that is because the capacity added to serve the future SFLUEs costs more. The basis for the differences will be explained in the next section where the details of each project are explained. 9 Water Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) (W The water CIP is discussed in six groupings. The following sections will provide the key information for: • Water Treatment Facilities • Elevated Storage Tanks • Ground Storage Tanks • Pumping Facilities • Water Supply Lines • Transmission System Water Treatment Facilities. The 1999 update does not include costs for the water treatment plant. Neither did the 1990 study, the 1993 update nor the 1996 update. The City of Fort Worth provides water treatment services paid for in the monthly charges. However, these charges from Fort Worth include a"demand"charge that is based on the maximum day and maxiinum hourly usage of the Forth Worth water treatment facili- ties. These costs include an identifiable portion that relates to the excess capacity of the treatment plant system that is for future growth. In fact, Fort Worth will be signifi- cantly expanding their water treatment facilities to serve not only their retail customers but also the wholesale customers. These costs of capacity being built and held for future customers are eligible im- pact fee costs. The City staff, consultants and Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) have discussed the issue of inclusion or exclusion of the water treatment facility costs. The decision has been to omit these costs at the present time but to state that they are eligible costs and may be considered in the future. The City of Fort Worth does, in fact, charge the equivalent of an impact fee to most of their wholesale customers and will likely charge Southlake in the fiiture when the current contract expires or is renegotiated. In that case, the City has acknowledged that they will pass that capital fee on to the new growth. The current water"availabil- ity"fee charged by Fort Worth to its wholesale water customers is $594.52 for a one-inch meter. Elevated Storage Tanks. The City of Southlake presently has 5,000,000 gallons of elevated storage tank capacity and has determined that the City will ultimately need 6,500,000 or about 400 gallons per SFLUE. These tanks provide for pressure equaliza- tion needs as well as for fire protection. 10 Elevated storage tanks provide for the ability to meet fire flow needs and to assist during the peak hour of the day. Southlake needs the infrastructure to provide reliable water service for the maximum day of the year. The maximum day at ultimate build out is estimated to need 25,300,000 .gallons of water. During that maximuum day the pump- ing flows during the maximum hours are estimated to be the equivalent of 50,600,000 gallons per day. The minimum storage capacity needs are determined by applying a typical hy- draulic"load curve" showing the hourly flows with about 11 hours for the pumps to be filling storage tanks and 13 hours for the storage tanks to be drawn down. This mini- mum storage capacity is calculated to be 7,367,500 gallons. Minimum fire flow require- ments are estimated to be 1/3 of the minim-Lim requirements storage or about another 3,683,750 gallons for a total of 11,051,250 gallons of minimum storage requirements. It is ideal to have some elevated storage capacity to meet the maximum hour of the maximum day. Again, using the engineering load curve for a typical water system, the 13-hour period that when the tanks are being drawn down will have 7 hours of mas- sive water drawdowns. These maximum hours .are estimated to require at least 1,681,650 gallons of assistance from the elevated storage tanks. Therefore,there is a jus- tification for at least 5,365,400 gallons of elevated storage. The next step is to evaluate the geographical locations of the elevated storage. An engineering model referred to as the "Hardy-Cross" was run to determine the criticality (W of tank locations. The results indicated a need to spread the tanks strategically so that pressure and fire flows can be assured to all areas of the City. The conclusion drawn is that the number of tanks and the economies of scale point to a configuration that justi- fies 1.5 MG tanks. This led to the decision to recommend two additional 1.5 MG elevated storage tanks in the 1996 study, one of which has been built. The plans are to continue with the facility plans sized to meet the ultimate growth needs of Southlake. The cost of the elevated storage tanks are shown as follows: Table V - Elevated Storage Tanks Location Gallons CostPer Gal. Costs Bicentennial Park 1,500,000 $0.5753 $862,955 McGuire-Thomas/IBM 1,500,000 $0.5622 $843,267 Original Elev. Tank 500,000 $1.1200 $560,000 Miron 1,500,000 $1.2213 $1,832,000 T.W. King 1,500,000 $1.2000 $1,800,000 Total 6,500,000 $0.9074 $5,898,222 Location Gallons Cost Per Gal. Costs Capacity Absorbed in 10 Years 32.79% Cost of Capacity Absorbed $1,934,027 SFLUE_ 5,331 Cost Per SFLUE $363 Table V shows the total cost of elevated storage tanks to be$5,898,222. This is an increase of$632,000 from the 1996 study. The cost increase is primarily due to the re- vised cost of the new Miron and T.W. King elevated storage tanks. The portion of this cost allocated to the ten-year impact fee period is $1,934,027. When divided by 5,331 SFLUEs projected to be added during that same ten-year period, the result is an average cost of$363 per SFLUE, an increase of$52 per SFLUE compared to the 1996 study. The elevated storage tank highlights are as follows: • The 1.5 MG IBM/Maguire tank located on N. White Chapel Road was built in 1986 at a cost of$843,267 or $0.5622 per gallon. • The 1.5 MG Bicentennial Park tank on S.White Chapel was built in 1988 at a (W cost of$862,955 for$0.5753 per gallon. • The 0.5 MG High Plane tank cost $400,000 and was moved in 1988 at a cost of$160,000 for a total of$560,000 or $1.12 per gallon. The cost of this tank was understated in the 1993 update by using only the $160,000 moving cost. • The construction of the 1.5 MG tank in the Myron/FM 1709 vicinity was com- pleted at the first of this year at a cost of$1,832,000 or$1.22 per gallon. This project was estimated to cost $1,500,000 in the 1996 study. • The last planned elevated storage tank is a 1.5 MG tank located in the TW King/Bob Jones vicinity at a cost of$1,800,000 or$1.20 per gallon. This cost is stated in 1999 dollars even though the tank is not planned for several more years. • The 1990 study included two new 1.5 MG tanks at a cost of just over$1 mil- lion each. Neither was allocated into the ten-year period. The 1993 report in- cluded only one tank sized to 1.0 MG and at a cost of less than$1 million. The differences pinpoint the variation in elevated storage tank capital cost used to compute the impact fee in all three studies. The reasons relate to more refined sizing factors explained in the ground storage CIP section as well as adjust- ments for inflation. 12 Ground Storage Tanks. The table on page 14 shows the cost allocations for the (W ground storage tanks. The City did not have any ground storage capacity in the 1990 study, even though there were plans to add 10 MG of ground storage capacity after the first impact fee study in 1990. The City evaluated another plan in 1996 that included the addition of 10 MG more ground storage tank capacity. The rationale for the additional ground storage included both reliability factors and cost factors. A separate analysis was been provided prior to this CIP report.There is a definite benefit for the reliability of service to have adequate ground storage so water can be delivered to the Southlake distribution system even if the supply is interrupted for a short period of time. The sizing of the ground storage system was changed from 10 MG to 20 MG so that these quantities, when supplemented with the elevated tank stor- age, could provide a full day of service at the ultimate peak flows of over 25 MG. This is thought to be particularly important in a community that is predominately residential, the source of most of the slimmer peaking demands. The cost of ground storage has been shown to be cost effective in many commtmi- ties paying a high demand rate to the wholesale supplier. Wholesale water rates charged by the City of Fort Worth are designed to be very costly if the wholesale customer places sharply spiked demands on the supplier as a ratio to the quantity of water taken on an average day. Load management capabilities are greatly enhanced with adequate ground storage, and those efforts can result in lower maximum day and peak hour water de- mands from the supplier. The concept is simple: take water on a more steady level from err the supplier by placing the water into storage and then draw down the water to supple- ment the peaking requirements that occur throughout the day. The storage tank is an investment while the payment of wholesale supplier demand charges is an expense. An engineering analysis has shown that a five million gallon tank will save at least one million gallons per day(1 MGD) in peaking charges. The peaking charges com- pute to be about$88,000 a year for each 1 MGD of demand on the wholesale supplier. A 5 MG storage tank costs about$1 million dollars. The debt service is about$80,000 and is paid off in 20 years. Demand charges continue forever and are subject to be increased each year.. The net cost of the two 5 MG ground storage tanks is estimated to be about $176,000 each but only if there are-true savings in peaking charges. This savings may not be realized if there are a large number of consecutive days that the ground storage tanks are drawn down. The City is in need of practicing basic water conservation and load management techniques encouraged by regulatory agencies to better assure these possible savings. The 1996 report reduced the cost of the ground storage tanks with the recognition of these theoretical savings. However, the last two summers with extraordi- nary dryness and record water consumption has confirmed that the savings are not guaranteed. Therefore, the CIAC has recommended that the full cost estimates of the last two ground storage tanks be included in the 1999 study update. (W 13 Table VI - Ground Storage Tanks Location Gallons Cost Per Gal. Costs Pearson No. 1 (Built) 5,000,000 $0.2067 $1,033,500 Pearson No. 2 (Built) 5,000,000 $0.3230 $1,615,000 T.W. King No. 1 (Built) 5,000,000 $0.2240 $1,120,000 T.W. King No. 2 (Within 10 Yrs) 5,000,000 $0.2420 $1,210,000 Total 20,000,000 $0.2489 $4,978,500 Capacity Absorbed in 10 Years 32.79% Cost of Capacity Absorbed _ $1,632,450 SFLUEs 5,331 Cost Per SFLUE $306 Table VI shows the total cost of ground storage tanks to be$4,978,500. This is an increase of $2,625,700 from the 1996 study. The cost increase is primarily due to the reasons explained below. The portion of this 1999 cost of$4,978,500 allocated to the ten-year impact fee (W period is $1,632,450. When divided by 5,331 SFLUEs projected to be added daring that same ten-year period, the result is an average cost of$306 per SFLUE, an increase of $161per SFLUE compared to the 1996 study. The ground storage highlights are as follows: • Pearson Tank No. 1 was built at a cost of$1,033,500 or$0.2060 per gallon. This is $33,500 greater than the cost estimate shown in the 1996 study. • T.W. King No. 1 was built at a cost of$1,120,000 or$0.224 per gallon. This is $120,000 greater than the cost estimate shown in the 1996 study. • The other two tanks have large increases based on both revised costs and the inclusion of fiull costs as previously explained. o Pearson No. 2 was originally $1,000,000 reduced to $176,400 in the 1996 study. The revised fiill cost of $1,615,000 has been included in this 1999 study update. o T.W. King No. 2 was originally$1,000,000 reduced to $176,400 in the 1996 study. The revised full cost of $1,210,000 has been included in this 1999 study update. 14 • The cost allocation of the entire 20 MG ground storage system is being dis- tributed evenly to all of the SFLUEs,both existing and fiiture. This is because all of the users benefit from the reliability and should share in the cost and in the potential savings. • The cost for all SFLUEs is $306 with all of the costs stated in at cost or in 1999 dollars. This is compared to $145 per SFLUE in the 1996 study. Pumping Facilities. The ptunpi.ng facilities and supply lines that will be discussed next must be understood in the context of two major decisions. The first is that the City never had the complete cost of delivering the ultimate water needs for Southlake in the 1990 study nor in the 1993 update since the focus was only on the forthcoming ten-year period. Second, the present alternative being considered is part of a regional water sys- tem that has only recently been studied by the area wholesale customers and the whole- sale supplier.A separate analysis, including a more complete description of the rationale and cost benefit discussion, has been provided prior to this CIP report. The next result is a schedule of pumping facility projects shown in Table VII. Table VII - Water Pumping Facilities Location Costs North Beach Pumps $132,243 North Beach Telemetry $132,629 Pearson Pump Station (Built) $2,135,000 T.W. King Pump Station (Under Const) $2,190,000 Future Pumps at Pearson $150,000 Future Pumps at T.W. Kin $150,000 Total $4,889,872 Capacity Absorbed in 10 Years 32.79% Cost of Capacity Absorbed $1,603,389 SFLUEs 5,331 Cost Per SFLUE $301 Table VII shows the project list totaling$4,889,872 and the portion of the capac- ity cost allocated to the ten-year impact fee period. When multiplied by 32.79%, the frac- ,,. 15 tion of the SFLUEs being served as new growth in the next ten years, the resulting cost is $301 per SFLUE. The highlights of the pumping facilities are as follows: • There is a requirement to meet the needs of 50.6 MGD of maximum daily (hourly) flow. The actual sizing parameters include providing for pumping capacity to meet peak hourly demands with the largest pump being out of ser- vice. Peak hourly flows are about twice the maximum daily flows. This equates to about 3,033 gallons (max hour) per SFLUE, when adjustments are made for tank draw down capabilities. • The North Beach Pump Station cost is based on a proration of a larger facility with the economies of scale for a structure built in 1985. The City has 6.5 MGD of capacity rights in that facility. However, this facility will become part of the regional system. Therefore, the costs shown in 1993 have been folded into the water supply line costs. • The cost to construct the Pearson and T.W. King Pump Stations is more than was estimated in 1996. This is primarily due to the additional architectural features that were built such as the building, fencing and landscaping. o The Pearson Pump Station is located near the Pearson/FM 1709 vicin- (W The prorated capacity for Southlake is 26.0 MGD (max hour) at a cost of$2,135,000 or about $.08211 per gallon. These puunping facility costs have been increased from the 1996 estimate of$1,500,000. o The T.W. King Pump Station is located near the Trophy Chub vicinity. The prorated capacity for Southlake will be 23.3 MGD (max hour) at a cost of$2,190,000 or about$0.09340 per gallon. These pumping facility costs have been increased from the 1996 estimate of$1,300,000. • The 1999 study includes future ptunps at both the Pearson Pump Station and the T.W. King Pump Station estimated to cost $150,000 at each site. • These capacity costs are spread evenly over the time periods since the facili- ties are planned within the next ten years and will serve all customers equally, both existing and future. • The ten-year cost allocation totals$1,603,389 or$301 per SFLUE,an increase of$129 per SFLUE compared to the 1996 study. 16 Water Supply Lines. As more frilly described in previous presentations with the Capi- tal Improvements Advisory Committee, Southlake is presently moving toward partic- ipation in the Northeast Tarrant County Regional Water System(NETCRWS).The plan is to have the individual cities operate their portion of the system and have Fort Worth continue to be the wholesale treated water supplier. The cost of this regional alternative is significantly higher than the alternative considered in the 1990 study. There were no additional supply lines included in the 1990 study. In any case, the costs are greater and are reflected in the 1999 update. Table VIII - Water Supply Lines Location - Costs Equity in System - Part I $579,767 Equity in System - Part II $2,815,800 Regional System - Phase I $1,330,000 Regional System - Phase II $2,592,000 Regional System - Phase III $3,113,625 Total $10,431,192 Capacity Absorbed in 10 Years 32.79% (W Cost of Capacity Absorbed $3,420,388 SFLUEs 5,331 Cost Per SFLUE $642 Table VIII recaps the Water Supply Line projects totaling$3,420,388. The capac- ity costs are allocated to the ten-year period based on 32.79% of the new SFLUEs that are to be served during that same ten-year period. The resulting allocation of$3,420,388 yields a cost of$642 per SFLUE, an increase of$216 compared to the 1996 study. The water supply highlights are as follows: • The current supply line from Fort Worth provides 6.5 MGD of capacity to South- lake. This capacity is totally absorbed and was supplemented in by temporary sources after 1996 and eventually from the regional water system. This cost will become part of the regional system. • Phase I shall consist of a 24" water line from the T.W. King Pump Station to the Trophy Chub transmission line located on SH 114. This project has been bid and construction is scheduled for the beginning of 2000. 17 • Phase II shall consist of a 36" water line from the FM 1709 at Pearson Lane to SH 114 at Precinct Line and additional water lines at Fort Worth's Alta Vista Ptunp Station. This project is anticipated to be constructed in the 2001/2002 time frame. • Phase III shall consist of a 42" water line from Fort Worth's Caylor Tank east to Pearson Lane. This project will be shared with Keller. • These capacity costs are spread evenly over the time periods since the facilities are planned within the next ten years and will serve all customers equally, both existing and future. • The cost of serving an existing SFLUE is $642 for the ten-year period compared to $426 calculated in 1996. An explanation is in order to place the cost of the regional system in the proper perspective for comparing with the supply line costs provided in the previous studies. The total cost of the regional participation was shown to be $5,478,228 in the 1996 study. However, to make a fair comparison to that number,the previous plan to parallel the 30" line through Keller would have cost at least$5,418,300 as shown in the following analysis: (W • The 1993 update included the cost of paralleling the Fort Worth line from the North Beach street pump station and adding additional pumps at a cost of $2,905,800. • The 1993 study included $1,462,500 for a 30" line to parallel the 20" line along FM 1709 to the Myron vicinity, some 22,500 linear feet. This project is considered part of the City's transmission system but was an integral part of the lower pres- sure system that was revised downwardly in the 1999 update. • There was one other component needed to match Southlake's ultimate needs that was not shown in the 1993 ,update. The previous plan assumed that the City would be able to purchase another 6.0 MGD of capacity in the Keller line from Westlake, the owner of those rights with excess capacity to sell Southlake. The cost of this capacity right has been estimated to be $1,050,000. This makes the total net increase in cost of the regional participation to be $59,928 more than the "second North Beach feed"alternative,although the 1999 update would indicate a$1,109,928 increase because the 1993 update did not include the cost of the Westlake capacity in the existing line. 18 It should also be noted that the City also evaluated an option to build their own line to the Caylor tank location, but this option was rejected because the estimated cost is $5,982,911, and obtaining rights-of-way and easements would be very difficult. The documentation for this decision has been carried forward from the 1996 report to the 1999 report because of its importance to understand prior city decisions. Transmission System. Water supplied to the Southlake system has to be delivered through the system to subdivision mains. The transmission system costs could be allo- cated to all SFLUEs, existing and new, on a prorata basis. Many of the additions of the water system serve new growth but also provide for more reliability to other customers because of the nature of looping the water system. Similarly, the existing transmission system becomes available to new growth for the same reasons. However, the approach taken to allocate the capacity costs was for the existing lines to be distributed based on existing and ten-year SFLUEs and for the future lines to be allocated to the ten-year and beyond ten-year SFLUEs. The results are relatively the same with the unit costs being within a few dollars per SFLUE. The reason for allocating capacity costs under the methodology used was to elimi- nate or to at least minimize the concern over an allocation of lines that may not be built within the next ten years. The following table shows a summary of the transmission sys- tem allocation. (W Table I K - Transmission Lines Line Total Cost Various Existing Low Plane Lines $5,657,573 Various Future Low Plane Lines $10,670,335 Various Existing High Plane Lines $433,373 Various Future High Plane Lines $1,159,945 City Part of Over-Sized Lines (Net) $348,440 City Part of CDBG Lines $19,727 Engineering/Surveying Costs (13.5%) and Inspection Costs (3%) $2,259,049 Total $20,548,442 Capacity Absorbed in 10 Years 32.79% Cost of Capacity Absorbed $6,737,834 19 Line Total Cost SFLUEs 5,331 Cost Per SFLUE $1,264 Table IX siunmarizes the Water Transmission System that totals $20,548,442. When the ten-year capacity allocation percentage of 32.79% for the new growth in SFLUEs projected to occur for that same time period, the result is a cost of$1,264 per SFLUE, an increase of$427 compared to the 1996 study. The highlights of the Water Transmission System are as follows: • The capital costs of the transmission system had been lowered in the 1996 study to reflect the savings that are associated with the regional system. The connecting points in the northern sections of the City will eliminate the need to install transmission lines to deliver water to those areas that formerly would have been served from the southern portion of the City. Transmission line costs for the low-pressure system were decreased by the de- letion of the 30" line along FM 1709 that was included in the 1993 study at a cost of$1,462,500. There was also a decrease of$185,023 for other downsized lines. There was an addition of $147,100 for some oversizing costs not in- cluded in the 1993 study. The overall decrease in transmission line cost for the low-pressure system was $1,500,423. There was an increase in costs for the high-pressure plane due to the updating of line configuration and costs. This totaled $209,200. There was also an in- crease for the inclusion of some line oversizing costs that totaled $57,000. The overall cost reduction in the 1996 study compared to the 1993 study was $1,234,223 as the projects were reduced from $14,623,340 to $13,389,117. This reduction was largely due to the use of cost estimates that were lower than has now been realized. • The 1999 study includes transmission costs that go from $13,389,117 to $20,548,442. This increases are based on current pricing information that was discussed in detail by the CIAO. The decision was made to reflect more cur- rent and realistic costs of the cost of constructing water and sewer lines in light of efforts to minimize disruptions to the surface environment. • The total cost for the Water Transmission System was calculated to be$1,264 per SFLUE in the 1999 study update compared to $837 in 1996. 20 Grand Total For Water The maximum water impact fee, without consideration for financing costs or any credits, is $2,716. Before the maximum fee is finalized, financing costs will be added, as appropriate, and credit for interest income and other offsets will be considered. As previously explained, the Capital Improvement Plan excludes the cost of water treatment, an eligible cost that may be charged in the fiiture. The following table pro- vides a summary of the water capital costs that have been explained in this report. Table X - Eligible Water Capital Costs 1999 1999 Maximum 1996 Maximum Category Ten-Year Impact Fee Impact Fee Capital Without Without Cost Financing Financing Water Treatment Excluded Excluded Excluded Elevated Storage $1,934,027 $363 $301 Ground Storage $1,632,450 $306 $145 ,, moping $1,603,389 $301 $172 Supply Lines $3,420,388 $642 $448 Transmission Lines $6,737,834 $1,264 $837 Total $15,328,088 $2,876 $1,903 The isolation of the capital costs, the majority of the eligible costs for impact fee calculations, is very helpffil to compare how the CIP projects have changed, how the ca- pacity in those projects have been allocated and how those changes have translated into impact fee calculations. Wastewater Service Units The 1999 update uses the same basic methodology to establish the total number of SFLUEs that will be served by the Southlake wastewater system as was used in pre- vious studies. However, a different approach was taken to distribute the SFLUEs (and therefore the capacity cost) into the three time periods: existing, ten-year and beyond. The premise is that almost all of the water customers will become wastewater connec- tions eventually. 21 The exceptions include irrigation accounts and customers that remain on septic systems permanently. There are a considerable number of customers on septic systems today, but the City has a program underway to "retrofit"the majority of these customers over the next few years. While these are "new growth" accounts to the wastewater sys- tem, the assumption was made that existing water SFLUEs are also existing wastewater SFLUEs. In other words, the neighborhood sewer assessment connections are considered "existing" so that there will be no doubt about their exclusion as future growth and impact fee supported costs. This allowed for a more meaningful test of rea- sonableness regarding the capacity cost for a wastewater SFLUE. The number of wastewater SFLUEs at maturity is estimated to be 95% of the number of water SFLUEs. This is consistent with similar communities with few or no septic systems. Since this percentage will be relatively constant when adjustments are made for retro-fitting, the water SFLUEs become the basis for calculating the waste- water SFLUEs and distributing them into the three time periods. The following table illustrates: Table XI - Wastewater SFLUEs Water Wastewater Time Period SFLUEs SFLUEs @ 95% Existing (adjusted for retrofitting) 6,962 6,614 Ten-Year 5,331 5,064 Beyond Ten-Year 3,964 3,766 Total 16,257 15,444 Since the wastewater SFLUE growth is based on the water SFLUE growth, the percentage used for the distribution of capacity costs will be the same ratios as were used in the water cost allocations, as illustrated in Table IV. Table XII - Wastewater SFLUE Distribution Period SFLUEs Percentage Existing 6,614 42.82% Ten-Year 5,064 32.79% Beyond Ten-Year 3,766124.39% Total 15,444 100.00% 22 It is quite clear that there has been difficulty in establishing the proper cost allo- cation factors since the wastewater system is in its infancy yet is being designed to serve the entire City. This is why it is believed that the methodology used in the 1996 study and continued in the 1999 update provides the fairest capacity cost allocation basis and will be the superior approach to take in all future impact fee updates. The wastewater SFLUEs for the ten-year period shown in Table XII total 5,064. This will be the denominator used to calculate the maximum impact fee. The Bottom Line- Wastewater Cost Per SFLUE Table XVI shows the wastewater impact fee, without financing costs. The fee is calculated by dividing the ten-year capacity cost allocation by the ten-year wastewater SFLUEs. • The total capital cost in the 1999 update is $1,787 per wastewater SFLUE. • This compares to $2,455 computed in 1990, $1,414 computed in 1993 and $1,334 computed in 1996. • The wastewater CIP discussion will focus on the reasons for these variations. Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan The wastewater CIP is explained and described in three broad categories: • Wastewater Treatment Facilities. • Denton Creek Drainage Basin Interceptor and Collector System. • Big Bear Creek Drainage Basin Interceptor and Collector System. Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The City of Southlake will eventually be served by two wastewater treatment facilities. About 60% of the ultimate flows will be in the Denton Creek drainage basin (northern half) and be treated at the Denton Creek Plant. This treatment plant is operated by the Trinity River Authority(TRA),but the capacity rights (and obligations to pay) are held by Southlake and three area communities. This plant is presently relatively small and is slated for expansion based on the growth esti- mates of the entities underwriting its capital cost and operations. 23 The City is currently not connected to the Denton Creek plant, but a connecting interceptor line has been designed and is tinder constriction. Presently, the City lifts the sewer flows from the Denton Creek Basin to gravity flow into the Big Bear Creek collector system. The 1990 study included a total cost of$609,700 for the initial facility plus the expansion costs of$1,737,433 in the impact fee calculation. At that time there were no Southlake wastewater customers connected to the system. The 1993 update did not in- clude any wastewater treatment facilities nor does the 1999 update. The bulk of the City's recent growth has been in Big Bear Creek Drainage Basin, which will account for about 40% of the ultimate flows. These flows presently go to the TRA's Central Treatment Plant. The 1990 study included $745,902 of costs in the im- pact fee. - The available capacity in these two systems built for and held for fiiture growth are eligible impact fee costs and may be included in future impact fee updates. The amounts includedui the 1990 study explain the majority of the cost difference when be- ginning with the 1990 cost factors. The 1990 wastewater treatment costs per SFLUE were computed to be $893.16 recapped as follows: Denton Creek Plant $677.77 (W • TRA Central Plant $215.39 These costs in the 1990 study have not been included in the 1993, 1996 and 1999 updates. Denton Creek Drainage Basin Interceptor and Collection System. This has be- come a major wastewater conveyance system made up of a major interceptor and a se- ries of collector lines in the sub-basins. The City was considering building some compo- nents of this ultimate system as part of what was referred to as the "SH 114 Corridor" plan. This plan has since been revised as this impact fee study has caused a more in- tense review of the most econonucaLexpansionary approaches to the wastewater system, resulting in different solutions. The Denton Creek Basin costs were increased in the 1999 update by$5,722,184. This is equal to approximately$371per wastewater SFLUE.. The entire cost for this sys- tem is $17,843,984 or about $1,155 per SFLUE. 24 Table XIII - Denton Creek Drainage Basin Total Cost To tal Cost Line 1996 Update 1999 Update Denton Creek Pressure System Trunk $6,113,000 $7,565,123 N-1 Basin Lines $1,326,528 $2,381,314 N-2 Basin Lines $513,668 $1,100,707 N-3 Basin Lines $1,517,558 $2,144,577 N-4 Basin Lines $8389779 $1,152,643 N-5 Basin Lines $380,970 $823,607 N-6 Basin Lines $1,431;297 $2,676,013 Total $12,121,800 $17,843,984 Capacity Absorbed in 10 Years 23.74% 32.79% Cost of Capacity Absorbed $2,877,715 $5,851,042 SFLUEs 3,667 5,064 (W Cost Per SFLUE $785 $1,155 Other highlights of the Denton Creek system are as follows: • The main interceptor is a $7,565,123 project, increased by $1,452,123 from the 1996 study. Of the revised amount, $4,428,640 was built in 1997. The remaining moneys of$3,136,483 are for sections to be built in the future. • The N-1 segment is a $2,381,314 project, increased by $1,054,786 from the 1996 study. Of this revised amount, $91,004 is related to the Coventry development built in 1995-96. Another$472,025 is related to the Kirkwood area built in 1998. The remainder is to be built in the near future. • The N-2 segment is a $1,100,707 project, increased by $587,039 from the 1996 study. The entire revised amount is slated to be built within the ten-year period. • The N-3 segment is a $2,144,577 project, increased by $627,019 from the 1996 study. Of this amount, $393,776 was built by 1995 and another $214,703 was constricted in 1996. The remaining portions are to be built within the ten-year period. • The N-4 segment is a $1,152,643 project, increased by $313,864 from the 1996 25 report. Of the revised amount, $99,468 was built by 1995 and$130,945 was spent on a 10" line in Shady Oaks. The other segments are slated to be built within the next ten years. The NE corner of N-4 is currently being served by an interlocal agreement with Grapevine dated September 15, 1998. • The N-5 sub-basin is a $823,607 project, increased by $442,637 from the 1996 study. The original route for N-5 has changed, as it now seems more practical to pump part of the flows into the N-4 basin. This area is now under design with ad- justments required for SH-114 widening. The NW corner of N-5 is currently be- ing served by an interlocal agreement with Grapevine dated September 15, 1998. • The N-6 project is estimated to cost $2,676,013, an increase of$1,244,716 from the 1996 report. Of this revised amount, $626,508 was built in 1997 related to the Kirkwood branch. The remainder is to be built in the next ten years or shortly thereafter. • The Denton Creek Drainage Basin component of the wastewater impact fee is de- rived by a proration of the cost based on the SFLUEs that are attributable to pro- jected new growth as a fraction of the entire system or 32.79% (5,064 SFLUEs di- vided by 15,444 SFLUEs). This results a impact fee of$1,155 component of com- pared to $785 in the 1996 study. Big Bear Creek Drainage Basin Interceptor and Collector System. This portion of the Southlake wastewater collection system is substantially built and in use. A recap (W of this component of the Southlake wastewater collection system is as follows: Table XIV - Big Bear Creek Drainage Basin Total Cost Total Cost Line 1996 Update 1999 Update Big Bear Creek Pressure System Trunk $4,300,000 $4,300,000 S-1 Basin Lines $-0- $-0- S-2 Basin Lines _ $761,925 $1,453,004 S-3 Basin Lines $231,189 $659,900 S-4 Basin Lines $1,089,289 $1,078,747 S-5 Basin Lines $71,872 $71,872 S-6 Basin Lines $1,080,966 $946,895 S-7 Basin Lines $943,888 $1,249,953 Total $8,479,129 $9,760,371 26 Total Cost Total Cost Line 1996 Update 1999 Update Capacity Absorbed in 10 Years 23.74% 32.79% Cost of Capacity Absorbed $2,012,945 $3,200,426 SFLUEs 3,667 5,064 Cost Per SFLUE $549 $632 The highlights of the Big Bear Creek Drainage System are as follows: • The main interceptor line was built in 1991 at a cost of$4,300,000. • The S-l.segment has not been built and has been determined to be unneeded as the basin will be served through a reciprocal agreement with Keller. Therefore, the cost assignment is zero. • The S-2 segment is a$1,453,004 project,increased by$691,079 from the 1996 study. Of the revised costs, Unit I was built in 1995 at a cost of$446,860 and Unit II was built in 1997 at a cost of$467,556. The remaining portion of the basin is slated to be built within the next ten years. • The S-3 segment is a $659,900 project, increased by $428,711 from the 1996 (W study. Of the revised costs, $250,000 was built in Continental Park Estates in 1990. The remaining segment is expected to be built in the near fiiture. • The S-4 segment is a $1,078,747 project, a decrease of$10,542 from the 1996 study. Of this revised estimate, $408,000 was built in 1990; $250,000 in 1993; and $77,550 in 1998. The remaining portions are expected to be built within the ten-year planning period. • The S-5 segment is a $71,872 project that is reduced to only 23% for the por- tion of the line that is not owned by Mobil. This cost estimate remains the same as shown in the 1996 study. • The S-6 sub-basin is a $946,895 project, a decrease of$134,071 compared to the 1996 study. Of this revised amount, $620,000 was built in 1991; $300,000 was built in 1994; $19,200 is for oversizing costs paid to the developer on the Versailles project; and $7,695 for participation on the Dalton project. • The S-7,segment of the Big Bear Basin is a$1,249,953 project, an increase of $316,065 from the 1996 study. Of that revised amount, $399,639 was spent in 1996. The remaining schedule for construction within the ten-year period. • The total Big Bear Drainage Basin, including the interceptor and all of the collector lines is estimated to cost $9,760,371. The cost is prorated to the new 27 • F growth as a fraction of the entire system or 32.79% (5,064 SFLUEs divided by 15,444 SFLUEs). This results a impact fee component of$632 computed to $549 calculated in the 1996 study. The determination of the specific line segment to be built and the timing of the construction are largely related to the direction and magnitude of growth in Southlake. The entire project list is made a part of this capital improvements plan because of the potential for any of the projects to be built. However, the cost allocation provides for an even distribution of the cost to all SFLUEs regardless of the CIP schedule. The future projects are expected to be increased only for inflation in future updates since many of these costs remain at the 1999 dollar levels. Summary of Wastewater Costs The wastewater costs that have been presented in this section of the report in- clude the capital costs only. Financing costs and appropriate credits will be applied in the next section of the report. The capital costs are recapped below: Table XV - Eligible Wastewater Capital Costs Ten Year 1999 Impact 1996 Impact Category Capital Fee Without Fee Without Cost Financing Financing Treatment Plant Excluded Excluded Excluded Denton Creek Collection System $2,877,715 $1,155 $785 Big Bear Creek Collection System $2,012,945 $632 $549 Total $4,890,660 $1,787 $1,334 Financing Costs An interest cost factor of 25% is used in the water and wastewater study, the sauce as was used in the roadway study and generally for the same reasons. It should be noted that the interest rate and debt assumptions used in the maximum fee calculation are established for just that purpose: to include the proper amount in the maximum fee calculation. Chapter 395 provides the following direction regarding these costs: "Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and inter- est on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on be- 28 half of the political subdivision to finance the capital im- provements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan ..." The City typically issues serial bonds that mature over a twenty-year period. These are serial bonds in that they are issued in $5,000 denominations that mature se- rially beginning in the first or second year after the issuance of the bonds, with a certain amount of the bonds maturing in each of the subsequent years through the year of final maturity-the twentieth year. The bond issues are sometimes structured for the princi- pal portion to mature evenly. For instance,a level principal maturity schedule for a$10 million bond issue would be structured for principal to be paid $500,000 annually. More often, however, the bonds are structured to mature such that the total of the principal and interest payments are very close to level payments. This level princi- pal and interest (P&I)payment arrangement is almost identical to the standard mort- gage payment schedule except that the principal payments must be in amounts divisible by the smallest denomination of a single bond ($5,000). For illustration purposes, level annual payments are assumed in my model, but shown as an exact mortgage rather than with principal payments rounded to the nearest$5,000. This methodology is used for two reasons: i) because the calculations are very similar, producing virtually the same results and ii) the exact mortgage method allows for the use of standard forumulae found in calculators and computers for verification purposes. The annual debt service (P&I) payment on a typical $10 million bond issue, as- suming an interest rate of 6.25% and a level principal and interest payment over 20 years, is $889,623. When this bond issue is repaid,the total annual payments will equal $17,792,460 or$7,792,460 in interest costs. This means that the interest cost is 77.92% expressed as a percentage of the capital project cost ($7,792,460 divided by$10,000,000). The frill amount of interest cost is not charged in the maximum impact fee for several reasons. The portion of the capital cost attributable to new growth for the ten-year period is theoretically paid in full by the end of the ten-year period. That is, the capital cost used to determine the maximum impact fee is the portion expected to serve the ten- year growth and to be paid for by the ten-year growth if the maximuum fee were adopted. At the end of the ten-year period, the new-growth capital would be paid in fiill and in- terest cost would cease. An alternative for determining the interest cost to be included in the maximum impact fee is to use the interest cost for a ten-year bond issue. This calculation would result in an interest cost of$3,748,179 for a $10 million/10 Year bond or 37.48%when expressed as a percentage of the capital cost. The dilemma of how to compute interest cost is compounded because the City may issue bonds in annual increments such that the $10,000,000 program could be one single bond issue transacted at the beginning, middle or end of the ten-year window or perhaps spread over the ten-year period in three or four increments. And finally, the 29 � s City may elect to finance some portion of the projects directly from impact fees instead of using all of the impact fees to supplement the debt service payment requirements. Maximum Interest Cost As A Percentage of Capital Costs: The Solution The interest rate cost assumption of 25%used in the maximum impact fee calcu- lation in this water and wastewater study balances and solves all of the complications raised in the prior section. The City issues twenty-year bonds and has to pay off those bonds even though the portion of the capital cost related to the ten-year growth is"paid tip" at the end of the ten-year impact fee period. The solution for computing this inter- est cost factor has to rely on some assumptions: • Using a most conservative estimate, 60% of the water and sewer capital cost related to new growth will be financed by long-term bonds and 40�7,Arill be fi- .nanced directly from impact fee moneys collected and on-hand or by develop- ers that are later reimbursed from impact fees. • Of the 40%of fees spent directly on capital projects, the amount of interest in- come on those moneys will be small or non-existent. Therefore, no interest income credit is given for these monies because it is assuumed that they will be spent very quickly. • The bond funded water and sewer projects will be built from the proceeds of 20-year serial bonds maturing over 20 years with level P&I and an interest rate of 6.25%. • A theoretical escrow fund is shown for illustration purposes that could receive the impact fee revenues, pay for the debt service payments, and earn interest at 5% on accumulated balances. • The impact fees would be collected evenly over the ten-year period and would be established at a level such that the escrow fund would "zero out" in the twentieth year of the bond maturity. The calculations are illustrated in Appendix A They result in a$6 million bond issue ($10,000,000 program times 60%) would cost $4,675,472 in interest cost. When adjusted for an interest credit of$2,141,836 earned on the escrow fund, the net interest cost is $2,533,636 or 25.34% of the entire CIP program. The percentage was rounded to 25.00% for purposes of this study. This percentage can be applied to any level of CIP expenditures for planning and estimating purposes. 30 r � Other Eligible Costs The impact fee legislation provides for the recovery of the consulting and engi- neering fees that are associated with conducting the impact fee study. Since the impact fee time window is a period of ten years, there will be at least three updates. An esti- mate of$25,000 for three updates is made for both the water utility and the wastewater utility. Therefore, the maximum impact fee will include a component for these costs computed as: $14 for water projects ($25,000 times 3 updates divided by 5,444 SFLUEs). • $15 for sewer projects ($25,000 times three updates divided by 5,064 SFLUEs). Maximum Impact Fee Based on the project configurations, cost estimates and other calculations ex- plained in this report, the Maximum Impact Fee is calculated to be: Table XVI - Maximum Impact Fees Maximum Maximum Total Category Fee For Fee For Maximum Water . Sewer Fee Capital Costs $2,876 $1,787 $4,663 Financing Costs $719 $447 $1,166 Study Costs $14 $15 $29 Total $3,609 $2,249 $5,858 This is the legal calculation of the maximum impact fee and reflects the maxi- mum impact fee in the narrowest possible interpretation of the law. What it does not consider is the reality that capital projects are fiinded by a combination of impact fees, utility rates and taxes. A more realistic maximum impact fee calculation is explained be- low. Equilibrium Impact Fee Today's impact fee payers become tomorrow's rate and taxpayers. The utility bills and tax bills include a portion of the water and sewer infrastructure that is attributable to existing customers and payable by all customers -old and new. These bills also have to pay for utility costs of new development not recovered in the impact fee. 31 r The maximum impact fee can reflect an adjustment for payments made by those future rate and taxpayers. This adjustment equaled about 25%of the gross impact fee in the prior study. For 1999, the Equilibrium Immpact Fee and other comparative fees are shown be- low: Table XVII - Equilibrium Impact Fees HB 2045 Maximum and Current Fees Being Collected Fee For Fee For Total Category Water Sewer Fee Maximum Capital _ Cost $3,609 $2,249 $5,858 Estimate of Portion of Future Utility/Tax ($902) ($562) Bills ($1,464) Equilibrium Fee $2,707 $19687 $4,394 HB 2045 Maximum $1,805 $1,125 $2,930 Current Fee $1,450 $900 $2,350 The equilibrium fee is a realistic maximum, in that it is adjusted for projected contributions from ratepayers and taxpayers. However, it is not the legal maximum.It is consistent with the approach taken to determine the maximum impact fee in the 1990, 1993 and 1996 studies. It may be well to note that recent impact fee legislation set forth in HB-2045 was passed by both the state senate and house and vetoed by the governor in the final hours of the last legislative session implementation deadlines. This bill would have required several new procedures, one of which to establish that the maxi- mum legal allowable impact fee would be no less than 50% of the cost. This calculation is shown in Table XVII and may provide a reasonable policy decision regarding the ac- tual fee to collect from new development. This would increase the water& sewer impact fees by $580 or about 25%. Remaining Adoptive Steps While the calculation of the maximum impact fee is a systematic process based on legal parameters, planning and engineering assumptions, and cost estimates, the re- mainder of the process is a policy matter to be determined by the City Council. The law allows the City to set the impact fee at any level so long as the published maximuun is not exceeded. 32 M The City Council is required to publish the maximum impact fees that are being considered in advance of a public hearing. This report constitutes the legal and technical report from the independent consultants, although the projects, costs and methodology has been thoroughly workshopped by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. This engineering and consulting report is to be placed on file with the City Secretary for public review as of the first notice date for the public hearing published in the news- paper. The CIAC is required to provide written comments to the Council before the pub- lic hearing. The Council is to receive input from the public,including ratepayers, build- ers, developers and any other person desiring to speak for or against the impact fee process and results. After the public hearing is closed, the City Council will have been advised by staff, consultants, cominunity advisors and the public at large. At that point in time the im- pact fee ordinance can be amended to include the revised maximum impact fees and the impact fee collection schedule. LFM (W 33 Appendix A Technical Explanation of Financing Costs (This appendix will be provided at the November 24 CIAC Meeting) i 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report Developed by the City of Southlake For use in the Impact Fee Study c CITY OF SOUTHLAKE LAND USE ASSUMPTION REPORT FOR IMPACT FEES INTRODUCTION In order to accurately determine the costs associated with providing infrastructure to new development via impact fees, a planning study must first be conducted which determines the amount and location of expected population and employment growth. That study, known as the land use assumptions (LUAs) report, is described in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code as the basis from which all capital improvement plans for impact fees are to be created. It must be updated every three years and/or as conditions for development change in communities. To follow is the land use assumption report for the 1999 update of the water, wastewater and roadway impact fees, as well as potentially a new stormwater drainage impact fee. The 1995 land use assumption report has been used as the base format from which the 1999 updated assumptions are created. It is important to note that any revised impact fees mentioned above and the land use assumptions upon which they are based are only concerned with the impact of future development• Revised impact fees cannot be assessed to development that already exists nor used for maintenance and operation of existing facilities. Therefore, this land use assumption report will first describe a "baseline" condition in Southlake, meaning current population and employment levels, then project expected increases in these levels based on the type, location, quantity, and timing of various future land uses in the community. In addition, a major element of this report will be to describe the processes used to make these growth assumptions. CONTENTS OF THE LAND USE ASSUMPTION REPORT The land use assumption report is divided into six categories that function to satisfy the methodology requirements of state law. They are: I. Study Processes: A description of the methods used to determine all the data and variables in the report, as well as an explanation of the data sources II. Service Area Maps (Maps 1, 2, and 3): The impact fee service areas for water, wastewater, and roadway facilities based on the data collection zones. Note that the service area for the potential stormwater drainage impact fee will be determined upon completion of the water, wastewater and roadway fee updates III. Base Data: Information on population, employment, and land use for Southlake as of January 1999 for each data collection zone IV. Ultimate Projections: Projections which reflect a completely developed condition based on the city's Land Use Plan and current land use patterns V. Ten-Year Growth Assumptions: Population and employment growth assumptions for ten years by data collection zones and impact fee service areas (W LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 2 of 13 VI. Summary: Brief description of major findings of this report I. STUDY PROCESSES In order to make determinations about the current population and employment levels in Southlake and to develop growth assumptions to be used in capital improvements planning, a wide variety of data sources must be explored. By assimilating data of varying types and noting both the differences and similarities of their variables, logical conclusions can be drawn to support the inclusion of the data which is the "best fit" for Southlake and its expected growth patterns. A. Data Sources: The data in this land use assumption report can be described as generally coming from several major sources, all reasonable tools frequently used by city staff and local officials, such as: 3. Existing land uses 3. Future land uses based on the adopted Land Use Plan(1/20/98) 3. Existing zoning (W 3. Expected increases in occupancy of existing residential lots 3. Approved future commercial developments Pp p 3. The physical holding capacity of the city at build-out 3. Regional and local analyses performed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) 3. Observed growth characteristics of other similarly situated cities 3. Accepted extrapolation (forecasting)techniques based on sound planning principles B. Study Procedures: Using the general data sources described above, the study is prepared following these major steps: 1. Determine the data collection zones for water, wastewater and roadway facilities based on state law requirements and determine the applicable service areas (See Section II - Service Area Maps) 2. Collect/determine baseline data for current population and employment figures as of January LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 3 of 13 1, 1999 (See Section III - Base Year Data) 3. Project population and employment growth for ten years by impact fee service areas (See Section IV - Ten-Year Growth Assumptions) 4. Project the ultimate population and land use (by land use category) for a fully developed city (See Section V -Ultimate Projections) II. SERVICE AREA MAPS Maps 1, 2 and 3, located in the Appendices, show the proposed service areas for water, wastewater and roadway facilities respectively. The boundary for water and wastewater facilities is the existing city limits, which is allowed by state law and remains the same service area as in the initial 1990 water and sewer impact fee study and its subsequent updates in 1993 and 1996. The proposed roadway impact fee service areas remain unchanged from the prior update, for several compelling reasons. First,the eight(8)proposed roadway service area boundaries contain nested traffic survey zones (TSZsl), making their integration of these standardized (by NCTCOG, state, and federal entities) data collection zones a virtual seamless fit within the roadway service areas. This characteristic assists greatly in the data collection and distribution process. Secondly, the compilation of these TSZs into the proposed roadway impact fee service areas also meets the statutory requirements for the size limitations of roadway service areas (they can be no more than 3 miles in diameter. The TSZs, when compiled into roadway service areas, also represent areas of fairly similar traffic generation characteristics and help to maintain efficiencies in accounting and administration of roadway impact fees. III. BASE YEAR DATA Population This section documents the current population and employment levels in Southlake. The most generally accepted estimate of the population of local municipalities is generated by the NCTCOG for January 1 of each calendar year. Beginning with the total count of the most recent Census (1990 in this case), the NCTCOG demographic personnel provide current year January 1 estimates by examining building permitting and occupancy reports submitted by the respective cities' building departments through December 31 of the prior year. After assigning "added population"to the municipality,the NCTCOG staff submits preliminary figures to city staff to be double-checked for any inconsistencies, anomalies, etc. Once the January 1 numbers have been examined and approved, they are published in a NCTCOG annual report. This process, at the time of publication of this report, has been completed by NCTCOG for January 1, 1999. Staff has used techniques based on the NCTCOG methodology to double-check the January 1, 1999, estimate and agrees with the proposed estimate of 21,050• Table 1 below represents Southlake's population history from the most recent complete count (1990 Census) through the most recent current year estimate for January 1, 1999. 'Traffic survey zones,or TSZs,are data collection boundaries used by government entities to collect information about population,employment,travel patterns,and other statistical information. LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 4 of 13 L ti TABLE 1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE HISTORICAL POPULATION Year Population Compounded Annual Growth Rate 1990 (Census)* 7065 --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Source:U.S. Census ** Source:NCTCOG January 1 adopted current year estimates As mentioned above, the annual population estimates are based on building permitting and occupancy data. Table 2 below represents Southlake's building permit history during the time period of 1990-1999. TABLE 2 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS Year New Single-Family Permits Source: City of Southlake Building Inspections Division * 10/99-12/99 estimated The above two tables have been presented to demonstrate that Southlake has been experiencing increased residential growth since 1990, with perhaps a coming decline in that rate in the approaching period covered by this report. Slowed, but steady residential growth is expected to continue into the near future(further discussed in Section IV). The 21,050 figure is suitable for use in the citywide service area calculations for water and (bW LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 5 of 13 wastewater in that form. However, this figure will need to be distributed to the eight (8) roadway service areas by TSZ for use as a baseline figure for the roadway impact fee calculations. To accomplish this, the difference between the 1995 population estimates by TSZ and the overall baseline January 1, 1999, population estimate of 21,050 is allocated proportionally to individual TSZs based on the proportional number of building permits issued by TSZ since 1995. This data is accumulated by Southlake's Community Development department in a summary of residential development indicating the number of planned lots, platted lots, building permits issued and available lots by subdivision. The January 1, 1999, population estimates by TSZ can be found in Appendix A. Employment Since not all land uses in Southlake are residential ones, it is necessary to also determine the impact of future non-residential uses and calculate impact fees for them. Again, the first step in making this determination is arriving at a baseline figure for the non-residential uses currently in Southlake. The measure of these uses will be current employment levels. The growth of Southlake's employment base in recent years has become substantial enough that a close examination of the data used to determine it must be taken. During the impact fee study of 1995-1996, the land use assumptions for existing employment were based on an interpolation between the NCTCOG 1990 and 2010 employment estimates by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. These values were then compared to changes of zoning to nonresidential categories since 1990 - the date of the last available data from NCTCOG - to determine if the interpolation resulted in "under counts" and "over counts" by TSZ and/or SIC code versus the actual development in Southlake. As a result, the employment values were then adjusted upward to reflect major additional employment and adjusted downward where development has not occurred. The resulting 1995 aggregate total was 3796 employees. This total represents a more accurate, hand-adjusted total than NCTCOG's figure of 3400. Similarly, NCTCOG's recently released employment figure for Southlake of 4,300 for 1998 is also unrepresentative of known additions to Southlake's employment base. The most accurate and up-to-date tabulation of employment in Southlake is maintained by Southlake's Department of Economic Development. This business database contains a complete listing of known businesses by type of business (readily linked to SIC codes), number of employees, and other critical data. This database is also frequently updated to reflect additional businesses, those that have become inactive, and other changes. After removing home-based businesses (which occupy residential land uses) and inactive ones, the total current baseline employment figure to be used for Southlake will be 6,332 employees. This represents a significant increase from previously expected totals because of substantial employment base increases in recent years. To derive the allocation to the eight (8) individual roadway service areas, each TSZ was examined and the proportion of the 6,332 employees were assigned to each, based on the physical addresses of the businesses in the database. The January 1, 1999, number of employees (W by roadway service area is shown in Appendix B-1. In Section IV, the process of projecting LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 6 of 13 future increases (ten-year estimates) by service area will be explained. Table 3 below is a summary of the baseline (January 1, 1999) numbers discussed in this section and to be used in this report for projection purposes. TABLE 3 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE JANUARY 1, 1999, POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT BASELINE FIGURES 1995 1999 Annual Increase - Population ation 21050 0 Employment 3196 6,332 0 IV. ULTIMATE PROJECTIONS Population An ultimate or holding capacity population projection was also established. This ultimate projection is needed as an input for the ten-year projection to follow in Section V, and therefore is calculated first in this Section. First, known densities of development were considered. Then, based on the remaining developable vacant land in Southlake, densities as recommended in the Land Use Plan and densities of anticipated development projects were applied. The ultimate population of the City ,,, of Southlake is a function of residential land use area(acres), housing density (dwelling units per acre), and population density (persons per dwelling unit). Based on the land uses identified on the Land Use Plan, the total ultimate land use areas of low density single-family housing, medium density single-family housing, and multi-family housing is known. The area of each residential classification was multiplied by its respective housing density and population density, and the products were summed to obtain the ultimate population. Housing density values are from observed existing residential development and/or current residential zoning regulations. The ultimate holding capacity of 35,841 Persons is based on the Land Use Plan and the following process, in summary: 1. The Residential Development Summary prepared by city staff was updated to reflect the current number of developed lots that have not been occupied. These lots represent future population that can be counted above and beyond expected residential population in undeveloped areas shown on the Land Use Plan. That summary shows: 1044 available lots 2. The remaining acreages of undeveloped residential land uses are multiplied by their respective allowable densities. Note that these densities and these assumption show a theoretical maximum allowed by zoning: 1 lot per acre for 1525 acres of LDR= 1525 new lots LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 7 of 13 2.12 lots per acre for 583 acres of MDR= 1236 new lots This total (2761) was then adjusted downward from the theoretical maximums (above) by 15%to account for internal right-of-way, common areas, etc. to yield 2347 lots total 3. The Mixed Use category currently holds 1072 "undeveloped" acres, as stated in Table 4. To derive potential ancillary residential units from this category, the following assumptions were made: (a) The 1072 acres can be reduced to 570 acres by virtue of approved plans (Timarron Commercial, Town Center's future phases, Gateway Plaza, etc.) which have zoning with little or no residential component. At 570 acres and an assumed density of 1.8 dwelling units an acre, this yields 1026 Potential dwelling units from this category. 4. The total of all lots mentioned above, or 4417 new lots are multiplied by the NCTCOG Average Household Size (3.51), which equals approximately 15,504 new residents for these land use categories. This figure is adjusted to 14,791 when multiplied by a 95.4 percent occupancy rate. Taking the total potential additions figure of 14,791 and adding it to the 1999 baseline population of 21,050 one can estimate that the city could see a potential for 35,841 persons at build-out, again, based on the noted assumptions. Employment To determine ultimate employment figures, the densities of types of non-residential land uses (i.e. Retail Commercial, Mixed Use, etc.) were observed as they currently exist in the baseline data presented in Section III. Next, for all of these types of uses, ultimate employment projections were made by multiplying the known density of development (employees per acre) times the remaining available acreages of each land use category. For most instances, this calculated "density" of non-residential uses can be directly used to project future growth. However, in many of Southlake's mixed use corridors, there is no existing employment density that can be used to gauge future growth. Likewise, the employment bases in these mixed use centers will be substantially higher than currently seen in the largely single-story office and commercial developments used for normal projections. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a reasonable set of assumptions about the density of growth expected in these mixed use areas (and their respective TSZs) independent of the non-residential growth densities in other areas. For the purpose of this report, the mixed-use centers were assigned a density based on Southlake's existing employee per acre ratios in the Basic, Retail, and Service categories, then multiplied by an average number of maximum stories permitted by the concepts plans for these areas. The recently approved Sabre Group campus will approach a density of 50 employees per acre based on the projections submitted to the city. The undeveloped mixed-use areas remaining on S.H. 114, using the method described above, approximate these densities, as well. The resulting total projected employee base.for Southlake is estimated to be 42,825 employees in an ultimate state. LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 8 of 13 V. TEN-YEAR GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS Introduction In order to project a proper distribution of future land use patterns, a thorough understanding of existing conditions is essential. Existing land use patterns have been evaluated in all prior impact fee studies in Southlake, and that information was updated, for this land use assumptions report. The basis for the study of current or proposed land uses is the currently adopted (1/20/98) Land Use Plan. The land use categories contained in this plan are Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Office Commercial, Retail Commercial, Mixed Use, Industrial, Public/Semi-Public, Public Parks/Open Space, Corps of Engineers, and Floodplain. Each of the above categories was counted and tabulated on a parcel-by-parcel basis and recorded for all areas of the City. Table 4 shows a summary of existing land uses by acreage and percent of total acreage in Southlake. This table is helpful in demonstrating the ability of various types of land uses to absorb more residents (in the case of residential land uses) and employees in the case of non-residential ones. TABLE 4 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE DEVELOPEDIUNDEVELOPED LAND USES WITH TEN YEAR ESTIMATES Existing Land Use Developed %of 10-Year %of Ultimate Acres Ultimate Dev.Acres Ultimate Acres Low Density Residential 3497 70% 4620 92% 5022 Medium Density Residential 3212 85% 3491 92% 3795 Sub-Total 6709 76% 8112 92% 8817 Single Family Residential Office Commercial 64 16% 255 64% 398 Retail Commercial 207 45% 296 64% 463 Mixed Use 698 39% 1133 64% 1770 Industrial 294 60% 312 64% 488 Sub-Total 1263 40% 1996 64% 3119 Commercial Public/Semi-Public 192 41% 474 Parks/Open Space 91 34% 266 Corps of Engineers 0 0% 757 Floodplain 73 8% 888 Source: City of Southlake,Community Development Department Gross acres,includes street and alley rights-of-way Ten-Year Population Projections The ten-year projections for land use assumptions are based upon the policies established in the Land Use Plan. The establishment of a reasonable growth trend is based in part on past trends, and based in part on mathematical calculations of characteristics expected in the future of a city like Southlake. Considering the historical population of Southlake (Table 1), it is obvious that the city has recently gone through a high-growth period. Also, with adequate inventories of platted lots and an adequate amount of vacant land for development, it is logical to assume that a LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 9 of 13 similar, though diminishing, rate of growth will continue over the ten-year window used for the impact fee projections. Another important factor to consider is that Southlake's projected population density has been reduced substantially through updates of the Land Use Plan in recent years. There are several methods for projecting population growth based on historical population data and on other industry-accepted modeling. A"linear"growth curve (see Appendix C for examples of these curves) assumes a constant growth rate and takes the form of a straight line when plotted. This was the method used to project population in the 1995-1996 report. An "exponential" curve assumes an ever-increasing growth rate and assumes the shape of a line curving upward. Yet another growth curve, the "logistic" curve, is deemed to be the best fit for projecting Southlake's population. It is an "S-shaped" curve which denotes a period of historic slow growth (from 1974-1990), followed by a sharp growth rate increase (from 1991-present), followed by a period of decreasing growth rates as the city reaches its ultimate population. An important function and built-in "reasonableness" factor of the logistic curve is that this mathematical function assumes an upper growth limit. This adjusts the population growth to fit the amount of land available for this use. The upper growth limit is detailed in Section V. By applying the logistic curve extrapolations, data was derived showing how many residents are expected to be added to the baseline (1999) population figure through the ten-year planning period for the land use assumptions report. That figure of 33,060 is detailed in Appendix A. Another necessary function of the ten-year population projections is to equate population figures to housing units. Based on the NCTCOG figures of 3.51 persons per household and a 95.4 ,W percent occupancy rate for Southlake, the number of additional dwelling units each year can also be calculated. These figures are represented in Table 5 below. TABLE 5 TEN-YEAR POPULATION PROJECTIONS USING LOGISTIC FUNCTION CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Year Population % Annual Pop. Housing Units Increase 1999 21,050 o o 6957 o 7500 o 7989 o 8421 8793 o 9111 o o 9594 o 9774 33,060 *Using 1998-1999 increase LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 10 of 13 The next step, as in the other cases, was to disaggregate the ten-year total population figure of 33,060 and allocate to the individual TSZs that make up the roadway service areas. Using the 1998 Land Use Plan (to determine vacant land totals in the residential categories) and the residential development summary (discussed in Section III) for developed, but not occupied lots, expected increases in each TSZ were added to the 1999 totals for each TSZ. This "hand assignment" resulted in a 10-year estimate by TSZ. It should also be mentioned that the Mixed Use category was assigned a conservative amount of residential population, as it is an acceptable use of that category, based on reasonable assumptions for that category of 10 percent single- family. Ten-Year Employment Projections The baseline 1999 employment figure of 6,332 (disaggregated into the TSZs as demonstrated in Section III and illustrated in Appendix B) is used to provide a reference point of how completely developed(non-residentially) the TSZ zones are in 1999. This is done by determining how much acreage is developed and how many current employees exist per developed acre in each TSZ for each non-residential land use category. Then, using the densities established in Section IV with the ultimate projections, a 10-year projected amount of employees was determined by assigning an "absorption factor" of 6% of the difference between the 1999 existing employees abd the ultimate projected employees, per year. Based on 6% absorption and the estimated number of ultimate employees, build-out for Southlake's employee base was estimated to be the year 2017. Deducting the 6% per year figures back from the year 2017 to 2009 (with 2009 being the 1999- 2009 projection period), the estimated 10-year employee projection was 27,498• These methods of projecting ten-year employment figures were deemed as the more reasonable than the approach used in 1995 for several reasons. For one, the NCTCOG projected employment figure (W for the year 2010 is 9600. This figure is unreasonably low compared to the known existing 1999 employment figure of 6,332. It is unreasonable to expect only 3268 additional employees to be added in an eleven-year period, especially considering an average of 17% per year increase has been noted since 1995 for current types of non-residential growth, and further with known mixed use developments corning on line of even higher densities. Therefore, neither the NCTCOG 2010 nor 2020 estimates were used for interpolation from the 1999 baseline figure. The ten-year projected employment totals by roadway service area can be found in Appendix B- 2. VI. SUMMARY The data used to compile these land use assumptions were taken from various reasonable sources: the updated (1/20/98) Land Use Plan for the City of Southlake, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) formula for deriving population from additional building permits, and the boundary data established by the U.S. Census Bureau. The existing base data was prepared by the City of Southlake's Community Development department and information from the U.S. Census. The ten-year growth projections were calculated based upon reasonable growth rates and trends based on the Land Use Plan Ultimate projections were based on the holding capacity of vacant land using land use types as shown on the Land Use Plan and applying densities as established by development policies in the Plan and known proposed development plans. The land use assumptions may be summarized as follows: LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 11 of 13 Southlake presently contains approximately 14,650 acres within the city limits of which approximately 57% is developed. It is not anticipated Southlake will be able to expand its municipal boundaries beyond its present limits. Existing population of Southlake on January 1, 1999= 21,050 A logistic growth rate model was used in the ten-year population projections to account for a continued growth period while also demonstrating Southlake's anticipated diminishing residential growth rate closer to build-out. The ten-year(2009)population projection for Southlake is 33,060. The ultimate population of Southlake is approximately 35,841 (W LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 12 of 13 APPENDICES LUA Report—November 24, 1999 Page 13 of 13 APPENDIX A CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CURRENT-YEAR(1999)AND TEN YEAR POPULATION PROJECTIONS Roadway 1999 1999 1999 2009 2009 2009 Traffic Survey Service Area Dwelling Units Households Population Dwelling Units Households Population Zone(TSZ) 1 166 158 556 632 603 2220 9200 1 1 1 5 3 3 10 9219 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14036 Sub-Total 167 160 561 635 606 2230 0 2 2 2 6 4 4 14 8330 2 73 70 244 109 104 426 8450 2 420 402 1410 370 353 1594 8451 2 2 2 7 ill 10 35 8454 2 19 19 651, 58 246 578 8492 Sub-Total 516 493 1732 7521 7171 2647 3 716 685 2403 808 773 2713 8456 3 803 767 2693 817 781 2743 8457 3 7 7 24 9 9 30 8493 3 32 31 109 34 33 115 19017 Sub-Total 15581 14901 5229IF-16691 1596 5601 4 81 77 272 83 80 280 8324 4 144 138 483 252 241 845 8452 4 52 50 175 114 109 384 8493 4 455 435 1526 596 570 1999 8464 4 2 2 6 2 2 8 8465 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 846 4 47 45 158 101 96 338 8467 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8468 Sub-Total 1 7811 7461 262701 11491 10981 3854 5 102 97 341 132 126 442 8320 5 3 3 10 0 0 0 8322 5 115 110 386 149 143 501 8323 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8335 5 378 362 12691, 508 485 1704 8469 Sub-Total 5981 5721 2006 789 754 2647 61 429 410 1440 1401 1339 4701 8470 61 632 604 2120 1441 1378 4836 8482 Sub-Total 10611 1014 35-6-OJF-28421 27171 9537 7 37 36 125 186 177 623 8460 7 1096 1048 3677 1118 1069 3753 8461 7 218 208 730 232 222 780 19019 Sub-Total 1351 1291 4532 1537 1469 5156 81 57 55 192 78 75 262 8458 81 139 132 465 168 161 565 8497 81 46 44 153 167 160 561 8500 Sub-Total 2411 2311 8fO]F-4141 3951 1388 TOTAL 62731 59971 21050�---9-786193531 33060 APPENDIX B-1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE EXISTING(1999)EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES (WITH SQUARE FEET) Square Feet Employees Roadway 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 Traffic Survey Service Area Basic Retail Service Total Basic Retail Service Total Zone(TSZ) 1 4,310 0 0 4,310 5 0 0 51 9200 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 9219 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14036 Sub-Total 1 4,3101 01 01 4,3101 5 01 01 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 8330 2 0 0 9,250 9,250 0 0 37 37 8450 2 862 0 1,250 2,112 1 0 5 6 8451 2 0 0 1,000 1,000 0 0 4 4 8454 2 01 0 401,000 401,000 0 0 1,604 1,604 8492 Sub-Total 1 8621 0 '412,5001 415,3621 11 01 1,6501 1,651 0 0 0 0 3 0 101,149 31,250 132,399 0 88 125 213 8456 3 0 20,690 0 20,690 01 18 0 18 8457 3 0 0 750 750 0 0 3 3 8493 3 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 19017 Sub-Total 01 121,8391 32,0001 153,8391 01 1061 1281 234 0 0 0 0 4 0 6,897 1,000 7,897 0 6 4 10 8324 4 0 6,897 5,000 11,897 0 6 20 26 8452 4 0 0 2,500 2,500 0 0 10 10 8453 4 0 12,644 71,000 83,644 0 11 284 295 8464 4 0 41,379 1,000 42,379 0 36 4 40 8465 41 0 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 8466 41115,5171 la,3911 23,0001 156,908 1341 161 92 242 8467 41 01 831,0341 17,0001 848,0341 01 7231 681 7911 8468 Sub-Total 1115,5171 917,2411 120,5001 1,153,2591 1341 7981 4821 1,414 0 0 0 0 5 87,931 250,5751 308,750 647,256 102 218 1,235 1,555 8320 5 0 85,057 6,500 91,557 0 74 26 100 8322 5 0 29,885 0 29,885 0 26 0 26 8323 5 0 22,989 5,000 27,989 0 20 20 40 8335 5 0 0 56,750 56,750 0 0 227 227 8469 Sub-Total 1 87,9311 388,5061 377,0001 853,4371 1021 3381 1,5081 1,948 0 0 0 0 6 862 57,471 26,000 84,333 1 50 104 155 8470 6 77,5861 ni 13,750 91,336 901 01 551 1451 8482 Sub-Total 1 78,4481 57,4711 39,7501 175,6701 911 501 1591 300 0 0 0 0 7 862 333,3331 46,000 380,195 1 290 1 a4l 4751 8460 7 0 1,1491 7,000 8,149 0 1 281 291 8461 7 01 01 0 0 1 01 19019 Sub-Total 1 8621 334,4831 53,0001 388,345 11 2911 2121 504 0 0 0 0 8 16,379 32,184 01 48,563 191 28 0 47 8458 8 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 8497 8 32,759 31,034 41,0001 104,793 381 27 164 2291 8500 Sub-Total 1 49,1381 63,2181 41,0001 153,3561 571 551 1641 276 TOTAL 1337,0691 1,882,759 1,075,750 3,295,5781 3911 1,6381 4,3031 6,332 APPENDIX B-2 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TEN-YEAR EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS (WITH SQUARE FEET) Square Footage Employees Roadway 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Traffic Survey Service Area Basic Retail Service Total Basic Retail Service Total Zone(TSZ) 1 5,710 0 0 5,710 7 0 0 7 9200 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9219 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14036 Sub-Total 5,7101 0 01 5,7101 71 0 01 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8330 2 0 0 12,254 12,254 0 0 49 49 8450 2 1,142 0 1,656 2,798 1 0 7 8 8451 2 41,500 523,333 357,845 922,678 48 455 1,431 1,935 8454 21 26,500 524,6671 1,684,9751 2,236,142 311 4561 6,740 7,227 8492 Sub-Total 1 69,1421 1,048,0001 2,056,7301 3,173,8721 801 912 8,227 9,219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 134,003 111,870 245,873 0 117 447 564 8456 3 0 20,690 0 20,690 0 18 0 18 8457 3 35,500 125,333 139,805 300,638 41 109 559 700 8493 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19017 Sub-Total 1 35,5001 280,0261 251,6751 567,2011 411 244 1,007 1,292 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9,137 1,325 10,461 0 8 5 13 8324 4 0 9,137 6,624 15,761 0 8 26 34 8452 4 186,500 535,333 1,009,960 1,731,793 216 466 4,040 4,722 8453 4 0 16,750 94,061 110,811 0 15 376 391 8464 41 21,0001 69,3791 9,4101 99,789 24 601 381 1221 8465 4 0 193,333 0 193,333 0 168 0 1681 8466 4 261,017 720,391 705,225 1,686,633 303 627 2,821 3,750 8467 4 01 1,497,701 38,750 1,536,451 01 1,303 155 1,4581 8468 Sub-Total 1 468,5171 3,051,1611 1,865,3551 5,385,0331 5431 2,6551 7,4611 10,659 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 443,431 353,241 409,032 1,205,704 514 307 1,636 2,458 8320 5 0 937,724 29,120 966,844 0 816 116 932 8322 5 0 69,885 11,165 81,050 0 61 45 105 8323 5 0 30,455 6,624 37,079 0 26 26 53 8335 51 73,0001 01 227,1251 300,1251 851 01 9091 9931 8469 Sub-Total 1 516,4311 1,391,3061 683,0661 2,590,8031 5991 1,2101 2,7321 4,542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1,142 76,138 34,445 111,725 1 66 138 205 8470 6 77,5861 0 18,216 95,802 901 0 73 163 8482 Sub-Total 1 78,7281 76,1381 52,6611 207,5271 911 66 2111 368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1,142 478,000 68,330 547,472 1 416 273 691 8460 7 0 59,816 67,320 127,136 0 52 269 321 8461 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19019 Sub-Total 1 1,1421 537,8161 135,6501 674,6081 11 4681 5431 1,012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 16,879 72,184 6,525 95,588 20 63 26 108 8458 8 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8497 8 32,7591 41,114 54,317 128,190 38 36 217 291 8500 Sub-Total 1 49,6381 113,2981 60,8421 223,7781 581 991 2431 40011 TOTAL 11,224,8091 6,497,745 5,105,979 12,828,5331 1,4211 5,6531 20,4241 27,498 APPENDIX C CITY OF SOUTHLAKE SAMPLES OF GROWTH CURVES Linear c 0 r �a a 0 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year Exponential 0 m a 0 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year Logistic c 0 r co a 0 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year CITY ,., OF SOUTH IN<E ----------------------- �1 - lily T- } I qI I ti j4 - -- '•f i I I I I f I �- i_ "~ � �--LU-� 1 f ;I � I Lr- I � "�� / I I I ; `1 JL Ire ,f SERVICE AREA FOR WATER IMPACT FEES MAP 1 CITY .. OFr7- SOUTHLAKE S SERVICE AREA FOR WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES MAP 2 t � outhlo- MP :gg 41-- �a.`'� - �� — �� '�- gym.� "�• 7 __- a Y Transportation Impact Fee Update Study DRAFT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE TECHNICAL REPORT City of Southlake, Texas (w Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Suite 1800, 12700 Park Central Drive Dallas,Texas 75251 November 1999 T Southlake, Texas Roadway Impact Fee Update November 1999 Introduction Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code provides cities with a mechanism for collecting funds to finance or recoup the costs of certain capital improvements, including roadway facilities. In April of 1996, the City of Southlake enacted Ordinance No. 657. The Ordinance is known and cited as the Water,Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance. The City of Southlake has initiated a review of land use assumptions, capital improvement plan, and impact fees. The purpose of this report is to recommend revisions to the process by which impact fees, are computed, based on refinements to land use categories and service unit calculations. The report also updates the calculation methodology based on the adopted revisions to the Land Use (W Assumptions and the Capital Improvements Plan. The report introduces and references two of the basic inputs to the Roadway Impact Fee : the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital Improvements Plan. Information from these two documents is used extensively in the remainder of the report. This consists of a detailed discussion of the methodology for the computation of impact fees. This discussion-Methodology for Determination of Roadway Impact Fees addresses each of the components of the computation and any modifications needed for the 1999 update. These components include: • Service Areas • Service Units _ • Cost per Service Unit • Impact Fee Collected Per Service Unit • Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development The final section of the report is Conclusions which presents the findings of the update analysis and the highlights of the changes between the 1995 and 1999 Transportation Impact Fee Reports. Land Use Assumptions The land use assumptions used in this study were developed by the City of Southlake and are presented in a report titled 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report, dated November, 1999 H:\TPTO\I PROJECT\06346400\doc\Dmft Lrtf I Capital Improvements Plan _ . To finance roadway improvements, the city must identify the transportation projects needed to accommodate projected growth for a ten-year period. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is a list of the projects. The CIP includes arterial and collector class facilities which are part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan but does not include state facilities. The Capital Improvements Plan that is proposed for the 1999 Impact Fee Update is listed in Table 1 and mapped in Figure 1. The table shows the length of the project as well as the facility classification in the Thoroughfare Plan. It was developed by the Southlake staff and represents those Thoroughfare Plan projects that the City intends to build to accommodate the growth projected in the Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fees report. Methodology for Determination of Roadway Impact Fees Service Areas The eight service areas used in the 1995 Roadway Impact Fee Study are shown in Figure 2. The service areas cover the entire corporate boundary of Southlake. They are comprised of an integral number of traffic survey zones, a planning zone used by the North Central Texas Council of Governments for travel modeling and demographic estimates and projections. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Gov't Code specifies that "the service area is limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed a distance equal to the average trip length from the new development,but in no event more than three miles." An inspection of the 1995 zone structure indicates that the longest distance in any of the zones is three miles, and no change is needed. H.\TPTO\1 PROJECT\06346400\doc\Draft1.rtf 2 Table 1: Capital Improvements Plan ' SOUTHLAKE- 1999 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY 10-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN z-E1PEA E ROADWAY FROM TO I LENGTH LENGTH I� i IN SERVICE i fbli) ;.Ft,i I-RUES TYPE I AREA N.WHITE CHAPEL BOB JONES I COUNTY LINE 0.75 I 3.013 ! 2 •C2U!i0). 100% 2 N.WHITE CHAPEL COUNTY LINE I E.DOVE 1.22 I 6.332 ' 2 !C2U(70)! 100% I _ IN.DOVEI SH 114 N.WHITE CHAPEL 'J.35 2,376 3 j ASU(94) 100% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT-REALIGN Dove at SH 114 i I 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT-REALIGN WHITE CHAPEL at SH 114 25% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT-REALIGN WHITE CHAPEL at DOVE I 75% N.WHITE CHAPEL SH 114 NORTH 0.06 300 ! 4 A5U(941 1 50% 3 N.PEYTONVILLE RAVENWOOD W.DOVE 1`2 6.442 I 2 C2U(70) 100% SHADY OAKS FM 1709 DOVE 1.99 10.507 2 C2U(64) 100% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS SHADY OAKS I at FM 1709 ( 100% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT-REALIGN DOVE at SH 114 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT-REALIGN WHITE CHAPEL atSH114 I 25% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS HIGHLANDS at WHITE CHAPEL 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PEYTONVILLE at FM 1709 I 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS RANDOL MILL at FM 1709 I 70% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT YrhiITE CHAPEL at FM 1709 i ! 25% RANDOL MILL FM 1709 NORTH 0.12 650 I A5U(94) 50% N.PEYTONVILLE FM 1709 NORTH 0.15 800 i 4 A5U(84) 100% N.WHITE CHAPEL FM 1709 NORTH 0.24 1 1.100 I 4 A5U(84) 50% N.WHITE CHAPEL SH 114 SOUTH 0.06 300--F 4 ASU(941 50% W.DOVE SH 114 WEST 0.06 300 4 A5U(94) 100% 4 E.HIGHLAND N.CARROLL SH 114 0.36 11 901 4 A4U(74) 100% N.CARROLL FM 1709 SH 114 0.69 3,643 4 A40(100) 100% W.HIGHLAND SH 114 n.WHITE CHAPEL 0.62 3.274 4 A4U(74) 100% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS KIMBALL at SH 114 ! 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS KIMBALL at FM 17G9 25%INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT-REALIGN WHITE CHAPEL at SH 114 ; 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS CARROLL at SH 114 j 100°L INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS HIGHLANDS at WHITE CHAPEL 50w, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT-REALIGN WHITE CHAPEL at DOVE ( 25% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT WHITE CHAPEL at FM 1709 I I 25% NORTH KIMBALL SH 114 EAST HIGHLAND 0.79 4,171 4 ASU(94) 50% NORTH CARROLL SH 114 OWNBY 0.08 1 400 ) 4 1 A5U(941 100% KIMBALL FM 1709 SH 114 0.19 1000 6 AGO 0.5 N.WHITE CHAPEL FM 1709 NORTH 0.21 1,100 4 ASU(84) 50% N.WHITE CHAPEL SH 114 NORTH 0.06 300 4 A5U(94) 50% N.WHITE CHAPEL SH 114 SOUTH 0.06 300 4 ASU(94) 50%- 5 BRUMLOW E.CONTINENTAL SH 26 0.76 4,013 4 A5U(88) 50% E.CONTINENTAL BRUMLOW S.KIMBALL 0.57 3.010 2 A3U(94) 100% S.KIMBALL FM 1709 CROOKED LANE 0.47 2.482 4 A41)(94) 100% S.KIMBALL E.CONTINENTAL SH 26 0.19 1.003 4 A41)(94) 100% S.KIMBALL CROOKED LANE E.CONTINENTAL 0.52 1 2,746 4 A4D(94) 100% RAIL CROSSING SIGNAL BRUMLOW 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT BRUMLOW at CONTINENTAL I I 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS KIMBALL at SH 114 j 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS KIMBALL at FM 1709 75% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS BRUMLOW at SH 26 I 50"'. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT CARROLL at FM 1709 S0y- S.CARROL FM 1709 CONTINENTAL 1.23 6.494 4 A4U(80) 50% N.KIMBALL SH 114 EAST HIGHLAND 0.79 4,171 4 ASU(94) 50% KIMBALL FM 1709 SH 114 0.19 1,000 6t3U 50% 6 BRUMLOW E.CONTINENTAL SH 26 0.76 4,013 4ASU 50% E.CONTINENTAL BREEZEWAY S.CARROLL 0.38 2.006 2 100% E.CONTINENTAL .WHITE CHAPEL BREEZEWAY 1.29 6.8 11 2 1G0% RAIL CROSSING SIGNAL BRUMLOW 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT BRUMLOW at CONTINENTAL 50% SIGNAL WHITE CHAPEL at CONTINENTAL 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS BRUMLOW at SH 26 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT CARROLL at FM 1709 50% S.CARROL FM 1709 CONTINENTAL 1.23 6,494 4 A4U(80) 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT WHITE CHAPEL at FM 1709 25% S.WHITE CHAPEL FM 1709 SOUTH 0.17 900 4 ASU(94) 50% 7 W.CONTINENTAL S.PEYTONVILLE S.WHITE CHAPEL 1.23 5.494 2 A3U(84) 100% W.CONTINENTAL DAVIS BLVD. S.PEYTONVILLE 0.52 2.746 2 A3U(84) 100% SIGNAL WHITE CHAPEL at CONTINENTAL 50% SIGNAL CONTINENTAL at DAVIS BLVD. 25% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT WHITE CHAPEL at FM 1709 25% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS t PEYTONVILLE at FM 1709 60% S.PEYTONVILLE FM 1709 SOUTH 0.13 700 4 A5U(84) 100% S.WHITE CHAPEL FM 1709 SOUTH 0.17 900 4 ASU(94) 50% 8 JOHNSON N.PEARSON RANDOL MILL 1.00 5,280 2 C2U(70) 100% SIGNAL CONTINENTAL at DAVIS BLVD. 25% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT RANDOL MILL at FM 1709 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS N.PEARSON at FM 1709 50% INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS UNION CHURCH at S.PEARSON 50% N.PEARSON FM 1709 NORTH 0.09 500 4 A4U(70) 50% N.PEARSON FM 1709 SOUTH 0.09 500 2 C2U(70) 50% RANDOL MILL FM 1709 NORTH 0.12 650 4 ASU(94) 50% _ CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Legend CI P Roadway y . -- • Intersection Improvements N O !\ III IINESe1Ne Al�n � 7 v ' i r� I off DOPE S1fEET _.__-_ � JF- .. r'_"�._ — _—s.=max} �,`?` ::•vy ri- y �•-_ � .mil N� --•— EROINKRUD - .f+ ;' i li i•^�_ �`~ C'•_• ,a r•y, °t . — f.' 4...: ='tee"" .� j i r:..i-i I! _ Wit— �" _ � '' i I ` _�' • r- ~. !,.2:�.,> r: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE • SERVICE AREAS 77, .777.4 yfl L IY 4 77. —i NIseueiSTI i � .�rn+¢I. � .i vim_ J` �'"'!-•1{� ^� r r�11 own e .I� •.ti a-__`•. %r �`-'�'./ jam' i Service Units The "service unit" is the measure of consumption or use of the capital facilities by new development. In other words, it is the measure of both supply and demand for roads in the City. For transportation purposes the service unit is defined as a vehicle- mile. On the supply side this is interpreted as a lane-mile of arterial or collector street. On the demand side this is a vehicle-trip of one mile in length. The application of this unit as an estimate of either supply or demand is based on travel during the average afternoon peak hour of traffic. This time period is commonly used as the basis for transportation planning and the estimation of trips caused by new development. Another aspect of the service unit is the service volume that is provided(supplied) by a lane-mile of roadway facility. This number, also referred to as capacity, is a function of the facility type, facility configuration, number of lanes, and level of service. Level of service is a term used by traffic engineers to describe the performance of various components of the transportation system. The service volumes used in the 1995 Roadway Impact Fee Study are consistent with a level of service "D". This is an appropriate standard for the City of Southlake and is recommended that it remain the basis for service volumes in the 1999 Impact Fee Update. The service volumes used in the 1995 Study have been reviewed and the determination is that they remain valid and appropriate for the intended use in the impact fee assessment. Table 2 shows the service volumes as a function of facility type. Table 2: Level of Use Table . Hourly Vehicle-Mile Capacity per Lane Facility Type Median Configuration Mile of Roadway Facility ARTERIAL Divided 700 ARTERIAL Two-way Left-turn Lane 700 ARTERIAL Undivided 625 COLLECTOR Divided 550 COLLECTOR Undivided 500 H:\TPTO\1 PROJECT\06346400\doc\Draft l.rtf Cost Per Service Unit A basic step in the impact fee process is to establish the cost for each service unit. In the case of the transportation impact fee, this is the cost for each vehicle-mile of travel. This means the costs to implement the roadways (lane-miles) needed to accommodate a vehicle—mile of travel at the level of service which corresponds to the City's standards. The cost per service unit is calculated for each service area because each service area has a specific list of projects. The combination of the projects in each service area comprises the Capital Improvement Plan. The second component of the cost per service unit is the number of service units in the service area. This number is the measure of the growth in transportation demand that is projected to occur in the ten-year period. As noted earlier, the units of demand is vehicle-miles of travel. Cost of the CIP The costs that may be included in the cost per service unit are all the implementation costs for arterial and collector system elements on the Capital Improvements Plan. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies that the allowable costs are "...including and limited to the (1) construction contract price; (2) surveying and engineering fees; (3) land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees; and (4) fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision." The engineer's opinion of the probable costs of the projects in the CIP is based, in part, on the calculation of a unit cost of construction. This means that a cost per foot is calculated based on an average price for the various components of roadway construction. This allows the probable cost to be determined by the type of facility being constructed, the number of lanes, and the length of the project. The cost for items which are not included in the unit cost such as bridges, traffic signals , or other special components are added to each project as appropriate. Table 3 shows the basis for the unit costs used for the Southlake Capital Improvements Plan. Table 4 is the CIP project list for each service area with the engineer's opinion of the probable project cost. It should be noted that these tables reflect only planning-level opinions or assumptions regarding the future cost to implement the CIP. Actual costs of construction and land prices are likely to change with time and are dependent on market and economic conditions that cannot be predicted at this time. H:\TPTO\1 PROJECTt06346400\doc\Dmft Lrtf 7 Service Unit Calculation The basic service unit used for the computation of Southlake's roadway impact fees is the vehicle-mile of travel during the afternoon peak-hour. To determine the cost per service unit it is necessary to project the growth in vehicle miles of travel for each service area for the ten-year period beginning in the year of the ordinance update. The growth in vehicle miles from 1999 to 2009 is based on the predicted changes in population and employment for the period. The has estimated the population, basic employment, service employment, and retail employment for 1999, and has projected the number of each of these demographic statistics for 2009. The source of these estimates and projections is the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report prepared by the City of Southlake specifically for the purpose of supplying the estimates of growth for the impact fee determination. The population and employment statistics in the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report provide the "independent variables" which are used to calculate the estimated (1999) and predicted (2009)transportation service units that are used to establish the roadway impact fee maximum rates for each service area. The roadway demand service units (vehicle miles) for each service area are the sum of the vehicle miles "generated"by each category of land use in the zone. For the purposes of impact fees, all developed and developable land is categorized as either residential or non-residential. The estimated and projected population is converted to dwelling units. The number of dwelling units in each service area is multiplied by a transportation demand factor to compute the vehicle miles of travel (W that occur during the peak-hour. This factor computes the average amount of demand caused by the residential land uses in the service area. The transportation demand factor will be discussed in more detail below. For non-residential land uses the process is similar. The 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report provides estimates and projections of building square footages for three categories of employment. These categories correspond to an aggregation of categories of employment based on the Standard Industrial Classification Code. The categories of employment are basic, service, and retail. Building square footage is the most common independent variable for the estimation of non-residential trips in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6`' Edition. This statistic is more appropriate than the number of employees because building square footage is known at the time of application for any development or development modification that would trigger assessment of an impact fee. The City converts the number of employees to building square footage based on the average square feet per employee for each of the three employment categories. The estimates and projections of dwelling units, square feet of basic, service,and retail land uses provide the basis for the estimates and projections of the number of peak-hour vehicle miles of travel. As noted earlier, a transportation demand factor is applied to these values and then summed to calculate the total peak-hour vehicle miles of transportation demand for each service area. (W H:\TnOXIPROJEM06346400\doc\Draftl.rtf 10 The transportation demand factors are aggregate rates that are derived from two sources. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6`"Edition provides the number of trips that are produced or attracted to the land use for each dwelling unit or square foot of buildin-. For the retail category of land uses, the rate is adjusted to account for the fact that a percentage of the trips to retail establishments are made by people traveling from work to home. These trips are called pass-by trips, and since the travel demand is accounted for in the residential and commercial land use calculations, it necessary to discount the retail rate to avoid double counting. The next component of the transportation demand factor accounts for the length of each trip. The average trip length for each category is based on the region-wide travel-characteristics survey conducted by the North Central Council of Governments in 1984. Although a new survey was conducted in 1997, the results have not been released to provide comparable statistics. Historically, trip length has been a fairly stable statistic so the lack of a source for updating this travel characteristic is not felt to be a problem. The computation of the transportation demand factor is described in the following equation: TDF = T * (I-Pb) * Lmax Lmax = min (L *OD *SH , 3), Where: TDF = Transportation Demand Factor, T = Trip Rate (peak-hour trips/ unit), (W Pb = Pass-by discount (% trips), Lmax = Maximum Trip Length (miles), L = Average Trip Length (miles), OD = Origin-destination reduction, and SH = State Highway discount (% miles). Two adjustments are made to the trip length statistic in the computation of the transportation demand factor. The first factor is to reduce the trip length assessed to each land use-trip by half. This adjustment is made because the transportation impact fee is charged to both the origin and destination end of the trip. For example,the trip from home to work is accounted for by impact fees to both residential and office land uses. To avoid double counting, a 50 %reduction factor is applied i.e., only half of the trip length is assessed to each land use. The second adjustment is to reduce the total trip length by a factor that accounts for the percentage of trips made on the state highway system,because Chapter 395 does not allow cities to charge impact fees for trips made on the state highway system. The reduction for state highway travel is applied differently for residential and commercial travel. Normal land development patterns (and this is valid specifically in Southlake) results in commercial development located more predominately on state roadways. The resultant higher land values on state highways and the nature of residential suburban development patterns causes residential development to be more remote from the state roadways on average. H:\TPTO\1 PROJECI106346400k1oc\Dmft l.ctf 11 Based on inspection of the transportation network, residential trips are discounted by 50% for state highway travel in all of the service areas. Non-residential land uses are assessed for each service area to ascertain an appropriate percentage based on the state hiQhwav network configuration and the distribution of developable non- residential land in Southlake. The resultant percentages for each service area are shown below. Table 5: State Highway Factor Service Area Percent of Non-residential Vehicle miles on State Highways 1 0 2 80 3 80 _ 4 80 5 80 6 10 7 25 8 25 (W H:\TPTO\IPROJECnO63464W\doc\Drafti.rtf 12 Table 6 shows the derivation of the Transportation Demand Factor for each of the three commercial land use categories. The values for all variables shown in the Transportation Demand Factor Equation are shown in the table. Table 6: Transportation Demand Factor Calculation I Transportation Demand Factor L.. =3 mi., OD=50% Residential Basic Service Retail State T 1.01 0.98 1.49 2.53 Highway L 17.21 10.02 10.92 6.43 Percent Pb 0% 0% 0% 30% SH Service Area 1 3.03 2.94 I 4.47 ! 7.59 0% Service Area 2 3.03 0.98 1.63 L63 80% Service Area 3 3.03 0.98 I 1.63 I 1.63 80% Service Area 4 3.03 0.98 1.63 f 1.63 80% Service Area 5 3.03 0.98 1.63 1.63 80% Service Area 6 3.03 2.94 4.47 I 7.32 10% Service Area 7 3.03 2.94 4.47 6.10 25% Service Area 8 3.03 2.94 4.47 6.10 25% The application of the demographic projections and the Transportation Demand Factors are presented in Table 7. This Table shows the total vehicle miles by service area for 1999 and 2009. These estimates and projections lead to the Vehicle miles Increase 1999 to 2009, State Highway Vehicle miles Increase 1999-2009, and Net Vehicle miles Increase 1999 to 2009. The net increase column.provides the denominator for the calculation of the maximum impact fee rate per zone. H:\TPTO\1 PROJEM06346400\docOraft l.rtf 13 n N cc m M 0 n 0 O U Cn ^ to °D n M to N O N > m J W _ 1' J T en m M 7 < -J Cn o m m m m M ^ O = J m C" m ^ ^ N C' 0 0 0 0 r J R m � N M �^ I n F„ > N Q R M 7 m ^ N b W 2 ^ n IA CC Cn. m CJ M > m J N si M m 0 to Qco m NC\l _ m to v 0 m Q ^ CnD N co cn m N n m ~ r ^ O c N n 0 m m m M ^ M ^ N to 0 W Q m 'n M 7 m ^ W Q p CD M m cn m J N O O CA M N p m J O m pnj N to N CA D) m 7 N M m � ^ N m M m M cr LU J W i`j V W > O n m Qmi M M m 2 > O COO Mp m 0 � m Q CD m N W cc v - N m N > W N > w M M +- a U U I m Q M ^ p ^ N M r Q n rni to o M M Q v m m 7 to N O J Q CA M M M M N O O F Q O1 M M M M N O O 2 to cD cc co tD m ^ O F to cD R CR R M ^ O 2 f- n co < LL 0 CC U Z UL Q Q p W W W Z LJ ccu n M M M M n n n n M M M M n n n Q >> v co co cc co v •r >Z > c cc cD 0 cp a v Q w �¢ ^ ^ ^ v v v O w v ^ ^ ^ v v r � Oto HtA Q C Q Q H Q U v m m m m v c a U v m m m m v c v Qm rn rn m rn rn Cn Z N Cn rn rn rn rn rn Cn C� m N O O O O N N N N Q m N O O O O N N LLB T J ~ ED CO Q J ,b N J O Co CD O Q CIO m O O m N Cn 7 Q CV N Q O CO O M ^ m N W n m 11 co m n?co W O m O m M ^ Q F CL M Cl) co H N C .,, n m — m W W W o W ttnn O 0 O to O O n W V Cl) Cn0 M O CmD ti a p a , , >CE co Lr) CD co c m W CLn CY N�7 r M 1c) c O ? w O p N pap m m m O o� QN "J to m n m m m m N O n m m O Q C7 0 to Ld m m ^ co r m to v n 7 mco Q m �.., m r m R CM!) Cfl m m pro m ^ ^ N cm —1 co 10 m nmrimmtn Ntn OW a D DOD m O o n M m W J CA N C of M M m MmQ M v �M ^ N 7 C7 N m V' ^ N > > cn J F_ n m tmn m CN•) to J H- to N COr) v O) cco f' a O tijt° co to mn to Ci^ ^ N CO ? a n n N r ai O o O_ O_ _ N 0 O m O N Q M N N O m M O m ~ m v 0 0 Q m LO w m J CO P- N m O to to CCt N a m p0 m to ^ M O 6Q. 0 N N M V N d Na to M N to to ^ C' a a U Q Q Q U Q > W ^ N M a to m n m F- > W ^ N M v to m n m F- r w a O� N w a O rn � Impact Fee Per Service Unit This section presents the maximum assessable impact fee rate that is developed for each service area. The maximum impact fee rate is the allowable cost of the Capital Improvement Plan for the service area divided by the growth in travel that is attributable to the level of new development projected to occur in the period covered by the CIP, up to ten years. All of the components of this calculation have been described and presented in previous sections of this report. The purpose of this section is to document the computation for each service area and to demonstrate that the limitations provided by state law have been addressed. Table 8 illustrates the computation of the maximum impact fee rate computed for service area 1. Each row in the table is numbered to make it easier to describe the calculation. The first input is the total vehicle-miles of capacity per hour added by the CIP. The vehicle-mile is the service unit for transportation and is based on the capacity or level of use as shown in Table 2 multiplied by the length of the road in the service area and the number of lanes. Line 2 is the vehicle-miles of existing itse (demand) and line 3 shows the vehicle-miles (if any) above the current capacity of the facility, or the total vehicle-miles of existing deficiencies. The first three numbers are used to calculate line 4, Net Amount of vehicle-miles of capacity added. The source of these values is the (1)Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory and (2) CIP Service Units of Supply tables in the Appendix. The subtraction of the values in lines 2 and 3 from line 1 is the first step in limiting the impact fees to financing growth needs and not existing needs or deficiencies. The next three values establish the cost of providing the transportation facilities needed for Growth. The total cost of the CIP within the sen•ice area (line 5) is prorated by the net to total ratio of capacity added (line 4 divided by line 1 times line 5). The difference between the cost of the total CIP and the cost of the growth-share of the CIP is the Cost to meet existing needs and Usage (line 7). The value in line 8, taken from Table 7, is the Total Vehicle-miles of New Demand Over Ten Years, based on an average trip length of three miles. This average trip length is a reasonable average imposed by the size of the zones and the network distance within the zones. The Percentage of Capacity Added Attributable to Growth(line 10) is the result of dividing line 8 by line 4, limited to 100% (line 10). This percentage. multiplied by the Cost of Net Capacity Added(line 6),provides that the impact fee rate will limit the fee to capacity provided for growth within ten-years. Conversely, it will not be used to pay for capacity that will not be needed within ten years. The result is Cost of Capacity That Is Attributable To Growth(line 11). The bottom line (12) is the cost of capacity added (line 11) for each new vehicle-mile of demand over the ten-year period (line 8). This value is the Marimccm Fee Per Service Unit in dollars per vehicle-mile. Table 9 presents the calculation for all eight of Southlake's service areas. H:\TPTO\l PROJECT06346400\doc\Dmft 1.rtf 15 Table 8: MAXIMUM FEE PER SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA: 1 - 1 TOTAL VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED BY THE CIP 760 2 TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEMAND 87 3 TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEFICENCIES 0 4 NET AMOUNT OF VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED 673 5 TOTAL COST OF THE CIP WITHIN SERVICE AREA $ 1,441,552 6 COST OF NET CAPACITY ADDED $ 1,277,215 7 COST TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS AND USAGE $ 164,337 8 TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS 1422 9 PERCENT OFCAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH 211% If Line 9 is greater than Line 4: 100%otherwise, 10 Line 8 divided by Line 4,expressed as a percentage. 100% 11 COST OF CAPACITY ADDED THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH $ 1,277,215 12 MAXIMUM FEE PER SERVICE UNIT($PER VEH-MI) $898 • �., mm �2n o n m OO e a N ON nw r, co O Cl) Ld ad N m to � N n V O m n n cc c m fR 4) F» 16% co Cl) O LO N N O o o m N m N � O cm m m m N C N m O no co 0) CO m co n Gm') 9 N v m Cl) 4i 4) 4k fH CD cLoO M r r N_ h C r O h L - In N In n C Cl) CO Clli m m N m 41 64 4) 4% f0 h O to n N m O m N in r r In (p O N c0 N n O In m In. Cl) O 4) 4) 4! 4) O O O CY � m._—. _._a—f— N N: N 0) co ^ In O O r 0 R N N v m ti m ' m• CO )r) co 0). co• in _ CD' r 4►• fs 431i 64 (D._._C-4:_... n i OZI�r O c00 CO m r In o o n o C Q' N In hi n «) C} O O O U _ of r of > fA 4f 49 4) y Cl)n C) O Cl)n in O 7 O m v_ O 0 O. c0 m m M i j t0 L � r N - L (O N a Cl) m O O) m V n lc N n m N rT cN_ 4) 4T fA O n O CM cm a co (D o In 7 N N N O IT cm7 I r N OO cm') O N N N m n In )n N f': )n m to, m O m 10, m s� to ....co -O r N )n h N o o to n f0 to m N _ O coIo N m -- O N 6% y ^ v N r V N - N � r r cR H 4) 4) 2 _ 3 O F � � O m C_ - u O; uj W W. C wi x Q y! u ? Lu ti F Q, u E'' .. E- x in O Z' ! ce O i >; a 'C v Q w is G QI V! <' H� ' Q; O' .`". Q �I m� a' z, pi 01 ZI Q;L n a z i of u x �� w: Q u Z g g F x I C7 Vi L I �= OI �I O — O u ul z z: a; 3: a wal v E- 3 �- ._ o w Ui UJ uj ux7 w. U� y. Z� F � K Q v) O C' O E Q' �Xi C� a = E= a tz <! u ul u u U., O Z. � u: O u > > > O Cj` O > Z a >. O a �. X O O FO Z F, O O O O .0 r• N Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development The assessment of the roadway impact fee is made by multiplying the adopted impact fee rate times the number of service units projected for the proposed development. For this purpose the City utilizes the Land Use/Vehicle-mile Equivalency Table presented as Table 10. This table lists the predominant land uses that might occur as growth in the City of Southlake. For each land use, the development unit that defines the development's magnitude with respect to transportation demand is shown. Although every possible use cannot be anticipated,the majority of uses are found on the table. If the exact use is not listed, one which is similar in trip-making characteristics can serve as a reasonable proxy. The individual land uses are grouped into categories, simply as a convenience, including residential, office, retail, industrial, and institutional. The list of uses shown in Table 10 is significantly IonQer than the list used in the 1995 Ordinance. The additional uses, primarily in the retail category, will make it easier for the City to select an appropriate land use and rate to use to calculate the impact fee. The trip rates presented for each land use is a fundamental component of the land use/vehicle-mile equivalency. The trip rate is the average number of trips generated during the afternoon peak-hour by each land use per development unit. The next column shows that the number of trips to and from certain land uses are reduced because these trips are already on the system. This discount for the so-called pass-by phenomenon is applied to land uses which are convenience rather than destination oriented. The source of trip generation and pass-by statistics is the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition. This is the latest edition (published in 1997) of the definitive source of trip generation data. The manual utilizes trip generation studies for a variety of land uses in the United States, and is used by traffic engineers and transportation planners for traffic impact analysis, site design, transportation planning, and transportation impact fee determination. The 1995 Ordinance utilized an earlier version of the same source. This 1999 update will use the most current source as the basis for the Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table. The change in trip generation rates and the resultant change in service units per vehicle-mile is a result of more recent data based on current trip-making characteristics and provides a stronger relationship between the impact fee charged and the transportation needs related to growth. To convert vehicle trips to vehicle-miles it is necessary to multiply trips by trip length. The adjusted trip length values are based on the 1984 Regional Origin- Destination Travel Survey performed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. At this stage another important aspect of the state law is applied-the three-mile limit on transportation service unit demand. The trip length is also adjusted to reflect that part of the average trip that is traversed on the City arterial and collector network. This adjustment is necessary because travel on the state system and local streets is not subject to impact fee assessment. The final adjustment is to divide the average trip length by two. This adjustment is made to avoid double counting since fees are collected from residential land uses (travel origins) as well as commercial and institutional uses (travel destinations). H:\TPTO\1 PR0JECT\06346400\doc\Draft 1.rtf 18 Table 10: Land UseNehicle-Mile Equivalency Table TOTAL(1999)SERVICE UNITS(VEH-MI I DEV.UNIT) LAND USE CATEGORY i DEVELOPMENT TRIP S.A. S.A. S.A. S.A. S.A. S.A. I S.A. I S.A. UNIT RATE 1 I 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 PORT AND TERMINAL -Acre 56 6.56 6.56 1 TruckTermiral. 6.55 =65 6.56 19.65 965 i 19.65 INDUSTRIAL General Light lnd�iiriii 0.98 0.98 098 0.98 2.94 z . 4 .3 _1.0(��SFGFA - 2.94+0.98 - General Hta�InqL 1,000 SFY - t _!!��nal/Ma�tufacturingl FX 6.�8 i.04 6�68 ---6.68 6-i 0.68 2.04 2.W 2.04 Industrial Park 1,000 SF GFA 0.92 2.76 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2.76 2.76 2.76 Warehousing 1,000 SF GFA _0.61 1.83 0.66 0.66 066 0.66 1.83 1.83 1.83 6 0.87 0.87 Mini-Warehouse 1,O00 F GFA .29 0.87 0.31 0.31 1 0.31 1 0.31 0.37 RESIDENTIAL i.C6 3.03 303 303 Single-Fatuity Detached Housing Dwelling Unit 1.01 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03_ - Dwelling Unit 0.67 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2�01 �1 Mobile Home Park Dwelling Unit 0.58 1.74 1:74 1.74 1.74 L 1.74 1.74 1 1.74 Apartment/Multi-family 2-01 _�.74 762 i T02 1.02 1 T.62 .6i Retirement Commuw,� Dwelling Unit 0.34 1.02 [112 1 1.02 LODGING Room 0.61 1.83 0.39 0.39 47 1.47 Hctel .777 1. Cther Lodging Facilities Room 0.47 1.41 1 0.30 0.30 0.30 j 0.30 1.36 1.13 1.13 RECREATIONAL --Arena Acre 33.33 99.99 [ 21.43 21.43 21.43 21_.43 96.44 80.37 30.37 Drying Range -- Tee 1.25 375 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.80 i .61 3.01 Golf Course Acre 0.39 1.17 0.25 0.25 0.25 1 0.25 1.13 0.94 0.94 Health/Recreational Clubs and Facilities 1,000 SF GFA: 1.75 __5.25 1.13 1.13 1.13 1 1.13 5.06 4.22 4.22 0 1.52 Ice Rink 1.00 SF 2.36 7.08 1.52 1.52 1.52 6.83 5.69 5.69 Live Theater Seat 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.05 Miniature Golf Hole 0.33 -699 0.21 0.21 0.11, 0"-T-. 0.95 0.80 080 1lovie Theater Seat 0.14 0.09 0.41 0.34 0.34 Tennis Courts Court 3.88 11.64 2.49 2.49 2.49 i 2.49 11.23 9.36 9.36 INSTITUTIONAL I --Church 1,000 SF GFA 0.30 0.63 0.13 0.13 0.13 1 6.13 EiT r, 0.37 Day Care 1,000 SF GFA 0.66 1.39 I 0.28 0.25 0.29 -0.28 1.25 1.04 I.04 MEDICAL * --0 -- " - oinic 1,0 -ii_____-ir 0 SF GFA 5.18 15.54 3.91 1 3.91 341 15.5 4 14.67_I 14._67 Hospital Bed 1.22 3.66 0.92 0.92 6.92 0.92 3.66 3.45 1 3.45 Nursing Home Bed 1 0.20 0.60 0.15 0.15 1 6.15 0.60 0.57 0.57 OFFICE Corporate Headquarters Building 1.000 SF GFA 1.39 4.17 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 4.17 4.17 4.17 L 1 General Office Building 1,000 SF GFA 1.49 4.47 1.63 -.1.63 1. 3 1 1.63 .4 7 4.47 4.4 Medical/Dental-6Rc 1.000 SF GFA 16610.98 4.00 4.00 4.00 400 _-F.9 -i-0.98L 10.98 Single Tenant Office Building 1.000 SF GFA 11..72 5.16 1.88 1.88 1.88 t 1.88_ 5.16 5.16 5.16 _Ctfice/Business Park 1,000 SF GFA 1.50 4.50 T64 1.64 1.64 1.64 4.50 4.50 1 4.50 COMMERCIAL Automobile-related -------A�utonicbil.da,� inT., 1,000 SF GFA 2.03 601.30 1.30 1.20 1.30 5.87 4.29 4.89 Automobile Parts Sales 1,000 SF GFA 3.41 .2t3 , 2.19 .19 2.19 '86 8.22 8.22 Gasoline/Service Station Fueling Position 8.44 5.07 i 1.01 4.56 3.80 3.80 Convenience Market with 12 r ore Fueling Positions' Fueling Position 5.89 3.53 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 3.t8 2.65 265 Convenience Market with Less than 12 Fueling Positions 1.000 SF GFA 20.61 12.37 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 11.13 9.27 9.27 New Car Sales 1,000 SF GFA 2.24 6.72 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 6.48 5.40 5.40 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Center Service Position 3.11 9.34 2.00 2.00 ---2.00 1 2.00 9.01 7.51 7.51 Self-Service Car Wash Stall .47 2.08 0.42 0.42 0.42 1.88 1.56 42 1.56 Tire Store 1,000 SF GFA 2.97 8.90 1.91 1.91 11.91 1.91 8.58 7.15 7.15 -z- - -Fast Food Resiiu�ri7vW 6;va-T�nj 1.000 SF GFA 16.74 40.09 8.02 8Ti 8 Eby 8.02 36.08 30.07 30.07 Fast Food Restaurant without Drive-Thru 1,000 SF GFA 13.08 31.31 6.26 6.26 6.26 6.26 28.18 23.49 23.49_ High Turnover(Sit-Down)Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 6.19 14.83 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 13.34 11.12 11.12 Quality Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 4.19 10.05 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 9.04 7.53 7.53 --Grocery Stores and Convenience Markets Convenience Market with 12 or More Fueling Positions Fueling Position 5:89 3.53 0.71 E71 0.71 0.71 3.18 2.65 2.65 Convenience Market with Less than 12 Fueling Positions 1,000 SF GFA 20.61 12.37 -2.47 2.47 2.47 ..2.47 11.13 9.27 9.27 Supermarket 1,000 SF GFA 7.37 22.10 4.74 __-4.74 4.74 4.74 21.31 17.76 17.76 Other Retail Free-Standi Retail Store 1,000 SF GFA 2.53 7.59 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 7.32 6.10 6.10 Furniture Store 1,000 SF GFA 0.21 0.63 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.61 0.51 0.51 Pharmacy/Drugstore 1,000 SF GFA 5.30 15.91 3.41 _3.41 3.41 F 3.41 15.35 __12.79 12.79 1,000 SF GFA 2.47 7.41 1.59 Shopping Center 1.59 1.59 C 1.59 7.14 5.95 5.95 Video Arcade 1,000 SF GFA 5.32 15.96 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 15.39 12.83 12.83 Video Rental Stare 1,000 SF GFA 6.80 20.40 4.37 4.37 T37, t4.37 19.68 16.40 16.40 Wholesale Wholesale Market 1,000 SF GFA 0.21 0.63 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.61 0.51 0.51 SERVICES Bank(Walk-in) 1.000 SF GFA 19.89 33.71 6.74 6.74 6.74 _6.74 30.34 25.39 E9 _ _ L Bank(Drive-In) T 1.000 SF GFA 129.03 49.20 9.84 -i.84 G�84 � .8� 428 36.90 I 36.90 The final column of the Land UseNehicle-mile Equivalency Table is the Total Service Units per Unit of Development (vehicle-miles/development unit). This number is the product of the trip rate and the trip length columns for each land use. The number is used in the impact fee estimate to compute the number of service units (W consumed by each land use application. The number of service units is then multiplied by the impact fee rate established by city ordinance. Conclusions The 1995 Transportation Impact Fee Report for the City of Southlake established a process which the city has utilized to collect impact fees to finance or recoup the costs of capital improvements for transportation. In the intervening years changes have occurred which cause the mechanism to require a significant update. Among these chancres are the development of new land use assumptions and a Capital Improvements Plan which are consistent with the ten-year horizon allowed by state law. In summary, all parameters that are sensitive to the ten-year horizon need to be adjusted to reflect a 1999 to 2009 implementation and growth horizon. In addition to these fundamental components of the process, certain technical revisions are also in order. These include: • adjustment of service area boundaries • calculations of the cost to implement the CIP • computation of the growth in trips and vehicle miles of travel from 1999 to 2009 • computation of the maximum impact fee that can be collected per service unit • development of a new Land UseNehicle-mile Equivalency Table using new land uses and the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition. Another finding of this technical evaluation is that the methodology and data used in the application of the impact fee ordinance are appropriate and consistent with the transportation aspects of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Kimley- Horn and Associates has also compared the Capital Improvements Plan to the ten- year projection in traffic demand related to growth. Our finding is that the CIP proposes the development of a level of transportation supply that is consistent with the projected demand. We also find and recommend that the list of land uses in the Land UseNehicle-mile equivalency table is appropriate for the City of Southlake and that the trip generation rates and pass-by trip reduction percentages should be consistent with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition.. In conclusion, it is our opinion that the data and methodology are appropriate and consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Further the Land Use assumptions for Impact Fees and the proposed Capital Improvements Plan are appropriately incorporated into the process. The changes that are incorporated into this report are our recommendation to the City of Southlake and the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. H:1MOU PR0JEC1106346400\doc\Draft 1.rtf 20 APPENDIX CIP Service Units of Supply Al-A8 Existing Units of Supply B 1-B8 N V N N N N to to Q In In In J W � IZ-i MR V} y} H N N II II in w J O In In w Oc F � � Q O W w v i +f► 40. w w Zn uA In Z Z V d Y W � � In in w v a >An O J Z of � F Q = co LL, CO n 30 > p o- O J a = H 'o 1 w ~ j N[ O n N > N a w zsL H � O o K Q O w In W >, j O LL _1 J F dIX ¢ D CL. O W = _ O CL ° H Y (1) w o —� Z 2 ::) In W Z N O ►V-i J LL W H J o 0 a H V V w O H Z D O v O w L Z O ti m m W J ¢ � w a w 3 i > of H = O W $ In � Z N N f I- w aorn0Lninin en mm N V D m T m c OD ^nm m O M. 0 m -� co W a N N v -� ^ m O m 0 � z co m am0 v v W W V , Cc p( h J O Q Lu � 5 Ntn z z in NJ LU V Q S O N h N N w Q 4. LIJ> .� .-� NC) OV Q Q z cc w ,O N Q O a. > ~ wp OC J d = Q N �O O 10 O W :05 Y O N .N. Do Lo N ~ > N ~ ti w z V Q a o H LuCt O O O in In O u W Q O O to N n In V) W J L11 >' : ;! nV o ON D Q ^' N N dL IX CD � � N~• v < a w V) O V z N OC = O w kD ~ ~ N f O h Z -� o 0 J H V V a Q U O w w > 3 F- 0 0 wz z kD � k J J J w Q Q Q � H OC OC OC ot J U- z zzz � w w w .. N O = w w w = Va » > �n W a a d Q a Z Z Z a LU 3 = 000 = U Q ui w v V J L�L/�) 3o ' ►w- w3 cov, z M M M z fN 0 0 0 O O O m h O N o w In m m w F' ^ N O N w in m N O1 m N m w m 0% ON M • • %n V O 'D 0m O% m N N 0 m v Q v m .O .O IO O > � in O N C O O P °� 0 �_ J ix W N N 'T "" "" N `O v m ..-� m m m O ~ ~ wwwwwwwww+frwww.ww ww !- n0000000v000 Q h �n �n v rn rn " O v v o 'o v 0 t-, �. m a o IR m ac iW IIR qW` CO Q cc n w w 2 T O m O m tn oo rl cm cli a Ln LOgi a Q a F- ¢ N O\ In N ICI N 1� .p ^ (� O NLU V H 5 > a � ix www+fr+Rw wwwwMwwafrw wLLJ in !n 1-4H H In H �_ ri U < 2 �o m coo m to V) X a lz w co '. r+ cn N .'n+ N 0 0 W UCL V J T ¢ f wz = 0 ao O\ In N O Q O p * �L M coco '� v `O Off, O > Q a D H > = a N 0% N N O\ O mm p WO d Q N-• O� ..� v N CO h > W Zu a W o 0 0 0 o e a e o o a. H 5 O: o o o o in 0 o 0 ', o o o 00 W ¢ O O O 0 (,j m In O N In O In W) 0 U) LU -� ¢ In v In N n W N P .cNMv O U— _l O Q > 21-V D m 01 O N �+f m N 'N _ .-� O m O a m m .+to N N W In Y N N In In InLL7 In Q Z vu ¢ a ¢ aa w Z N N 7 4t W 0 �, 00000 W cC w ao W O ' ) J 0- H U LU V O = = x = 3a zzzv0i3 0 0 ix w tb � r n v ix U- tn otntn zzzzzzz w w w w w w w LUuiuiwuit � M w w w w w wui at w T o000000 a Ix a cc I cc ci 3 o_ n o. add a O H H 1�-I lU W (L f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w a a V surrrr0rrPJ45vv F--1 Z auuuvuuu � z 0 O � V) 0 N 0 N W -� C) Lu iy T ix aC a a a CC ox 0 T = _ >O W/� z06 V, Z N H H H H H H H OC Z Z Z 3 7 v 0 0 0 0 0 in N n N ic1 In NCM cli W n In m n 0 in N O� O C N aC a0 N Ul In 'o n n O N W st CO m V N m Q H O O n O a0 m n t6 n (N V) LO .p ,p N N V > e m •! O� 01 c0 v N .t N �o v n n 0 O J W cc 'O ^ N N O F V) e N n ^ pZ V}iR V►W Yi MF M►W 10}+ti Vi V►yq W W V} aq W y} v 0 0 0 008 0 0 v ^ < in V) Ln — n O ry v O O m 0 Oo v n n m < Q m L fn In O In W W N co CD n n 01 e W J V N m 0 O �`'� n m v 0 m 0 r\ O m in .p C e T 0, m v O� `� n v m 0 N N O% u� to m < < F- e - 'O m In O N ^ 0 n -O n n O� O3 N ni vv ,c 0 w�4C.4&4Ar ��a4,11- u in 0 m ~ W V = N N N O Ln O C\j O f- V) Xa ywn ° �' m °� fnNn a Inp W < > V H J 0 3 Q K Q = p YL Y O m N m "' n p > LU a ^ < cc H d T F<- O m Ln O O O R O W r a p O� LL'1 :: n� m N °D m U) > U F HW H > a W ejW n N wOONiNn IOnOOiOn in in O O vI W J lW e N O� v 0 O n D N V- O In .p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 n m N o. O .o t_ .J p O m y m n N l0 to N v - r CL ly D m O N^ ^ coN N m v m = N N N ^ QI NIP- m N V I cc (- < N m In m p OWN. cvn N m N ^ N H O o Y O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D � �o < W) O 7 in to2 w �- LiJ < cv v 0000000vv .0vvv J O ivi = O ly W w mo 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 - J 00 0 0 00 0 m CL J H v < U � � 2mlIHFI- 0 N vi z Of F O Z Z O 3 tn < c W F J J p ON a Z ta Z v v p p v CL " � u w w vnv=iu_ Lf. vv) vv) Z a c Z Z Z Z Z Z Z w w w w w w w w ui t ui uj ui � w w w w w w w Q O O O O O O O oQ a cc a ac of CL 1% CL m dL CL>' Z J CL Z W 3 0� = ZZZZZZZJ � Wd W aa W l� < �p00aa000 mapc 2IS wZ3cylzaa. 00fa � HF e2S2O (fLU � 1-. f-- 0ON� 333m H H H FZ-1 H N H Z Z X Z Z Z N /_. N m1O N In m v' O O O O O N v' h m Q W N In f, to V' O 1[7 � �O m ^' m tt N O� 'n U V m .O ICL m O 'D M m In 0 j < m In ^_ O N N N N O 'a' v' V m U N .Dm m O 0 10 m N v v' O �O m co J LU a.ot LU N v; m m v' N m m co to OZ r H iR 4R 4p,4A-W 4PP iR 1+R iR 40+4A-1,03 V►iA iiF 1 W 1.1+ N LO m m 0 0 0 0 0 Lo P v m 11 In LO N In m O O N N %O N %O m N e O co M- �.o ^? .o Om N0 v; mm V; wLU J .o Ln �% o v v- Ln m o r.co co N .o n < T 0 m .o O O m m w m O N 'o < < {- < m " N et .. m .omv \0N0 fx Of Mf V}�q V}V}V}V3 M}+R 4W 4 Vi Y}41+4 in ywj N FT- H ^ V M m in 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O N Z N W u = n in ^ �n m m Mn O N N W < a W 10 O U > J 1-4 Z ot m N m 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Go m N m < e = 30 in 0wa N o ~ to � 10 -joCe .eorn mm morn ^ < = d S F o !� C .n v Ln ^ m N O N 1 m F V < 0 FZ 000 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 0+ > W m O O O O �n �n m P LOin 0 to to LU ix w < LU > LL Q_ < � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn N N V r1i cm N co Q � > O 0 QC m N 0% O O N .O N LL 0 m N " — N N wO Y Q m N 0 0 '0 110 m Q ~ C co V of O V' z m v a v v m y In rn sr V' v In 10 � w e e e e < e e e ,0 H w IT v J > Q LL LU 10 J O w ►� In V: � In N (� Z O O C O p 0cu H w V J � V z ~ Q < J w Z _ O < o ~m Y Z = o O o � F" " N Y O N O Zv) tn �iGtnuj Ovwv=i w Z o z3 Lu zJ zzzzz LO a O o� p * I * * * ` M W uiCOLLjw u+ aaaaa � 0 U- H J N H H H H H Q e lb Z Z Z Z Z W Q z 400000 H a 3 Z N v u v v u J F� e e e O w w w w w p < � < O F ao m m CC 0 v) w in in ljy CO J F DC 41 * � � � � w w w w w Q H m O L,,LU^ C.1 ]L ]L ]L H F- F• F• F- F V Y m V/ m W to In N M N H N H Ot2 Y In �o w . 1 n v 0 0 0 0 M In to N Q W N N .n v 0 0 10 m O� v n O V sf ^? M O O m In ^! ao t` m m 10 e4 Do j Q co LO t` O 0, 0 J ar W � `�0 00 In .0 .0 m v N v '0 ¢ � cc N v m � ^ � OH W W M!iA M iR+fh M}V}4R Y3 V} V} y} m r` co 0 0 0 0 In O m v) In N %D co O O N 10 N co O Q O a0 ^? v .O O O h Olq� In .G W W J V 10 In vq- -T O m co co Q >• In 10 O O m cm CIO 00 m a CO Q m •O O .r — %0 CO V h m 10 my Q W 0 3 N m V V V ss LW 4 V) In to Z H H X d w m m m w < > U T J z F N m OQ O F- W a In n N OC J H T J ¢ � a S � vomo m mm ~O WO y 0 a0 In N H J ~ ~ W Z .° H > w O O O O O O O O O In O ui ; W Q to O O to U) to Lo In In N In LU U— —I Q. W J U d D o o 1.0, a,1 Oh 00 co N 1�- .Q � O F- m In In n m H O OS 00 00 �o m �.0 ¢ Inneennm N Z a -- m V LU Ln O F-+ W '^ ` v N Nu v v v J J J O ,L,U _ v^! O H � co in N N d w O O �+ O m v � J LU N C<OOC W Z N v W o N m Z N O u —) w W 0. Z ¢ = 0% O% Zwv F FF- F- � F- 0 w ZLU = � � * U- * U- `D » > st ❑; o 00 0 W to a a- CL a H J J H H H H —) W W < ZZIZ-+ O OO OQ 3 w w N H 1-4H H I > O oH � o�cvwi -� vwivwia eaF- JZZvcc Qaaaccc = � O O J w Z w w Q w W O V V H F- VI v I cn W w OC H In H H O1 F`I F- W � •f' O h O� � N � � O O In U (NJ O CO (30 � ht, W LU v4 cmM M m q< V) Q N ~ L Ln 0 Z H Fi AFT VR 40 APP V}iF}'.R iH V} V}i!} ~ v 00 O O 0% .O tr) m y 00 to 'O N 0% Q O N O Iff (3 Q W F- Q v In 3 N ~ n FUW LU -I v Of 0 iR l'+4.Fl-4P iI}�}iq aN y} W LU Z In M H H In F.4 W U S �- V)X d FLU mm � p� 0 w Q > u U > Q �A J Q Z ato to 3 O W O W d N 0 ~ L] a J CL I S Q -I-- m n Ic" < N 10 O Y O ^ I� trl N m > Lu h . W LU H >U Q e° a eo eo eo e° e° e° W 00 O In tC1 O O O W e ae cc W Q 00 00 In In 0- W J V j : � oa, m � CL CL ILL > ri LU L O Y L Y Q N 1�1 ti N Q H a- tt•+�--•• V a ato LU 'n O H a v) > Z N N tY v UJI� J V J ~ ~ N U7 .Mr .n-� �O H Z - O O O N uj H v J V a J � J 2 > z F- SS LU 0 H 1-4 O 7 H S w O V) 3a vi J > > ~ ~ O O O OZ N W W .^. .^. W w > j j LL. lU- Q a o O O W ad Q Q < ~ ~ w w (j) < ZZ 00 � < V.� a HF.4 uvZ Lu Lu z z Ln V) DC a0c OOZZwWLLj S 3 3 In In N l-I lri vi oc o �n000mVnV o. V Q f" w N n N 0 O m 10 M 0 O In q n O ,^; 'o in Ln m O� C� -..1 Ix w 1 M IM — 0 M ^ N rl w oC � to e N V M V OZ H +A N N 0 V OOnNnm �� e In In O O �n to a0 w w Q T .np ,np ao N !On NO fM a Q �o O N •-• n e w LU v u rs+w ur+R.n.q+a w w U Ix ~ ~ LU O m in F- u Y = CS m M O2in w � d > °�° O 1-4 T J e e � ~ QS in � rnm o10 w .-� O w G. N M N 0 O ot J e = Q O m N mCL F- w j 140 > V) .� U Z " W a i0 In e a e a e e W \ Of LU w Q O N in Lo in in Lo In L O_ w J V .o ] H o N o% M Q o O u� , a > O m m N �` N H = i e O N p In z a o oov D U u < CM Q O > z N V N LL- J O W = F- H Z � o oo � M 000 -- H U -' V � J LUCf ix e °C Z UA Z. Z 0 N GL ix tue N � 0 0 0 w a H z z ti .nr Z * :* � t!iU- co > > > Q of a c W d c. a aL T Q 3 z z z W o 000 J H O Z v LU LU 0 0 p wwwV) v) J > ,n -1 V) 0 wCL oc ocp Z www w w W = 0 � ~ ►- aaZ " in " H Z--+ Z Zoc L l� H H F LL1 S ~2 AQ, X N aLU W LL LU w a V) � 1-4 CCr co m 10 (� 00 N tn N N Xa Y CL w %0 In N O Lu C > N U H to wQ Y 00 t+f N N > F. Q a II ? J v Q t� In R M �' In > N LLJ o W Z H Q e a-! alee e N > W 0 0 0 O Cfe gootnLn w J W F- .�. to In O O p In In O J W ot m m N N t� h > D N N Z Q LLli H S LL > Y _ C In In ~ M N N V Q a Q H OQC � U V U U U Q H N N N N N J F- H F H W 0 ¢ Q N N N N N In LL J t9 Z = N F- l9 r, In V I0 O\ fM H W L O O O O O Ivj xU J J W S � H LU O V LU F�-I 1-4 �J S � r Z 3 Z O U w Z w m Z w a o W = w ne U Q J O w J W LL z H O I _ 03300 v h Z U m Q W J Q < 0. W W 3 i w w Q HZ z LW QZ0 "Z -4 O LY Stiti 'ZY caN 30033 � z ca ca � � N N w ZH- w Cc F x � � > w W a In H N H O M ao M n Lu M X d ][ W O `7 M N O I v L M w ¢ °' > v H J ¢ Z cc �+ w Q Y M .M-i 'C IL1 ON N Q > f W a ~ .� H > ccJ J00 ¢ N M m M N O O M OD 1 �L Q ti In N M Lo m '0 c0 LO > N H v W HU > w .o W IX 0 0 0 0 N J ¢ V- qT ,O .O �O �O st O% W � Q ^ N•N N N to N sp � H � J Q w a m > N N Q w H 2 W > CL M to In ]L > ¢ V 0% 0% N N N • ¢ Q d ¢ Y w N N N N d N cV N J F- = H In Q V Z N N N Nv N N N Q ¢ ¢ In LL J Z kf) H N- O n M .O M C� X w -+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 W J 'U W W Q Q V O� w kb (Q � � 3o >Q ° cfo ui Z Z Z) u co —j J W d W W = LU J '' J > w W i� V, LL H N Q S S Q S O ¢ 3 V v> v) Zv) vwZ W Q H w wwp Q > v LU a � 30 ¢ co L z3z ;t14 zw v) w m w Z U F+ H w = X INI U Y L11 X LL H � > w w p W V S O m N O N ^ M 0� ao .o 0% V 0% v m co U W m M —O N N ',0 10 N O— - N In m 10 M co W < > V N J p Z occo 10.o 1, M VO' 10 .M.. V' N a O IL p ^ M j Q w a M m N N N N M Oo N p hr ? C J S N M !� N N O ID fD .o �o O O l S LLJ � Y O N � � �„� N m ^ 00 V' "' m In fl V' �0 W) 10 > tin 1- co LU Z H H > w< - sa eLo sto aLO a� CCixwo) 0 to � 01 e e e e 0 0 0 0 Lu J < In v It In N V• In N V V O O In w F" 0\ V' m 0\ 0\ .0 ^ m m 10 m m m N ^ m O N V. 10 N In V N In V 'o 0 V N N f" O J Z > LC) rn co a` co N 0\ W m M O o h w D m - - N m N M N N N > O w N S W LL- < a O N 10 Ln V• V to V V, 'n .o O O co ~ 3 Q M M N N N N M m N `� U p d Q N oL LUV U < U Q Q Q V Q < Q Q U V Q V Y (W � O > > > > > > > D S 4 O > > W N N N N In N N N N N N N V- N N N J I-' IS- -J w V z N N N N v N (\I N N N N N V N N N O LL. l9 �-. '0 '0 0, 'o N v M .o In O N XV) N O\ N O O 00 h N '0 [0 M V' LQ In O W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ph w .J NZ 0- J W Y ~ w � z Z V) O O O W I- I- f H F FS- J O >~ J 4 > ocacat � ND � oOZ < a �. Q 3OOOOO WOH JLU i~� S pZZZ (n3v) Svi � coca V) J w a 4 < p O 4 v O o+ rnZo U w U- 30, Q\ 0, 0% � oQ0Za. ��+ z0000v � J .; Mo0 W � ., " v- r- S v- O N Q c j > o o kb o > a U- LLLU- LL V) � zzSH. ztJi � m3 vi W Q >- W W W W W W W Q J J a c. J o_ a fw` 3 > Y H > S S H S S J J LLJ W An J v 43 Q Z Q z U U Z U U ::E H p U� Z Q O OOJOF- F- WOF I- -1 � oSt1LU ~ Q[ ? p4TSS0 > SSQQ � E Oru', co LU a < za334a33zznDa C° L zaizzz3zzzotaUSV) in - w Z V 1-+ f � w cz S :� X H a > Q W w w 0 V) 1 H lJ7 N Ul U 2 NO co ^ co 0 m M M ^� O %0 I� N m tC) rn m 1\ m CG X ¢ CL w N LL") m !� N N N (n LO h m m ^ to O O NLO W U > .D < = LU j W C. O 00 M N M I-- 'D `0 N N ^' N N N N N T C J S Y Q f'o'7 m N N N M M m O N .^. > V) d W W O O O O W < O O O ° O O O O O t[O'f V) Lu ¢ N rn cr O O n .D N %D M M 0 0 � M In N H O LO \D h M N M O 'D O N O M M h .D O\ .D T M v M 1� N m n N v N v M N N ^ ^ Ln st C 0. O Z > '0' LO cc LLJ ti %D N N m > O m ON N N N ..n M " N "" N - O� O� O� N N M fV H S W W IL ¢ a ^ _ U Q ¢ Nam-. M N D\ N O\ N .N. ti m tV N a ¢ OQC a ¢ ¢ < ¢ ¢ ¢ V ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ U ¢ ¢ ¢ < ¢ ¢ U O O > > O 7 > > O 7 > > > > > H r N N N N N v W) N N N N N N N N N N N N J � S H to F N W OZ¢ N N N N N v v N N N N N N N N N N N N to W J O H S _ fV D\ m m 'D 'D m m N O m M M O\ N N ~ H m %D .D 1, O N O O IC) M m 0 M �D N 0 X N ^W w d Z > Z ¢ ¢ Q ¢ 2 J O U = L w LL, O H J J Z 1..1 S T S S S Q J J S O S ).. Z O~C D~L O > W m DOC F-- F- H J 2 w V) V) vi W 0 to Z Z O O -1 ]HL U w W W Q S to LLJ W AO m ]L = Q ¢ ¢ O J J W j W of Uh OM = F- J S H H O p Z �T U `nSSS � � S = 03Z fO v) v) u) c Q zuiv) Inv) ILiLv) inzz � Yzwwwz = Lij CL Q J J d d a d Z J J a a W 3 a Zmoc SSSS mm ? = J V Q Q J ¢ �.1 Q U V U U > > S J J V V ¢ J � 2YU � H Hf- F- 001�100 ]N[ Y � F- LY ix UI S S ¢ H H H H O S �N )-. �- S S S S W = v = otct 3U) V)) V) vv a33 co U') W z 3 z z Y z z z z w w w z z z z z z v=i t � Q W zZ 1-4 W = d X N a > W LL W go V � LNI u 2 nnMtntococoLO W M --� mn m co O W V d > N Q 1-4 Q = m to M .O mLU f+] 0 N ^ to CL in a = Q m M_ O O M v n to LLUS D Y O v V et h v N LO > tn d M W Z14 � Q LIJ ; e e a o e Cl Lo O O O ton to Lo V) J > N N h m O � z > W m N M N CM W CM J m fn�f N .Mi N V' Z p LL ¢ Y m p p CO M U � d ¢ a ¢ i w > > > > a N N N N m N N N It J H W 0 ¢ z N N N N N N v to LL Q J z Lf)X Z ht[ v c M.tn °' V; 0 0 0 0 .: o o LU W _l W J J z z Q Q ¢ Q F- J O � -� zz2 m Y z z = .o 2Y0000 Q2 tnv� vvuWtn J F- W W Ne Q z 3J LL. � o, rn LO Q uimWYLLcn.LL uJ DC u, uj 3 z W J j � O � mwa°cm -j O DC 0 " 0 Q Nm ~ V J m uj N U V) z Y V) L w U H � L cc, " U Y w O X " c > w w ce V) FT H Xw •Ni •�-� v � v N W Q > U M in Q Z ac N ¢ S v Go m N M N O > wa mm , van N Q N = a = ►¢- nn � � ano ON w w J F¢- on N rn 10 D w O O� co co N > F- O p ~ > W O O fV NC\J NC\J N w CO M 1n In m m N > O w H S w ]L L+- Q a ao O O .o m m .o ~ Q Lr) m m N N N u � a Q 6f a ¢ a Q ¢ a Q ¢ Y N D D M Q N r N N N N N N v kn J 1-- F -� w O U Z N N N N N N V- O L J ~ U H f0 m N N .n-. 0 0 M N W O p : O W —j O ¢ Z H Z F- ix w Z W J Z = H ,o cc N r F- F- or. LU Su ix 00 v0 VnvicoGV) viu J -U Q w F- a Q Z = O Cf z Q u LL F- 3 F- O% a, O Q\ ZN " oo !� 0 O w S N w F, u wix 3 0 Q u caviwwviLL uj Q > J J w z z V p W W U U J Q Q OF- F- � F- F- Z O W DOuvu33aOTc D In Im - W H F-U, 1-4 H U Y W x 0 � � > W W %O X a a w n m N v .No LO N W Q > U H JZ ix � = H Q S N t m in m Q v W Q W n a0 N v N co > Q T cc J J Q m O Icy m n N 0 wY 0 'p N N co c0 > v1 n W Z H mi Q eo ig e e � iga10 LU V) J H 10 0% c0 Z W 5 G co 0 1O N �O N O J � O z > 10 10 ICI N N to W co °'p ,m., N N > v m m O W H 2 W !L 10 ^ m m N m .�. N N �•+ v o a Q Hcc Q Q U Q Q U Q H N N N N N N = J � U Z N N E N N O Q J z = C M X W � R 0-� 0 0 O W J J W W n WZ JIn ? > � � � � 3 a o 0 v o vi If) In Inv) Iri w J H � Z > ILL O Ca o% O% O Z ws rl o0 oZ Q Irio � Ii ° LU ty -I J .J J Q J a i J Lli ZZJQ QJ V Z Z > V U > Q 0 0 ~ 2 2 > O W u v IL WCL co � 3 3 vi vi vi vi � L w H Z a UJ X u Y > O H a LLJ LL W Q V) H U1 H N v XCL wm � M � � W Q > N v g Z a w O * ]L � N m w N N m I� > �- Wa H O 1 tW D In Ln M o Nfl V' M W N >V Q ,° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 W • • e o e e a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Q In Ln Ln Ln Ln in In Ln V) J O O 4- q- w O 10 m .0 � 00 .0 (m O ~ a, OTC J H 0 > com N N N N 0% W z LU LL cli to 0 to cm V co N fn 00 fn N �O o a a tn N N N N N N N N N J F- ~ H W Z N v N N (\I N N N N LL Q � LL J CD H 0 m a, � 0 0 '� O LO V) Z � O O O C 0 � V' N X W '" OOO OOo Lcj w J O w U H O 2 2 2 O N w w v O - �-F- n Lama OZ Z > _ a Z N Z a a LL LL U M O\ O% ti LL 4x O\ T ON 0 0 0 N 0 LL LL LL W a s .+- 4-- 00 w a U I L ¢ a a L a Z L LL WCL d Z Z u) W DC � Q W H a Z O O w � ZO Zp Ln Cc Cf Z W = a LLJ a Z p Z a a co � ZZixLJLQCEtvi v) i City of Southlake, Texas ----- MEMORANDUM December 21. 1999 i To: Billy Campbell, City Manager I From: Charlie Thomas Subject: Chesapeake Place— Revised Developer Agreement Action Requested: Authorize Mayor to execute a revised developer agreement for Chesapeake Place subdivision. Background Information: On April 20, 1999, the City Council authorized the Mayor to execute a "Partial Developer Agreement" which covered downstream, off-site drainage improvements for Chesapeake Place subdivision located at the N.E. corner of Pearson lane and Union Church Rd. In the "Partial Developer Agreement" the City agreed to reimburse the developer for the cost of the off-site drainage improvements up to an amount not to exceed $100,000 as long as the developer's on-site storm water drainage improvements include a four acre retention/detention pond as approved by City Council. The developer's development plans are complete and the on-site drainage improvements do include a four acre retention / detention pond, therefore this revised developer agreement includes the provision for the city to reimburse the developer for the cost of the off-site drainage improvements up to an amount not to exceed $100,000. The developer agreement covers all the on-site infrastructure improvements which includes some over-sized water lines. The developer has dedicated 6.89 acres for a public park which was accepted by the Park Board to satisfy the park fee. The location of the retention/detention pond is within that park land. 10A-1 Financial Considerations: The City will reimburse the developer an amount not to exceed $100,000 for off-site drainage improvements. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: This is the standard developer agreement originally drafted by the City Attorney Alternatives: Approve it, deny it, or modify it. Supporting Documents: Agreement Park Memo Plat Exhibit Staff Recommendation: Please place revised developer agreement on the January 4, 2000 Council Agenda for City Council consideration and approval. Charlie J4Thas City Engineer Approved for Submittal to City Council: City Manager's Office 10A-2 CHESAPEAKE PLACE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT An Agreement between the City of Southlake, Texas, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and the undersigned Developer. hereinafter referred to as the "Developer," of Chesapeake Place,hereinafter referred to as the "Addition," to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, for the installation of certain community facilities located therein, and to provide city services thereto. It is understood by and between the parties that this Agreement is applicable to the 80 lots contained within the Addition 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. Since the Developer is prepared to develop the Addition as rapidly as possible and is desirous of selling lots to builders and having residential building activity begin as quickly as possible and the City is desirous of having the subdivision completed as rapidly as possible,the City agrees to release 10%of the lots, 8, after installation of the water and sewer mains. Framing shall not commence until water quality is approved by the City and all appropriate Fire Code requirements are satisfied, and street signs with street names are in place. Temporary all-weather metal signs securely fastened in the ground are acceptable until permanent street signs are installed. The Developer recognizes that the remaining building permits or Certificates of Occupancy for residential dwellings will not be issued until the supporting public works infrastructure including permanent street signs with block numbers and regulatory signs within the Addition have been accepted by the City. This will serve as an incentive to the Developer to see that all remaining items are completed. C. The Developer will present to the City either a cash escrow, letters of credit, performance bond or payment bond acceptable to the City guaranteeing and agreeing to pay an amount equal to 100% of the value of the construction cost of all of the facilities to be constructed by the Developer, and providing for payment to the City of such amounts, up to the total remaining amounts required for the completion of the Addition if the Developer fails to complete the work within two (2)years of the signing of this Agreement between the City and Developer. All bonds 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. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 1OF13 1 OA-3 D. The value of the performance bond, letters of credit or cash escrow will reduce at a rate consistent with the amount of work that has been completed by the Developer and accepted by the City. Each request for reduction or payment of escrow funds must be accompanied by lien release(s) executed by all subcontractors and/or suppliers prior to the release of escrow fiends or reduction in value of the account. Performance and payment bond, letters of credit or cash escrow from the prime contractor(s)or other entity reasonably acceptable to City, hereinafter referred to as Contractor, will be acceptable in lieu of Developer's obligations specified above. E. The Developer agrees to furnish to the City maintenance bonds, letters of credit or cash escrow amounting to 20% of the cost of construction of underground utilities and 50% of the construction cost for paving. These maintenance bonds, letter of credit or cash escrow will be for a period of two (2)years and will be issued prior to the final City acceptance of the subdivision. The maintenance bonds,letters of credit or cash escrow will be supplied to the City by the contractors performing the work, and the City will be named as the beneficiary if the contractors fail to perform any required maintenance. If the Developer chooses to construct bar ditches in lieu of curb and gutter, and the City approves the design and grade of bar ditches,Developer understands and agrees to provide maintenance on the bar ditches for a period of two years from the date of acceptance of the Addition. Maintenance includes trash and debris cleanup,mowing, and erosion control. F. Until the performance and payment bonds, letters of credit or cash escrow required in Paragraph C has been furnished as required, no approval of work on or in the Addition shall be given by City and no work shall be initiated on or in said Addition by Developer, save and except as provided above. G. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon acceptance by City, title to all facilities and improvements mentioned herein above 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, City shall have no liability or responsibility in connection with any such facilities. Acceptance of the facilities shall occur at such time that City, through its City Manager or his duly authorized representative, provides Developer with a written acknowledgment that all facilities are complete, have been inspected and approved and are being accepted by the City. H. On all public facilities included in this agreement for which Developer awards his own construction contract, Developer agrees to the following procedure: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 2 OF 13 1 OA-4 1. Developer agrees to pay the following: a. Inspection fees equal to three percent (3%) of the cost of the water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this agreement for which Developer awards his or her own construction contract, to be paid prior to construction of each phase and based on actual bid construction cost; b. Administrative Processing Fee equal to two percent(2%) of the cost of water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer facilities,on all facilities included in this Agreement for which Developer awards his or her own construction contract, to be paid prior to construction of each phase and based on actual bid construction cost; C. Trench testing(95% Standard); d. The additional charge for inspections during Saturday, Sunday, holidays, and after normal working hours; e. Any charges for re-testing as a result of failed tests; f. All gradation tests required to insure proper cement and/or lime stabilization. 2. The City agrees to bear the expense of: a. All nuclear density tests on the roadway sub-grade (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 accepted by the City. I. The Developer and any third party, independent entity engaged in the construction of houses,hereinafter referred to as Builder will be responsible for mowing all grass and weeds and otherwise reasonably maintaining the aesthetics of all land and lots in said subdivision which have not been sold to third parties. After fifteen(15) days written notice, should the Developer or Builder fail in this responsibility, the City COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 3 OF 13 10A-5 may contract for this service and bill the Developer or Builder for reasonable costs. Should such cost remain unpaid for 120 days after notice, the City can file a lien on such property so maintained. J. 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 "acceptabie" shall be submitted to the City Attorney for the City 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. K. 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 of Southlake regardless of such company's authorization to do business in Texas. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. IL FACILITIES: A. ON SITE WATER: (W 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 homes, even though sanitary sewer service may not be available to the homes. 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 City Engineer, and made part of the final plat as approved by the City Council. The Developer hereby agrees to fully comply with all EPA requirements relating to the planning, permitting and management of storm water which may be in force at the time that development COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 4 OF 13 1OA-6 proposals are being presented for approval by the City. The Developer hereby agrees to comply with all provisions of the Texas Water Code. C. LAW COMPLIANCE: Developer hereby agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws that are applicable to development of this Addition. D. STREETS: 1. The street construction in the Addition shall conform to the requirements in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City Engineer. Streets will be installed in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City Engineer. 2. The Developer will be responsible for: a) Installation and two year operation cost of street lights,which is payable to the City prior to final acceptance of the Addition; b) Installation of all street signs designating the names of the streets inside the subdivision, 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 by the Director of Public Works. It is understood that Developer may put in signage having unique architectural features, however, should the signs be moved or destroyed by any means the City is only responsible for replacement of standard signage. 3. All street improvements will be subject to inspection and approval by the City. No work will begin on any street included herein prior to complying with the requirements contained elsewhere in this Agreement. All water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage utilities which are anticipated to be installed within the street or within the street right-of-way will be completed prior to the commencement of street construction on the specific section of street in which the utility improvements have been placed or for which they are programmed. It is understood by and between the Developer and the City that this requirement is aimed at substantial compliance with the majority of the pre-planned facilities. It is understood that in every construction project a decision later may be made to realign a line or service which may occur after construction has COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 5 OF 13 10A-7 commenced. The Developer hereby agrees to advise the City Director of Public Works as quickly as possible when such a need has been identified and to work cooperatively with the City to make such utility change in a manner that will be least disruptive to street construction or stability. E. ON-SITE SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES: The Developer hereby agrees to install sanitary sewerage collection facilities to service lots as shown on the final plat of the Addition. Sanitary sewer facilities will be installed in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City. Further, the Developer agrees to complete this installation in compliance with all applicable city ordinances, regulations and codes and shall be responsible for all construction costs, materials and engineering. In the event that certain sewer lines are to be oversized because of City of Southlake requirements, the City will reimburse the Developer for the oversize cost greater than the cost of an 8" line. F. EROSION CONTROL: During construction of the Addition and after the streets have been installed, the Developer agrees to keep the streets free from soil build-up. The Developer agrees to use soil control measures such as hay bales, silt screening, hydromulch, etc., to prevent soil erosion. It will be the Developer's responsibility to present to the Director of Public Works a soil control development plan that will be implemented for this subdivision. When,in the opinion of the Director of Public Works, there is sufficient soil build-up on the streets or other drainage areas and notification has been given to the Developer, the Developer will have seventy-two (72)hours to clear the soil from the streets or affected areas. If the Developer does not remove the soil from the street within 72 hours, the City may cause the soil to be removed either by contract or City forces and place the soil within the Addition at the Developer's expense. All expenses must be paid to the City prior to acceptance of the Addition. G. AMENITIES: It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the Addition may incorporate a number of unique amenities and aesthetic improvements such as ponds, aesthetic lakes,unique landscaping,walls, and may incorporate specialty signage and accessory facilities. The Developer agrees to accept responsibility for the construction and maintenance of all such aesthetic or specialty item such as walls, vegetation, signage, landscaping, street furniture, pond and lake improvements until such responsibility is turned over to a homeowners association. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 6 OF 13 1 OA-8 H. USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the Developer may provide unique amenities within public right-of-way, such as landscaping, irrigation, lighting, etc., for the enhancement of the Addition. The Developer agrees to maintain these amenities until such responsibility is turned over to a homeowners association. The Developer and his successors and assigns understand that the City shall not be responsible for the replacement of these amenities under any circumstances and further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all damages, loss or liability of any kind whatsoever by reason of injury to property or third person occasioned by its use of the public right-of-way with regard to these improvements and the Developer shall, at his own cost and expense, defend and protect City against all such claims and demands. I. START OF CONSTRUCTION: Before the construction of the streets, and the water, sewer, or drainage facilities can begin, the following must take place: 1. Approved payment and performance bonds must be submitted to the City in the name of the City prior to the commencement of any work. (W 2. At least six (6) sets of construction plans stamped "Released for Construction" by the City Engineer must be submitted. 3. All fees required to be paid to the City. 4. Developer Agreement executed. 5. The Developer, or Contractor shall furnish to the City a policy of general liability insurance,naming the City as co-insured,prior to commencement of any work. 6. A pre-construction meeting between Developer and City is required. Developer or contractor shall furnish to the City a list of all subcontractors and suppliers, which will be providing greater than a $1,000 value to the Addition. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 7 OF 13 1 OA-9 III. GENERAL PROVISIONS: L.. 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 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. C. Approval by the City Engineer 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 City Engineer 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 Southlake of the completed COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 8 OF 13 10A-10 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 shill defend at his own expense any suits or other proceedings brought against the City, its officers, agents, servants or employees, or any of them,on account thereof, to pay all expenses and satisfy all judgement which may be incurred by or rendered against them or any of them in connection herewith. D. This agreement or any part thereof 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 own construction contract, the Developer agrees to employ a construction contractor who is approved by the City, and whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, said contractor to meet City and statutory requirements for being insured, licensed and bonded to do work in public streets and to be qualified in all respects to bid on public streets and to be qualified in all respects to bid on public projects of a similar nature. �*- F. Work performed under the agreement shall be completed within two (2)years from the date thereof. In the event the work is not completed within the two (2) year period, the City may, at its election, draw on the performance bond, letter of credit or other security provided by Developer and complete such work at Developer's expense; provided, however, that if the construction under this agreement shall have started within the two (2) year period, the City may agree to renew the agreement with such renewed agreement to be in compliance with the City policies in effect at that time. G. The City is an exempt organization under Section 151,309, Tax Code, and the facilities constructed under this Agreement will be dedicated to public use and accepted by the City upon acknowledgment by the City of completion under Paragraph I.F. 1. The purchase of tangible personal property, other than machinery or equipment and its accessories, repair, and replacement parts, for use in the performance of this Agreement is, therefore, exempt from taxation under Chapter 151, Tax code, if the tangible property is: a. necessary and essential for the performance of the Agreement; and COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 9 OF 13 1OA-11 b. completely consumed at the job site. ?. The purchase of a taxable service for use in the performance of this Agreement is exempt if the service is performed at the job site and if: a. this Agreement expressly requires the specific ser✓ice to be provided or purchased by the person performing the Agreement; or b. the service is integral to the performance of the Agreement. H. Prior to final acceptance of this phase the Developer shall provide to the city 3 copies of Record Drawings of this phase, showing the facilities as actually constructed. I. Such drawings will be stamped and signed by a registered professional civil engineer. In addition the Developer shall provide electronic files showing the plan and profile of the sanitary sewer, storm drain, roadway and waterline; all lot lines; and tie in to the state Plane Coordinate System. IV. OTHER ISSUES: ,., A. OFF-SITE DRAINAGE: B. OFF-SITE WATER C. PARK FEES: The Park Bond accepted dedication to the City of natural and unmaintained open space totaling 6.89 acres for a public park. The proposed value amounts to a total credit of$275,600.00. D. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE: All construction activities shall meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-A. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 10 OF 13 1 OA-12 �r. SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below. DEVELOPER: By: Title: Address: STATE OF COUNTY OF (W 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: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 11OF13 10A-13 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS By: Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary Date: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 12 OF 13 10A-14 REQUIREMENTS FOR IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT 1. The Letter of Credit (L of C) must have a duration of at least one year. 2. The L of C 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 L of C 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 L of C 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 L of C 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 L of C. 9. Expiring letter of credit must be replaced by substitute letters of credit at least 30 days prior to the expiration date on the L of C held by the City. M:\WD-FILES\FORMS\dcv-agnmt\foffnat-r.doc COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT 13 OF 13 10A-15 City of Southlahe, Texas - i MEMORANDUM , December 20, 1999 I To: Billv Campbell, City g i\lana er � ; From: Charlie Thomas Subject: Hart Industrial Park— Developer Agreement for Lots 3,4 and 5, Block B Action Requested: Authorize Mayor to execute a Commercial Developer Agreement for Hart Industrial Park, Lots 3,4 & 5, Block B. Background Information: The final plat for Hart Industrial Park Lots 3,4 & 5, Block B was approved in 1988. The commercial developer Agreement is the City's standard Developer Agreement. The Developer Agreement covers the installation of a sanitary sewer line. You will note that there is no park fee required because of the date of the plat. Financial Considerations: None. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: None. Alternatives: Approve it, deny it, or modify it. Supporting Documents: Developer Agreement Plat Exhibit Staff Recommendation: Please place on the January 4, 2000 Council Agenda for City Council review and consideration. 1OB-1 �.. Charlie J.*Thoas City Engineer Approved for Submittal to City Council: City Manager's Office 1 OB-2 HART INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOTS 3,4 & 5, BLOCK B COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT An agreement between the City of Southlake, Texas, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and the undersigned Developer, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer", of Hart Industrial Park, Lots 3,4 & 5, Block B, hereinafter referred to as "Addition" to trig 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 Commercial Developer Agreement 1 10B-3 acceptance of the Addition. The maintenance bonds, letter of credit or cash escrow will be supplied to the City by the contractors performing the work, and the City will be named as the beneficiary if the contractors fail to perform any required maintenance. D. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon acceptance by the City, tide to all facilities and improvements mentioned hereinabove which are intended to be public facilities shall be vested in the City, and Developer hereby relinquishes any right, title, or interest in and to said facilities or any part thereof. It is further understood and agreed that until the City accepts such improvements, the City shall have no liability or responsibility in connection with any such facilities. Acceptance of the facilities for this provision and for the entire Agreement shall occur at such time that the City, through its City Manager or his duly appointed representative, provides Developer with a written acknowledgement that all facilities are complete, have been inspected and approved, and are being accepted by the City. E. On all public facilities included in this Agreement for which the Developer awards his own construction contract, Developer agrees to the following procedure: 1. Developer agrees to pay the following: a. Inspection fees equal to three percent (3%) of the cost of the water , street, drainage and sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this agreement for which Developer awards his or her own construction contract, to be paid prior to construction of each phase and based on actual bid construction cost; b. Administrative Processing Fee equal to two percent (2%) of the cost of water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this Agreement for which Developer awards his or her own construction contract, to be paid prior to construction of each phase and based on actual bid construction cost; C. Trench testing (95% Standard); d. The additional charge for inspections during Saturday, Sunday, holidays, and after normal working hours; `-- e. Any charges for retesting as a result of failed tests; Commercial Developer Agreement 2 10B-4 f. All gradation tests required to insure proper cement and/or lime stabilization. 2. The City agrees to bear the expense of: a. Al; nuclear density tests on the rcadway subgrade (95% Standard); b. Technicians time for preparing concrete cylinders; and C. Concrete cylinder tests and concrete coring samples. The City can delay connection of buildings to service lines or water mains constructed under this Agreement until said water mains and service lines have been completed to the satisfaction of and acceptance by the City. F. The Developer will be responsible for mowing all grass and weeds and otherwise reasonably maintaining the aesthetics of all land and lots in said Addition which have not been sold to third parties. After fifteen (15) days written notice, should the Developer fail in this responsibility, the City may contract for this service and bill the Developer for reasonable costs. Such amount shall become a lien upon all real property of the Addition so maintained by the City, and not previously conveyed to other third parties, 120 days after Developer has notice of costs. G. Any guarantee of payment instrument (Performance Bond, Letter of Credit, etc.) submitted by the Developer or Contractor on a form other than the one which has been previously approved by the City as "acceptable" shall be submitted to the City Attorney and this Agreement shall not be considered in effect until such City Attorney has approved the instrument. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. H. Any surety company through which a bond is written shall be a surety company duly authorized to do business in the State of Texas, provided that the City, through the City Manager, shall retain the right to reject any surety company as a surety for any work under this or any other Developer's Agreement within the City regardless of such company's authorization to do business in Texas. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Commercial Developer Agreement 3 1 OB-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 Plaos and other permits or regulatory authorizations granted by the City during the development review process. Il. FACILITIES A. ON-SITE WATER The Developer hereby agrees to install water facilities to service lots as shown on the final plat of the Addition. Water facilities will be installed in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City. Further, the Developer agrees to complete this installation in accordance with Ordinance No. 170 and shall be responsible for all construction costs, materials and engineering. In the event that certain water lines are to be oversized because of City requirements, the City will reimburse the Developer for the oversize cost greater than the cost of an 8" line. Additionally, the City agrees to provide temporary water service at Developer's request and expense, for construction, testing and irrigation purposes only, to individual lots during the construction of buildings, even though sanitary sewer service may not be available to the buildings. B. DRAINAGE Developer hereby agrees to construct the necessary drainage facilities within the Addition. These facilities shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by Developer's engineers, released by the Director of Public Works, the City, and made part of the final plat as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Developer hereby agrees to fully comply with all EPA and TNRCC requirements relating to the planning, permitting and management of storm water which may be in force at the time that development proposals are being presented for approval by the City. Commercial Developer Agreement 4 1OB-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 Public Works. 1. The Developer will be responsible for: a) Installation and two year operation of street lights, which is payable to the City prior to final acceptance of the Addition; or an agreement with utility provider stating that no charge will be made for street lights for the two-year duration. b) Installation of all street signs designating the names of the streets inside the Addition, said signs to be of a type, size, color and design standard generally employed by the Developer and approved by the City in accordance with City ordinances; c) Installation of all regulatory signs recommended based upon the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices as prepared by the Developer's engineer by `�- an engineering study or direction of the Director of Public Works. It is understood that Developer may put in signage having unique architectural features, however, should the signs be moved or destroyed by any means, the City is only responsible for replacement of standard signage. 2. All street improvements will be subject to inspection and approval by the City. No work will begin on any street included herein prior to complying with the requirements contained elsewhere in this Agreement. All water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage utilities which are anticipated to be installed within the street or within the street right-of-way will be completed prior to the commencement of street construction on the specific section of street in which the utility improvements have been placed or for which they are programmed. It is understood by and between the Developer and the City that this requirement is aimed at substantial compliance with the majority of the pre-planned facilities. Commercial Developer Agreement 5 1 OB-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 Public Works as quickly as possible when such a need has been identified and to work cooperatively with the City to make such utility chanaz 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, hydromuich, etc., to prevent soil erosion. It will be the Developer's responsibility to present to the Director of Public Works a soil control development plan that will be implemented for this Addition. When in the opinion of the Director of Public Works there is sufficient soil build-up on the streets or other drainage areas and notification has been given to the Developer, the Developer will have seventy-two (72) hours to clear the soil from the affected areas. If the Developer does not remove the soil within 72 hours, the City may cause the soil to be removed either by contract or City forces and place the soil within the Addition at the contractor's expense. All fees owed to the City will be collected prior to acceptance of the Addition. Commercial Developer Agreement 6 1 OB-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, wails, and may incorporate specialty signage and accessory facilities. The Deve!oper 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 Public Works must be submitted. 3. All fees required to be paid to the City. 4. Developer Agreement must be executed. Commercial Developer Agreement 7 1OB-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. Commercial Developer Agreement 8 IOB-10 C. Approval by the Director of Public Works or other City employee of any plans, designs or specifications submitted by the Developer pursuant to this Agreement shall not constitute or be deemed to be a release of the responsibility and liability of the Developer, his engineer, employees, officers or agents for the accuracy and competency of their design and specifications. Such approval shall not be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility and liability by the City for any defect in the design and specifications prepared by the consulting engineer, his officers, agents, servants or employees, it being the intent of the parties that approval by the Director of Public Works signifies the City's approval on only the general design concept of the improvements to be constructed. In this connection, the Developer shall for a period of two (2) years after the acceptance by the City of the completed construction project, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, servants and employees, from any loss, damage, liability or expense on account of damage to property and injuries, including death, to any and all persons which may arise out of any defect, deficiency or negligence of the engineer's designs and specifications incorporated into any improvements constructed in accordance therewith, and the Developer shall defend at his own expense any suits or other proceedings brought against the City, its officers, agents, servants or employees, or any of them, on account thereof, to pay all expenses and satisfy all judgements which may be incurred by or rendered against them or any of them in connection with herewith. D. This Agreement or any part herein, or any interest herein, shall not be assigned by the Developer without the express written consent of the City Manager, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. E. On all facilities included in this Agreement for which the Developer awards his or her own construction contract, the Developer agrees to employ a construction contractor who is approved by the City, and whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, said contractor to meet City and statutory requirements for being insured, licensed and bonded to do work in public projects and to be qualified in all respects to bid on public projects and to be qualified in all respects to bid on public projects of a similar nature. In addition, the Developer, or Contractor shall furnish the payment and performance bonds in the name of the City prior to the commencement of any work hereunder and shall also furnish to the �.. City a policy of general liability insurance. Commercial Developer Agreement 9 1OB-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 — N/A B. OFF-SITE SEWER C. OFF-SITE WATER — N/A D. PARK FEES — N/A - due to date of plat E. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE All construction activities shall meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-A. SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below. DEVELOPER: By: Title: Address: Commercial Developer Agreement 10 IOB-12 STATE OF COUNTY OF On before me, Notary Public, personally appeared perscnally 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: Commercial Developer Agreement I1 IOB-13 y 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. Commercial Developer Agreement 12 IOB-14 ' — City o, Southlake, 'Texas - MEMORANDUM i i December 21. 1999 To: Billy Campoeil, City Manager I i From: Charlie Thomas Subject: Carmel Bay Addition—Encroachment Agreement Action Requested: Authorize City Manager to execute an encroachment agreement with the Carmel Bay Homeowners Association for the construction of a new fence and new brick and metal entry in the public right-of-way. Background Information: The Carmel Bay Addition was platted in 1986. With this construction of the Carmel Bay Addition, a wood fence along the south side of Thousand Oaks Court, a cul-de-sac, which has its south right-of-way line to be the south boundary line of the Carmel Bay Addition was constructed The Carmel Bay Homeowner Association (HOA) is requesting to be allowed to replace the existing wood fence along the south side of Thousand Oaks court, which is within the public right-of-way of Thousand Oak's Court. They also are requesting to be allowed to replace the existing brick and metal entry located in the public right-of-way of Carmel Court. Residential lots fronting on Burney Lane back up to Thousand Oaks Court. These property owners would be allowed to install gates in the new wood fence to give them access to Thousand Oaks Court, if they wish. There presently are gates in the existing wood fence. The new wood fence would be within the public right-of-way in the same location as the existing wood fence. The encroachment agreement has the City's indemnity clause and also a requirement for the HOA to maintain public liability insurance. IOC-1 Financial "�.. Considerations: None. Citizen Input/ Board Review: None. Legal Review: The City Attorney has reviewed the encroachment agreement Alternatives: Approve it, deny it, or modify it. Supporting Documents: Agreement Plat Exhibit Staff Recommendation: Please place on the Council agenda for January 4, 2000 for Council review and consideration and approval. Xhae J. rma�s Deputy Director of Engineering Services Approved for Submittal to City Council: City Manager's Office 1OC-2 ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TARRANT § THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Southlake, a home rule municipal corporation in Tarrant County, Texas, acting herein by and through its duly authorized City Manager, Billy Campbell, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Carmel Bay Homeowners Association, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee". A. WHEREAS, Grantee is representing the Carmel Bay Addition to the City of Southlake, Texas recorded in the Plat Records Book of Denton County, Texas (the "Grantee Tract"); and B. WHEREAS, the developer of Carmel Bay Addition has heretofore prepared a plat (Grantee's Plat) of the Grantee tract which dedicates to the public for right- of-way purposes the streets in Carmel Bay particularly described on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof(the "Encroachment Area"); and �►.. C. WHEREAS, at the time of annexation, an existing fence belonging to Grantee was located along Thousand Oaks Court and in the Encroachment Area and City has, subject to limitations, agreed to allow the fence to remain in place; and D. WHEREAS, Grantee wishes to reconstruct the fence along Thousand Oaks Court and brick and metal entry on the west side of entrance to Carmel Bay on the property more particularly described on Exhibit "A"; and E. WHEREAS, Grantee has agreed to provide each adjacent property owner along Thousand Oaks Court who are not part of Carmel Bay, the opportunity to pay the cost for an access gate in the new fence. WITNESSETH: 1. For and in consideration of the payment by Grantee of good and valuable consideration and the true and faithful performance of the mutual covenants herein contained, City hereby grants to Grantee permission to encroach upon, use and occupy portions of the public right-of-way for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a new fence and new brick and metal entry within the Encroachment Area. *01 10C-3 0 2. All maintenance and operation in connection with such encroachment, use, and occupancy shall be performed in strict compliance with the Charter, Ordinances and Codes of City and in accordance with the directions of the Director of Public Works of City, or his duly authorized representative. 3. There shall be no further encroachments in, under, on or above the surface area of the streets involved. 4. Grantee, at no expense to City, shall make proper provision for the relocation and/or installation of any existing or future utilities affected by such encroachment, use and occupancy, including the securing of approval and consent from the utility companies. In the event any installation, reinstallation, relocation or repair of any existing or future utility or improvements owned or constructed by or on behalf of the public or at public expense is made more costly by virtue of the construction, maintenance or existence of such encroachment and use, Grantee shall either remove the portion of the encroachment causing such additional expense, or pay to City an additional amount equal to such additional cost as determined by the Director of Public Works, or his duly authorized representative. 5. City may enter and utilize the Encroachment Area at any time for the purpose of installing or maintaining improvements necessary for the health, safety and �. welfare of the public or for any other public purpose, including restricting or limiting access to streets. In this regard, City shall bear no responsibility or liability for damage or disruption of existing or proposed improvements installed by Grantee, its predecessors or its successors, but City will make reasonable efforts to minimize such damage. 6. The initial term of this agreement shall be twenty-five (25) years, commencing on the date this agreement is executed, subject to termination as provided elsewhere herein. The rights, duties, obligations and liabilities herein set forth shall be appurtenant to, and shall "run with" the Grantee Tract. 7. Upon the termination of this agreement for any reason whatsoever, Grantee shall, at the option of City and at no expense to City, remove all of Grantee's improvements from the Encroachment Area. 8. It is further understood and agreed between the parties hereto that the City streets, including the portions of such streets to be used and encroached upon as described herein, are held by City as trustee for the public; that City exercises such powers over the streets as have been delegated to it by the Constitution of the State of Texas or by the Legislature; and that City cannot contract away its duty and its legislative power to control the streets for the use and benefit of the �+- public. While there is no conflict now, and barring any future conflict between uses of the Encroachment Area by the City and the Grantee, Grantee's 10C-4 (W continued use of such area will not be terminated unreasonably, it is nevertheless agreed that if the City Council should at any time during the term hereof determine in its sole discretion to construct public streets within the public right-of-way, or restrict access to the streets or to use or cause or permit the said portions of the streets to be used for any other public purpose, including but not being limited to underground, surface or overhead communication, drainage, water lines, sanitary sowerage, transmission of nararal gas or electricity, or any other public purpose whether presently contemplated or not, which is not compatible with Grantee's continued use, then to the extent of the conflict, this agreement shall be cancelled and terminated upon a majority vote of the City Council. 9. In the event this agreement is cancelled and terminated as provided in Paragraph 8, City will give Grantee 90 days written notice of City's intent to utilize the Encroachment Area. Grantee shall remove any improvements as required by this agreement within such time period. No construction by City which interferes with Grantee's use of the Encroachment Area shall occur until such time period has expired unless approved in writing by Grantee. It is further understood and agreed that upon the termination of this agreement, Grantee will lose the right to utilize the fence that Grantee is currently utilizing in the area. At that time Grantee will be allowed to replace the fence with another fence on the Grantee Tract if and as allowed by applicable regulations in effect when the .. fence is replaced. 10. Grantee understands and agrees that the granting of any encroachment hereunder is not meant to convey to Grantee any right to use or occupy property in which a third party may have an interest, and Grantee agrees that it will obtain all necessary permission before occupying such property. 11. Grantee agrees to comply fully with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, codes or regulations in connection with the construction, operation and maintenance of said encroachments and uses. 12. Grantee agrees to pay promptly when due all fees, taxes or rentals provided for by this agreement or by any federal, state or local statute, law or regulation. 13. Grantee covenants and agrees that it shall operate hereunder as an independent contractor as to all rights and privileges granted hereunder and not as an officer, agent, servant or employee of City; that Grantee shall have exclusive control of and the exclusive right to control the details of its operations, and all persons performing same, and shall be solely responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, subcontractors, licensees and invitees; that the doctrine of respondent superior shall not apply as between City and Grantee, its officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors and 1OC-5 subcontractors, and nothing herein shall be construed as creating a partnership or joint enterprise between City and Grantee. 1.1. GRANTEE 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 OF 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 ENCROACHMENT AND USES GRANTED HEREUNDER, WHETHER OR NOT CAUSED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, LICENSEES OR INVITEES OF CITY, AND GRANTEE HEREBY ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH CLAIMS OR SUITS. GRANTEE SHALL LIKEWISE ASSUME ALL LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY AND SHALL INDEMNIFY CITY FOR ANY AND ALL ` ., INJURY OR DAMAGE TO CITY PROPERTY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY AND ALL ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF GRANTEE, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, LICENSEES, INVITEES, OR TRESPASSERS. THIS INDEMNITY DOES NOT AFFECT RIGHTS OF GRANTEE AGAINST ANYITHIRD PARTY, INCLUDING ANY RIGHTS OF CONTRIBUTION OR CLAIMS§AGAINST THIRD PARTIES FOR DAMAGES. 15. Grantee agrees, binds and obligates itself to maintain public liability insurance covering all public risks related to the proposed use and occupancy of public property as located and described in the portion of the Encroachment Area being used by Grantee for the fence. The amounts of such insurance shall not be less that the following: Property damage, per occurrence $100,000 Personal injury or death, per occurrence $1,000,000 with the understanding of and agreement by Grantee that such insurance amounts shall be revised upward at City's option (but not in excess of the limits then being required by the City of other independent contractors doing business with the City) and that Grantee covenants and agrees to so revise such amounts within thirty (30) days following notice to Grantee of such requirement. Such 10C-6 insurance policy shall provide that it cannot be cancelled or amended without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to City. The liability insurance policy shall name City as an additional insured. Grantee shall provide to City a copy of an endorsement to Grantee's liability policy wherein either City is named therein as an additional insured or blanket coverage is provided for all persons or organizations required to be "additional insureds" by written contract. 16. Grantee agrees to deposit with City when this agreement is executed a sufficient sum of money to be used to pay necessary fees to record this Consent Agreement in its entirety in the deed records. After being so recorded, the original hereof shall be returned to the City Secretary. 17. Grantee covenants and agrees to maintain the encroachments described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto in a neat, safe and good condition at all times. 18. In addition to the other grounds for termination provided for in this agreement, this agreement may be terminated by the City should Grantee breach any terms or conditions set forth in this agreement and not cure same within thirty days after written notice thereof. 'w.r. 19. Grantee agrees that should any action, at law or in equity, arise out of the terms of this agreement or on account of Grantee's maintaining or using the encroachment described herein, venue for said action shall be in Tarrant County, Texas. In any action brought by City for the enforcement of the obligations of Grantee, City shall be entitled to recover interest and reasonable attorneys fees. EXECUTED this day of , 1999. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CARMEL BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION By: By: Billy Campbell, City Manager Title: Return to: Mrs. Sandy LeGrand City Secretary City of Southlake 10C-7 667 N. Carroll Ave. Southlake, TX 76092 Phone (817) 481-5581 IOC-8 V STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TARRANT § This agreement was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1999 by Billy Campbell, City Manager of the City of Southlake, Texas who informed me that he is the duly authorized City Manager for the City of Southlake, that he was authorized to execute the above agreement on behalf of said city. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the day of 1999. Notary Public in and for the State of Texas 10C-9 — City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 30, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator/Acting Planning Director, ext. 743 SUBJECT: Discussion Item: Parkwood Drive Action Requested: Discussion of whether or not to abandon Parkwood Drive right-of-way as requested by neighboring property owners during the public forum on October 5, 1999. Background Information: The alignment of this roadway began in 1995 as part of a three-way land negotiation with Timarron, Dr. Richards, and the City. The City desired to purchase approximately 15 acres and Timarron desired to enlarge their tract at the southwest corner of Byron Nelson Parkway (BNP) and FM 1709. Dr. Richard's resulting ownership was shifted west with the understanding that there would be a loop road connecting back to BNP. All this was accomplished and the city purchased the property. As a result, the Municipal Campus Concept `A' was prepared (see attached). Since April 18, 1996 when preliminary plats for both the municipal complex and Timarron, Phase V (later named Northwood, Phase Two) were approved, Street `A' (later platted as Parkwood Drive) has been shown as a proposed 60-foot R.O.W. extending from F.M. 1709 to Byron Nelson Parkway. A Site Plan was approved October 6, 1998 for French Square Office Complex, located on the west side of Parkwood Drive and north of Timarron Addition, Northwood Park, Phase Two. Driveway access was approved and restricted to Parkwood Drive only. A condition of the plan approval was that Parkwood Drive be constructed prior to issuance of a building permit. Please see attached chronologies prepared by Planning Assistant Tara Brooks. A complete history is available in the Planning Department if you need additional information. NACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\PARKWOOD DRIVE MEMO.DOC Ilk City of Southlake, Texas Billy Campbell, City Manager Parkwood Drive December 30, 1999 Page Two Legal Reviews: The city attorney's office has reviewed the matter and will discuss their findings with Council during the posted executive session at the January 4, 2000 meeting. Financial Considerations: None applicable. Alternatives: Following are some options available on this issue: a) Allow the road to continue as originally proposed. b) Abandon a 400' segment of the roadway, in effect creating a cul-de-sac just south of the northernmost proposed drive (approx. 350') for the French Square Office Complex development. This would require the Senior Center to have a driveway to the existing roadway or to the new cul-de-sac. c) Abandon the entire roadway maintaining a drive access to the south. Supporting Documents: Vicinity Map; Parkwood Drive Chronology; History of Developments surrounding Parkwood Drive (i.e., French Square Office Complex, Senior Activity Center / City of Southlake Municipal Complex, and Timarron Addition, Phase V (known as Northwood Park, Phase Two Addition); Transcript of Public Forum on October S, 1999; Letter from Stephen and Rebecca Petty; 613 Northwood Trail; Copy of Municipal Campus Concept `A' Copies of approved plans for French Square Office Complex and Senior Activity Center and final plats of and the Municipal Complex and Northwood Park, Phase Two. N:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\WP-FILES\ZBA\PENDING\PARKWOOD DRIVE MEMO.DOC IIA-Z IY M W N`y1 N > 7 OaAis e N } In a AVA aNOYMa ! F J d I 1 U + o < I ! n co a 4, N � f i ^ CP , M Y^ f w O � ^ N Q j b l 1 o a Y�►+ h w M f o�> `�� n,�o f s =j I It n io aOOAXUVa , Ln K+ Ma00AHIlaom "' f aoofafn: 1 1 m I i PARRWOOD DR I I Q 13 aoa ON 5 f < M N II ! S W W W N F ■, U 0 p 1 I N LL y C � O ^ O + " " f ^ 1 U Hi aoOXHisoN !i i z � ^ 0 I I ^ I 414'. ==1 i � I � ^• ! zm 4 i 1 � 3 m 1 K OMf cn m --may=------ � ------------------------ ------ - � m m � r- I f Ixtz, n Tn Q" ! ��. f N< f < -A x0l In O U m jcri1 U3. U Ctl w, ■� ■ 1 �1 3xIa 1 --— -— —-- --------------- ^ .1 ..-..-. Ha cry w aw n lo to U F ro C l d mQ ^ �! + 'Ica �� e a �, Parkwood Drive Chronology April 18, 1996-Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA96-039,Preliminary Plat for City of Southlake Municipal Complex subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1,dated April 12, 1996 that includes item 7a."Show the extension of street `A' as 50'R.O.W. from the south to the interior northwest comer of the site and a 60' R.O.W. from said corner to F.M. 1709. ..." Todd Janssen, Carter&Burgess agreed to the above comment at the meeting. No one spoke during the public hearing. April 18, 1996—Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA96-037,Development Plan for Timarron,Phase V. Approved Development Plan shows the extension of Street"A"north to Southlake Boulevard.No comments in regards to this road were made during the public hearing. April 18, 1996—Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA96-038,Preliminary Plat for Timarron,Phase 5,showing extension of Street"A"north to Southlake Boulevard.No one spoke during the public hearing. May 7, 1996—City Council approved ZA96-037 Development Plan for Timarron,Phase V. Approved Development Plan shows the extension of Street"A"north to Southlake Boulevard. No comments in regards to this road were made during the public hearing. ***Note: Twenty-six(26)notices were sent on Case No. 96-037. Five(5) responses were received in favor.*** May 7, 1996—City Council approved ZA96-038,Preliminary Plat for Timarron,Phase 5, showing extension of Street"A" north to Southlake Boulevard.No one spoke during the public hearing. ***Note: Twenty-six(26)notices were sent on Case No. 96-038. Five(5) responses were received in favor.*** May 7, 1996—City Council approved,on consent,ZA96-039, Preliminary Plat for City of Southlake Municipal Complex showing the extension of Street`A'. ***Note: Four(4)notices were sent on Case No. ZA96-039. One(1)response was received, in favor. ** September 2, 1997-David Ford wrote a letter to Greg Last stating,"I propose the the[sic] City agree to transfer the previously described parcel to me at no cost. In return,I will construct the proposed street from the most southerly driveway of my project... to the termination of Parkwood Drive,at Northwood Trail in the Timarron Addition,Phase 5." Mr. Ford is referring to Lot 2 of the City of Southlake Municipal Complex. According to the 1999 Tax Rolls this property is owned by the City of Southlake. Mr.Ford did agree to build the road during the October 9, 1997 P&Z meeting and the February 3, 1998 City Council meetings. See below. September 4, 1997—Planning and Zoning Commission approved,on consent,ZA97-120,Final Plat for City of Southlake Municipal Complex. Approved Final Plat shows extension of Parkwood Drive. Plat was filed September 25, 1998. September 18, 1997-Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA97-118,Rezoning and Concept Plan for the Senior Center showing Future R.O.W.and"Future pavement(By Others)." No one spoke during the public hearing. October 9, 1997-Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA97-130,Rezoning and Concept Plan for Southlake Garden Offices subject to ... "applicant's commitment to remove the existing driveway from Southlake Boulevard(F.M. 1709)and extending the proposed street down to the existing residential pavement." During the meeting Joe Potthoff and David Ford stated that they will"have access from a proposed road in which he intends to build. He stated that the proposed road is on City-owned property and will also service the City-owned property to the east." Also"Chairman Wright asked Mr.Ford if he would agree to build the street back to the Timarron residential street, and Mr. Ford agreed." No one spoke during the public hearing. October 21, 1997-City Council approved ZA97-118 Rezoning and Concept Plan for the Senior Center showing Future R.O.W. and"Future pavement(By Others)." No one spoke during the public hearing. ***Note: Seven(7)notices were sent on Case No. ZA97-118. No responses were received.*** I IRA February 3, 1998—City Council approved ZA97-130 Rezoning and Concept Plan for Southlake Garden Offices subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 5 that states"The applicant will be required to construct the proposed roadway if construction is intended prior to the City fully developing the site to the east. The applicant should also coordinate grading and fill with the properties to the east in order to support the street profile of the proposed roadway." Joe Potthoff stated that they"submitted a traffic study which shows there is no significant impact on the level of service on F.M. 1709 or any of the nearby intersections,partly because they eliminated the drive access onto F.M. 1709. All access to the property will be from the proposed extension from Byron Nelson Parkway and connect to the neighborhood to the south. They have committed to build the proposed extension in its entirety(to where it stops today)on the eastern line of the property as well as the eastern line of the property owned by the City. He stated he feels the site will circulate very well with the additions." Councilmember Harris stated that"he appreciates them not putting any traffic onto F.M. 1709,but said`when those folks to leave in the afternoon and want to get back onto F.M. 1709,they will taken(sic)the street around by Rockenbaugh Elementary School and past our senior center with a lot of extra traffic by the school."' No one spoke during the public hearing. ***Note:Four(4) notices were sent on Case Z497-130. One(])response was received in favor.*** August 6, 1998—Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA98-058,Site Plan for French Square Office Complex showing Parkwood Drive. No one spoke during the public hearing. August 6, 1998—Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA98-083,Plat Showing of Lots 12, 13,and 14,O.W.Knight No. 899 Addition subject to Plat Review Summary No. I which states,"the proposed street(Parkwood Drive)must be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permits on any of the proposed lots." No one spoke during the public hearing. September 25, 1998—Final Plat for City of Southlake Municipal Complex was filed in Cabinet A, Slide 4518. October 6, 1998—City Council approved ZA98-058,Site Plan for French Square Office Complex subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 3 that states 10."This street must be constructed prior to issuance of a building permit." Approved Site Plan shows Parkwood Drive. ***Note: Five(5)notices were sent on ZA98-058. No responses were received. October 6, 1998—City Council approved ZA98-083,Plat Showing of Lots 12, 13,and 14,O.W. Knight No.899 Addition which shows Parkwood Drive. ***Note: Five(5) notices were sent on ZA98-083. No responses were received.*** NACommunity Development\WP-FILES\PROJECTS\Parkwood Drive.doc IiA 5 History of Developments around Parkwood Drive French Square Office Complex/Lots 12, 13, and 14, O.W. Knight No 899 Addition October 9, 1997-Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA97-130,Rezoning and Concept Plan for Southlake Garden Offices subject to ... "applicant's commitment to remove the existing driveway from Southlake Boulevard(F.M. 1709)and extending the proposed street down to the existing residential pavement." During the meeting Joe Potthoff and David Ford stated that they will"have access from a proposed road in which he intends to build. He stated that the proposed road is on City-owned property and will also service the City-owned property to the east." Also"Chairman Wright asked Mr.Ford if he would agree to build the street back to the Timarron residential street, and Mr. Ford agreed." February 3, 1998—City Council approved ZA97-130 Rezoning and Concept Plan for Southlake Garden Offices subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No.5 that states"The applicant will be required to construct the proposed roadway if construction is intended prior to the City fully developing the site to the east. The applicant should also coordinate grading and fill with the properties to the east in order to support the street profile of the proposed roadway." Joe Potthoff stated that they"submitted a traffic study which shows there is no significant impact on the level of service on F.M. 1709 or any of the nearby intersections,partly because they eliminated the drive access onto F.M. 1709. All access to the property will be from the proposed extension from Byron Nelson Parkway and connect to the neighborhood to the south. They have committed to build the proposed extension in its entirety(to where it stops today)on the eastern line of the property as well as the eastern line of the property owned by the City. He stated he feels the site will circulate very well with the additions." Councilmember Harris stated that"he appreciates them not putting any traffic onto F.M. 1709,but said `when those folks to leave in the afternoon and want to get back onto F.M. 1709,they will taken(sic)the street around by Rockenbaugh Elementary School and past our senior center with a lot of extra traffic by the school."' No one spoke during the public hearing. ***Note:Four(4) notices were sent on Case Z497-130. One(1)response was received in favor.*** August 6, 1998—Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA98-058, Site Plan for French Square Office Complex showing Parkwood Drive. No one spoke during the public hearing. August 6, 1998—Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA98-083,Plat Showing of Lots 12, 13, and 14, O.W.Knight No. 899 Addition subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1 which states,"the proposed street(Parkwood Drive)must be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permits on any of the proposed lots." No one spoke during the public hearing. October 6, 1998—City Council approved ZA98-058, Site Plan for French Square Office Complex subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 3 that states 10."This street must be constructed prior to issuance of a building permit." Approved Site Plan shows Parkwood Drive. 'Note:*Note: Five(5)notices were sent on Z498-058. No responses were received.*** October 6, 1998—City Council approved ZA98-083,Plat Showing of Lots 12, 13,and 14,O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition which shows Parkwood Drive. 'Note:*Note: Five(5)notices were sent on Z498-083. No responses were received.*** A developer's agreement has not been done for French Square Office Complex. The Final Plat for French Square Office Complex has not been filed. Senior Activity Center/City of Southlake Municipal Complex kw April 18, 1996-Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA96-039,Preliminary Plat for City of Southlake Municipal Complex subject to Plat Review Summary No. 1,dated April 12, 1996 that includes item 7a."Show the extension of street`A' as 50'R.O.W. from the south to the interior northwest corner of the site and a 60' R.O.W. from said comer to F.M. 1709. ..." Todd Janssen, Carter&Burgess agreed to the above comment at the meeting. No one spoke during the public hearing. May 7, 1996—City Council approved,on consent,ZA96-039,Preliminary Plat for City of Southlake Municipal Complex showing the extension of Street`A'. ***Note: Four(4)notices were sent on Case No. Z496-039. One(I)response was received, in favor. *** September 4, 1997—Planning and Zoning Commission approved,on consent,ZA97-120,Final Plat for City of Southlake Municipal Complex. Approved Final Plat shows extension of Parkwood Drive. Plat was filed September 25, 1998. September 18, 1997-Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA97-118,Rezoning and Concept Plan for the Senior Center showing Future R.O.W.and"Future pavement(By Others)." No one spoke during the public hearing. October 21, 1997-City Council approved ZA97-118 Rezoning and Concept Plan for the Senior Center showing Future R.O.W. and"Future pavement(By Others)." No one spoke during the public hearing. ***Note: Seven(7) notices were sent on Case No. ZA97-118. No responses were received. September 25, 1998—Final Plat for City of Southlake Municipal Complex was filed in Cabinet A, Slide 4518. Timarron Addition,Phase V April 18, 1996—Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA96-037,Development Plan for Timarron,Phase V. Approved Development Plan shows the extension of Street"A"north to Southlake Boulevard.No comments in regards to this road were made during the public hearing. April 18, 1996—Planning and Zoning Commission approved ZA96-038,Preliminary Plat for Timarron,Phase 5,showing extension of Street"A"north to Southlake Boulevard.No one spoke during the public hearing. May 7, 1996—City Council approved ZA96-037 Development Plan for Timarron,Phase V. Approved Development Plan shows the extension of Street"A"north to Southlake Boulevard. No comments in regards to this road were made during the public hearing. ***Note: Twenty-six(26)notices were sent on Case No. 96-037. Five(5) responses were received in favor. May 7, 1996—City Council approved ZA96-038,Preliminary Plat for Timarron,Phase 5,showing extension of Street"A" north to Southlake Boulevard.No one spoke during the public hearing. ***Note: Twenty-six(26) notices were sent on Case No. 96-038. Five(5) responses were received. January 27, 1997—Planning and Zoning approved ZA96-166,Final Plat,Timarron Addition,Village I, West. April 16, 1997—Final Plat for Timarron Addition,Northwood Park Phase One was filed in Cabinet A, Slide 3896. August 21, 1997—Planning and Zoning approved ZA94-106,Final Plat Northwood Park,Ph.II November 21, 1997-Final Plat for Timarron Addition,Northwood Park,Phase Two was filed in Cabinet A,Slide 3454. NACommunity Development\WP-FILES\PROJECTS\Parkwood Drive.doc IA-1 October 5, 1999 City Council Meeting re: Parkwood Issue mentioned during Public Forum Mayor: Let me just briefly respond.... obviously our goal tonight, by your presence, would be to put this on a future agenda---to discuss it. Then I'm sure that's what you all would like to see. That's about all we can accomplish tonight. We can talk about it for a couple of hours if you want to, but that would be what we would. But if we win, if you win, the best thing to do is to get this put on the agenda to discuss. And I think in the meantime, maybe you could get some more details because I don't know what aroused this—perhaps it's another agenda item that's on tonight. Response from audience: It was the sign that went up to say "Future Through Street." Mayor: It may have just popped up, but just to clarify it a little bit for you, I know that the City had some contractual obligation prior to any of us being on the council --- like 1995 when this property was purchased by the City that addresses that roadway. So it wasn't platted last August. It might have been platted in 1995 or 96, but it's been platted a long time. That doesn't mean it will have to happen, but what.....[citizen interrupted with comments that road was not disclosed to any of the property owner by their builders]. I understand. All I'm saying to you is if yall want to speak, there are several of you signed up to speak and you are welcomed to speak. I would ask you not to repeat your neighbor's --- if you have something new to add, you're certainly welcomed to come speak, but the goal is to get this on a future agenda. Councilmember Kendall: Then why don't we go ahead and do that Rick? Let's just go ahead and put it on a future agenda. Edmondson: I'm in agreement with that. And I'd also like to ask staff to put together a packet of information and history for the Council. Mayor: Okay. Well, I'd like to at least read through these names and give. I'll first read the name of the nice people who are here but said they do not wish to speak just so we have them in our record. ..... [announced names] Mayor: Now, any of you that want to speak, we'd be glad to hear you, but no matter how hard you plead, all we can do is put this on a future agenda --- that's the purpose of Public Forum--- for us to come up with new items..... and we will get this on a future agenda for you. Resident: You say if it goes back on the agenda--- can you tell us the process and how will we find out and how can we be involved again. Mayor: Initially, when the property was purchased by the City, it was purchased to place a city hall on that property. There were some contractual obligations about the roads. This particular road that is in contention at this point. And, since the city hall is not going to be built there, then there may be some opportunity for us to re-address that situation. Perhaps all we need is a driveway that would just go into the new development, because you wouldn't what the traffic going all the way around to get there anyway. But its working fine for the senior center—to go around the back. .... So we may not any longer need a road there, if we're not obligated to put it there. And I know in the developer's agreement with the fellow whose suppose to building the office buildings there, he's actually putting the road in at his expense. Now. [citizen interrupted with comments about putting road to end at cul-de-sac at office building] I think we are agreeing with that. That's what I just said, though I didn't say it quite as distinctive. Citizen asked how will the neighborhood know when item goes on agenda. Shana: If you can designate someone as a representative or laision from your neighborhood, we will send you our City Manager's Report which includes the agendas for every meeting and you will be able to watch that so you'll know. Kendall: Or you can call any councilmember and we'll definitely tell you what's going on. Mayor: Anyone else like to speak at Public Forum. I think it is the consensus of the council for staff to get this on the agenda at an appropriate time. It may take a couple of weeks before you can get the information submitted to the citizens and to us. But I would say no later than the first meeting in November. Would that be.. If you call the City Secretary's Office— any one of you— she's the one who types the agenda. This is Sandy LeGrand, 481-5581, ext. 704. Look it up on the website. M:\WP-FILES\MEMOS\October 5.doc JJR-q Oct-04-99 08: 52A P.Ol September 28 1999 iliiiir Stephan and Rebecca Petty OFFICE OF CITY SECRETARY 613 Northwood Trail Southlake, Texas 76092 COPY Mayor Rick Stacy P.Af "� City Council Members 9uhc, ; City of Southlake h1e 4 1725 E. Southlake Boulevard Southlake, Texas 76092 Dear Mayor Stacy and City Council Members, We recently noticed the new"Future Thru Street" sign on Parkwood Drive We were surprised to hear that the City of Southlake intends to extend Parkwood Drive to connect with Southlake Boulevard_ We were shocked to hear the extension was for the expressed purpose of alleviating traffic congestion to the future medical office on Southlake Boulevard. Although alleviating traffic congestion on Southlake Boulevard is a worthy goal, it is ludicrous to do so by routing traffic through a quiet neighborhood and into an elementary school zone. In fact, the traffic will be routed to the only school crosswalk on Byron Nelson Parkway serving the numerous children in Northwood Park. In addition to the traffic from the proposed new businesses, the Parkwood Drive extension will become a shortcut for those wanting to avoid the traffic light at the comer of Southlake Boulevard and Byron Nelson Parkway. This could increase the traffic tenfold over that generated by the new businesses. We have driven into every business parking lot with access from Southlake Boulevard and can not find another that has a second entrance through a neighborhood such as is proposed for Parkwood Drive. Northwood Park is a small, quiet neighborhood of fewer than 60 homes. We paid a premium for our lots because of its location qnd the safety a low traffic neighborhood offers our children. If the "Future Thru Street" sign had been in place when we chose our lot, we would have second thoughts about building in Northwood Park. it is unconscionable to wait until the last two homes are under construction and then surprise the neighborhood with a potentially high traffic through street. We respectfully ask you to reconsider the need for this through street. If a second access is determined by the city to be a necessity, perhaps it could at least be routed to an arterial street(Byron Nelson) instead of a residential one. Surely you will agree that the everyday safety of the permanent residents of Northwood Park is more important than the occasional convenience of the patrons of the proposed businesses. Sincerely, Stephan and Rebecca Petty IIA-10 ...�,�• ,.e� � , � , � 4 ,� � •� � � � �. ,� �,� �,pi. �� _�1: �. 1 � �i l��. /-- � � k !R u4rk_ �� iRi '�b��E� r�� Y i.�� y,,,,�;� _ � a i �� a .,.,�„ �, 6 lq n� 49 vM1q'i� '! ® �� v F kY�� ':tom<d �t�. �, s'»:� � ��-.ac ��Tryry�� d�� #�. .;� i a $. �1�°�,�, ® .rim�w y `- .p �� v �`e tea FtSd `` -.-�. � � 1 .��. 7a .. w �s L �� o � � ,� �� L,� _ � ' �� f � � ,aj 'sue'+ f$� �� a z - �L� �, ne � r/. � M .�� fib. f � ��. � �� '�1,�,(i r _ti lvi � t� '�' '3 .0 ��°+d� 14.E g �1'r ��-s,vl`� b� 7 - Hy� �. `� I c \, � s .��a�y,��r+� � � � - `_'_ � "' �a � �,67y'p..� v�b; fit- a,.�,as � �I i ��, 6J 9 b �� jj til _ ( 1J dy �.'. 3�� Y 611�1 ��. l !;� �� uro '3 s� vu � y- ..mow.. � �� --� p' - - 1 � � • �� %� '„/, of J � �' �a9a �. G�S€ �r �y -� eS�s �9 r � 1 �+ 7•�•_••-.;;•• srx3.r_3xrxH.cnos 1 � a 8 • p L,MM .w. \ eBB — v 'i3Aiif1S:H`JIHDI 'M'O Q e1 n Y aaaa Claaw.oua !: X3gawoJ 3JI330 3HYnbS Ho N32i3 l r/ -aaao •saa>a>floea�an>e Isa...a..i a.2 a"' y g �' y�])Lei I t - J•I ;1 : �e i 7f -•�,� I� e .,- 1 i 1 Ij ,. _ 33 ME tl 14 Y- I •f p .t 11� q�^ it Mo all im I 4k� I �I - �; �� I I •t` �ii i a i li E�k9� +y I, G � � I I` - 81�gp� • li i�slj �,i 1• � �i� t i�a tt •, !r ti Ft - \ � \, t 1 - fi,.. W •I/ _\ t yam ' f p 8 : - i l p 101111 ti — - — I In v v wm-ar auaa vw-an - A IIA-12 in OR; O3Qb 33 3 y: ��• .; ? y [ aY[ a Ca O •.•c W I >u Y'�'. d� '6 .Y .. 'e - bR 'a _ >SYFn'u U j w .ri a =8! g •� a¢b u�M ',y'I� �' :R S R S e• g, ,s g i:'" S 3-`a^fie z S _r a8 • yam •',- - "s�$3�Y•..• SE mh E gb RL gb 6 ._ u o O _ >d� `3:: 5.t " ij; a a = s 'nS �a •m � ad ` y b,`AaY 33 3 x:'' na' 3 no ' 3 ig8 5_ Vr8 "F a" mt' oae 5' e-g° a" aS 6R2_ 1Y: gJ Y W Xb� >4 u Q =VSj"a 'Eb €•� g e •;l 'b a `b E 51N Q7 w - �s'F SASS 9E� t•^: A " �=ii :a .. : �5 • OMY a'lwNOf +mwwls3•u,v,3v wM03n•on+ iiY`mJ �;ae bii8b E E £4"a -.a ?Ra f £ i[ �- GQ NObbv NFll lr 53�v11N —� W b I I g z m I oa0 �U I • � n I l _f ba I -t• • j • • � • n s -s " [s � � �#• I I o • Ki y P� - o N • • •• • ••• -- - -- I I • � � --- I �• of••• r • I I o - -7-7 J• CNN �i � ��-- � I Y I,I � WIC •,, • ,,; • tiR p • �/ �`J I- 3 • n I €� // - Y _ --- I • • -,� Y�..oNlnvd'iiv risv1 i e� •s —.------— m 500'OS'28"E 291.11' LYw lANDSURE ButFER VARO NOT REOUIR[p inn .W.x.r ——__—— —_. •,F,dwr � � Crtoa s 5380V 9Lf'l a 031V01030 AVM 30 1HO121` o _ a'• i N00'09'45"N, ———— 869.76' I x»nl m„»r.oro.nt mn".x3ms31r ursw3o I.nwn. a}lrR.rN 11A-J RECD SEP 221997 RM 101C^ - -7997 Uld1^100 IVdIOINnri DIVlH1f105 d0 A110 1Vld lVNld • w o ys IN a ra � �It a 9 �y 1F S yy n W y e � sy1. JasaarG �1�..9C` a�E E+ yl 5Yvy !, aq�4 ii =a L S o �_ yg y y$}� •}7�pIy4� <3., j�r1` < Vp E �9 ■ a }. fy Y a - = a a ycF 6 p'�ai ®ill 4 pl i .#� b0 a:�IJ`ot�.? 4. m s s E list., a •4 WJ Yz-.ury"a'm pl�� u IL yl 1 1 1S€'�� Y E3a a t: r g a 7 V o b 0 sga�e a i 11 rs51 cp; p y d ps 3Bpp��_ l®r-, ��rig��6• y � 4 153 �4 i cS Gaipi a i � �pYa 1 d g i G a y! Ilyays = p 4 a = G 1 Z d p p a• c y 7�x �prp=¢iey e°�p i9b'r ! �' grs ;_[e ■}EyYga �1=' y !a :` o i:iv3�a p�p V' iyi 4 �E4 p @fyp��spp g Y padg Y YL' Sex it-1.2-5 Yy 4 es°p :ia- _!FY :��_ !�e=" aall�p 1' S.. B� �•°pq° ar 4 lgsa �' S = s:' s S Y s YY a. ap. ii Ni- 'a seex - a a} ._!'Y�4j �! °!c a e- a1S- 1 . @ 4 y___a} �'�a,i}�,' _ a= i R5a 19?°etap 4 •r� YY44y a=p4a1 4�� I a_� ypg 1�4•eQ3�� ;�yy�� r} c r °' _• x-K ay` $5�. a IB p �p s.° yeay� pYa Yal ..§p ayy ye p E 1 @.1.. a a•s ' r !_} cl N as Qp sa tt� pp as sp a.::Y ° °� �-. 4;v ea 1 Y €' g35�G Sa 1• y��)i5 qG"= 344 ip7jl J� SYpa�: -'"-!,YG g.:S pY x z s1,3.3E� 4}Y$i Cf5 F6:IV- E fill'�yyyi p' 4rg'w p+p yil •�eiQg9y p'rp¢p+@�.yr:cYE ya pYy 4.d. a v. i.`. r t < r i i-�E 7e :a• �- g 9`v r Y "y=yq1qq� ej rix9 Ipa•� '� .� "Iip0 r!y i�� Ripsy papq'i 4►` ---- i.1 ip: pe��it s�I c�a�'-��• �1"s•1;__� u rK= �iegq9 q4 y p x'pp-}- �4 r E ey? i % Y- 'ja 11 a° 4 x S! Ivnd R a33yt3S'if.3 BiY' s�:: 11hig Y=; Y1 pyi 'g Yas, il;:ra 8w8ba �a €ii II i�ggx i� �A 3YIS4 a=;. II a� 3 I Y33�S! r l :• J L-w y. 9= x jam .. yY l p m Y�a I - `��`3' ��•� .�� "dap I r �. - a AY tv Y .i al vy I � r`i il.' r 42 r fla f i� ianw I000Mvbva 4 of alb t 'I �Li n.� �'_._ _f. � y 1� 9�■■ y# ar� BY g ihv _ _ �==KKK 000'OMf ;; ..05-W•-Sara t t I C I • � - ,I ed B S�. r - r �• �aSS�� es E �BliCrerts o: • OMl 3SVHd )Wd OOOMHIHON NOIlIOOV NOSOV411 1Vld IVNIJ t iEEV r - 1tJ--1� - rouaaan ,v i 0e Q If 0 IS -19 kow Elf- IOC c ga; lji�' jjlBltfjjl , Sr1,lF(�r . 11a.lj ° 111111111E � 1! Z gill Ili!�3! s r!1( l x s If 11lr • i a t • • e r r e e e e r e. p (t t �� c•i 1r..�iII�I•y,Fi° �Il�tr ��FF ,x. ( FFFFFFFFpFF q11 � �� :�, s,p,�l,� i'•i Q�;I�jj!�i1 j��I 1 r1;: y(I I I 1 ! 19 1 _� I le ; i' ��I��;`�ij>(( 7,lRIl till�4r l 4 i1•G'G vG G.G<G'G.G G•G 3 1� 1�� t r! �Itt9 �1I3 gv;#1�j9 j9 jg j9 j9 j4 jj !g!i� Ipp`Ir j I j"�'ijt � s a i h Uk n e :_I t:anoa Oo04a✓ird - ' ,r'4'Y d C qs � c:.o.ss.x�e es.visa rowwv �J$-�A• - '--J................. S gg ego 6422 � � •ere rerr,u,r i'lit 1 •'� �' lvno�- i •• $< 4$< <`, .. �< / „ �eee-r-z - za7nax i3 d3 �3• R ,o'a, • 'I . n errrrsw, :R (5 x •!f d3 ■Ji.SOm Ma: i. -. t:Ti«s. / �� !�, i of I9� ld• � �Y� yy Yi4� t 9 •yd � R•' �i'�i �� f • �'c y� 4a�■e E a}li 1 91. :G- R R� YZa �Yr� }e "RR I-n} -� t +� •/s' ��I<+r J )S _ _ R lI•1 .,e,�� . .r ai eR=� • . �I F�- -�a""_tl�e e s tl l! i i 3i •'.,`� �. t a•ee•q i- T A1e—OOOAN1a0N t `.ns. '?r •'� al.- .-..y .e.r......... .... .- --- YG4� t a*L. 01 - I� t- .e �- 'y ^;• �--°, •. -' a R` ,�.' C ss•�. z : o�l�a Y�Qa �5 I •� - 3 ; 9 4 3 Pi r.T; I1�-15 lip o PC F 33 H F r } ow so t � _ ot.t f r f S °q4 �o x" a City of Southlake,Texas M EMORANDUM December 30, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services (ext. 757) SUBJECT: Revision to the subdivision regulations regarding park dedication requirements Action Requested: City Council direction on proposed amendments to the park dedication requirements and Section VII of Subdivision Ordinance No. 483. Background Information: In September of 1999, Parks and Recreation Board member Bill Kemp proposed conceptual amendments to the City's park dedication requirements. At their September 13, 1999 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Board discussed the initial proposal, and requested staff to research the issues and bring forth changes for their consideration as quickly as possible. City staff put together a conceptual draft of potential changes to Section VII of the Subdivision Ordinance and placed the item for consideration on the November 8, 1999 Parks and Recreation Board meeting agenda. The Parks and Recreation Board reviewed the following conceptual revisions to Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, and the attached draft reflects comments agreed upon by the Board. Staff's summary of these changes is below. (Please see attached memo from member Bill Kemp stating his summary of the issues the Park Board is trying to address): • Section 7.03: The proposed changes to these Sections include the development and implementation of a "Land Improvement Factor." This tool would provide for a cash requirement in excess of the land dedication requirements currently in place. The cash requirement in theory applies towards funding improvements to undeveloped parkland. The formula is explained in the latter half of each section (Sections 7.03 and 7.05, A., (1)). Basically it would require an additional dedication per acre equal to the cost of improving an acre of land to park standards. • Section 7.05: The proposed change in this Section revises the language of the Ordinance to more clearly define the City's authority in determining the park dedication requirements for a particular development. • Section 7.05, A., (1): The changes to this section reiterates the requirement of a Land Improvement Factor as noted in Section 7.03. Billy Campbell, City Manager December 3, 1999 Page 2 • Section 7.05, B., (1): The proposed change in this Section revises the language to more clearly define the City's authority to require a variety of park dedication satisfaction that it deems most acceptable to a particular development. • Section 7.06: The proposed change to this Section is to reduce the amount of credit for private park, recreation, or open space amenities. The rationale for this change is that the current level of fifty percent (50%) credit has resulted in too many private parks in the City. The draft reduced the amount to a twenty five percent (25%) credit for such facilities, but recognizes that the final determined percentage may be adjusted as desired. • Section 7.07, A., (1) and (2): The proposed changes revise procedural language, intending to involve the Parks and Recreation Board earlier in the development review process. The proposed change calls for the Parks and Recreation Board to review a proposed development at the time of the Site Plan or when an application for a preliminary plat is submitted. The intent of the earlier involvement of the Parks and Recreation Board is to increase the amount of City control over the park dedication process. This language also explicitly states the city has control over both the size and location of specific park dedications. • Section 7.07, A, adding an item (3): This change would establish that the City shall reimburse the developer for any dedications of additional or improvements above the requirements. This is an implementation tool intended to allow the city to capture park land of sufficient size and location during the development review process which may not be possible under straight dedication procedures. • Section 7.07, B, (1): The proposed change in this Section revises the language to more clearly define the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Board in determining alternatives to parkland dedication. The Parks and Recreation Board reviewed and unanimously approved the intent of these changes. The current draft reflects clarifications of certain language (by member Bill Kemp) since this was discussed at the Park Board (his memorandum is attached). Financial Considerations: The concepts of the Land Improvement Factor and reimbursing developers for donations in excess of the park dedication requirements have financial ramifications for the City. At this time, the level of the impact is not determined. The other changes clarify the development review process and provide no financial considerations. L:\City Manager Office\City Docs\ORD\FINAL\SUBDIV\483_1_memo_cc(a).doc 11 9W Billy Campbell, City Manager December 3, 1999 Page 3 Citizen Input/ Board Review: The Parks and Recreation Board approved the proposed concepts at their November 8, 1999 meeting on Regular agenda (8-0). Legal Review: The draft presented to the Parks and Recreation Board was structured as a conceptual document; thus implementing the proposed changes would necessitate a review of the final draft by the City Attorney to address potential legal issues. A City Attorney was present at the November 8, 1999 Parks and Recreation Board meeting to provide input. Alternatives: Provide input towards the discussion as desired. Supporting Documents: Supporting documents include the following items: ■ Memo from Bill Kemp summarizing the Park Board's intent in making changes to Section VII of the Subdivision Ordinance. ■ Copy of draft (#2a) amendments to Section VII, Park Dedication Requirements, of Subdivision Ordinance No. 483. ■ Comparison of Park Dedication Fees from selected cities. Staff Recommendation: Place as an item on the January 4, 2000, City Council agenda to discuss the proposed amendments to the park dedication requirements and Section VII of Subdivision Ordinance No. 483. d 1�6.3 L:\City Manager Office\City Docs\0RD\FINAL\SUBDIV\483_1_memo_cc(a).doc Proposed Amendments to Subdivision Ordinance Re: Park Dedication Since its appointment in May, the current Park Board has encountered several instances in which park dedications arguably have not served the long-range interests of Southlake. The Park Board was handicapped in dealing with these issues by the language of the existing Southlake ordinances. While some of these issues should be addressed during the revision of the Master Plan, there are certain small modifications that could be made to the subdivision ordinance that would address some of the issues we have faced. We therefore propose that the attached amendments be made to the subdivision ordinance as soon as possible. These amendments relate to park land acquisition and park improvements. Comments regarding the reasons for the proposals are set forth within the attachment. The underlying issues are discussed below. Park Dedication Requirements. Under the present ordinance, the developer has the choice of dedicating the land that it selects, or of paying a cash amount in lieu of dedication. This may result in the developer making the election that is less expensive without regard to Southlake's true park needs. This approach makes it very difficult for Southlake to pick the best sites for parks and assure that those sites ultimately become parks. In Plano and Flower Mound, the city retains much more control over park dedication. In Plano the city advises the developer what park land, if any, it will require be dedicated. The city decides whether land will be dedicated, what land will be dedicated, and whether a fee in lieu of dedication will be required. Selection of Park Sites. The present system does not identify where future parks will be located, but rather calls for certain acreage per district. Long range planning is essential if we are to create a park and trail system that complements Southlake. We should undertake to identify the precise locations were parks might be located. Future developments may result in changes to this plan, but without planning we will end up with a haphazard park system that does not meet the needs of our residents. Park Fee Fund. Southlake apparently relies on two sources of funds to acquire parkland — sales tax revenues and park dedication fees. In the past year, park dedication fees were only about $100,000. There does not appear to be guidance regarding the uses of these two sources of funds. The Plano ordinance provides that "regional parks" shall be funded through a capital improvements plan, whereas "neighborhood and linear parks" shall be paid for with park dedication fees. For this system to function, the park dedication fees must to adequate to fund the neighborhood and linear parks that will benefit the residents associated with new development. Theoretically the park fee fund should be maintained at a constant level, regardless of the level of current development. Since neighborhood parks are primarily for the benefit of nearby residents, the park fees should be adequate to acquire the needed parkland and to fund the associated improvements. Bill Kemp November 1999 (ale ORDINANCE NO. 483-1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 483, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE; REVISING ARTICLE VII, PARK AND RECREATION DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS CUMULATIVE OF ALL OTHER ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; 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 X1, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS,the City has adopted Ordinance No. 483, as the Subdivision Ordinance for the City; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that in order to provide for adequate land for ,, parks, recreation and open space, it is appropriate and in the best interest of the City to amend Ordinance No. 483,to authorize the appropriate park land dedication requirements, or facilities, or improvements, or fees in lieu of said dedication requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has given published notice and held public hearings with respect to the amendment of the Subdivision Ordinance as required by law; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE: CATEMP\483 I DRAMT2A.DOC SECTION 1. Section 7.03,A., (1) and (2),Article VII of Ordinance No. 483 of the City of Southlake, the Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, are amended to read: A. General: Land dedication requirements herein are based on the City's adopted Land Use Plan and the Parks Recreation& Open Space Master Plan. It is within the sole discretion of the City to require a developer to show the amieipated proposed land dedication requirements herein with the development plan, concept plan, preliminary plat or other appropriate development submittal. 1. Residential Developments: Based on the population projected to reside in the City of Southlake and the stated desire in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan adopted by the City Council to provide 21 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents in an ultimate condition, park land meeting the requirements contained within this section shall be dedicated to the City at a ratio of one(1) acre of park land for every forty(40)residential dwelling units or prorated portion thereof. In addition, a park improvement fee is imposed. To determine this fee, the number of'acres required to be dedicated shall be multiplied by the park improvement cost per acre, which shall be determined by the City Council annually and shall be a reasonable estimate of the cost of adding park improvements to one (1) acre of dedicated land. At its discretion, the City'Council may determine that different park improvement costs shall be determined for different park service zones contained in the Park Master Plan 2. Non-Residential Developments: Although non-residential development does not generate residential occupancies per se, it does create environmental impacts which may negatively affect the living environment of the community. These impacts may be ameliorated or eliminated by providing park or open space areas which buffer adjoining land uses, prevent undue concentration of paved areas, allow for the reasonable dissipation of automotive exhaust fumes, provide natural buffers to the spread of fire or explosion, and provide separation of lighting, waste disposal, and noise by-products of non-residential operations and activities from adjacent residential areas. The City has therefore determined that non-residential developments must provide dedicated parks and/or reserved open space at a ratio of one (1) acre of park land for every fifty (50) non-residential gross acres of development or prorated portion thereof. In addition, a park improvement fee is imposed.To determine this fee,the number of acres required to be dedicated shall be multiplied by the park improvement cost per acre,which shall be determined by the City Council annually and shall be a reasonable estimate of the cost of adding park improvements to one (1) acre of dedicated land. At its discretion,the City Council may determine that different park improvement costs shall be determined for different park service zones contained in the Park Master Plan (W CATEMP\483 I DRAFT2A.DOC 1� 8-6 SECTION 2. Section 7.03, A., Article VII of Ordinance No. 483 of the City of Southlake, (W the Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, is amended by adding a new section 7.03, A., (4): 4. Collection of Fees: No building permit shall be issued nor shall any construction be allowed to begin until payment of any fees required by this section has been made. SECTION 3. Section 7.05, Article VII of Ordinance No. 483 of the City of Southlake, the Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, is amended to read: Alternatives to Land Dedication: In any case where a dedication is required, the City shall have the the same option not to require a dedication, and in lieu thereof,to require payment of cash under the formula contained in this Section or to allow the developer to construct recreation or park improvements. The City may permit a combination of dedication, improvements and fees to be used to fulfill this requirement. SECTION 4. Section 7.05, A., (1), Article VII of Ordinance No. 483 of the City of Southlake, the Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, are amended to read: A. Fee Payment Alternative: 1. Approval of Fee Payment Alternative: The City Council shall, upon recommendation of the Park Board, determine the acceptability of a developer's payment of fees in (W lieu of the land dedication requirement of this section. The fees to be paid in lieu of the land dedication requirement shall be in addition to the park improvement fee required pursuant to Sections 7.03, (A), (1) and (2). SECTION 5. Section 7.05, B., (1), Article VII of Ordinance No. 483 of the City of Southlake, the Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, is amended to read: B. Physical or Equipment Improvements to Parks 1. Compatibility with Park Master Plan: A deve ,pe f may have the option^f im�, The City shall have the option of requiring a developer to improve existing facilities within municipal parks or improving dedicated park land in lieu of park land dedication, payment of cash, or a combination of the above, based on recommendations made in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. Should the City exercise any of these options, the municipality and the developer shall, prior to initiation of work on such improvements, enter into an agreement for credit of expenses for authorized park improvements. Except as provided in Section 7.07 (A) (3) hereof, in no ease s the City shall not be required to reimburse the developer if he chooses to improve parklands at an amount greater than required. (W CATEMP\483 I DRAMA.DOC 116o7 SECTION 6. Section 7.06, Article VII of Ordinance No. 483 of the City of Southlake,the Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, is amended to read: Private Parks: If a developer desires to incorporate private park, recreation or open space areas or amenities within his development, he may request limited credit for these facilities against his public open space dedication requirements. A developer may request credit for any private park,recreation or open space area,but such private park,recreation or open space amenities may never satisfy more than 5"25% of the total park and open space dedication requirement of this ordinance. SECTION 7. Section 7.07,A., (1) and(2), Article VII of Ordinance No. 483 of the City of Southlake, the Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, are amended to read: Section 7.07: Approval Process A. Land Dedications: 1. Park Board Recommendation: The Dir-eeter-of Parks and Reer-eats,., of their-design shall repeft to the Park Board fvgar-diag any park land dedieatien issues ar-ising ftem develepment applieatiens submit4ed to the-Cit), for- Iie nark Board ri. then make a formal reeenimendation te the Planning and Zoning Go i S s-i e--n- te aeeept or r-efiise an),proposed dedieated park land prior-to the Genunissien�s aetion en the . Simultaneously with the earlier of filing of a Concept Plan, a Site Plan or an application for a preliminary plat,the applicant shall file with the Park Board a notification of proposed development of land, which notification may contain a park land dedication proposal. The Park Board shall determine`'whether a park would be suitable within the proposed development, and, if it so determines, shall specify the proposed land requirements,including the size and location thereof. The Park Board shall make a formal recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to require the proposed land dedication, if land dedication is specified, or to require a cash payment in lieu of land dedication or such other alternative as is provided for herein. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the recommendation of the Park Board in deters fri . ep+.,b ilit ,,.f aRy land dedieations proposed on ani),deyel,,,,,,,e.,+connection with its recommendation to the;City Council regarding the proposed development. The Commission recommendation shall then be forwarded to the City Council for final approval where applicable. SECTION 8. Section 7.07, A., Article VII of Ordinance No. 483 of the City of Southlake, the Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, adding a new item (3) to read: 3. Cost Reimbursement: Where land dedication is required, the City, upon a recommendation of the Park Board, shall designate which portion of dedicated land CATEMP\483 I DRAFT2A.DOC 116we shall satisfy the requirements of section 7.03 hereof.. The City shall reimburse the developer for the reasonable costs of any additional land which is dedicated to and accepted by the City and the reasonable costs of park improvements constructed by the developer and accepted by the City, based on guidelines (administrative or otherwise) established by the City. The timing and manner of reimbursement shall be specified in a reimbursement contract between the City and the developer. SECTION 9. Section 7.07, B., (1), Article VII of Ordinance No. 483 of the City of Southlake, the Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, is amended to read: 1. Park Board Recommendation: If it so determines, the Park Board shall make a formal recommendation to the City Council as to the aeeeptability of any proposed altem twee to accept a cash payment as an alternative to park land dedication or to accept other alternatives. SECTION 10. 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 11.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 4W hereby repealed. SECTION 12. It is 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 13. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is 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 days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 14. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is authorized to publish this ordinance in book or pamphlet form for general distribution among the public, and the operative (W provisions of this ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without CATEMP\483 I DRAMA.DOC 1�6.9 further proof than the production thereof. SECTION 15. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF , 1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF 1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: d City Attorney Date: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: CATEMPA83 I DRAFT2A.DOC If&16 Park Dedication Fees from Selected Cities City Fee Payment Equivalent for One Residential Dwelling Unit Southlake $1500 Cedar Hill $250 Flower Mound $500 Keller $1000 Plano $467 Colle ille $1260 Frisco $500 W C:\TEMP\PARK DEDICATION FEES FROM SELECTED CITIES.DOC City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM December 29, 1999 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shelli Siemer, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Discussion of a Possible Charter Amendment Election in May and appointment of a Charter Review Committee. Action Requested: City Council discussion regarding a possible Charter amendment election in May and appointment of a Charter Review Committee. Background Information: The City of Southlake Home Rule Charter was approved by the voters on April 4, 1997. It has since been amended three times: January 1991, January 1995, and May 1998. At the December 7, 1999 meeting, the City Council indicated a desire to pursue another amendment to the Home Rule Charter. Staff is ready to proceed with this item if this is the City Council's desire. If the City Council would like to pursue a Charter amendment during the May 6, 2000 election, the review process needs to begin soon to meet the required deadlines. The process that has to be followed for amending a Home Rule Charter is defined in the Government Code which requires an ordinance not later than thirty (30) days prior to the date of the election. Additionally, the ordinance adopted by Council must contain the exact proposed changes to the language of the charter, and the propositions for the charter election ballot. The notice and publication requirements specified in the Texas Election Code and the Local Government Code will also need to be followed. In addition, there will need to be time allotted for public education regarding the proposed amendments. The first step in pursuing a charter amendment includes reviewing the charter and defining what amendments are necessary. This can be accomplished by the City Council acting as the review committee, or through the appointment of a Charter Review Committee. The previous two amendments were defined by recommendations from an advisory committee consisting of nine members including three members from the previous Charter Review Committee, three members (one each) from the major Boards and Commissions, and three newcomers. Financial Considerations: Not Applicable. iIC- 1 Billy Campbell December 30, 1999 Page Two Citizen Input/ Board Review: Not Applicable. Legal Review: Not Applicable. Alternatives: Not Applicable. Supporting Documents: None. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends placing this item on the January 4`h, City Council meeting agenda as a discussion item. Approved for Submittal to City Council: Z,L, ity anager's Office il � �Z 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.