1999-02-16 CC Packet City of Southiake, Texas ---
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
SUBJECT: Agenda Item Comments and Other Items Of Interest for City
Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Note that the financial report prepared by Finance Director Lou Ann Heath and the
Town Square Status Report prepared by Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Harper
are included in your packet under Item No. 413-1-5 and 4B-6-9, respectively. If you
have any questions, call Lou Ann Heath, Ron Harper, or me.
You will notice that we have included 15 items on your consent agenda. We have
implemented an informal policy that limits the number of items to 10 items on any
given consent agenda because each item requires your review, even if it does not
require discussion time at the meeting. For this agenda, I have allowed 15 items
primarily because I think each of the items is suitable for consent agenda and because
two of the items are "to table" development cases. Another factor for consideration is
the time you will need to consider the rest of the agenda items.
1) Agenda Item No. 5A. Approval of Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting
held on February 2, 1999. Due to time constraints, the minutes are not included in
your packet. However, they will be delivered to you on Monday. If you have any
changes to the minutes of the regular City Council meeting, please discuss these at
the work session.
2) Agenda Item No. 5B. Resolution No. 99-09, Appointing a representative to the
SPIN Standing Committee for Neighborhood #13. This neighborhood has not had
SPIN representation since Barry Friedman moved from Southlake several months
c
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 2 of 21
ago. This vacancy is regrettable since there have been a number of major issues
affecting this neighborhood over that period of time (F.M. 1938, Crime Control
District site). As the memo from Community Services Coordinator Nona
Whitehead points out, two neighborhood meetings have been held to try to secure a
representative, to no avail. Bill Stone has agreed to serve out the remainder of Mr.
Friedman's term, which will give him an opportunity to determine if he wants a
regular appointment when the term expires in December. This will also buy us
some time during which we can continue our search. Questions about this
appointment may be directed to Nona Whitehead.
3) Agenda Item Nos. 5C. and 5D. Resolution No. 99-04 and Resolution No. 99-08,
approving and authorizing publication of Notice of Intent to issue certificates of
obligation, series 1999 and 1999B. This item gets us started on selling the
certificates of obligation for the Public Works CIP and the TIF and simply
publishes our intent, which is why we have placed the item on consent agenda.
The law will require us to bring forward an ordinance and hold a public hearing
prior to issuing the debt, giving us ample opportunity during formal meetings or
briefings for discussion of the related issues. The resolutions were not ready for
the packet, but they will be delivered to you on Monday, if they are ready,
otherwise we will give them to you Tuesday. Note that SPDC, at their last regular
meeting, also passed a resolution setting a public hearing for April 6 at 6:00 p.m.
to address the issuance of revenue bonds for park projects.
FYI, we are planning to make a presentation to the bond rating agencies in late
March. There will be two aspects to the presentations, that of City projects for
general debt, and SPDC related projects. We will be working on a schedule to
involve those of you who wish to participate.
`J
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 3 of 21
Please let Lou Ann Heath know if you have any questions about these items.
4. Agenda Item No. 5E. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a residential developer
agreement for O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition, Lots 10 & 11. This developer
agreement is for the construction of sanitary sewer line for two lots in the
development. At the time building permits were issued, the developer installed
septic tanks because sanitary sewer was not available. The builder has now
extended the sanitary sewer line approximately 320 feet to serve lots 10 and 11.
You may contact Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas if you have any
questions.
5. Agenda Item No. 5F. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a residential developer
agreement for Loch Meadow Estates. As you recall, the City Council approved a
partial developer agreement on December 11, 1998 for the grading of the lots in
Loch Meadow Estates. This developer agreement covers another portion of the
infrastructure, including all on-site public improvements for paving, drainage,
water and sewer. Once the plans are completed and reviewed by staff, an amended
developer agreement will come forward to the City Council for the off-site
improvements needed for the sanitary sewer, which includes the construction of a
lift station. Please contact Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas if you
have any questions regarding this item.
6. Agenda Item No. 5G. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a residential developer
agreement for A. A. Freeman No. 522 Addition, Lots 5, 6, & 7. This agreement is
a standard developer agreement for the three lots in the development located east of
North Peytonville Road on the north side of Southridge Lakes Phase II. The only
public infrastructure to be constructed includes the extension of a public sanitary
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 4 of 21
sewer line to serve the lots. Please contact Charlie Thomas if you have any
questions regarding this item.
7. Agenda Item No. 5H. Award of bid to Reynolds Asphalt for the Phase I
reconstruction of Continental Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to South Peytonville
Avenue. We are now ready to proceed with reconstruction of Continental
Boulevard Phase I. The memo from Bob Whitehead provides a succinct description
of the history of this project. Note that awarding the contract to Reynolds,
including both alternates and engineering costs, allows us to complete the project
under budget. Given that this "interim" cross section will service our residents for
at least fifteen years, we would recommend that you award this bid to include both
Alternate #1 (petromat) and Alternate #2 (additional HMAC). Please let Bob
Whitehead or Shawn Poe know if you have any questions.
8. Agenda Item No. 5I. Ordinance No. 480-303, 1st Reading, ZA 99-001, Rezoning,
Tracts 8A11 and 8A15, Thomas M. Hood Survey, AG to SF-lA. This property is
located on the south side of West Highland Street approximately 900' east of Shady
Oaks Drive. The purpose of the rezoning request is to fulfill the requirements of the
Zoning Board of Adjustments approval of the property owner's Variance and
Special Exception Use Permit request for construction of a barn. The ZBA required
that the property be appropriately zoned and platted prior to a building permit being
issued. There are no unresolved issues regarding this request. (The plat will be
reviewed by staff and processed upon approval of the zoning.) The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0) on February 4, 1999. Feel free to
contact Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy or Sr. Planner Dennis Killough
regarding this item.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 5 of 21
9. Agenda Item No. 5J. Resolution No. 99-07, Amending Fee Schedule for park
dedication fees. You will recall that the "fee justification study" was included on
your list of items to prioritize last June. It was ranked low, due to the pressing
nature of some of the other projects we were facing at that time. We have known
for some time, however, that the raw acreage value we have been using as part of
our park dedication fee calculations is low based on current market conditions in
Southlake.
As such, we approached Misty Goodrich with Goodrich, Schechter & Associates,
LLC, an independent real estate appraiser, to investigate the residential land market
value in Southlake. (A copy of her report is attached to Kevin's memo.) The Park
Board reviewed Ms. Goodrich's report at its last meeting, and ultimately
recommended to raise the city's designated value of raw land from $40,000 to
$60,000. This action would raise park dedication fees by 50%. We are bringing
this forward to you as a means of quickly addressing the raw acreage issue.
There may, however, be other issues to address with park fees, such as the
methodology for establishing the fees. These issues can be handled with a study to
be conducted subsequent to your action on this item. Please let me or Kevin know
if you have any questions about this item.
10. Agenda Item No. 5K. Ordinance No. 480-301, 1st Reading, ZA 98-149, Rezoning
and Site Plan for Barton House Uncommon Care Inc. We have placed this item on
consent agenda because the applicant has requested to be tabled to the March 2,
1999, City Council meeting.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 6 of 21
11. Agenda Item No. 5L. ZA 98-145 Site Plan for Dardan Square. The applicant is
currently working with their architect to modify the plan to have two driveways.
The west driveway, between the two lots, is proposed as a full access driveway and
the east driveway is proposed as a right-out/left-out only. The west driveway will be
approximately 170' from the east right-of-way of Lake Crest Drive. There is
approximately 170' between the two driveway centerlines. We have received a
verbal request to table this item until the March 2, 1999 Council Meeting to allow
time to prepare the new plans. We anticipate receiving a table request letter from
the applicant and will provide you a copy at the meeting. Feel free to contact Sr.
Planner Dennis Killough regarding this item.
12. Agenda Item No. 5M. Ordinance No. 736, V-Reading, Creating a Department of
Economic Development. The ordinance will amend the Southlake City Code to
provide for the separation of the Community Development Department into two
separate departments: Department of Economic Development and Department of
Planning. Recall that for several years we have carried out our economic
development activities as an office within, first the City Manager's Office, and then
the Department of Community Development. You may recall that we discussed
economic development at the June Retreat and discussed moving forward with
organizational changes at mid year. However, given the current activity with
corporations interested in Southlake, the wine sales issue, and other issues
pertaining to economic development, I believe that we need to move forward at this
time to upgrade the Economic Development activity from division status to
department status, and employ a full-time Economic Development Director. The
cost associated with this move (1/2 of a director's annual salary for approximately
seven months) will be miniscule compared to the benefit. We will amend the
budget at mid-year to reflect this additional cost.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 7 of 21
Note that, as mentioned above, this reorganization will change the name of the
existing department from Community Development Department to Planning
Department. This will eliminate confusion by better delineating the function of the
department, i.e., current and future planning.
The packet memo from Shana Yelverton describes my proposed changes and
graphically illustrates the division of the responsibilities between Planning and
Economic Development. Please let me know if you have questions or comments
about this issue prior to the meeting.
13. Agenda Item No. 5N. Approving the appointment of Community Development
Director Greg Last as Director of Economic Development. Rather than spend time
recruiting a director from outside the organization, it is my recommendation to
reassign Greg Last from Director of Community Development ment to Director of
Economic Development, allocating 100% of Greg Last's time to economic
development activities. With your approval of this item, Greg will be able to
continue the excellent work he has been doing on Sabre and other ED activities, but
with even greater attention. I believe this change would ensure that proper care and
attention is given to economic development issues during this critical time.
As pointed out in the packet memo, the City Charter provides that the City Manager
shall appoint department heads subject to the approval of City Council. It is my
belief that Greg has demonstrated the ability to carry out the responsibilities of the
ED director. Also, his graduate degree is a Masters of Business Administration,
and his interest for some time has been focused on this aspect of his current
responsibilities. FYI, it is my intention to recruit a planning director as quickly as
possible in order to stay abreast of the planning and zoning activities we have before
us. `
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 8 of 21
14. Agenda Item No. 50. Authorize city staff to reject the proposals received for the
replacement of computer network servers and the upgrading and purchasing of IBM
AS 400s. As indicated in the memo from Director Campbell, we issued Request for
Proposals (RFP's) for the replacement of the city wide NT network infrastructure
and the purchase and upgrade of the IBM AS 400's. When the proposals were
reviewed it became apparent that the terms "bid" and "request for proposal" were
used interchangeably in the document. Since these terms are conflicting, we are
requesting the ability to reject the proposals received in order to redraft our
specifications and ensure the new proposals clearly meet our needs. We anticipate
this coming forward to the City Council next month. Please contact Director
Campbell if you have questions pertaining to this item.
15. Agenda Item No. 6B. Consider removal of Rob Jones from Planning and Zoning
Commission. This item has been placed on the agenda at the request of
Councilmembers Kendall and Martin. Members of all boards and commissions, as
provided in the City Charter, Section 3.02 (a) (2),
serve at the pleasure of the Council and may only be removed by a
majority vote of the Council unless this provision conflicts with state
law, in which case the state law controls.
The only board and commission that has a separate state law provision for removal
is the Board of Adjustments. Therefore, members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission may be removed at any time by the simple majority vote of the City
Council.
FYI, recall that the City Charter provides in Section 2.11 (a) that "...Council shall
provide for citizen participation at any meeting with regard to any matter under
J
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 9 of 21
consideration in accordance with rules and regulations as the Council may provide."
This means that, although this item is not a public hearing per se, expect public
participation.
16. Agenda Item No. 7A. 98-152 Site Plan for Panorama Place, Phase 11. This
property is located on the west side of Carroll Avenue, north of Ownby Lane
adjacent to South View addition. There are two issues regarding this item. A 4:1
sloped setback is required for buildings more than one story or greater than 20' in
height. The proposed building height is 20'-1" (which was revealed at the Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting) therefore requiring a 4:1 slope setback on their
proposed Building `A'. It did not appear to be a point of concern with the
Commission, however, they did not address any waiver or acceptance in their
motion.
The applicant is also proposing a copper roof. The Residential Adjacency Standards
of the Zoning Ordinance do not permit metallic roof finishes. The Planning and
Zoning Commission allowed the copper roof stating that the natural aging process
would dull the reflective properties. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval (5-0) on January 14, 1999, subject to the Staff Review and
amended as noted in the Staff Report.
This item appeared before the City Council on February 2, 1999 and was tabled to
allow the applicant to address design concerns and tree preservation issues. The
changes made to the previous plan are as follows:
• composition roof has replaced the copper roof,
;i
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 10 of 21
• addition of wall pack lights on the east facade of Building `B' and the West
facade of Building `A' to provide security lighting between the two
buildings,
• the location of existing trees have been shown on the site plan, and
• two parking spaces have been eliminated near the southwest corner of
Building `B' to enlarge the adjacent landscape parking island.
The two Black Jack Oak trees of concern are located within the landscape island and
it appears that they will be preserved. The Persimmon Tree discussed during the
previous meeting is located within Building B and will not be preserved. Feel free
to contact Sr. Planner Dennis Killough regarding this item or Landscape
Administrator Keith Martin regarding tree preservation issues.
17. Agenda Item No. 7B. ZA 98-101 Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 3 Diamond Circle
Estates. This site is located at the northwest corner of Diamond Boulevard and
Southlake Boulevard, east of the Remax Building. The Site Plan before you
substantially conforms to the Concept Plan that was previously approved by the City
Council. The Site Plan was originally submitted in August of 1998 and was tabled
several times at Planning and Zoning due to the number of review comments and
the Commission's concern that these issues would not be adequately resolved before
going to the City Council. The applicant has now resolved all significant issues
identified by the review and by the adjacent residences. The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval (6-0) subject to the Plan Review and
recognizing the applicant's agreement set forth on the adjacent residences letter
dated February 4, 1999. The letter is attached to the Staff Report. Feel free to
contact Sr. Planner Dennis Killough regarding this item.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 11 of 21
18. Agenda Item No. 7C. Ordinance No. 693-A, 2nd Reading, Amending Ordinance
693, providing revisions to Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code,
Excavation and Grading. As you recall, this item is before you to amend the
Uniform Building Code. These amendments will tighten our process by limiting the
number of exemptions to the permitting process, thereby eliminating excavation and
dirt work prior to the building permit issuance. This item particularly relates to tree
removal and will reduce the problems associated with the contractors beginning
excavation work prior to obtaining a permit. The permit process gives us the
opportunity to advise them of our requirements, including erosion control and tree
preservation. Please direct questions on this item to Director Campbell.
19. Agenda Item No. 7D. Ordinance No. 734, 2nd Reading, Approving rate schedules
for Texas Utilities Electric Company. As you will recall from the first reading of
this item this request from TU Electric is for a "time of use" rate option for their
q P
customers. The program allows participating customers, on a voluntary basis, to
plan and manage their energy usage by shifting their loads from peak to off-peak
periods. This will allow customers to save on their bills and allow TU to acquire
less resources to meet the peak loads. Please contact Shana Yelverton if you have
questions regarding this item.
20. Agenda Item No. 8A. Ordinance No. 735, 1st Reading, Requiring that persons
under 18 wear a bicycle helmet while riding on public ways. Staff has been
meeting with citizens for a couple of months regarding a proposed bicycle helmet
ordinance. In November, 1998 the Greater Southlake Women's Society presented a
proposal to the City Council to pursue the adoption of an ordinance. There were
three meetings held to discuss the proposed ordinance. The participants all agreed
that there is a need for children to wear bicycle helmets, with the goal to educate
(tb.,
both adults and children regarding the importance of wearing helmets for bicycle
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 12 of 21
safety. The area that met with distinct differences of opinion is related to the
adoption of an ordinance. Some citizens believe an ordinance is the best tool
available to ensure bicycle safety rules are followed and enforced. Some citizens
believe that an ordinance is too intrusive to their daily lives. They feel the best
approach is to ask the City Council to fund a program for the Public Safety
Department to educate citizens regarding bicycle safety and encourage children to
wear helmets. As you recall in our report a month ago on the progress of these
meetings, there was no consensus even after some compromises were suggested.
The memo from Deputy Director of Police Services Gary Gregg, and supporting
documents clearly identify the issues before the City Council. In the report of the
results of the citizen review of the proposed ordinance, Gary Gregg outlines the
options available to the City Council:
• Adopt the ordinance as written or with modifications of fine amounts and
age limits;
• Pass a resolution supporting the education efforts and monitor the program
effectiveness;
• Place support behind a bill introduced by Representative Bill Carter to the
Texas Legislature regarding a state wide bicycle helmet law.
These options were discussed with the citizens, but those in favor of a local
ordinance still believe that the City should continue to pursue an ordinance. There
are a number of options you could take, but it is clear that this is a very emotional
issue for the community. Please contact Gary Gregg if you have any questions.
J
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 13 of 21
21. Agenda Item No. 8B. 98-118 Ordinance No. 480-305, 1st Reading, Rezoning and
Development Plan for Chesapeake Place. A motion to deny this request was made
by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 4, 1999 and did not carry
with a (3-3) vote. According to the City Attorney, this motion is neither a motion to
deny nor to approve, but it does fulfill P&Z's responsibility to make a
recommendation to the Council and does not require a super-majority vote of the
Council in order to approve the request. The primary concern of Chairman
Creighton, Commissioner Peebles and Commissioner Shankland was density of the
development. The proposed density is 1.7 dwelling units per acre. The plan
proposes approximately 6.9 acres of open space (12.5%) along the southwest
portion of the site. The Park Board recommended approval for dedication of this
area as public park land on February 8, 1999. Feel free to contact Zoning
Administrator Karen Gandy or Sr. Planner Dennis Killough regarding this item, or
Kevin Hugman regarding the Park Board's action.
22. Agenda Item No. 8C. 98-157 Ordinance No. 480-302, 1st Reading, Rezoning, AG
to SF-1A. This property is located at the northeast corner of Randol Mill Avenue
and Gifford Court (Private Roadway Easement). There are no unresolved issues
regarding the zoning of this property. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval (6-0) on February 4, 1999. The following item 8D is the
Preliminary Plat related to this zoning. The applicant has requested that the plat be
tabled until March 2, 1999. If the City Council has no issues with the first reading
of this zoning request, it could be a candidate for placement on the consent agenda.
Feel free to contact Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy or Sr. Planner Dennis
Killough regarding this item.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 14 of 21
23. Agenda Item No. 8D. ZA 98-158, Preliminary Plat for proposed Lots 1 and 2,
Malik Estates Addition. The applicant has requested that the plat be tabled until
March 2, 1999.
24.Agenda Item No. IOA. Strategies for extension of infrastructure and other
development incentives for the S.H. 114 corridor. You will recall your
"conference with employees" on this subject at your last meeting. We have placed
this item on your agenda again to give you the opportunity to deliberate your
philosophical position on providing incentives for the "right" projects on the SH
114 corridor. Since we anticipate having more time at this meeting than at your
last, Greg Last is prepared to make a presentation on this subject at the meeting.
Please let me or Greg know if you have questions prior to the meeting.
25. Agenda Item No. 10B. Award of bid to Don L. Owen Inc. for the painting of the
w g
0.5-MG elevated storage tank on Florence Road. Note that the bids received for
the painting of the tank include the alternate for the outside paint scheme that City
Council requested. This alternate (alternate B) will provide the same colored design
as provided for the Miron tank. The low base bid of $135,400 and the low
alternative B bid of $152,200 were submitted by the same contractor, Don L.
Owen, Inc.
The low base bid, as pointed out in the memo from Director of Public Works Bob
Whitehead, is approximately 33% higher than the cost estimated in our CIP when it
was formulated in 1997. However, the major contributing factor to this higher-
than-estimated-cost was not a known factor at the time the costs were estimated in
the CIP: a new type of paint recently approved by the FDA for this type of
application to the interior of potable water tanks. (Note the explanation from
�.,. Cheatham and Associates on page 1OB-8 of your agenda packet.) The new type of
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 15 of 21
paint was bid because it will, potentially, effectively double the life cycle of the
paint within the tank.
The additional cost for the exterior paint scheme as provided by alternative B is the
result of City Council's request to accommodate the citizens surrounding the
Florence elevated tank in the same manner as those citizens surrounding the Miron
elevated tank. There is a difference, however, in the design alternatives between
the Miron tank and the Florence tank in that the Florence tank is the old style steel
leg tank. Thus, it can not hold the structural additions that were added to the Miron
tank.
The increased costs as set out in the memo are not dissimilar from what took place
with the construction of the Miron tank, which was ultimately 35% greater than
estimated due to a number of factors which most of you recall. However, should
City Council choose, the bid for this item could be rejected and the project could be
subsequently rebid in the fall of 1999. Given construction schedules, it is too late to
rebid this project in time to have it completed by summer. The benefits derived by
the new paint scheme and the enhanced exterior paint alternative are such that staff
recommends that this item be awarded with alternative B.
26. Agenda Item No. 10C. Change Order No. 1 to Whitewater Construction for 315
Pine Street sewer. Simply stated, we need your direction on this item. Mr.
Barrington has requested that we extend the sewer because he doesn't want to go to
the expense of a septic system when our intention is to extend the sewer next fiscal
year anyway. Basically, he is asking that you accelerate the building of the sewer
line to his property.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 16 of 21
The memo from Bob Whitehead outlines the details, including the cost of extending
the line and various alternatives for you to consider.
27. Agenda Item No. 11A. Traffic management bond program. As we have discussed,
you will need to call the election by March 2 if you wish to hold the special election
in May. Thus, we have placed an item on this agenda and plan to include it on the
agenda for the February 23 meeting as well to ensure you have plenty of time to
discuss issues prior to calling the election. Your packet contains our cost estimates,
as well as the aerial maps showing the proposed improvements. You will need to
determine the priority of the projects, as well as the size of the bond proposal. Lou
Ann Heath has prepared a fiscal impact analysis on the proposed bond package,
which has been included in your packet as well. Please let Bob Whitehead or Lou
Ann Heath know if you have questions or comments on this item prior to the
meeting.
28. Agenda item No. 11B. Amendments to Landscape Ordinance No. 544. This is one
of the items included on your priority listing. As has become our practice with
proposed ordinance changes, the item is coming to you for your general direction
prior to consideration by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Your packet
contains materials which outline points for discussion. Please let Director Campbell
know your thoughts on this issue. We plan to take the ordinance to the P&Z
Commission on February 18 and, if P&Z approves it, bring it back for your
consideration on March 2.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 17 of 21
Other Items Of Interest
29. Rob Jones Letters. Included in your packet is a copy of the letter Rob Jones sent to
City Attorney Deborah Drayovitch requesting an advisory opinion concerning the
City of Southlake's Code of Ethics and Conduct. Also attached is a memorandum
to me from City Attorney Allen Taylor. Note the memo from Allen is not a
response to Rob's request, but rather his analysis of the situation in order to assist
me and City Council in our understanding of the issue.
30. Traffic Calming in Coventry. In November, there was a neighborhood meeting to
discuss traffic calming options, specifically speed humps. Knowing there are a
number of alternatives for traffic calming, the staff presented other traffic calming
devices to the Coventry Manor residents. During that meeting the idea of speed
humps did not seem to generate support. However, based upon the recent petition
(40" received on January 26, 1999, the residents identified their two choices for traffic
calming as landscape islands and cobblestone pavement markings.
The Public Works staff is planning to develop a neighborhood plan using landscape
islands and "rough" pavement markings. In order for these traffic calming devices
to be effective in slowing and/or discouraging cut-through traffic they will have to
be placed repetitiously along the streets. The Public Works staff will layout the
subdivision to determine the best locations for these devices. It is anticipated to
take approximately four to six weeks to develop the layout. Once the plan is
completed, we will conduct a neighborhood meeting to discuss the layout of the
proposed traffic calming devices. Although these traffic calming devices are more
aesthetically pleasing than the speed humps, there are a few issues you_ should be
aware of. The landscape islands may prohibit parking along the street, and the
pavement treatments may be noisy to area homes. We will be contacting the
residents who turned in the petition next week to update them on our progress.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 18 of 21
It is clear that the traffic calming issue continues to be a problem. Although the
draft policy primarily addresses speed humps, it also identifies other traffic calming
devices. According to the agenda management schedule, the policy is scheduled for
a future meeting. We plan to bring forward a revised policy to better integrate the
other traffic calming devices into the procedures. Please let myself or Bob
Whitehead know if you have any questions.
31. Marcus Cable Update. This week, Community Services Director Kevin Hugman
met with Mr. Davis Warehime, the new regional vice-president of Charter
Communications. Mr. Warehime briefed Kevin on their plans for communicating
the fiber-optic conversion, and the need for the set-top converter boxes, to those
customers that have not been upgraded yet. You will recall that you gave direction
to Marcus last month to finish their activation in Southlake, but ensuring that there
would be sufficient communication to the customers affected.
Included in your packets is the material provided by Charter that they will send out
to Southlake customers. The letter from Mr. Warehime to Kevin, dated February
9, 1999, also provides in writing their proposal for the multiple terminal discounts.
In answer to the question as to how long these discounts would remain in place, Mr.
Warehime was reluctant to commit this in writing, but did indicate to Kevin that he
intended to keep it in place probably through late 2000. At that time, he feels they
will go to a digital system and be able to offer varying types of viewing packages to
customers. He indicated the rates may change at that time.
You will also notice that there are two letters from Marcus to the customers of
Southlake. One letter is an apology letter that was mailed to everyone who has
J
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 19 of 21
already been converted. The other letter is intended to be sent to the customers yet
to be activated. Also included in the packet is a copy of a Marcus internal memo
regarding the action plan for the activation of the remaining node in Southlake.
Please feel free to contact Kevin if you have any further questions regarding this
issue.
32.Texas Trails Symposium "If You Build It" Award. Southlake received this award
at last week's Texas Trails Symposium conference held in Grapevine for the
development of the City Trails System Master Plan. This award recognizes
private/public partnerships within the field of trail use, design or implementation.
Southlake applied on the basis of the partnerships between the City, SPIN,
development community, civic organizations, and the various boards and
commissions involved in the creation of the Master Plan. We also highlighted the
methodology of the Park and Recreation Board in encouraging trail development in
concert with the approved Trail System Master Plan through the use of credits to
developers to offset park dedication requirements. We noted that this collective
action on the part of the various entities involved is the best mechanism for which to
achieve an efficient and effective city-wide trail system.
The only other cities to receive an award in any category, were the cities of Irving
and Flower Mound. We are proud of being recognized once again for our proactive
planning.
33. City Secretary Sandy LeGrand became ill this morning and decided to be checked
out at the hospital emergency room since her doctor was not available to see her
today. Linda Carpenter took Sandy to the emergency room around 10:00 a.m.
During her examination, the doctor determined that Sandy's blood thinning
J
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
(ow, Page 20 of 21
medication needed to be changed, which requires her to stay overnight for
evaluation and stabilization. She is doing fine and will be released Saturday
morning after undergoing a stress test.
34. The Park Board will have their annual retreat next Wednesday, February 17 from
2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The location will be in the Lodge.
35.Marriam Baloch v. City of Southlake. Attached to my memo is the Plaintiff's
Original Petition (green copies), Defendant's Original Answer and Plea to the
Jurisdiction, and copy of Assignment Letter.
36. February Chamber of Commerce Report. Attached to my memo is a copy of the
February 1999 Chamber of Commerce Report presented at the monthly Southlake
Chamber Board meeting. Included are the Community Development/Economic
Development Website outline and the Revised Submittal Process flowchart.
Also included in your packet:
• Memo from Bob Whitehead on SH 114/SH 121 MIS Technical Committee
• Thank you letters/notes
• Calendar of upcoming meetings
aH
Staff Extension Numbers:
Barlow, Kate, Economic Development Specialist, ext. 776
Bloomberg, Chuck, Plans Examiner, ext. 747
Campbell, Billy, Director DPS, ext. 730
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
for City Council Meeting February 16, 1999
Page 21 of 21
Carpenter, Chris, Planner, ext. 866
Gandy, Karen, Zoning Administrator, ext. 743
Harper, Ron, City Engineer, ext. 779
Hawk, Curtis E., ext. 701
Heath, Lou Ann, Director of Finance, ext. 716
Henry, Ben, Parks Planning and Construction Superintendent, ext. 824
Hugman, Kevin, Director of Community Services, ext. 757
Killough, Dennis, Senior Planner, ext. 787
Last, Greg, Community Development Director, ext. 750
LeGrand, Sandra, City Secretary, ext. 704
Jackson, Malcolm, DPS Administrative Coordinator, ext. 726
Queen, Courtney, Community Services Coordinator, ext. 827
Safranek, Lauren, Director of Human Resources, ext. 836
Sarakaitis, Stefanie, Comprehensive Planner, ext. 753
Siemer, Shelli, Assistant to the City Manager, ext. 806
Thomas, Charlie, Deputy Director of Public Works, ext. 814
Wilson, Garland, Deputy Director Fire Services, ext. 735
Whitehead, Bob, Director of Public Works, ext. 740
Whitehead, Nona, Community Services Coordinator, ext. 834
Yelverton, Shana, Assistant City Manager, ext. 705
M:\WD-FILES\CEH\MEETINGS\4mat-mtg.doc
' City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Robert Whitehead, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: S.H. 114/S.H. 121 - MIS Technical Committee Meeting held on
February 8, 1999
The MIS Technical Committee met on February 8, 1999 from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
at Grapevine City Hall to review the alternatives for the three segments of S.H. 114
and S.H. 121.
The "yellow segment" alternatives, the western most section, includes the connection
from F.M. 1709 to S.H. 114. Copies of the alternatives were sent to City Council on
Wednesday, February 3, 1999.
The purpose of the Technical Committee meeting was to review the alternatives and
provide comments which will be incorporated in the plans prior to a public meeting
tentatively scheduled for mid to late March. The main points discussed which impact
Southlake were:
• The connection to and from S.H. 114 at F.M. 1709. Both Southlake and Grapevine
objected to the connection of F.M. 1709 and S.H. 114 as being unacceptable. The
MIS engineering firm will develop additional alternatives for review. I have asked
the TxDOT program manager for a special meeting for Southlake and Grapevine to
discuss any alternatives. The meeting has not yet been set.
• High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) and/or Express Lanes. The preferred general
concept on all of the presented alternatives is to design four lanes for S.H. 114
traffic as HOV lanes, changeable HOV lanes, or express lanes. These lanes would
start at roughly F.M. 1709 and end east of D/FW. The use of S.H. 114 HOV or
express lanes would allow additional volumes of traffic through the "bottleneck."
An additional eight lanes would be the general purpose and S.H. 121 lanes.
The discussion item for Southlake is the starting point for the HOV/express lanes.
The question is do we want F.M. 1709 traffic from the access road at Wall Street
bridge to be able to utilize the HOV/express lanes?
Options for HOV/express lanes:
1. From F.M. 1709 at Wall Street bridge, to allow traffic access from the Wall
Street bridge to the express lanes.
J
Curtis E. Hawk
MIS Technical Committee meeting report
February 10, 1999
Page 2
Pros:
• All Southlake and Grapevine traffic could have access to the HOV/express
lanes.
• Increase need for a direct connection between F.M. 1709 and S.H. 114.
• Encourage traffic to stay on F.M. 1709.
Cons:
• Create a direct connection from F.M. 1709 to S.H. 114.
• Encourage traffic to stay on F.M. 1709 (alternative to using Carroll Avenue
or Kimball Avenue to access S.H. 114).
2. Create the HOV/express lanes north of F.M. 1709/Wall Street thus denying
access to the HOV/express lanes at that point.
Pros:
• Reduce traffic at Wall Street Bridge.
• Force traffic on to S.H. 114 at N. Carroll Avenue or.N. Kimball Avenue.
Cons:
• Increase need for Southlake to improve N. Carroll Avenue and N. Kimball
Avenue.
The above discussion (pros/cons) are just my first thoughts but may encourage
other ideas.
• Off ramp from S.H. 121 to S.H. 114 and F.M. 1709. The current alternatives
generally provide no exit ramp for traffic from S.H. 360/121 to F.M. 1709 at Wall
Street. Therefore, that traffic would have to utilize N. Kimball Avenue or N.
Carroll Avenue to access F.M. 1709.
Both Southlake and Grapevine objected to alternatives which do not allow S.H. 121
traffic an off-ramp to F.M. 1709. The engineers were directed to consider this
problem as they look for alternatives for the interchange at F.M. 1709 and S.H. 114
at Wall Street bridge.
BW
� Q �
4'l iW30 K am Pom {•J / v
January 28, 1999 S[A:Z
Mr. Peter G. Smith \
Nichols Jackson Dillard Hager & Smith, L.L.P.
500 North Akard, Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201
ASSIGNIIENT LETTER
Re: Style: Marriam Baloch v. City of Southlake, et al.
Cause #: 352-176657-98
TML Claim #: 9700040442
Dear Mr. Smith:
By this letter we are requesting that you represent the City of Southlake, its officials and
'nployees in the above-referenced matter. You must abide by the Risk Pool's Litigation
andling Guidelines, a copy of which has been previously provided to you. Please refer to
the Litigation Handling Guidelines for detailed information regarding the handling of the Risk
Pool's litigation, including billing and reporting requirements, activities which require pre-
approval by the Risk Pool, and settlement authority.
All correspondence regarding the above-referenced lawsuit should be directed to Mr. Jay
Cheek, the Risk Pool's Claims Specialist assigned to this lawsuit, and should include the
names of the parties to the suit, the cause number, and the TML claim number. Please feel
free to contact Mr. Cheek with any questions you might have concerning the Litigation
Handling Guidelines.
We appreciate your assistance.
Sincerely,
Richard Evans
Staff Attorney
RE/mn
Enclosure — --
g:\winword\re\balo-ps 1.doc
^c: Mr. Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager/Fund Contact, City of Southlake
C
TEXAS MuNicwAL LEAGUE INrmGovERNmEmrAL RISK POOL
1821 Rutherford Lane,First Floor - Austin,Texas 78754 - (512)491-2300 - (800)537-6655 Texas Only
P.O.Box 149194 - Austin,Texas 78714-9194
NO.352-176657-93
MARRIAIM BALOCH, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. §
§ 352ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CITY OF SOUTEM AIF,and the Agents, §
Contractors,or Employees of the City of §
Southlake, §
§
Defendant. § TARRANT COUNTY,TEXAS
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES the City of Southlake, Texas, Defendant in the above styled and numbered
cause, and files this Defendant's Original Answer and Plea to the Jurisdiction to P"Miibrs Original
Petition, and would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
L
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action because,
although the Plaintiff alleges that various actions of the Defendant, City of Southlake were
negligent, and caused injuries, Plaintiff may not recover for these damages from the City in the
manner described, as no waiver of sovereign immunity exists.
II.
No Waiver of Immunity Alleged
The Defendant, the City of Southlake, is immune from damages for the performance of its
governmental functions in the absence of a statute waiving sovereign immunity. Wenzel v. City of
New Braunfels, 852 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. App. - Austin 1983, no writ). A municipality may only be
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND -
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION-PAGE 1 SS23564
L
sued for negligent performance of its governmental fimations as allowed by the Texas Tort Claims
Act. TExCIV.PRAc. & REM. CODE, § 101.001, et. seq. As recently recited by the Supreme
Court:
"(I]t is important to remember that the Tort Claims Act does not create a cause of action;
it merely waives sovereign immunity as a bar to a suit that would otherwise exist."
City of Tyler v Likes, 41 Tex.Sup.Ct.J 174, 175 (Tex. 1997). Street construction and design and
maintenance of traffic signals are governmental fmctions for purposes of common law as well as
the Act. Cranford v City of Pasadena, 917 S.W.2d 484, 489 (Tex.App.--thous. (14 Dist.) 1996,
no writ).
The entirety of Plaintiffs claims are based upon discretionary determinations regarding the
governmental functions of roadway and signage design and maintenance, which are specifically
excluded from the Tort Claim Act's wavier of governmental immunity. Id at § 101.056. The
Tort Claims Act "does not apply when a governmental unit exercises its discretion power."
8 discretionary
Cortez v Weatherford I.S.D., 925 S.W.2d 144, 149 (Tex.App.-- Ft. Worth 1996, no writ). Thus
the City cannot be held liable for these discretionary actions. State v. Bums, 877 S.W.2d 298,
299 (Tex. 1994).
Furthermore, premises and special defect theories cannot bypass a municipality's immunity
from suit for discretionary roadway design and maintenance decisions under§ 101.056 of the Tort
Claims Act. Id at 299. Therefore, Defendant prays that this Court dismiss this cause of action
for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
•J
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND -
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION-PAGE 2 ss23564
IIL
No Waiver for Failure to Place Road Signs
Furthermore, the Defendant alleges that this Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over this cause of action because, while the Plaintiff has alleged that the City is
negligent in failing to have proper warning signs erected, and failing to warn of certain conditions,
the City may not be held liable for failure to place a traffic or road sign if the failure is the result of
a discretionary act of the governmental unit. Tort Claims Act, § 101.060. Since the Defendant
may not be held liable for failure to place certain road signs at the subject location, the Defendant
prays that the Court dismiss this cause of action for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
IV.
ORIGINAL ANSWER
Defendant specifically denies that all conditions precedent to the filing of this action have
(6orl
occurred.
V.
Defendant has full sovereign immunity both from suit and from liability save only to the extent
of the partial waiver of the same given by the Texas Tort Claims Act, § 101 et seq. of the TEX. CIv.
PRAC. & REM. CODE, and hereby pleads and asserts its claim to, and defense of sovereign immunity
and the exemptions and exclusions of the Texas Tort Claims Act.
VL
For further answer, if any is needed, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs claim is barred, in whole
or in part, due to Plaintiffs own negligence, in that Plaintiffs failure to exercise ordinary care
proximately caused, in whole or in part, the injuries, if any, complained of by the Plaintiff. These
L
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION-PAGE 3 SS23564
(4m, -
actions and onions, whether taken together or separately, pr &nately cannsed the nj*uries and
damages to Plaintiff that are alleged in Plaintiffs Original Petition.
VIOL
For further answer,if such be necessary,the Defendant states it enjoys sovereign immunity and
is absolutely immune from any damages in the performance of a governmental function.
VIIL
For further answer,if such be necessary,the Defendant states it enjoys sovereign im�and
is absolutely immune from any damages in the pefimsance or nonperformance of a discretionary act
under§ 101.056,TEX. Civ.PRAC. &REM CODE.
DL
The Defendant specifically denies it had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the alleged
conditions; and specifically denies Plaintiff timely filed written proof of claim in accordance with the
Texas Tort Claims Act.
x
Defendant denies generally each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs Original Petition
and demands strict proof thereof.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant City of Southlake, respectfully
requests this Court to dismiss this cause of action for want of subject matter jurisdiction with
prejudice against the Plaintiff, Marriam Baloch; Defendant further prays that upon conclusion of a
trial upon the merits that Plaintiff take nothing; that Defendant recovers its cost as well as any and all
_ other relief in law and equity to which it is justly entitled.
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND - --
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION-PAGE 4 SS23564
ReVec f Xy Submitted,
NICHOLS,JACKSON,DHI ARD,
HAGER& SMTTrrK L.L.P.
By:
Peter G. S
Bar Card No. 18664300
(PGS/ttl)
1800 Lincoln Plaza
500 North Akard
Dallas,Texas 75201
(214)965-9900
(214)965-0010 FAX
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on the / day of r4-6 -- , 1999, a true and correct
copy of the foregoing Original Answer and Plea to the Jurisdiction was served on Plaintiff's
attorney of record by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid, Certified Mail, and
addressed as follows:
Mike McEntire
McEntire Law Office
- 5613 Glenview
Ft. Worth,Texas 76117
er G. Smit
;f
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION-PAGE 5 ss23564
VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally PETER G. SMITH;
Defendant's Attorney, City of Southlake, Texas, who states, on oath, that he has read the
foregoing Defendant's Orfginal Answer and Plea to the Jurisdiction, and that the same are true
and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
eter G. Sndth
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this day of �. 1999, to
certify which witness my hand and official seal.
00000000
THUY LE
• Notary Public.State of Texas
My Commission Exp.07-25.2002Is
W0000W Notary Publi tate o Te
My commission expires: b-,5/01M�
`j
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION-PAGE 7 sS235"
NO.362-1766S7-9s _ b
MARRIAM BAU)CK IN TIIE DISTRICT COURT
plaintiff, §
VS. §
§ 352ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MY OF SOUTHLAK14 and the Agents, §
Contractors,or Employees of the City of §
Southlake, §
§
Defendant § TARRANT COUNTY,TEXAS
FIAT
rI'IS ORDERED that hearing on the above and foregoing Plea to the Jurisdiction be and is
hereby set for o'clock, .M, on the day of , 1998, in
the Courtroom of the 3 52nd Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.
SIGNED this day of 1999.
JUDGE PRESIDING
�J
DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION-PAGE 6 ss23%4
JAN 510
CAUSE NO. �a "I-NO I FEE OF`SECt; I CI 4
MARRIAM BALOCH ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT N1 S
VS. ) TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, and the Agents, )
Contractors, or Employees of the City of )
Southlake ) 35a JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes now Marriam Baloch, hereinafter called Plaintiff, and files this her Original
Petition complaining of the City of Southlake, and the agents, contractors, or employees of the
City of Southlake, Defendants, and for cause of action would respectfully show the Court as
follows:
I.
Plaintiff is a resident of Tarrant County, Texas.
II.
Defendant, City of Southlake, Texas is a municipal corporation which may be served
by serving the City Secretary, at City Hall, 667 N. Carroll Avenue, Southlake, Texas 76092.
III.
On or about December 31, 1996, plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle ncmthbound
in the 900 block of N. White Chapel in Southlake, Tarrant County, Texa_s{:wherche was
required to move as close as possible to the right shoulder of said road to-allow oncomin&
traffic to pass. In doing so, plaintiff encountered a severely eroded portiorj;of=the wadwOy,
which in turn caused her to veer off the roadway and collide with a brick wall akhe entrance
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION page 1
of a residential subdivision. The force of the collision caused plaintiff to suffer severe bodily
injury and property damage, including injuries to her head, neck, collarbone, arms and other
injuries as a result of this collision.
IV.
Plaintiff would show that the negligent acts and/or omissions of the City of Southlake,
and its agents, contractors or employees working for the City were each a proximate and/or
producing cause of the damages and injuries to plaintiff as set forth herein.. Such negligent
acts and/or omissions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Failing to maintain or repair a public road which had dangerous conditions
and/or defects situated thereon.
2. Failing to properly maintain or repair a public road which had dangerous
conditions and/or defects situated thereon.
3. Failing to provide adequate warnings to motorists of the dangerous conditions
and/or defects situated on a public road.
4. Failing to inspect a public road for dangerous conditions and/or defects.
5. Failing to properly inspect a public road for dangerous conditions and/or
defects.
V.
As a direct and proximate and/or producing cause of the negligent acts of defendant
as alleged above, plaintiff suffered severe bodily injury, including injuries to her head, neck,
collarbone, arms, and her entire body. Further, she has suffered physical pain, mental
anguish, disability, and loss of income in the past and within all reasonable probability, will
continue to so suffer in the future, all for which plaintiff should recover an amount far in
excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court.
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION page 2
vl.
As a direct and proximate and/or producing cause of the negligent acts of defendant
as alleged above, plaintiff was required to undergo certain medical treatment and care and has
incurred reasonable and necessary medical expenses in an amount far in excess of the
jurisdictional limit of this Court. Further, plaintiff will within all reasonable probability incur
reasonable and necessary medical expenses in the future in an amount in far excess of the
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
VII.
At all times material hereto, all of the agents, servants and employees for the defendant,
who were connected with the occurrence subject of this suit, were acting within the course
and scope of their employment or official duties and in furtherance of the duties of their office
and employment.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiff prays that defendant be cited to
appear and answer herein; that upon final trial of this cause plaintiff be awarded her damages,
costs of court, interest at the legal rate from the date of occurrence, for pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest; and for such other and further relief as plaintiff may show herself entitled,
either at law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted,
f1,
MICHAEL J. McENTIRE
State Bar No. 13589600
5613_Glenview Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76117
(817) 656-0400
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION page 3
THE STATE OF TEXAS
DISTRICT COURT, TARRANT COUNTY
CITATION Cause No. 352-176657-98
CARRIAM
BALOCH VS. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
TO: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE B/S CITY SECRETARY CITY HALL 667 N CARROLL AVE SOUTHLAKE,
TX 76092-
You said DEFENDANT are hereby commanded to appear by filing a written answer to the PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
at or before 10 o'clock A.M. of the Monday next after the expiration of 20 days after the date of service hereof before
the 3S2nd District Court, 401 W. Belknap, in and for Tarrant County, Texas, at the Courthouse in the City of Fort
Worth, Tarrant County, Texas said PLAINTIFF being
MARRIAM BALOCH
Filed in said Court on December 30th, 1998 Against
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
For suit, said suit being numbered 352-176657-98 the nature of which demand is as shown on said
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION a copy of which accompanies this citation
MICHAEL J MCENTIRE
Attorney for MARRIAM BALOCH Phone No. (817)656-0400
Address 5613 GLENVIEW DR FORT WORTH, TX 76117
Thomas A. Wilder Clerk of the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. Given under my hand and the seal
of said Court, at office in the City of Fort Worth, this the January Sth, 191,9 999 1-
By ln/ Deputy
ANN CONNOR
CE: You have been sued. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file a written answer with the
clerk who issued this citation by 10:00 AM. on the Monday next following the expiration of twenty days after you were
served this citation and petition, a default judgment may be taken against you.
Thomas A. Wilder
Tarrant County District Clerk
401 W. Belknap
Fort Worth, Texas 76196-0402
OFFICER'S RETURN
Received this Citation on the day of at o'clock _M; and executed at
within the county of State of at o'clock M
on the day of by delivering to the within named (Def.):
defendant(s), a true copy of this Citation together with the accompanying copy of PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION ,
having first endorsed on same the date of delivery; by serving
Authorized Person/Constable/Sheriff:
County of State of
By Deputy
Fees $
(Must be verified if served outside the State of Texas)
State of County of
Signed and sworn to by the said before me this day of
Cal
^ertify which witness my hand and seal of office
)
County of State of _
•
< m w
(, In IN x a
Wi O z
co
cz
.� O x tz Z ak O d y ��.,
Vifrrl � a W O a � n N O
O
00
e
City ,of.,S.
othl�k
Chamber of Commerce Report
Date: February 11, 1999
Presented To: Chamber of Commerce Board
Prepared By: Economic Development Staff- Greg Last, Kate Barlow
Following are selected items of interest related to economic development in the City of Southlake.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
• January 5. 1999: Council approved the site plan for Eckerd's at the northeast corner of East
Southlake Boulevard and White Chapel Boulevard.
• January 19, 1999: Council approved the rezoning and concept plan for Harris Methodist
Southlake on the south side of East Southlake Boulevard, approximately 550' west of Miron
Drive.
• January 19, 1999: Council approved the site plan for Taco Bueno on the south side of East
Southlake Boulevard approximately 150' east of the intersection of East Southlake Boulevard
and South Kimball Avenue.
• January 19. 1999: Council approved the final plat for Loch Meadow Estates on the east side
of Ridgecrest Drive. approximately 600' south of the intersection of Ridgecrest Drive and
Woodland Drive. This project will include 24 residential lots and 3 common area lots.
• February 2. 1999: Council approved the rezoning and site plan for Tom Thumb Center
(Crossroads Square) at the northwest corner of West Southlake Boulevard and White Chapel
Boulevard.
• February 2. 1999: Council approved the site plan for Gateway Plaza at the northwest corner
of East Southlake Boulevard and S.H. 114. Project involves approximately 39.5 acres and
300,000 square feet. Kohl's Department Store has committed to this project.
• February 2. 1999: Council approved the rezoning and site plan for Davis Boulevard Center
at the northeast corner of Davis Boulevard and Continental Boulevard. Project encompasses
roughly 1.8 acres.
• February 2. 1999: Council approved the concept plan for Dry Clean Super Center at the
southeast corner of East Southlake Boulevard and Crooked Lane Boulevard.
February 2. 1999: Council approved the site plan for Dardan Square approximately 150' east
of the intersection of West Southlake Boulevard and Lake Crest Drive. The applicant may
submit driveway revisions to thi:�plan.
Chamber of Commerce Report February 11, 1999 Page 1
41.
• February J. '1999: Councit approved,on second reading, the sexually oriented businesses
ordinance.
REGULATORY ISSUES
• Landscape Ordinance Revisions: Staff has completed the draft of potential revisions to the
landscape ordinance. Anticipated timeline for review is Council on February 16 for
discussion: consideration at Planning and Zoning Commission on February 18: first reading at
Council on March 2; and second reading at Council on March 16, 1999. Staff contact: Keith
Martin, Landscape Administrator, ext. 848.
• Land Conservation District Work Group (formerly Residential PUD Minimum Acreage
Amendments): ' This work group continues to meet to evaluate possible revisions to the
zoning ordinance adding a new district similar to the existing PUD district, but allowing
increased flexibility in development standards in order to preserve significant areas of open
space. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for February 24, 1999. Staff contact: Karen
Gandv. Zoning Administrator. 481-5581, ext. 743.
• Community Development Procedural Changes: The City has recently implemented a
change in the administrative procedures of development case reviews. The major changes
include a required pre-submittal process and a staff development review committee (DRC)
meeting with each revision. Consultants, developers and other impacted parties were sent a
revised 1999 Submittal Schedule. Attached is a flow chart illustrating the new submittal
process. Staff contact: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 817/481-5581 ext. 787.
STAFF PROJECT UPDATES
• Community Development/Economic Development Website: Staff is working on a major
revision to the CD/ED section within the city's website. Attached is a draft outline of what
information and topics will be included. Actual revisions will be ongoing over the next four
to eight weeks.
• 1998 Site Inventory Guide: Staff completed work on the 1998 Site Inventory Guide. Copies
are available by contacting Kate Barlow.
INTERESTING DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION
• Council approved the 5-Year Parks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) on January 19, 1999.
For the period covering fiscal year 1998 (actuals) through fiscal year 2003 (projections).
estimated revenues are�S24.6 million. Major expenditures include $6.3 million for land
acquisition: S1.2 million for joint use projects; $565 thousand for thatching funds-community
projects: and the remaining $16.6 million for park development (buildings, trails, signage,
planning, etc.)
Chamber of Commerce Report February 11, 1999 Page 2
• Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC): At the December_15, 1998 mee i
Council appointed 'the Planning and " onuig ommission to serve 1s capacity. e
purpose of CIAC is to update the capital improvements study and fees, if necessary. By state
law, cities are required to update these studies every three years. This committee will meet
on Thursdays that do not conflict with regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission
meetings. All meeting times and places will posted on city bulletin boards and the city's
cable station.
• Intersection Improvement Bond Program: Council is discussing a potential S.H. 114 and
F.M. 1709 Highway intersection improvement bond program that would be taken to
Southlake voters for approval.
• Nine Sales Initiative: On February 2, 1999, City Council adopted a resolution establishing a
legislative agenda for the City. In particular, Council is seeking revision to Chapter 212
Subchapter C of the Texas Local Government Code that would authorize a city geographically
located in more than one county to order a local option to determine whether or not the sale
of alcoholic beverages of one or more of the various types and alcoholic contents shall be
prohibited or legalized in the City.
• Residential Permits: 34 issued in December. average value for 1998 is $270.300. Thirty
(30) permits were issued in Januarv: average value for 1999 is S279.700. This is the lowest
January since 1993.
,.� Commercial Permits: 2 permits issued in December 1998 including 16,380 SF at 2055
Greenwood Drive within North Davis Business Park and 41,269 SF at 275 Commerce within
Commerce Business Park. Two (2) permits were issued in January including 8.640 SF at
2835 Exchange Boulevard within Commerce Business Park and 21.979 SF at 1420 East
Southlake Boulevard within Southlake Town Square.
• General Fund Sales Tax Revenues: First Quarter fiscal year 1999 collections totaled
S706.148: Fiscal year 1999 is 18.7% over the same comparable period for FY98.
• Scott Martin was appointed chairman of the Board of Directors of the Tax Increment
Reinvestment Zone Number One by Council on January 5, 1999.
• General Election will be held May 1, 1999. Candidates may begin tiling applications on
February 15. 1999. Two council positions are available.
Enclosures:
Community Development/Economic Development Website outline
Revised Submittal Process flowchart
Chamber of Commerce Report February 11, 1999 Page 3
For further information contact:
C�ot7ltn1t iIr-
lt �i
Phone: (817) 481-5581 / Fax: (8171)l`488-9370
Greg Last, Community Development Director, ext. 744
Irate Barlow, Economic Development Coordinator, ext. 776
Copies To: City Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
Carroll ISD Board of Trustees
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
Chamber of Commerce Report February 11, 1999 Page 4
DRAf
Web Site Structure
Community Development & Economic Development
02,10/99
(All pages are stored under the"I:'comdev\wp-tiles\w'ebsite�pa=es"directory unless noted with a"\"and subdirectory name)
PLANNING, ZONING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (intro.html)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (cd_main.html)
Community Development Department (staff.html)
Function/Organization (included in document above)
Names/ Contact Numbers (staff a.html)
Common Questions& Answers (staff b.html)
Planning and Zoning Commission (p&z.html)
Function / Meeting Times (included in document above)
Names / Contact Numbers (p&zba.html)
Link to Agendas / Minutes /Notifications (p&z_b.html)
Zoning Board of Adjustment (zba.html)
(taw Function / Meeting Times (included in document above)
Names / Contact Numbers (zba a.html)
Link to Agendas / Minutes / Notifications (zba_b.html)
Development Processes (dv_prhtml)
Spin Process (dv_pr_a.html)
Submittals (dv_pr_b.html)
Calendar and Applications (dv_pr_bl.html)
(All calendar and application files to be
available in WordPerfect, Word and Adobe
Acrobat (*.pdt) format and linked to this
page with icon for Acrobat software
download)
Zoning Change, Subdivision/ Platting, and Commercial
Site Plan Processes (dv_pr_c.html)
(All process flowcharts to be available in
WordPerfect, Word and Adobe Acrobat(*.pdt)
L.�CONIDEV WP.FILES WEBSITE\0UTLINES',TREE•0;w'PD Page 1
DRAFT
format and linked to this page with icon foi•`A,Crbbat
soft��,are download
Master Plans / Maps / Studies (maps.html)
Order Form (maps_a.html)
Existing Zoning Map (maps_b.html)
Land Use Plan (maps_c.html)
Thoroughfare Plan (maps_d.html)
Corridor Study (maps_e.html)
Trail System (maps_f.html)
Parks, Recreation & Open Space (maps_g.html)
Water Distribution (maps_a.html)
Sanitary Sewer Distribution (maps_i.html)
Aerials (maps_j.html)
Development Regulations (dv_reg.html) (All Ordinances. etc., to
be available in WordPerfect, Word and Adobe Acrobat (*.pdf)
format and linked to this page with icon for Acrobat software
download)
Order Form (dv_reg_d.html)
Zoning Ordinance (dv_reg_b.html)
Subdivision Ordinance (dv_reg_c.html)
Driveway Ordinance (dv_reg_d.html)
Tree Preservation Ordinance (dv_reg_e.html)
Landscape Ordinance (dv_reg_f.html)
Sign Ordinance (dv_reg_d.html)
Data! Trend Charts (data.html)
Building Permit History (data_a.html)
Population (Historical and Projected) (clata_b.html)
1990 Census Data(data_c.html)
Residential Development Summary (data_d.html)
Ongoing Projects (projct.html)
L'COMDEPWP-FILES WEBS ITE',OCTLINES',TREE-01 RPD Page 2
Corridor Entry Portals (projct_a.html)
Ordinances Under Review-(projct._b.html) DRAFT
SH 114 (projct_c.html)
FM 1938 / Randol Nlill (projct_d.html)
Census (projct_e.html)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ed_main.html)
Economic Development Division (ed_fun.html)
Function/ Organization (included in document above)
Names/ Contact Numbers (ed_fun_a.html)
Common Questions & Answers (ed_fun_b.html)
Community Profile (/com_pr/main.html)
Executive Summary (/com_pr/com_pr_a.html)
Citv Administration (/comer/com_pr_b.html)
Demographics (/com_pr/com�r_c.htriil)
QW, Education (/com_pr/com_pr_d.html)
Housing (/com_pr/com_pr_e.html)
Labor (/com_pr/com_pr_£html)
Land and Buildings (/com_pr/com_pr_g.html)
Quality of Life (/com_pr/com_pr_h.htnil)
Transportation (/com_pricom_pr_i.html)
Utilities (/com_pr/com_pr_j.html)
Economic Policies (ed_pol.html)
Links to Developers / Brokers (dev_brk.html)
Available Documents (docmts.html)
Fast Facts (docmts_a.html)
Community Profile (link to com_pr.htnil)
Quarterly Newsletter(docmts_b.html)
Site Research Packets (docmts_c.html)
Traffic Count Report (docmts_d.htmi)
Site Inventory Guide (docmts;.e.html)
L`.CONIDEV�WP-FILES WEBSITE'.OL'TLINES',TREE-o;WPD Page 3
Business Survey (docmts_f.html) DRAFT
Business Development Guide (docmts_g.html)
Monthly Fact Column (docmts_h.html)
Economic Base (docmts_i.html)
Aerial Maps (link to maps_j.html)
L C'O%,IDE% W'P-FILES W'EBSIMOL'TLIYES',TREE-0;WPD Page 4
Revised Submittal Process
.F
W .............
Pre-submitlaf Resubmit per DRC-C Column A Column D
................_.....................-............................................ Yes
Week 2ORC for review 4-- is
Column B (adds 2 weeks) Colurm E (adds 2 weeks)
..................... -Z-Or7........................
NO
Week 3 Formal submittal No---
Column G
Legal notification
....................
Owner notifications
Week 5
P&Z packet
P&Z meeting
Column H
OVISM"
per P&Z? yes---
-------------------------
No Resubmit per P&Z
Column I
(So�uncil packet
............... ...................
Week S
City Council I meeting
DRC for review Column M 1 1 Column J
Yes ews+ons
................................
Week 9 Resubmit per Council Response to review .................................................
Column I Council packet Column L
•
I Council g)acket I
DRC for review City Council meeting City Council meeting
Column J Column M Column M
< Revisions es
2nd Y ...
Responseto re ..........................................................................................................No..__._..........._........_.__......_.-- ..........................._._-----------
ColumnWeek 11
L Council packet Resubmit per Counal
T I Column I
.............................. Council packet
............................................ ................................................... .. .........
Week 12
V 6KL;Tor ew
ty Council meetingCouncil meetingg revi
Column M Column M Column
T
Response to review
Column L
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ..................
Week 13
............................................................................................................................................................................. Council E2ckeLWee
ty Council ff*ebFg
Column M
JWWWY 2k 19ft L%COMXMWP-FLES%PROX-MWOCESS%19WOEV4ASFIVW
1508 Pecos Drive U[U, FEB 1 0 i999 (J
Southlake, TX 76092-5933
I-
February 9, 1999
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager �(f�
City of Southlake C
1725 East Southlake Boulevard
Southlake, TX 76092 S
Dear Mr. Hawk:
Bravo! Congratulations! Well Done! Great Job! These are just a few of the words I'd
like to use in thanking some of your great staff for their recent efforts on Pecos Drive in
Southridge Lakes.
• About a month or so ago, a sewer/storm drain problem developed in front of my
home here on Pecos Drive. I called the city for help, and I'm still overcome with the
kind of response I received. Never have I seen such professionalism, courtesy, and
job dedication from so many city employees.
• Mr. Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, must surely run one of the finest
departments in the city. His employees constantly responded above and beyond the
call of duty in working the problem, keeping the homeowners informed, and cleaning
up meticulously on a daily basis. They remained wonderfully positive throughout,
even on days such as the one two weeks ago when, drenched in mud, water, and
sewerage, they worked here, in front of my home, from early in the morning until late
at night, just so that the service could be restored.
• Specifically, I'd like to recognize Mr. Mike Monroe and his team of Joe Coker, Kyle
Flanigan, and John Ford, and of course their supervisors, Cecil Gardner and Mike
Patterson, Superintendent of Water/Sewer Utilities. Those folks were the real stars
of the show, but they had great support from Mike Ishamel, Terry Holloway, John
Wallace, Eddie Pinson and Jason, and their boss, Brad Payton.
My wife, young son, and I have only lived in Southlake for a few months, but are we glad
we chose this city and its superb staff! I'll bet you're very proud of your people.
Thanks, Mr. Hawk.
Sincerely,
William M. Stone, Ph.D.
CC: The Honorable Rick Stacy, Mayor, City of Southlake
Ire v r•�.� �._�; ;� �,�` �� tv,
*�`.
• ) ,J�J� i
le NO
I IC
i
.• � J4jn,.1 s �
J
wQ n�
� - La
07Z
Sao
AL /Y7
„tin ;tJJ
at
alVA 4lZal"
�1
1
RLaCE�D
FEB p 2 �99
City of Southlake January 29 h, 1999 DEPT.OF PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Department
667 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake, Texas 76092
Attention: Public Works Director.
I just wanted to extend my appreciation to your department for helping me
out of a predicament Friday January 29t`. Earlier in the week I discovered a
leak in my sprinkler system in the back yard and called the irrigation
company.They told me they couldn't come out until Tuesday afternoon at
the earlieftWhen I inquired as to whether or not I could turn the water off at
the street, they said "I think so"....
Wondering what to do I contacted the Public Works Department, a very nice
young lady answered the phone, transferred me to someone else who gave
me an answer to my question that I never would have expected. I explained
my problem and said "Is there anyway I can turn off the water to just the
sprinkler system?" she replied "Yes, this is an unusual case, but if you like I
can contact a crew who can turn it off for you and show you how to do
it"....1 must say I was both flabergasted and thankful.
Within minutes a crew showed up at my house, showed me how to turn off
the system (so I wouldn't have a swamp in the backyard, remember the rain)
and was very polite in doing so.
We moved to Southlake two years ago from New England, and have never
owned a sprinkler system so I was concerned about what to do about turning
it off with the leak and all.....The people from Southlake and Texas have
never been nicer. I just wanted to drop you a line and say Thanks!
Sincerely,
ill Luckhardt
240 Glenrose Court
Southlake, Texas 76092
1 (� SOUTHLAKE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
EMPLOYEE DOCUMENTATION FORM - COMMENDATORY
This form serves as documentation of employee performance, which is significantly in
compliance with or exceeds the current departmental standards.
EMPLOYEE: Michael Starr ID#: 472 DIV: Fire
Jason Wise 471 Fire
EFFECTIVE ISSUANCE DATE OF COMMENDATION:
January 22, 1999
NARRATIVE SUMMARY:
On January 11, 1999 at 06:45 hours, fire and police personnel responded to a
medical emergency. Responding crews found a 19 year old male unconscious and
unresponsive. Firefighter Starr and Wise were involved in this response.
Circumstances created a situation whereby the patient's airway was unable to
become intubated. Firefighter Starr assisted by Firefighter Wise performed an
advanced procedure called a cricothyrotomy. This procedure involves using a
.., scalpel to make an incision in the neck and accurately pass a breathing tube directly
into the trachea. The opportunity to conduct this procedure is not often available
and when it is, anxiety and nervousness prevent some from doing it. This was not
the case with these two firefighters. When a follow-up was conducted, the attending
emergency room physician and the EMS Coordinator with Baylor Medical Center
had high praises for Firefighter's Starr and Wise. The most impressive comment
was presented from Doctor Diamond who said that he could not have conducted the
procedure any better. I commend all on-scene personnel for their attempts towards
saving this young life. Firefighter Starr and Firefighter Wise are commended for
their impressive ability to conduct a very fragile and dangerous skill.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
As the issuing supervisor, I acknowledge that the performance cited herein for the above
named employee is in significant compliance with or exceeds the Departmental standards,
that the issuance of this form is intended to recognize such performance through positive
documentation, that the original of this form has been forwarded for placement in the
Departmental Administrative Reference Files, and that a duplicate copy has been
forwarded to the employee
Ricky Black January 22, 1999
Issuing Supervisor Date
r
GENERAL FUND
Statement of Revenues,Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
for the period ended January 31, 1999
with comparative actual amounts for the period ended January 31, 1998
(fiscal month 4-33.33%)
Adopted Percen Actual Percent
Month Year to Date 1998/99 Collected/ Year to Date Total Collected/
REVENUES 1998/99 Rndvet 1/31/98 9/30/98 Eked
Ad Valorem Taxes $2,296,192 $4,415,492 $6,463,540 68.3% $2,685,996 $3,970,964 67.6%
Sales Tax 188,493 706,147 3,026,050 23.3% 594,699 2,521,965 23.6%
Franchise Fees 0 512,830 984,112 52.1% 561,742 881,066 63.8%
Fines 85,103 249,516 875,798 28.5% 202,725 665,815 30.4%
Charges for Services 3,019 117,378 685,006 17.1% 123,580 549,702 22.5%
Permits/Fees 218,185 660,672 2,742,788 24.1% 713,263 2,733,849 26.1%
Miscellaneous 4,426 56,745 145,659 39.0% 25,095 259,757 9.7%
Interest Income 11.972 32,1223 190,000 16.9% 42.740 178,867 23.9%
Total Revenues $2,807,390 $6,750,903 $15,112,953 44.7% $4,949,840 $11,761,985 42.1%
EXPENDITURES
City Secretary $23,152 $84,979 $301,173 28.2% $70,060 $226,794 30.9%
City Manager 24,248 109,079 351,003 31.1% 107,186 331,624 32.3%
Support Services 116,740 509,494 2,526,534 20.2% 504,178 1,498,708 33.6%
General Government Total 164.140 703,552 3,178,710 22.1% 681, 2,057,126 33.1%
Human Resources 15,029 62,691 209, 29.9% 67,271 233,923 28.8%
Human Resources Total 15.029 62,691 209,600 29.9% 67,271 233,923 28.8%
Finance 37,060 152,718 454,166 33.6% 132,547 399,334 33.2%
Municipal Court 21,990 99,095 304,770 32.5% 83,565 265,976 31.4%
Municipal Court-Teen Court 4.307 39,854 92,633 43.0% 17,576 59,586 29.5%
Finance Total 63,357 291,667 851,569 34.3% 233,688 724.896 32.2%
Fire 148,800 540,647 1,857,825 29.1% 564,672 1,784,478 31.6%
Police 234,317 982,884 3,418,246 28.8% 893,073 2,822,719 31.6%
Public Safety Support 91,384 372,962 1,056,436 35.3% 314,001 1,004,557 31.3%
Building 41,547 256,943 692,896 37.1% 150.300 567,051 26.5%
Public Safety Total 516,048 2,153,436 7,025,403 30.7% 1,922, 6,178,805 31.1%
Streets/Drainage 47,489 246,980 939,167 26.3% 228,840 820,722 27.9%
Public Works Administration 62,196 225,400 803,729 28.0% 260,337 783-368 33.2%
Public Works Total 109,685 472,380 1,742.896 27.1% 489,177 1,604.090 30.5%
Community Development 37,941 176,424 531,480 33.2% 144,981 489,319 29.6%
Economic Development 5.196 28,916 144,832 20.0% 31,179 116,773 26.7%
Community Development Total 43,137 205.340 676,312 30.4% 176.160 606,092 29.1%
Community Services 19,356 124,303 416,831 29.8% 122,702 338,731 36.2%
Parks and Recreation 72,379 324,958 1,454,991 22.3% 322,150 1,154,334 27.9%
Library Services LIZ 24,850 162,480 15.3% Q Q #DIV/0!
Community Services Total 94,860 474,111 2,034,302 23.3% 444,852 1,493,065 29.8%
Total Expenditures $1,006,256 $4,363.177 $15,718,792 27.8% S4,014,618 $12,897.997 31.1%
Excess(deficiency)of
Revenue over Expenditures $1,801,134 $2,387,726 ($605,839) $935,222 ($1,136,012)
OTHER FINANCING
SOURCES AND(USES)
Proceeds from lease/CO(net) $0 $0 $694,300 $0 $715,547
Transfer In-Other Funds 65,461 261,842 1,235,527 233,333 700,000
Transfer To-Other Funds Q Q (1,155,942) Q (38,000)
Total Other Sources/(Uses) $65,461 $261,842 $773,885 $233,333 $1,377,547
Excess(deficiency)of
Revenues/other sources over Exp $1,866.595 $2,649,568 $168.046 $1,168,555 $241,535
FUND BALANCE OCT 1 $2,839,137 $2,839,137 $2,597,602
Change in reserved fund balance $0 $0 $0
ENDING FUND BALANCE $5,488,705 $3,007,183 $2.839.137
fund balance percentage 19.1% 22.0%
WATER AND SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND
Comparative Statement of Revenues and Expenses
for the period ended January 31, 1999 and January 31, 1998
(fiscal month 4-33.33%)
Adopted Percent Actual Percent
Mon Year to Date 1998/99 Collected/ Year to Date Total Collected/
REVENUES 1998/99 BWW 1/31/98 9/30/98 E
Water Sales-residential $291,260 $1,618,683 $5,220,000 31.0% $1,462,197 $6,053,989 24.2%
Water Sales-commercial 21,194 248,256 805,500 30.8% 260,850 846,277 30.8%
Sewer Sales 88,257 376,257 975,000 38.6% 317,196 1,037,099 30.6%
Sanitation Sales 57,458 223,139 636,000 35.1% 197,696 635,055 31.1%
Other utility charges 22,604 111,331 443,315 25.1% 128,015 409,582 31.3%
Miscellaneous 901 5,345 83,400 6.4% 14,360 167,494 8.6%
Interest Income 9.859 31.560 100- 31.6% 23,64$ 89325 26.5%
Total Revenues $491,533 $2,614,571 $8,263,215 31.6% $2,403,962 $9,238,821 26.0%
EXPENSES
Water $87,755 $824,414 $4,504,340 18.3% $962,824 $4,965,046 19.4%
Utility Billing 16,932 81,030 303,421 26.7% - - #DIV/0!
Sewer 47,956 247,377 747,246 33.1% 230,903 932,115 24.8%
Sanitation 44,174 88,021 560,000 15.7% 119,108 496,147 24.0%
Debt Service-
Revenue Bonds 87.019 708,885 2,121,141 33.4% 663,642 1,943,566 34.1%
Total Expenses $283,836 $1,949,727 $8,236,148 23.7% $1,976,477 $8,336,874 23.7%
Excess(deficiency)of
Revenue over Expenses $207,697 $664,844 $27,067 $427.485 $901,947
OTHER FINANCING
SOURCES AND(USES)
Transfer In-Other Funds $0 $0 $0 $208,536 $834,145
Transfer Out-Other Funds (261,842) (785,527) (233,333) (700,000)
Total Other Sources/(Uses) ($65,461) ($261,842) ($785,527) ($24,797) $134,145
Excess(deficiency) of
Revenues and other sources
over Expenses $142,236 $403,002 ($758,460) $402,688 $1,036,092
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
1% SALES TAX REPORT
1998-99 collected budget balance
budget to date balance prrcent
$3,021,050 $1,019,979 $2,001,071 66.24%
FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL
YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc
MONTH 96-97 -Dec 97-98 -Dec 98-99 -Dec
October $161,892 25.8% $237,164 46.5% $310,767 31.0%
November 135,367 21.0% 193,664 43.1% 206,887 6.8%
December 115,084 10.7% 163,871 42.4% 188,493 15.0%
January 198,873 41.7% 266,437 34.0% 313,831 17.8%
February 125,671 31.9% 168,914 34.4% - n/a
March 104,733 1.5% 160,147 52.9% - n/a
April 182,384 33.1% 215,299 18.0% - n/a
May 152,577 39.5% 217,760 42.7% - n/a
1e 171,813 53.0% 200,233 16.5% - n/a
y 223,854 24.5% 274,072 22.4% - n/a
August 184,851 39.7% 224,126 21.2% - n/a
September 173,917 42.0% 200,169 15.1% n/a
TOTAL $1,931,017 1 30.8%1 $2,521,857 1 30.6% $1,019,979 18.4%
Actual Budget Actual Estimated (budget-est.) %
Month 1_997 98 1998-99 1998.99 1998-99 Difference Chan9e
October $ 237,164 $ 284,122 $ 310,767 $ 310,767 $ 26,645 9.38%
November 193,664 232,009 206,887 206,887 (25,122) -10.83%
December 163,871 196,317 188,493 188,493 (7,824) -3.99%
January 266,437 319,192 313,831 313,831 (5,361) -1.68%
February 168,914 202,359 - 202,359 - 0.00%
March 160,147 191,856 - 191,856 - 0.00%
April 215,299 257,928 - 257,928 - 0.00%
May 217,760 260,876 - 260,876 - 0.00%
June 200,233 239,879 - 239,879 - 0.00% _
July 274,072 328,338 - 328,338 - 0.00%
August 224,126 268,503 - 268,503 - 0.00%
September 200,169 239.669 - 239,669 - 0.00%
$ 2,521,856 $ 3,021,050 $ 1,019,979 $ 3,009,388 $ (11,662) -0.39%
19.33%
2/12/99 SLSTX99.XLS
1�46-3
SOUTHLAKE PARKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1/2% SALES TAX REPORT
1998-99 collected budget balance
budaet to date balance percent
$1,510,525 $509,989 $1,000,536 66.24%
FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL
YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc YEAR % Inc
MONTH 96-97 -Dec 97-98 -Dec 98-99 -Dec
October $80,946 25.8% $118,582 46.5% $155,384 31.0%
November 67,684 21.0% 96,832 43.1% 103,444 6.8%
December 57,542 10.7% 81,935 42.4% 94,247 15.0%
January 99,437 41.7% 133,219 34.0% 156,915 17.8%
February 62,836 31.9% 84,457 34.4% - n/a
March 52,366 1.5% 80,074 52.9% - n/a
April 91,192 33.1% 107,650 18.0% - n/a
May 76,289 39.5% 108,880 42.7% - n/a
4jne 85,906 53.0% 100,117 16.5% - n/a
111,927 24.5% 137,036 22.4% - n/a
August 92,426 39.7% 112,063 21.2% - n/a
September 86.958 42.0% 100,085 15.1% - n/a
TOTAL $965,508 30.8% $1,260,929 30.6% $509,989 18.4%
Actual Budget Actual Estimated (budget-est.) %
1997_98 1998-99 1998-99 1998-99 Difference Change
October $ 118,582 $ 142,061 $ 155,384 $ 155,384 $ 13,322 9.38%
November 96,832 116,005 103,444 103,444 (12,561) -10.83%
December 81,936 98,159 94,247 94,247 (3,912) -3.99%
January 133,219 159,596 156,915 156,915 (2,680) -1.68%
February 84,457 101,179 - 101,179 - 0.00%
March 80,074 95,928 - 95,928 - 0.00%
April 107,650 128,964 - 128,964 - 0.00%
May 108,880 130,438 - 130,438 - 0.00%
June 100,117 119,940 - 119,940 - 0.00%
July 137,036 164,169 - 164,169 - 0.00%
August 112,063 134,251 - 134,251 - 0.00%
`'--tember 100,085 119,835 119.835 0.00%
$ 1,260,928 $ 1,510,525 $ 509,989 $ 1,504,694 $ 5,831 -0.39%
19.79% 19.33%
SLSTX99.XLS
f�
SOUTHLAKE CRIME CONTROL AND PREVENTION DISTRICT
1/2% SALES TAX REPORT
1998-99 Collected Budget Balance
Budget to Date Balance Percent
$1,438,525 $455.517 $983,008 68,33%
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Dollar Percent
1997-98 1998-99 Increase/ Increase/
MONTH Actual Actual Decrease Decrease
October $ - $ 125,207 125,207 100.0%
November - 92,367 92,367 100.0%
December - 102,325 102,325 100.0%
January 135,618 135,618 100.0%
February - - n/a n/a
March - n/a n/a
April - n/a n/a
May 77,337 - n/a n/a
June 86,019 - n/a n/a
July 108,531 n/a n/a
August 105,651 - n/a n/a
September 89,966 - n/a n/a
TOTAL $467,504 1 $455,517 $455,517 n/a
Budget Actual Estimated (budget-est.) %
1998-99 1998_99 1998-99 Difference Change
October $ 135,242 $ 125,207 $ 125,207 $ (10,035) -7.42%
November 110,437 92,367 92,367 (18,070) -16.36%
December 93,447 102,325 102,325 8,878 9.50%
January 151,935 135,618 135,618 (16,317) -10.74%
February 96,323 - 96,323 - 0.00%
March 91,324 - 91,324 - 0.00%
April 122,774 - 122,774 - 0.00%
May 124,177 - 124,177 - 0.00%
June 114,182 - 114,182 - 0.00%
July 156,289 - 156,289 - 0.00%
August 127,807 - 127,807 - 0.00%
September 114,588 _ 114,588 - 0.00%
$ 1,438,525 $ 455,517 $ 1,402,981 $ (35,544) -2.47%
City of Southlake,Texas
�,. MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Ron Harper, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Town Square Status Report
Town Square
Progress continues on the infrastructure and commercial elements of this project.
Six buildings are currently under construction. Buildings IA, 1B, 5A and 5B have been
inspected by Building Inspections and have been released for tenant finish work.
Building 4C has had all the exterior sheathing installed, rear stucco has been applied
and brick work is substantially complete. Selected tenant space is being constructed.
Building 2C has had framing installed, exterior stucco and brick is 95% complete Both
buildings have had mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems installed. Interior
framing and sheathing is being constructed.
Paving of all the streets in Phase I has taken place. Sidewalks are approximately 90%
complete. Landscaping is being installed in the parking areas and adjacent to the park
areas and within Family Park. Work has begun on the Pavilion and the pond at Rustin
Park. Street lighting is being installed.
Tenant work and permits have been issued on Ann Taylor, Banana Republic, Bath and
Body, Bombay Company, Chico's, Corner Bakery, Eddie Bauer, Gap, Gap Kids,
Gymboree, Harolds, Magic Moon, St. John's, Talbot's, Victoria Secret and Williams-
Sonoma. Plans reviews have been completed on Animal Crackers, Charles Schwab,
Dameron Properties, Kids Footlocker, Lady Footlocker, Milwaukee Joes, Rockfish
Seafood, Starbucks, Village Jewelers, and Zuka Juice. Plans have been received, but
not yet reviewed for Cooper & Stebbins, Prizim Development and Rattikin Title.
The Developer has had several meeting regarding Grand Opening activities. Attached is
the latest draft schedule for the events of the day. You will notice that the Town Square
ribbon cutting and the Town Hall events have been moved to 10:00 a.m. so that
participants do not have to leave after the parade and return later in the day. The next
planning meeting for Town Square is scheduled for Friday, February 19 at 8:15 a.m.
Council members will be asked for a convenient time for the next Town Hall meeting.
Town Square Status
January 29, 1999
Page 2
North Carroll Realignment
Work on this adjacent project is well underway. Storm drain is approximately 95%
complete, the relocation of the sanitary is complete, and the new water line has begun.
Construction of the foundations for the relocated signal lights has been completed and
the new poles and arms have been installed. The first layer of asphalt for the new
northbound lanes and 1/3 of the southbound lanes has been placed. Curb and gutter is
being installed on the northbound lanes. Final paving for the first portion of the project
began on February 12.
Post Office Square
No new information since last meeting.
Additional Project Phases
No new information since last meeting.
Town Hall
Over the past
p several weeks, the architects have met with Council Members, County
representatives and staff to discuss concepts, visions and space issues. Hopefully by the
next council meeting staff will be able to present to Council certain design options for
discussion and consideration.
I would like to remind Council Members that individual tours of the project site can be
arranged by contacting me 1 - 2 days in advance. Work has progressed to the point
where a good feel for the layout and aesthetics of the project can be visualized.
RJH/rjh
d:\wd-files\sts\scat 17.doc
`J
S p U T H L A K f
TOWN SQUARE
Preliminary Schedule of Grand Opening Events
March 20, 1999
8:OOam Block-off Streets along parade route to prepare for parade
8:30am Parade Preparations Marching band, EMS, Police vehicles (Camero, Suburban
& motorcycles), fire trucks, City Council members in vintage convertibles&
neighborhood delegates with banners, etc. Each neighborhood will be invited to
participate with a maximum of 25 delegates to carry a banner or float
Parade participants meet @1709 & Carroll parking lot
Parade assembles in order of March
9:00-9:45am Parade
Participation gifts (to be determined- may be donated) given to all members of the
parade
Parade route per attached
10:00-11:OOam Ribbon Cutting, City speeches & Town Hall Cornerstone Dedication
@Bandshell Pavilion
Blessing of Town Square
/ j Each of the six council members cut a ribbon for each new building
Mayor Stacy cuts the ribbon on the Bandshell Pavilion
Town Hall cornerstone ceremony to be determined by City
1 12:OOpm Ft. Worth Zoo presentation @Animal Tent
Presentation lasts 30 minutes & 30-min. walk around
Penguins, foxes, porcupines, snakes, parrots, alligators, etc.
11:00-3:OOpm Firecracker the Clown &2 protegees dressed festively (the balloon maker&the
face painter)
12:00-5:30pm Afternoon Variety
5-10 Pavilion performers given 30 min. blocks of times.
(Performers roaming Town Square, coordinated with those performing in
Bandshell)
Music & entertainment provided by local groups (dance, skits, etc.) & the Arts
Council of NE Tarrant County, Carroll ISD, etc. @Bandshell Pavilion
Public safety presentation by police, EMS, & fire departments @parking lot of
1709 & Carroll
Food samples provided by participating restaurants
Kids Art of Town Square (winning entries from Carroll schools- each grade)
displayed in tent throughout afternoon
Tent for trivia(form for kids to fill-in from newspaper advertisement) & drawings
for prizes
1:00-1:15pm Gun Fiiht
1:30-2:OOpm Open (Entertainment in process of being confirmed.)
2:00-2:45pm Runawav Theater Variety Performance @Bandshell Pavilion
3 -OOpm Ft. Worth Zoo presentation @Animal Tent
4. :30pm Lake Cities Band performs music
z
5:30-6:30pm Open (Entertainment in process of being confirmed.)
6 ;8:00pm
:15pm Lake Cities Band performs swing dance music @Bandshell Pavilion
Swing dancers dance
7.3 Erin Hudnell (Southlake resident, Carroll H.S. graduate, TCU student, Grapevine
Opry performer) sings with band
9:00pm Retailers close & Clean-up Begins
Last Updated on 2/11/99 5:04 PM By CB
City of Southlake, Texas
Note to Council Packet:
The minutes from the February 2, 1999
City Council meeting are not available at
the time of this packet preparation, but
will be delivered to you individually on
Monday morning.
Thank you.
SA
r City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Nona Whitehead, SPIN Coordinator
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99-09,Appointing SPIN Standing Committee representative
for Neighborhood#13
Action Requested: Appointment of Bill Stone as representative for SPIN Neighborhood#13.
Background
Information: Neighborhood#13 has been vacant for several months. Two advertised
meetings have been held seeking a replacement for this neighborhood,
without success. Bill Stone from Southridge Lakes has volunteered to
serve the remainder of this term, which expires in December of 1999.
Financial
Considerations: None
Citizen Input/
Board Review None
Alternatives: There are no other interested citizens at this time.
Supporting
Documents: None
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends the appointment of Mr. Stone as representative for
neighborhood#13.
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
rty ger's Office
:J
RESOLUTION 99-09
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 is of the opinion that a citizen advisory committee would
be of assistance to the City Council and City staff by providing a more available form of citizen
participation in the affairs of the City and to create a forum for neighbor to neighbor
communication; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council has created such a committee by ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council is to appoint one representative for each of the designated
neighborhoods from recommendations provided by their neighborhoods; and,
WHEREAS, vacancies occur when SPIN terms expire, and when representatives decide
to seek elective office and/or other board appointments and new appointments are required; 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:
Neighborhood#13 Bill Stone 1999
Resolution No.99-09
SPIN Appointment
Page Two
Section 3. This resolution is hereby effective upon passage by the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE DAY OF 1999.
CITY OF SOU THLAKE,TEXAS
BY:
Mayor Rick Stacy
ATTEST:
Sandra L. LeGrand
City Secretary
City of Southlake,Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 11, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
i
FROM: Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99-04; Approving and Authorizing Publication of Notice of
Intent to Issue Certificates of Obligation, Series 1999
Action Requested: Approval of Resolution No. 99-04 as initial step to issue certificates of
obligation for capital improvement projects.
Background
Information: The FY1998-99 budget includes a capital projects component that
provides cost estimates and projected timing of water, sewer, roadway,
drainage and building improvement/construction projects. Estimated
project costs for FY1998-99 are $16,647,593. Attached is a three-page
summary of the projects to be funded.
I
The City's financial advisor, Jim Sabonis with First Southwest Company,
has recommended that the maximum amount of this Resolution be set at
$17,030,000 to cover the projects and issuance costs. Once this
Resolution is approved, the City may issue LtU than that amount, but
cannot exceed it. The Resolution authorizes the publication of a notice in
the newspaper of the City's intent to issue certificates of obligation. The
certificates are issued and approved by the adoption of an ordinance, with
the 1st and 2nd readings scheduled for March 16 and April 6,
respectively. The City would receive funding in early May. A copy of
the proposed schedule of events is included.
The City is issuing certificates of obligation for these projects because the
projects are more than the City can fund in one year from current
revenues or other sources of funds. There are a number of large water
and sewer infrastructure projects in the budget that will provide and
improve service throughout the City. The budget also includes
improvements to neighborhood street, drainage, and continuation of the
neighborhood sewer program.
Financial
Considerations: Part of the certificates, $7,599,918, is for street and drainage
improvements, and to purchase system-wide computer equipment and
software to address year 2000 issues. This will be repaid through the
City's ad valorem tax rate. These certificates will not affect the FY1998-
99 $.422 tax rate, and it is the City's intent to maintain the tax rate at the
same level in the future within the planning parameters of the multi-year
5 c _/
Curtis E. Hawk
Resolution No. 99-04
February 11, 1999
page 2
financial plan. The portion attributable to the drainage improvements,
$959,559, may be repaid with revenues from the proposed Southlake
Drainage Utility System rather than property taxes. The proposed System
will be presented to the Council for consideration at the February 23,
1999 Special City Council Meeting.
Approximately $7,009,455 is for projects that are part of the City's
Impact Fee Study, and the annual debt service for this portion of the
certificates will be repaid through collected impact fees. There is
$2,038,220 in water and sewer neighborhood projects, which will be
repaid through the City's Utility Fund. The remainder, $382,407, will be
used for issuance costs as necessary, including accrued interest, 1%
underwriter's discount, and bond insurance premium, with any excess
remaining after all costs have been paid to be allocated to the projects.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: The Resolution is the first step in issuing certificates of obligation.
Citizen input or Board review is not a requirement of the Resolution,
however a Public Hearing is scheduled for April 6 with the second
reading of the ordinance to issue the certificates.
Legal Review: Ed Esquivel with the law firm Fulbright and Jaworski serves as the City's
bond counsel, and as such has prepared the Resolution.
Alternatives: In the absence of issuing the certificates, capital projects would be funded
on a pay-as-you-go basis. Budgets and the timing of projects would be
prioritized based on the amount of revenue projected by fiscal year.
Supporting
Documents: 1999 Capital Improvement Program Schedule of Events
Fiscal Year 1998-99 Capital Projects listing
Staff
Recommendation: Approval of Resolution No. 99-04, approving and authorizing publication
of notice of intent to issue certificates of obligation, series 1999.
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
City ana s Office
1.5
City of Southlake, Texas
and
Southlake Park Development Corporation (SPDC)
1999 Capital Improvement Program
1)City of seudwab-cwtlneates of oebp.non.sere it"(City Capital lmvrovernoM P0w■m)
2)CRY of Southbb-CwtMkates of OOMpwtion.Sane(19ee-e(T1F Capital' %moveo- Program)
s)SouMteta Pare Development Corporation-Lies Tax Revenue 9onrls,!ones 1 M
Proposed Schedule of Events
Complete
By Day Event
25-lan-99 Monday Regular SPDC Board Meeting
SPDC Approves Resolution Declaring luteutiou to Undertake Project
and Calling for a Public Hearing en the Project
(Nonce must be published 15 days before hewing and allow for
a 50 day pennon process)
1 J-Feb-99 Sunday ?%ibhcanon of Notice of Public Hearing an SPDC Project
16Feb-99 Tuesday Re[olar City Council Merrinn
City Approves Resolution to Anthorta Notice of Intent to Issue
Certificates of Obligation.Series 19"
City Approves Resolution to Authorize Notice of latent to Issue
Certificates of Obligation.Series 1999-B
I 9-Feb-99 Thursday First Publication of Nonce of Ir(mt to Issue
Cerui:cares of 0biiganon.Sores 1999
Fvst Publication of Nonce of latmf to Issue
Cer•ncates of Obligation.Series 1999-B
25-Feb-99 Thursday Second P blication of Notice of Intent to Issue
Certificates of Obligation.Series 1999
Second Publication of Nonce of Itivat to Issue
Certificates of Obligation.Series 1999-8
I LaMar-99 Tuesday Rerolsr Citv Council Meeting
Iat Reading of Ordinance to Issue
Certificates of Obligation,Series 1999
1st Reading of Ordinance to lame
Certificates of Obligation,Series 1999-B
6-Apr-99 Tuesday Special SPDC Board Meedur
Public Hearing on Project
SPDC Approves Resolution Authorising the Issuance of the
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds.Series 19"
Signing of the Bond Purchase Agtoement
Regular City Council Meeting
tad Riding of Ordnance to Issue
Certificates of Obligation.Series 19"
City Approves Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of the
Certificates of Obligation,Series 19"
2nd Reading of Ordnance to Ise
Certificates of Obligation,Series 1999-8
City Approves Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of the
Certirtcates of Obligation,Series 1999-8
City Approves Resolution Approviog the Issuance of the
SPDC Saks Tax Revenue Bonds.Series 19"
Signing of the Certificate Purchase Agreements
9-Apr-99 Friday Attorney General Approves Certificates and Bond Sales
27-Apr-99 Tuesday
4May-99 Tumid" .Closing of Debt Issues and Delivery of New Money Foodis to City end SPDC
("Bold areas heats formal City Conseil and SPDC Board action.
Fine sonYeen caagesr ` 1— 2 2,9M
W
0: w
5 CO CD W
0 U Z W Z Q Y a..
Z
0 2 2 W Q 2 X
(9 Q Z W CO) U W (� 0 O cV
Y Co � WIxW CO ZN F- OU
co W
d Zct) lja ZJ (nJ Z (� 0 wu- W (L d
Q W W g a m Z 2 � 2 z m j � � 0 002 - c
N W O WgOU � UOW0 Q ZQ � 0LL. ZUO CL
� co
-W z UUQO , t- 0 ~ Hcnf- W OZU
Y U 2 W WZ-) OoUo O 0 >ad W ZQWQ � � UO a�
O Q z (Dz wrn � rn ui Wf- � zCLw
opC Q OU9 Wa J � W ixz � c9 � a � Z U U,
d W tL & a �ndfn d 0z0 WOU � Wu-i 0
z as W 0 gw � w 2 = 0z0 � a. zw
LL W p 0 0 0 O
U O d U U U Q W W W
Z
w X O (9 0 0 0
LL U U U U d Y
LL_ 0 0 0 0 wo Q
U ►-
W
� 0
Va)oho NV�„
r o0 o _
O q 0OooOrrorO000 oQ O O O O N O
} coO co O00 LA LA O c0 s O O c0 OO (rD-
O
N CD
c0 00 N
rNQ Cl O O O N O M N h tp h to O O O to O
WO } O NY O t to N N O O) 00 O O) co co O co O O 00 O
>. Z LL N a to l f- fRrt9 O fR CD CD r N Cl) r N
LL 64 � w cl s ). va v� i � � Fa � vZ � � � >
WLL � f oOOr
Y W
-�
H 0
N F a
O r W U uj
O Q = J W 'r` m
a
a w C� w
Hp o o > WW � � z
V d z 00 Z W F- w cn
c Y W � = Z Q Z O z
J j O O g U o
Q Q Y U ~ x z = o a
W z m W J (, Ly U
Q O o-
= zz2w -J2W U ~� 0
W 0 Y Q z O� Q Wo 0 0 W 02
� z
ZNo �
y 0H d m W W Z
WLL UYZo oQZJ wW pw0z O2 Inp cn
N Q � U — U U Z r co
~ W z = W W > � N am _ W W W � _ � ~ D
O O lnv� Zw W V O *kLL_ U � � (� C o w m 0 U U
O ~ W 0 m W OW WW = W � cnJW ~ � QQ � (X2H � HU
} J O J W R Q H Q W
tw- F- N � Qvf- � „ � X 2 F mwaH — YF- 00 = Oaw F- ZO
yU .� v � WzCD Zzf- O m f. zMZ = zQF- FOu- to WO_
W W — LL W V � OoNQQZ � Q c� _, Ow � Q � UUOzWQ w �
H J Q J ' = LL r W 2 Q' Q LL LL Z Z z t- = 0 0 0 0 J > Q
JELL Q O � � Wg � W �- mow Z � OL� f OOMZZ = H- � W Z p >
v U a rnUE- waUz �z UU3 W Zwwo » � QYU wz
°� a. � zoz M00 U z Ix a —
LQLW � V HFW- � F- W � W � � Z } W � � JUJa W cx WO - W W 2Q
JVO Z C) Z wQ OW O 2 z > ZC� C� 1V Ww0 F
F. QQ � W Z ~ WxwWw — t— W ZCDw (X Z UWYO Q > W
vn, 2 t- U U LL_ P � () Q > Cl) Zw W Wfn (� � [rgJ 3 Q }
Lu UU J U � w � � coU) ¢ � Qf- wF- � Ozw LL
J QZQ (DQU — }} 2F- J � �
V Z J Q Z W W W W W W O In W Y > F-
0zwm H o � 3 > U >> LLt- 0 < PH- � W w 0 9 P Q �
d' Ma � p LLO WOE; w00 U-- cG O avfVfV (V `i? w � cP0 < O 0 a
a20a F- H � 0 0 W W a0r -1 F 3NrrrrZdF- N0W0- t-- � U rn
N M v w w 1, w M O r N m v w w 1.- CO Of O r N M LA w h 00 m O r N eM le LO
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M N
U-
O
Q
(n O
W
Z CO w J
W W w CO D W 0 cr N
N N �- J W W w O
0 z a
? � O J - m � � W cr w0HH ►w- LU F-- a0 Z � a
F- Ot- (L r � � LU Jw � Uwww w2x � w c�
H > Q 00 m < 0 Q a 0 0 a a a a 0 m a c
Q U (n U Z Q Z c
O a F- 0
Y V m } p } � w(.) m mO000 OOw a0 0
Z W 00 wzv Om dC9 C9 C�Zzz ZU � d Z
O
O r UC9 � O F- C� s
w . 0 zzw wx WZ ) v) in U) Xz
W W W W F- to
a °' U' w � C� o 0 U) 30000 0u) z � 0
Z to 0 to Z Q w m 0 cn 0
W w m U
C� 0 0 W cla m U w0 Z
m CO w ix a 0
0 ~ w
< 0
o�
00 Q O M 00 O O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 to O O N 0 0 0 00 O O O O O O O O
O OD (O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W to 0 o 1` O O M O O O O O O w tD v O w tb
CD
� O 1� tt) O (D f� O 00 O O O O O N to to O (0 to O o 00 O co O O O � to � t0 to M M
Qf
O1 } O to O O 1- v O 00 O O O to O to N 00 O t- N (O O to Cl 00 O m O Cl O N h 1l� to to
w O V to r r fM 0 to O to M W to M N to O r to 1- 0 (O 1- N to r r- r M M O M V N
} N 64 (A to to GP' O to O r r
LL z � LL EA t!i r N M 69 M V3 r to ER N (R N r EA 69 N. 6 EA r (A GH fA
Q 6H d9 to d4 d4 EA ER d4 69. 04. ER EH ER EA
Z ER tR &9.
Y U U.
Q w _
= O 0
IL c Z O N
O 0 x
La. 3 Q W O m C-
0
� ; w F-
0
Z
vm ° o 0
c O a -W, F-
Q 0 ul U
Q O_ Z V a Q w> >
F- -� Z z z U) J _ 7 0
Z U Z W
U a O m 0 m z ~ w O Q Ir F- w
F- F- Z mWQ0 > 00O a) a z � J � w pz n
COw ZOO QZUx � OF- Z w mUwcn 0
� � � H � 0 — � C) uw w ZZF— c~jU w
UZ Ix DU } » � 2F- � W ZHZZwZ 00
� (� � WX QOQmcnZF- > U) 0000 � 0 � � w0
F- 0 W J "W to U F- 1- CO
6Q awn - I mQF' 2Z W wmw0zU zZ 0H m LOU
Oz ZWZO a F- Wx0x OQcn rw
> a (xOZ 0O00 (D Qc) 3 QmF- wf= � C) < :r w WF- U)
OU) (/� � — W UQ zF- Q
m W U U (nO � � � OJw Z � 1- UF- W W x x m
J m J W w Q w — U Q } W ~ O � m � m W FQ- Q m z fn
QxQWx � aLL � r� V (nw a 0 � UOZ � Z (� � 0 U)n eMw � w
CO � 0J — u. wCrZ O mwooF- OF- W m W W d F-
W x m = W w W Q �'Q Q ~ m Z Z W = W Z W W >—� W �_ W W LU Y 2 0
Z 0 U Z Z > O � m w J Y Q Z W Z W Y W 0 Q
m (9 000w0IX QO O 0 -1Z � 0 � 00E- mw � QUw QF-
r, ZUz � m � J � � � oQOw m � F- > w � wzaJ `" zzUO � R � Zcn
W zY � m Ovvot� } Q J = } W W xOw W � — t> � � OUOW >
--) 00 = 00mO � � � J0w Q 0 w z Ww UC7wwY � 000J00Q
0 U z m m U x 2 w = a ~O w = w it >> Y w m w W U Q 0 0 0 Q M-121
z 0Q � OWWwxX0ax � z � uiYcncnce) LLLL nz F- zcnc) ca -iMUxcnm } UUcnF-
N M O N M to t0 t0 Of O N M d N W ti 00 O, O a- N M at to W � co to O e- N M er N
� V to to to to to La LO to b to (� t0 w t0 w to tp to t0 w � f, V, ti 1� � N
lL
0
to
i Q
w LLI w
C9
c�
N F- U) C X
� � 0 0N
= Z Z Z OU
Q Z Z Z a
}. O C7 w W
U
Q ~ W in m m C
N U Z
Y V z ca otS o
LU O W W W
U N N N L
Ix a O 0 0 T
LL O O
Q Q Q
H
Q O C7 C9
W
� � 0
OD
00 Q oo N O o o o► aoovo> M 040o00orn en
N O 00 O O O CO) to to04am to m (DtHUl) fi10 0 0 O
}
CO CM O m O O O C) I N O O tN to O N O O cM W m CA V e- v N N 00 O 01 G0 O 00 M 1` Ul) CO O (D Go (A
} LLj 0 00 >. — N O a) I-- 1` 00 v O C.) O 00 tt1 at h It o O m N
Z CA LL EH tiT N CO c7 m %- tG O O to � O � IT N — tR CA
LL Q (D C y fA tH 44 0 tD 1z tV C+i to W 0 fA tR to tH fR
Z �► Ir. u� a w w v. eq
Y V a
Q w
O
D
O
N N
LL } Q
O W }
>' > W U �
U w z O z Q w
a w w 2 a-
N m U O
J U U = > = a
O a Y z (LXQ
Q a
Q a = Z m z acn
C� Q Lw Q O= D CO � ZOzz Z
— w O > Z w w w LL
LL
a O Z Q W w 2 a U a0 > > W
a0 O F-
3 oLLv 'o �- � � LL � 2wvaa }
y Qv � a � LWLL=L oy wU) W QLL � � }
WWw o f- ' a N Q � Z af- I- z Zt- OW �
O W O W o a U � E W } W J Q W = 0 Z J_
U) O Ix W OQ _ja d7 N � w2 aQZ
U) U) X MdW Z aa � L� y0 } W zU � QZQ
� L" O j ? � g Val = ~ � U) a. ~ 0Qcna � < U
WOw
WZQ Lj W M m m m m Wa JQ a
H0Q� J—�
Z
m 00000 C/) 0W Z O wWwWw . O
ZP a D O WJWUwa _
w W o m - 0 Z C.) W Zd Z Q WJ ~ OW — W W OOOOJ I Z d
OZ V G aZ Zna
Z Q � aZ
L > 0 o LLnvWW - Qa cUvQ OD
> 2dFQQQ-
'
N M O It- ccCDO N M to t0 ►� 00 CA O N M w w P 00 CA O e- N M � O to
P 1� L� f` 00 00 00 00 00 Coco 00 00 co m m m CA CA m CA 0) 01 CA O O O O O O O N
LL
0
Q
V � r.
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99-08, Approving and Authorizing Publication of Notice of
Intent to Issue Certificate of Obligation, Series 1999B
Action Requested: Approval of Resolution No. 99-08 as the initial step to issue certificates of
obligation for the first phase of the Town Hall project within the Tax
Increment Reinvestment Zone.
Background
Information: The agreement for architectural services and construction management
services for the Town Hall project were recently approved by the City
Council. The total for both of these agreements is $2.7 million ($1.2
million for the architectural services, $390,000 for the construction
management fee and $1.11 million for the general conditions fee for
construction management). An additional $800,000 is included for
infrastructure and to provide funding to initiate the phased construction of
the project. The par amount of the certificates is proposed at $3.61
million, of which $110,000 is for accrued interest, issuance costs,
underwriter's discount and bond insurance premium.
The Resolution establishes a maximum dollar amount for the certificates
at $3.61 million. Once the Resolution is approved, the City may issue
1= than that amount, but may not exceed it. The Resolution authorizes
the publication of a notice in the newspaper of the City's intent to issue
certificates of obligation. The certificates are issued and approved by the
adoption of an ordinance, with the 1st and 2nd readings scheduled for
March 16 and April 6, respectively. The City would receive funding in
early May. A copy of the proposed schedule of events is included.
Financial
Considerations: The certificates of obligation will be issued with a dedicated pledge of
accumulated tax increment reinvestment zone revenues, and a backup
pledge of the City's property tax. The repayment of the certificates will
be structured such that interest only would be paid for the first few years,
minimizing the initial outlays required. The reinvestment zone was
created effective January 1, 1997, meaning that date is the baseline for the
values within the zone. City, county, hospital district, and junior college
district property taxes collected on the increment values after that date are
dedicated to the zone, and will be used to fund the Town Hall and other
infrastructure improvements within the zone.
Curtis E. Hawk
Resolution No. 99-08
February 12, 1999
;e 2
Citizen Input/
Board Review: The Resolution is the first step in issuing certificates of obligation.
Citizen input or Board review is not a requirement of the Resolution,
however a Public Hearing is scheduled for April 6 with the second
reading of the ordinance to issue the certificates.
Legal Review: Ed Esquivel with the law firm Fulbright and Jaworski serves as the City's
bond counsel, and as such, has prepared the Resolution.
Alternatives: None available other than pay-as-you-go within the Tax Increment
Reinvestment Zone.
Supporting
Documents: 1999 Capital Improvement Program Schedule of Events
Staff
Recommendation: Approval of Resolution No. 99-08, approving and authorizing publication
of notice of intent to issue certificates of obligation, series 1999B.
(tow,
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
Ci a er' Offic
City of Southlake, Texas
and
Southlake Park Development Corporation (SPDC)
1999 Capital Improvement Program
Issuance at
1)cbY of 36atltske-CarWaalr of oWigatiorr.sense 19"(City Capisl knprownw"P>awsmi)
2)Cky of Se W"M-Cesalsats sf Obdg@dO n.Sense 1 blFB(nF CaPMO Irrrprovamest Program)
3)3oogWke Park poYolspmard Coepor do -Sane Tax Revanua Bonds,sense tote
Proposed Schedule of Events
Complete
BY Day Event
25-1an-99 Monday Reeular SPDC Board Mwdnt
SPDC Approves Resolution Declaring Intention to Undertake Project
and Calling for a Public Hearing am the Project
(Notice must be published IS drys before housing and allow for
a 60 day portion process)
14-Feb-99 Sunday Publication of Notice of Public Hearing an SPDC Project
t6Feb99 Tuesday Renlar City Council Maeda
City Approves Resolution to Andwize Netien of latest to Issue
Certificates of OWigatian,Sarin 19"
City Approves Resolution to Authorize Notkor of latest to Iwo
Certificates of Obligation,Series 1f99-B
19-Feb-99 Thursday First Publication of Nonce of Imatt to Issue
Certificates of Obligation.Series 1999
First Publication of Notice of Intent to Issue
Certificates of Obligation.Series 1999-B
25-Feb-99 Thursday Second Publication of Notice of intent to Isim
Certificates of Obligation.Series 1999
Second Publication of Notice off—to Issue
Certificates of Obligation.Series 1999-B
16-Mat-99 Tuesday Rsytular City Council Meeliaa
1st Rending of Ordinance to lane
Certificates of Obfigsdoa,Series 19"
lit Reading of Ordinance to Lane
Certificates of Obligation,Series 1999-B
6Apr-99 Tuesday Special SPDC Board Meeting
Public Haring on Project
SPDC Approves Resolution Andmixing dt!sane of the
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds,Series 19"
Stilwell of the Bond Purchase Agramtat
Remlar City Cooed Meech
2nd Rending of Ordiatan is Issues
Certificates of Obligation,Series 19"
City Approves Ordinance Authorizing the innate of the
Certificates of Obligation,Series 19"
2nd Reading of Ordinance to Issue
Certificates of Obligation,Series I999-11
City Approves Ordinance Astberising the Issuance of tho
Certificates of Obligation,Series 19996B
City Approves Resolution Approving the Isntce of the
SPDC Saks Tax Revenue Bands,Series 19"
Signing of the Certificate Purchase Agreements
9-Apr-99 Friday Attorney General Approves Certificates and Bond Sales
27-Apr-99 Tuesday
4 h4y-99 Today of Debt Issues and Delivery of New Maury Fads Io City and SPDC
alBdd arm hadieaes f rsal Cky Coand and SPDC Boord action.
now br.
Far3arhetCaeluny _--
r ,
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 11, 1999
To: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
From: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Public Works
Subject: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a residential developer agreement
for O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition, Lots 10 & 11
Action Requested: Recommend approval for the Mayor to enter into a developer
agreement for O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition, Lots 10 & 11.
Background
Information: In 1998 a plat showing was approved for O.W. Knight No. 899
Addition, Lots 10 & 11. Building permits were then taken out
with the intention of installing septic tanks, as the sanitary sewer
was not available. Later, as the houses were under construction,
the builder decided to extend the public sanitary sewer line
approximately 320 feet to serve lots 10 & 11. This developer
agreement is to cover the construction of this public sanitary
sewer line.
Financial
Considerations: A park fee of$1,000 per lot was paid at the time the building
permits were issued.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: None.
Legal Review: This developer agreement is our standard developer agreement,
originally drafted by City Attorneys.
Alternatives: None.
w
Supporting
Documents: Developer Agreement
Plat Exhibit
5E--1
Staff
Recommendation: Place the developer agreement for O.W. Knight, No. 899
Addition, Lots 10 & 11 on the February 16, 1999 City Council
Agenda for Council to review and approve the Mayor to enter
into a developer agreement.
Giz-
Charlie J. Thomas, P.E.
CT/ts
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
City M ager' ffi e
O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition, Lots 10 & 11
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 O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition, Lots 10 & 11, 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 2 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, N/A, 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.
Residential Developer Agreement
1
5E-3
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.
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 funds or reduction in
value of the account. Performance and payment bond, Letters of
Credit or cash escrow from the prime contractor(s) or other entity
reasonably acceptable to the City, hereinafter referred to as
Contractor, will be acceptable in lieu of Developer's obligations
specified above.
If the Developer chooses to construct bar ditches in lieu of curb and
gutter, and the City approved the design and grade of bar ditches,
Developer understands and agrees to provide maintenance on the
bar ditches for a period of two years from the date of acceptance of
the Addition. Maintenance includes trash and debris cleanup,
mowing, and erosion control.
E. Until the performance and payment bonds, Letters of Credit or cash
escrow required in Paragraph C have been furnished as required,
no approval of work on or in the Addition shall be given by City and
no work shall be initiated on or in said Addition by Developer, save
and except as provided above.
7
Residential Developer Agreement
2
5E-4
F. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon
acceptance by City, title to all facilities and improvements
mentioned hereinabove shall be vested in the City and Developer
hereby relinquishes any right, title or interest in and to said facilities
or any part thereof. It is further understood and agreed that until
the City accepts such improvements, 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 acknowledgement that all facilities are complete,
have been inspected and approved and are being accepted by the
City.
G. On all public facilities included in this Agreement for which
Developer awards his own construction contract, Developer agrees
to the following procedure:
1. Developer agrees to pay the following:
a. Inspection fees equal to three percent (3%) of the
cost of the water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer
facilities, on all facilities included in this Agreement for
which Developer awards his or her own construction
contract, to be paid prior to construction of each
phase and based on actual bid construction cost;
b. Administrative Processing fee equal to two percent
(2%) of the cost of water, street, drainage and
sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this
Agreement for which Developer awards his or her
own construction contract, to be paid prior to
construction of each phase and based on actual bid
construction cost;
C. Trench testing (95% Standard);
d. The additional charge for inspections during Saturday,
Sunday, holidays, and after normal working hours;
e. Any charges for re-testing as a result of failed tests;
f. All gradation tests required to insure proper cement
and/or lime stabilization.
Residential Developer Agreement
3
5E-5
2. The City agrees to bear the expense of:
a. All nuclear density tests on the roadway subgrade
(95% Standard);
b. Technicians time for preparing concrete cylinders;
and
C. Concrete cylinder tests and concrete coring samples.
The City can delay connection of buildings to service lines or
water mains constructed under this Agreement until said
water mains and service lines have been completed to the
satisfaction of and acceptance by the City.
H. The Developer and any third party, independent entity engaged in
the construction of houses, hereinafter referred to as "Builder" will
be responsible for mowing all grass and weeds and otherwise
reasonably maintaining the aesthetics of all land and lots in said
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 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.
I. Any guarantee of payment instrument (Performance Bond, Letter of
Credit, etc.) submitted by the Developer or Contractor on a form
other than the one which has been previously approved by the City
as "acceptable" shall be submitted to the City Attorney and this
Agreement shall not be considered in effect until such City Attorney
has approved the instrument. Approval by the City shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed.
J. Any surety company through which a bond is written shall be a
surety company duly authorized to do business in the State of
Texas, provided that the City, through the City Manager, shall retain
the right to reject any surety company as a surety for any work
under this or any other Developer's Agreement within the City of
Southlake regardless of such company's authorization to do
business in Texas. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed.
Residential Developer Agreement
4
5E-6
II. FACILITIES
A. On Site Water
The Developer hereby agrees to install water facilities to service
lots as shown on the final plat of the Addition. Water facilities will
be installed in accordance with plans and specifications to be
prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City.
Further, the Developer agrees to complete this installation in
accordance with Ordinance No. 170 and shall be responsible for all
construction costs, materials and engineering. In the event that
certain water lines are to be oversized because of City
requirements, the City will reimburse the Developer for the oversize
cost greater than the cost of an 8" line. Additionally, the City
agrees to provide temporary water service at Developer's request
and expense, for construction, testing and irrigation purposes only,
to individual lots during the construction of 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 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 the plans and specifications to be prepared by the
Developer's engineer and released by the City Engineer.
Residential Developer Agreement
5
5E-7
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 of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices as prepared by the Developer's engineer by
an engineering study or direction by the Director of
Public Works. It is understood that Developer may
put in signage having unique architectural features,
however, should the signs be moved or destroyed by
any means the City is only responsible for
replacement of standard signage.
3. All street improvements will be subject to inspection and
approval by the City. No work will begin on any street
included herein prior to complying with the requirements
contained elsewhere in this Agreement. All water, sanitary
sewer, and storm drainage utilities which are anticipated to
be installed within the street or within the street right-of-way
will be completed prior to the commencement of street
construction on the specific section of street in which the
utility improvements have been placed or for which they are
programmed. It is understood by and between the
Developer and the City that this requirement is aimed at
substantial compliance with the majority of the pre-planned
facilities.
It is understood that in every construction project a decision
later may be made to realign a line or service which may
occur after construction has commenced. The Developer
hereby agrees to advise the City Director of Public Works as
quickly as possible when such a need has been identified
and to work cooperatively with the City to make such utility
change in a manner that will be least disruptive to street
construction or stability.
Residential Developer Agreement
6
5E-8
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 by paid to the City prior to acceptance of the
Addition.
G. AMENITIES
It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the
Addition may incorporate a number of unique amenities and
aesthetic improvements such as ponds, aesthetic lakes, unique
landscaping, walls and may incorporate specialty signage and
accessory facilities. The Developer agrees to accept responsibility
for the construction and maintenance of all such aesthetic or
specialty item such as walls, vegetation, signage, landscaping,
street furniture, pond and lake improvements until such
responsibility is turned over to a homeowners association.
Residential Developer Agreement
7
5E-9
H. USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the
Developer may provide unique amenities within public right-of-way,
such as landscaping, irrigation, lighting, etc., for the enhancement
of the Addition. The Developer agrees to maintain these amenities
until such responsibility is turned over to a homeowners
association. The Developer and his successors and assigns
understand that the City shall not be responsible for the
replacement of these amenities under any circumstances and
further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any
and all damages, loss or liability of any kind whatsoever by reason
of injury to property or third person occasioned by its use of the
public right-of-way with regard to these improvements and the
Developer shall, at his own cost and expense, defend and protect
the City against all such claims and demands.
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.
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
12 list of all subcontractors and suppliers, which will be
providing greater than a $1,000 value to the Addition.
Residential Developer Agreement
8
5E-10
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
OMMISSION, 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
Residential Developer Agreement
9
5E-11
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 construction project,
indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, servants
and employees, from any loss, damage, liability or expense on
account of damage to property and injuries, including death, to any
and all persons which may arise out of any defect, deficiency or
negligence of the engineer's designs and specifications
incorporated into any improvements constructed in accordance
therewith, and the Developer shall defend at his own expense any
suits or other proceedings brought against the City, its officers,
agents, servants or employees, or any of them, on account thereof,
to pay all expenses and satisfy all judgement which may be
incurred by or rendered against them or any of them in connection
herewith.
D. This Agreement or any part 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
acknowledgement by the City of completion under Paragraph 1.F.
Residential Developer Agreement
10
5E-12
1. The purchase of tangible personal property, other than
machinery or equipment and its accessories, repair, and
replacement parts, for use in the performance of this
Agreement is, therefore, exempt from taxation under
Chapter 151, Tax Code, if the tangible property is:
a. necessary and essential for the performance of the
Agreement; and
b. completely consumed at the job site.
2. The purchase of a taxable service for use in the performance
of this Agreement is exempt if the service is performed at the
job site and if:
a. this Agreement expressly requires the specific service
to be provided or purchased by the person performing
the Agreement; or
b. the service is integral to the performance of the
Agreement.
H. Prior to final acceptance of this phase the Developer shall provide
to the City three (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
., Park fees were paid at the time the building permits were issued.
Residential Developer Agreement
11
5E-13
D. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
All construction activities shall meet the requirements of the Tree
Preservation Ordinance No. 585-A.
SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below.
DEVELOPER:
By: H Creek Development by Kosse Maykus
Title:
Address: P.O. Box 92908
Southlake, Texas 76092
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
On , before me, ,
Notary Public, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to
be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and
that by his signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of
which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(SEAL)
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Residential Developer Agreement
12
5E-14
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
By:
Rick Stacy, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary
Date:
Residential Developer Agreement
13
REQUIREMENTS FOR IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
1 . The Letter of Credit must have a duration of at least one year.
2. The Letter of Credit may be substituted for utility security deposits
exceeding $10,000.00. The City reserves the right to specify the face
amount of the Letter of Credit.
3. The Letter of Credit must be issued by a FDIC insured bank in a form
acceptable to the City of Southlake. The City reserves the right to
approve/disapprove the bank issuing the Letter of Credit.
4. The Letter of Credit must be issued by a bank that has a minimum capital
ratio of six percent (6%), and has been profitable for each of the last two
consecutive years.
5. The customer must provide the City with supporting financial information
on the bank to allow the City to ascertain requirements are met. Suitable
financial information would be the previous two (2) years December 31
Call Reports submitted to the FDIC and audited financial statements.
6. Partial drawings against Letter of Credit must be permitted.
7. The City must be able to draft on sight with proof of amount owed.
8. The customer pays any and all fees associated with obtaining Letter of
Credit.
9. Expiring Letter of Credit must be replaced by substitute Letters of Credit at
least 30 days prior to the expiration date on the Letter of Credit held by the
City.
J
Residential Developer Agreement
14
5E-16
t I
CN
t�+� 2Et • r l y 1 i t i t 1 24 f[j f � I Z 1!
4I > �! O
t� -C g
.� `� { •3 ( l
I 1- i l j I e!� r.oa b EJ Yt • I .e
11 11 A i i;e 4 A i i
41 w a a m 8 A e o- ! 1 Sa ! - - t• f rYr �� ��
3 � � ' ate•] ! tf R� q` s� a qt 8 i 8 8 7� 8 j � �� 1 � � 1i 2 � li � �
I fill
co
jif
I
-)
m
M
PI
i�
a AEA 3
a
oz
g d�1 � 'o a. A mac• - -
Z
o . A3
oot:o ;'
€ - i. � ^� I ! J l cSi'
a -old- . 1
y � ! !I i� i ' ( I � •v i t
! J� Bali 3fb!
5E-17y
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 11, 1999
To: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
From: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Public Works
Subject: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a residential developer agreement
for Loch Meadow Estates
I
Action Requested: Recommend approval for the Mayor to enter into a residential
developer agreement for Loch Meadow Estates.
Background
Information: A final plat has been approved for Loch Meadow Estates located
north of Dove Street and east of Ridgecrest Drive. On December
11, 1998, the City Council approved a partial developer
agreement for grading only. Attached is a standard developer
(law agreement for Loch Meadow Estates for the on-site public
improvements (streets, drainage, water and sanitary sewer). The
plan for sanitary sewer is to build a lift station large enough to
handle the entire drainage basin, approximately 675 acres, but
only install pumps large enough to handle existing development
plus growth up to approximately 150 units. The City would route
the sewer from Huntwick and Quail Creek and do away with the
Huntwick lift station. As the drainage basin develops, the pumps
can be upgraded. The new lift station and force main will pump
the sewer to the new force main to be constructed along Dove
Street. The lift station and force main are not part of the
developer agreement as the plans for them are not complete.
When these plans have been completed and the Deputy Director
of Public Works has approved them, an amended developer
agreement for these improvements will be brought to the Council
for approval.
Financial
Considerations: On December 14, 1998, the Park Board approved a park fee of
$1,000 per 24 developable lots, or $24,000. A memo from
Kevin Hugman is made part of this developer agreement.
5F-1
Citizen Input/
Board Review: None.
Legal Review: This developer agreement is our standard agreement, originally
drafted by City Attorneys.
Alternatives: None.
Supporting
Documents: Developer Agreement
Plat Exhibit
Staff
Recommendation: Place the developer agreement for Loch Meadow Estates on the
February 16, 1999 City Council Agenda for Council to review
and approve the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement.
Charlie omas, P.E.
CT/ts
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
City Offs
w
LOCH MEADOW ESTATES
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 Loch Meadow Estates, hereinafter referred to as the "Addition" to
the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, for the installation of certain
community facilities located therein, and to provide city services thereto. It is
understood by and between the parties that this Agreement is applicable to the
24 lots contained within the Addition and to the off-site improvements necessary
to support the Addition.
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, (three), 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.
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-3
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.
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 funds or reduction in
value of the account. Performance and payment bond, Letters of
Credit or cash escrow from the prime contractor(s) or other entity
reasonably acceptable to the City, hereinafter referred to as
Contractor, will be acceptable in lieu of Developer's obligations
specified above.
If the Developer chooses to construct bar ditches in lieu of curb and
gutter, and the City approved the design and grade of bar ditches,
Developer understands and agrees to provide maintenance on the
bar ditches for a period of two years from the date of acceptance of
the Addition. Maintenance includes trash and debris cleanup,
mowing, and erosion control.
E. Until the performance and payment bonds, Letters of Credit or cash
escrow required in Paragraph C 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.
Y
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-4
F. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon
acceptance by City, title to all facilities and improvements
mentioned hereinabove shall be vested in the City and Developer
hereby relinquishes any right, title or interest in and to said facilities
or any part thereof. It is further understood and agreed that until
the City accepts such improvements, 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 acknowledgement that all facilities are complete,
have been inspected and approved and are being accepted by the
City.
G. On all public facilities included in this Agreement for which
Developer awards his own construction contract, Developer agrees
to the following procedure:
1. Developer agrees to pay the following:
a. Inspection fees equal to three percent (3%) of the
cost of the water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer
facilities, on all facilities included in this Agreement for
which Developer awards his or her own construction
contract, to be paid prior to construction of each
phase and based on actual bid construction cost;
b. Administrative Processing fee equal to two percent
(2%) of the cost of water, street, drainage and
sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this
Agreement for which Developer awards his or her
own construction contract, to be paid prior to
construction of each phase and based on actual bid
construction cost;
C. Trench testing (95% Standard);
d. The additional charge for inspections during Saturday,
Sunday, holidays, and after normal working hours;
°= e. Any charges for re-testing as a result of failed tests;
f. All gradation tests required to insure proper cement
and/or lime stabilization.
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-5
2. The City agrees to bear the expense of:
a. All nuclear density tests on the roadway subgrade
(95% Standard);
b. Technicians time for preparing concrete cylinders;
and
C. Concrete cylinder tests and concrete coring samples.
The City can delay connection of buildings to service lines or
water mains constructed under this Agreement until said
water mains and service lines have been completed to the
satisfaction of and acceptance by the City.
H. The Developer and any third party, independent entity engaged in
the construction of houses, hereinafter referred to as Builder will be
responsible for mowing all grass and weeds and otherwise
reasonable 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 may contract for this service and bill the
Developer or Builder for reasonable costs. Should such cost
remain unpaid for 120 days after notice to Developer and Lender,
the City can file a lien on such property so maintained.
I. 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 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.
J. Any surety company through which a bond is written shall be a
surety company duly authorized to do business in the State of
Texas, provided that the City, through the City Manager, shall retain
the right to reject any surety company as a surety for any work
under this or any other Developer's Agreement within the City of
IZ Southlake regardless of such company's authorization to do
business in Texas. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed.
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-6
II. FACILITIES
A. On Site Water
The Developer hereby agrees to install water facilities to service
lots as shown on the final plat of the Addition. Water facilities will
be installed in accordance with plans and specifications to be
prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City.
Further, the Developer agrees to complete this installation in
accordance with Ordinance No. 170 and shall be responsible for all
construction costs, materials and engineering. In the event that
certain water lines are to be oversized because of City
requirements, the City will reimburse the Developer for the oversize
cost greater than the cost of an 8" line. Additionally, the City
agrees to provide temporary water service at Developer's request
and expense, for construction, testing and irrigation purposes only,
to individual lots during the construction of 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 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 the plans and specifications to be prepared by the
Developer's engineer and released by the City Engineer.
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-7
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 of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices as prepared by the Developer's engineer by
an engineering study or direction by the Director of
Public Works. It is understood that Developer may
put in signage having unique architectural features,
however, should the signs be moved or destroyed by
any means the City is only responsible for
replacement of standard signage.
3. All street improvements will be subject to inspection and
approval by the City. No work will begin on any street
included herein prior to complying with the requirements
contained elsewhere in this Agreement. All water, sanitary
sewer, and storm drainage utilities which are anticipated to
be installed within the street or within the street right-of-way
will be completed prior to the commencement of street
construction on the specific section of street in which the
utility improvements have been placed or for which they are
programmed. It is understood by and between the
Developer and they City that this requirement is aimed at
substantial compliance with the majority of the pre-planned
facilities.
It is understood that in every construction project a decision
later may be made to realign a line or service which may
occur after construction has commenced. The Developer
hereby agrees to advise the City Director of Public Works as
quickly as possible when such a need has been identified
and to work cooperatively with the City to make such utility
change in a manner that will be least disruptive to street
construction or stability.
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-8
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 by paid to the City prior to acceptance of the
Addition.
G. AMENITIES
It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the
Addition may incorporate a number of unique amenities and
aesthetic improvements such as ponds, aesthetic lakes, unique
landscaping, walls and may incorporate specialty signage and
accessory facilities. The Developer agrees to accept responsibility
for the construction and maintenance of all such aesthetic or
specialty item such as walls, vegetation, signage, landscaping,
street furniture, pond and lake improvements until such
responsibility is turned over to a homeowners association.
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-9
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 rights-of-
way, such as landscaping, irrigation, lighting, etc., for the
enhancement of the Addition. The Developer agrees to maintain
these amenities until such responsibility is turned over to a
homeowners association. The Developer and his successors and
assigns understand that the City shall not be responsible for the
replacement of these amenities under any circumstances and
further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any
and all damages, loss or liability of any kind whatsoever by reason
of injury to property or third person occasioned by its use of the
public right-of-way with regard to these improvements and the
Developer shall, at his own cost and expense, defend and protect
the City against all such claims and demands, excluding City's
gross negligence or willful misconduct.
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.
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
r4 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.
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-10
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.
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
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-11
the improvements to be constructed. In this connection, the
Developer or it's assigns shall for a period of two (2) years after the
acceptance by the City of Southlake of the completed construction
project, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents,
servants and employees, from any loss, damage, liability or
expense on account of damage to property and injuries, including
death, to any and all persons which may arise out of any defect,
deficiency or negligence of the engineer's designs and
specifications incorporated into any improvements constructed in
accordance therewith, and the Developer shall defend at his own
expense any suits or other proceedings brought against the City, its
officers, agents, servants or employees, or any of them, on account
thereof, to pay all expenses and satisfy all judgement which may be
incurred by or rendered against them or any of them in connection
herewith.
D. This Agreement or any part thereof or any interest herein, shall not
be assigned by the Developer except to the Homeowner's
Association for the development 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
employee a construction contractor who is approved by the City,
and whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed,
said contractor to meet City and statutory requirements for being
insured, licensed and bonded to do work in public streets and to be
qualified in all respects to bid on public streets and to be qualified in
all respects to bid on public projects of a similar nature.
F. Work performed under the Agreement shall be completed within
two (2) years from the date thereof. In the event the work is not
completed within the two (2) year period, the City may, at its
election, draw on the performance bond, Letter of Credit, or other
security provided by Developer and complete such work at
Developer's expense, provided however, that if the construction
under this Agreement shall have started within the two (2) year
period, the City may agree to renew the Agreement with such
renewed Agreement to be in compliance with the City policies in
effect at that time.
G. The City is an exempt organization under Section 151.309, Tax
Code, and the facilities constructed under this Agreement will be
dedicated to public use and accepted by the City upon
acknowledgement by the City of completion under Paragraph 15.
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-12
1 . The purchase of tangible personal property, other than
machinery or equipment and its accessories, repair, and
replacement parts, for use in the performance of this
Agreement is, therefore, exempt from taxation under
Chapter 151, Tax Code, if the tangible property is:
a. necessary and essential for the performance of the
Agreement; and
b. completely consumed at the job site.
2. The purchase of a taxable service for use in the performance
of this Agreement is exempt if the service is performed at the
job site and if:
a. this Agreement expressly requires the specific service
to be provided or purchased by the person performing
the Agreement; or
b. the service is integral to the performance of the
Agreement.
H. Prior to final acceptance of this phase the Developer shall provide
to the City three (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
3
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-13
C. SEWER
Developer agrees to work with the City of Southlake in the
development of a sewer plan to service the Development and the
currently unserved surrounding City areas. The size and scope of
the system will be determined in the near future in accordance with
the plans of the Developer and the needs of the City. Once these
plans are completed and approved by all interested parties, the
Developer will seek an amended Developer Agreement inclusive of
the approved sewer plan.
D. PARK FEES
The Developer agrees to pay the Park Fee of$1,000 per lot, in
accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483-F, Section 7.0.
There are 24 lots in Addition, which would bring the total cost of
Park Fee to $ 24,000.
E. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
All construction activities shall meet the requirements of the Tree
Preservation Ordinance No. 585-A.
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F—t4
SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below.
DEVELOPER:
By: Andy Jones
Title: President, Corps Property Holdings, Inc.
Address: PO Box 2246
Coppell, Texas 75019
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
On , before me, ,
Notary Public, personally appeared ,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to
be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and
that by his signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of
which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(SEAL)
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-15
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
By:
Rick Stacy, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary
Date:
r,
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-16
REQUIREMENTS FOR IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
1 . The Letter of Credit must have a duration of at least one year.
2. The Letter of Credit may be substituted for utility security deposits
exceeding $10,000.00. The City reserves the right to specify the face
amount of the Letter of Credit.
3. The Letter of Credit must be issued by a FDIC insured bank in a form
acceptable to the City of Southlake. The City reserves the right to
approve/disapprove the bank issuing the Letter of Credit.
4. The Letter of Credit must be issued by a bank that has a minimum capital
ratio of six percent (6%), and has been profitable for each of the last two
consecutive years.
5. The customer must provide the City with supporting financial information
on the bank to allow the City to ascertain requirements are met. Suitable
financial information would be the previous two (2) years December 31
Call Reports submitted to the FDIC and audited financial statements.
6. Partial drawings against Letter of Credit must be permitted.
7. The City must be able to draft on sight with proof of amount owed.
8. The customer pays any and all fees associated with obtaining Letter of
Credit.
9. Expiring Letter of Credit must be replaced by substitute Letters of Credit at
least 30 days prior to the expiration date on the Letter of Credit held by the
City.
Loch Meadow Estates
Residential Developer Agreement
5F-17
City of Southlake,Texas
MEMORANDUM
January 6, 1999
TO: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Public Works
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Park Dedication Requirements — Loch Meadow Estates
At its December 14, 1998 meeting, the Park and Recreation Board considered the park
dedication requirements for Loch Meadow Estates, a residential development. The developer
requested to pay fees of$1,000/lot for a total of$24,000 in lieu of park land dedication. The
plat exhibit shown to Park Board included 27 platted lots, however, three of these lots are
common areas and not developable lots, therefore were not included in the calculation for park
dedication fees.
The Park Board voted 6-0 to accept payment of park dedication fees in the amount of$24,000
for this development. Please contact me if you have any further questions.
V;J
KH
w
O)
C"
Oi
cr 7
v p
Z
P }
1 L
_ _ ► ! !��� �t� j`,! �� 8 i 7y E z p .�"'N�m� yd8:�3 FUa
1 i = L- NZ W� F b .
' 'e
rog,
�d:� � � � �W� ��� �00�6��E:~ z a
tt r�1 0
Co
�a o �a
fit
It
L y
Z =
ili•'i� j •si i 1 �� ��� �j � �i,l 1 11 i� � �■'jj
2 1-fit .a` i j, 1 jE'L i tt•1 c ;..?�•..+ s t !
; l wi I 'j �i!' D( ii i ' 1 z a
• ��Ej1e�t� 1 e'!Sri i 1 ii s�1!; t 7 7 t 5 t L IIt! € � ( E �!c YE � l�S�`�lEa
uj
as e•7 ! el w (( 1 7,a ° c a a� ■ ! ! a '�• r ' , jf
it �t i! � i
c� f1iliifil 11 ii i;t : ��'�z�:$1 i,1 i,1 1
I
I �
i + 'As'AgAs
—
-' � -.35..}-----
+,,,,: ;: 7 �_ _ .w ,Jiaf .►„�. 1
l31
5� � y I YZ J a' •3: 8 a 't� -•
�. i It
Sol
d� �� pi i i ■ t • 1 ■ ■ 7 1 r_I
-----sa - -- ----- - - -- - - -- -
--- .R — -- —M ------- — ---- �.:.a
- ■�■ a a ■ , a ■ a ■ a 1 ■ ■ Ile
is
� as•p ac7oaaow �i.—s' � :11 y R'..
Is a
•
F -
f
City of Southlake, Texas !
I
MEMORANDUM
j February- 11. 1999
To: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
From: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Public Works
Subject: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a residential developer agreement
for A.A. Freeman No. 522 Addition, Lots 5, 6 & 7
Action Requested: Recommend approval for the Mayor to enter into a residential
developer agreement for A.A. Freeman No. 522 Addition, Lots
5, 6 &7.
Background
Information: A final plat has been approved for A.A. Freeman No. 522
Addition, Lots 5, 6 & 7, located east of North Peytonville Road
on the north side of Southridge Lakes Phase H. The development
of the three lots includes the extension of a public sanitary sewer
line to serve the lots as the only public facility to be constructed.
Financial
Considerations: On February 8, 1999, the Park Board approved a park fee of
$1,000 per lot, or $3,000.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: None.
Legal Review: This developer agreement is our standard agreement, originally
drafted by City Attorneys.
Alternatives: None.
Supporting
Documents: Developer Agreement
Park Board Memo
Plat Exhibit
5G-1 r
Staff
..• Recommendation: Place the developer agreement for A.A. Freeman No. 522
Addition, Lots 5, 6 & 7 on the February 16, 1999 City Council
Agenda for Council to review and approve the Mayor to enter
into a developer agreement.
Charlie J. T omas, P.E.
CT/is
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
rJ/ 'A
City K r ice
LOTS 5, 6 & 7, A.A. FREEMAN NO. 522 ADDITION
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 Lots 5, 6 & 7, A.A. Freeman No. 522 Addition, 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 2 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, (N/A), 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.
x
Developer Agreement
Lots 5 &6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
1
5G-3
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.
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 funds or reduction in
value of the account. Performance and payment bond, Letters of
Credit or cash escrow from the prime contractor(s) or other entity
reasonably acceptable to the City, hereinafter referred to as
Contractor, will be acceptable in lieu of Developer's obligations
specified above.
If the Developer chooses to construct bar ditches in lieu of curb and
gutter, and the City approved the design and grade of bar ditches,
Developer understands and agrees to provide maintenance on the
bar ditches for a period of two years from the date of acceptance of
the Addition. Maintenance includes trash and debris cleanup,
mowing, and erosion control.
E. Until the performance and payment bonds, Letters of Credit or cash
escrow required in Paragraph C have been furnished as required,
no approval of work on or in the Addition shall be given by City and
no work shall be initiated on or in said Addition by Developer, save
and except as provided above.
Developer Agreement
Lots 5 & 6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
2
5G-4
F. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon
acceptance by City, title to all facilities and improvements
mentioned hereinabove shall be vested in the City and Developer
hereby relinquishes any right, title or interest in and to said facilities
or any part thereof. It is further understood and agreed that until
the City accepts such improvements, 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 acknowledgement that all facilities are complete,
have been inspected and approved and are being accepted by the
City.
G. On all public facilities included in this Agreement for which
Developer awards his own construction contract, Developer agrees
to the following procedure:
1. Developer agrees to pay the following:
a. Inspection fees equal to three percent (3%) of the
cost of the water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer
facilities, on all facilities included in this Agreement for
which Developer awards his or her own construction
contract, to be paid prior to construction of each
phase and based on actual bid construction cost;
b. Administrative Processing fee equal to two percent
(2%) of the cost of water, street, drainage and
sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this
Agreement for which Developer awards his or her
own construction contract, to be paid prior to
construction of each phase and based on actual bid
construction cost;
C. Trench testing (95% Standard);
d. The additional charge for inspections during Saturday,
Sunday, holidays, and after normal working hours;
e. Any charges for re-testing as a result of failed tests;
f. All gradation tests required to insure proper cement
and/or lime stabilization.
Developer Agreement
Lots 5&6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
3
5G-5
2. The City agrees to bear the expense of:
a. All nuclear density tests on the roadway subgrade
(95% Standard);
b. Technicians time for preparing concrete cylinders;
and
C. Concrete cylinder tests and concrete coring samples.
The City can delay connection of buildings to service lines or
water mains constructed under this Agreement until said
water mains and service lines have been completed to the
satisfaction of and acceptance by the City.
H. The Developer and any third party, independent entity engaged in
the construction of houses, hereinafter referred to as "Builder" will
be responsible for mowing all grass and weeds and otherwise
reasonably maintaining the aesthetics of all land and lots in said
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 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.
I. Any guarantee of payment instrument (Performance Bond, Letter of
Credit, etc.) submitted by the Developer or Contractor on a form
other than the one which has been previously approved by the City
as "acceptable" shall be submitted to the City Attorney and this
Agreement shall not be considered in effect until such City Attorney
has approved the instrument. Approval by the City shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed.
J. Any surety company through which a bond is written shall be a
surety company duly authorized to do business in the State of
Texas, provided that the City, through the City Manager, shall retain
the right to reject any surety company as a surety for any work
under this or any other Developer's Agreement within the City of
Southlake regardless of such company's authorization to do
business in Texas. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed.
Developer Agreement
Lots 5&6,A.A. Freeman No. 522 Addition
4
5G-6
II. FACILITIES
A. On Site Water (N/A)
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 (N/A)
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 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 (N/A)
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 the plans and specifications to be prepared by the
Developer's engineer and released by the City Engineer.
Developer Agreement
Lots 5 &6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
5
5G-7
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 of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices as prepared by the Developer's engineer by
an engineering study or direction by the Director of
Public Works. It is understood that Developer may
put in signage having unique architectural features,
however, should the signs be moved or destroyed by
any means the City is only responsible for
replacement of standard signage.
3. All street improvements will be subject to inspection and
approval by the City. No work will begin on any street
included herein prior to complying with the requirements
contained elsewhere in this Agreement. All water, sanitary
sewer, and storm drainage utilities which are anticipated to
be installed within the street or within the street right-of-way
will be completed prior to the commencement of street
construction on the specific section of street in which the
utility improvements have been placed or for which they are
programmed. It is understood by and between the
Developer and the City that this requirement is aimed at
substantial compliance with the majority of the pre-planned
facilities.
It is understood that in every construction project a decision
later may be made to realign a line or service which may
occur after construction has commenced. The Developer
hereby agrees to advise the City Director of Public Works as
quickly as possible when such a need has been identified
and to work cooperatively with the City to make such utility
change in a manner that will be least disruptive to street
construction or stability.
Developer Agreement
Lots 5 &6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
6
5G-8
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 (N/A)
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 by paid to the City prior to acceptance of the
Addition.
G. AMENITIES (N/A)
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.
Developer Agreement
Lots 5 &6,AA.Freeman No. 522 Addition
7
5G-9
H. USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (N/A)
It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the
Developer may provide unique amenities within public right-of-way,
such as landscaping, irrigation, lighting, etc., for the enhancement
of the Addition. The Developer agrees to maintain these amenities
until such responsibility is turned over to a homeowners
association. The Developer and his successors and assigns
understand that the City shall not be responsible for the
replacement of these amenities under any circumstances and
further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any
and all damages, loss or liability of any kind whatsoever by reason
of injury to property or third person occasioned by its use of the
public right-of-way with regard to these improvements and the
Developer shall, at his own cost and expense, defend and protect
the City against all such claims and demands.
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.
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.
Developer Agreement
Lots 5 &6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
8
5G-10
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.
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
Developer Agreement
Lots 5&6,A.A. Freeman No. 522 Addition
9
5G-11
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 construction project,
indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, servants
and employees, from any loss, damage, liability or expense on
account of damage to property and injuries, including death, to any
and all persons which may arise out of any defect, deficiency or
negligence of the engineer's designs and specifications
incorporated into any improvements constructed in accordance
therewith, and the Developer shall defend at his own expense any
suits or other proceedings brought against the City, its officers,
agents, servants or employees, or any of them, on account thereof,
to pay all expenses and satisfy all judgement which may be
incurred by or rendered against them or any of them in connection
herewith.
D. This Agreement or any part 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.
7
G. The City is an exempt organization under Section 151.309, Tax
Code, and the facilities constructed under this Agreement will be
dedicated to public use and accepted by the City upon
acknowledgement by the City of completion under Paragraph 1.F.
Developer Agreement
Lots 5&6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
10
5G-12
1 . The purchase of tangible personal property, other than
machinery or equipment and its accessories, repair, and
replacement parts, for use in the performance of this
Agreement is, therefore, exempt from taxation under
Chapter 151, Tax Code, if the tangible property is:
a. necessary and essential for the performance of the
Agreement; and
b. completely consumed at the job site.
2. The purchase of a taxable service for use in the performance
of this Agreement is exempt if the service is performed at the
job site and if:
a. this Agreement expressly requires the specific service
to be provided or purchased by the person performing
the Agreement; or
b. the service is integral to the performance of the
Agreement.
H. Prior to final acceptance of this phase the Developer shall provide
to the City three (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 (N/A)
B. OFF-SITE WATER (N/A)
C. PARK FEES
The Developer agrees to pay the Park Fee of$1,000 per lot, in
accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483-F, Section 7.0.
There are approximately 3 lots in Addition, which would bring the
total cost of Park Fee to $ 3,000.00.
Developer Agreement
Lots 5 &6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
11
5G-13
D. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
All construction activities shall meet the requirements of the Tree
Preservation Ordinance No. 585-A.
SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below.
DEVELOPER:
By: Dan R. Light
Title: President, D'Lightful Homes, Inc.
Address: 1206 Brazos Drive
Southlake, Texas 76092
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
On , before me, ,
Notary Public, personally appeared ,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to
be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and
that by his signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of
which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(SEAL)
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Developer Agreement
Lots 5&6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
12
5G-14
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
By:
Rick Stacy, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary
Date:
Developer Agreement
Lots 5&6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
13
REQUIREMENTS FOR IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
1 . The Letter of Credit must have a duration of at ieast one year.
2. The Letter of Credit may be substituted for utility security deposits
exceeding $10,000.00. The City reserves the right to specify the face
amount of the Letter of Credit.
3. The Letter of Credit must be issued by a FDIC insured bank in a form
acceptable to the City of Southlake. The City reserves the right to
approve/disapprove the bank issuing the Letter of Credit.
4. The Letter of Credit must be issued by a bank that has a minimum capital
ratio of six percent (6%), and has been profitable for each of the last two
consecutive years.
5. The customer must provide the City with supporting financial information
on the bank to allow the City to ascertain requirements are met. Suitable
financial information would be the previous two (2) years December 31
Call Reports submitted to the FDIC and audited financial statements.
6. Partial drawings against Letter of Credit must be permitted.
7. The City must be able to draft on sight with proof of amount owed.
8. The customer pays any and all fees associated with obtaining Letter of
Credit.
9. Expiring Letter of Credit must be replaced by substitute Letters of Credit at
least 30 days prior to the expiration date on the Letter of Credit held by the
City.
Developer Agreement
Lots 5 &6,A.A.Freeman No. 522 Addition
14
5G-16
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 9, 1999
TO: Charlie Thomas, Deputy Director of Public Works
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Park Dedication Requirements - Lots 5, 6, and 7 of A. A. Freeman Addition
At its February 8, 1999 meeting, the Park and Recreation Board considered the park dedication
requirements for Lots 5, 6, and 7 of the A. A. Freeman Addition, a residential development. The
developer requested to pay fees of$1,000/lot for a total of$3,000 in lieu of park land dedication.
The plat exhibit shown to the Park and Recreation Board included three (3) lots.
The Park and Recreation Board voted 8-0 to accept payment of park dedication fees in the
amount of$3,000 for this development. Please contact me if you have further questions.
KH/j e
fi
all
_ s co
'
c,a� ia1� iF
CD
�'. 5.. 8 a g.��� ; S ga fi'� a �` 7� ' • � !�
ii � l$ P � � I� i ¢ i jig
� b
" —1
19
' a — , �i
o+
o01
<-
<u � Is: R� �.� �t �s ts� � •.
ut •v is v t.. 3z110Waff,i t
N O t l I 0 0 V 3 7 A Or 9 e O
JJJJ� e I • �_. N r{
if
Od
�
�t a S� s�
i o va 9 iq - w �
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Award of bid to Reynolds Asphalt for the Phase I reconstruction of
Continental Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to South Peytonville
Avenue
Action Requested: Staff requests that the City Council award the bid to Reynolds
Asphalt in the amount of $596,746.00 for the reconstruction of
Continental Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to South Peytonville
Avenue.
Background
Information: As part of the 1992 Street Bond Program, $575,750 was allocated
for the rehabilitation of W. Continental Boulevard. Dunaway &
Associates was retained to redesign the W. Continental
reconstruction.
Due to the large daily traffic volume, which travels along
Continental, safety is a high priority. Presently, Continental is
narrow, especially at bridge crossings. Furthermore, two large
hills present sight distance problems which staff feels should be
cut down to minimize the sight distance issues. The intent is to
provide a safe roadway, yet minimize the expense. Another issue
is drainage. In order to provide a safe width of roadway, the
existing culverts should either be replaced or extended.
The project is divided into two phases in order to build the
preferred roadway comparable to E. Continental Blvd. through
Timarron. This project is Phase I. Phase 11 would begin at
Peytonville Avenue and end at White Chapel Boulevard.
FinAncial
Considerations: The total budgeted amount for Phase 1 is $640,424.00. This
amount consists of three parts. $555,750.00 is from the 1992
General Obligation Bond Election, $75,000 is from the Southlake
Woods Developer Contribution, and $9,674 is from the Critical
Drainage Structure Fund.
Out of a total of six bids received, the lowest base bid is
$528,430.00 by Reynolds Asphalt. Alternate bid #1 is
5H-1
$14,880.00 which includes the petromat. Alternate bid #2 is
$53,436.00 which includes an extra two inches of HMAC (hot
mix), for a total construction bid of $596,746.00. (see bid
tabulation)
Engineering and design costs totaled $43,350.00. Therefore, the
total project cost is $640,096.00.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Not applicable
Legal Review: Not applicable
Alternatives: A fabric layer called petromat which eliminates cracks from the
base material moving or "reflecting" in the surface asphalt was
bid as Alternate Bid #1. The use of this material will reduce the
City's maintenance for crack sealing and provide a more asthetic
looking surface over a longer period. This alternate bid is
$14,880 and is recommended by staff.
Alternate bid #2, is constructing an extra 2 inches of HMAC (hot
mix) on the roadway. Staff highly recommends the extra HMAC
due to the traffic volume on W. Continental. Alternate bid #2 is
in the amount of$53,436.00.
Supporting
Documents: Bid tabulation
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council award the base bid plus
the two alternate bids to Reynolds Asphalt in the amount of
$596,746.00 for the reconstruction of Continental Boulevard
from Davis Boulevard to South Peytonville Avenue. Please place
this on the February 16, 1999 Regular City Council Agenda.,for
review and consideration.
/th
Approve for Submittal to City Council:
City"Ws
ice
5H-2
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 R 8 8 5{
y .
p~ y pp pp pp p p p 8 8 8 p p p p p p N
- • QJ cJ 7 n O n r0 ry 01 g1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5i R rV 8 g 8 8 8 8r m
pp p p p p p p pN p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
� m
`n? ro
7' 1
� E"
a Z 5 T i
O u 8 8 81818 8 ig 8 8 8 oS; 33NN NM
$ � g � � � � � � � ggggggggg8g8 � gg8gg �
w � $ cNrmRSSg "'o7R � mc �G25 � � «
d
r.
NNNHNNNNNNNN « NNNNNNNNNNNNNN « N NN
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 s 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 x 8 8 8 s 8
Q ~ N
d
M M M N H N N N N H N N N N N N N N N M N N N M N N N N N N N
8 5 8� g 8g Q 8 8 8 5 a5� 5 85�� Q 8 8 Q8.
n • g _ ri c - v r: w $ 52 S '�' b'r 76 u`S R o 0 25 25 2S o
6
pM pN pN pN pN pN pN H pN Npp pN p« ppN pH ppN pN N pN pN pM pM N pN pN pN pN « pN pp pN p pN N pp
O O O O 8 o 8 8 o 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 o o O o B O O O O O O 8 8 8 S 0
M Q po po y p p p N Np p p p p p p p p N Np p p p N pN p N
V a 8 � g o O A O YI 8 8 8 s5� 8q 8g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
i
M M M H H N N N « H N « N H N H N « N « n « N M N « N N « « «
o g g 8 $ g g g s g g $ 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 T-T8.-
8 8 8
a � »
MMNNN « NHHMMNNNN « NN » NNNNNHN « N » » »
s s s e s s s 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 s 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 8 8 8 8 s R s e
a
N
l
F f f
H � �
2
g S
qq S
� v �
ho
~ ro a a 3 E e U D U g Y E $ U
a° au� � oA � a � d3" � � d rgg' sy 3 8a $ m
_ • c
F C O > Z Y > 2 Z J w LL Y y N > Y Z >
> � ca D u� m � vu � � H u� u5u S ug � nSmUa uu5 uN ' . u
v, 9c • 's
OU.
H w M 0car
E m w o _ °1 a r A N„ • •
r - -
U a s = m 5H-3
City of Southlake,Texas
STAFF REPORT
February 12, 1999
CASE NO: ZA 99-001 PROJECT: Ordinance No. 480-303 /First Reading/
Rezoning-Tracts 8A11 and 8A15/Thomas M.
Hood Suryey/Abstract 706
STAFF CONTACT: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator, 481-5581, ext. 743
REQUESTED ACTION: Zoning Change on property legally described as being Tracts 8A11
and 8A15 situated in the Thomas M. Hood Survey,Abstract No. 706,
and being approximately 4.878 acres.
PURPOSE: In order to process a plat on the property.
LOCATION: On the south side of West Highland Street approximately 900' east of
Shady Oaks Drive.
OWNERS/APPLICN TS: Ray and Vicki Williamson
CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural District
REQUESTED ZONING: "SF-IA" Single Family Residential District
LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential
NO. NOTICES SENT: Ten (10)
RESPONSES: One (1)response was received from within the 200' notification area:
• Randy and Terri Keene, 900 Brazos Drive, Southlake, TX, in
favor. (Received February 3, 1999.)
P&Z ACTION: February 4, 1999; Approved(6-0).
STAFF COMMENTS: Please note that a change of zoning to the "SF-lA" Single Family
Residential District does not require a Concept Plan Review by Staff.
L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\NIEMO\99CASES\99-OOIZ.WPD
ILi
n a+
TR t,2 u' i—
ate
_ .� T
VEY A-1620
r r\
`
U Ac 41•J y I—
� � TR L \ [-%.CHIVE'RS
aAc 24.95 Ac
j r
TR 2V / \ \ &.RVEY A;300 '
— � j I ------- �--� tRBCIj ' 2,, �+ r
I ! \\ I 6a2 3 A4
T3 EAl Ia�4 r
I io AC I �--l i4E AC
TR fiF TR^� I p I :s c, t
TR al
TR a yTR U r � TR"s21 r
1`�,
TR 3 ( a Ac
TA A FTI
.
T j TR 2B TR 81 I� l ' TR Z! TR z 1
T3 •� jlc, j L%AC
r..: .. . 1
TR W9 0 !i I TR 2C1 E6 Ac I T;6D f
??1 7 r is'A
ac
TR 3El
TR I SD Y3 T3"8C
i (I � " �� �C�� � � �I 'R
` 4 KA
9Ac i r
1 � TR
1
IVEY a a e l u nagTR
l r7 TR TR flA 3 TR SAI .� _
914 AC e Ac i
16i Ac RB Ac a. o�
I�54
I 4 Ac \1 �� 5ao AC
M7 AC TR 10
� I r
I �
nv
TR 9
TR 9E
142 Ake
1 ! I
I B 3c2 --I0Jv 41 1
t 9
TR 3A I j
TR 2C i0 IC 281 TR i
zm
Tfl 29 Ic MD AC
TR 29 TR IR ( j
7a � I /
TR 31u i iSURVEY —686 21F AC —
�� nc
I �r
�p airT:13R r�= 1eE^Ac
u�G
V ( I flfg AC At�C�>\ Ks kc
24
TR 3J 19935 0 TR 3R2 �� �� �B_I A� { 75 Ac TR 3
TR 31 i I �—
TRACT MAP
r_
57_--Z TR 1.
I 28,
/ W7
70, In }.0
"AG„ „AG„
5 z.oa La '
OL
1 j Rl ' E T. RALEY Y U
TA: U W W
---- --- 00
m
W W
"AG" W N TR 8D
�
3 M. ARNOLD LU 6.25 AC$ p
O TR
/ 2 8D1
IA ��RE11 T. RALEY F. LU
� R92 ^
2.969 AC AC
C ` W
W HIGHLAND ST
a4A R_ \� o TR 8A5 TR 8A-5A R
.69 66 AC ^
TR
14
TR 8A8A13
ABA a • 15 AC TR 8A11 B. YETMAN
AC " e
J. KEENE
i SF-1 A
. 50 AC
.3
A c s p
1
.2 a
Ac
a 7R 8A9 7R 8A9A„
73 @ .71 AC
,1 a
AC ,, b 137
m
' 1 CARROLL ISD CARROLL ISD
NO
LL ISD i „CS„ "NR—PUD #3" 5c.at.
ADJACENT OWNERS
AND ZONING
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,-TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 480-303
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 8A11 AND 8A15
SITUATED IN THE THOMAS M. HOOD SURVEY,
ABSTRACT NO. 706,AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 4.878
ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "AG"
AGRICUL1VRAU'DISTRICT TO "SF-IA" SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDI±`NTIAL 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
(too, CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter
adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter
9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the
authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of
buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and
to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals
(am., and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and
L:\CITYDOCSNOPD\CASES\480-303.WPD
Page 1
WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as AC"Agriiiltn al
District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said.property was requested by a
person or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called
by the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether
these changes should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using
the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and damages;
noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights
on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of
signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic
reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate
neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off-street
parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off-street loading spaces.
and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the
promotion of health ad the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the over-crowding
of the land; effect on the concentration of population, and effect on transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks and other public facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among
other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the
view to conserve the value of the buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout this City; and,
L:\CrrYDOCSNORD\CASES\480-303.WPD
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that there is a
public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest
clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the
rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed
at the time their original investment was made; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes
in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other
dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents
the over-crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate
provision of transportation, water; sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there
is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has
been a chance 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
LACMDOMORDTASFSW80-303.WM
Page 3
S=-l�
amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and
amended as shown and described below: � -
Being Tracts 8A 11 and 8A� mated iti the Thcimas M�_Hooa St ey,.Abstract No...
706,and berg approximately 4 878 acres, and more fully and completely described
in Exhibit "A" from 'AW Agricultural District to "SF=1A" 'Single Family
Residential District.,
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
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-303.WPD
Page 4
consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the
particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most
appropriate use of land throughout the community.
SECTION 5.
That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake,
Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in
those instances-where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance.
SECTION 6.
That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that
if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein
shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance
of said tract or tracts of land described herein.
SECTION 7.
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to
comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be
fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a
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
L:\CRYDOCS\ORD\CASES'480-303.W PD
Page 5
accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or
not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted
until final disposition by the courts.
SECTION 9.
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed
ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a
public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if
this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of
any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the
official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required
by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
SECTION 10.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication
as required by law, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-303.WPD
Page 6
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading,the day of , 1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO`FORM AND LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
ADOPTED:
EFFECTIVE:
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-303.WPD
Page 7
EXHIBIT "A"
FTELD NOTES
FOR A TRACT IN THE THOMAS M. HOOD SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. '706, SI _ p
IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS,AND BEING THE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A: #.:
RECORD IN VOLUME 701 PAGE 2130, DEED RECORDS, TARRANT COUN : "1J%US
SAID"TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY MITES AND B01*btf.A-8
?OLLOWS:
BEGINNING at:an iron pin for the Northvast corner of the-&bo'0",'-'
referenced tract, said point being In the BouEh is
of Highland Drive, and being by deed call, 884.1 =� _; .;.
East along the South line of Highland Drive Erom
Fast line of Shady Oaks Lane;
THENCE S. 890-471-33" E. 247.02 along the South line of
Drive to an iron pin for the Northeast corner of t r,kerein
described tract; �,
THENCE South 860.69 feet to an iron pin for corner;
THENCE S. 890-57'-28" W.246.34 feet to an Iron in for
P c`o64 {
TUINCE N. 0 02 43 W. 861.75 feet to the POINT OF BEGIN) -and
containinq 4.878 acres.
a •.
Field notes Compiled from surveys made in March, 1983, and Attu
1997.
L:\CITYDOCS'ORD\CASES\480-303.W PD
Page 8
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 11, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99-07, Amending Fee Schedule for park dedication fees
Action Requested: City Council approval of Resolution No. 99-07, amending the fee
schedule for park dedication fees.
Background
Information: Per Ordinance No. 483-F, the City may amend the Subdivision
Ordinance concerning park and recreation dedication requirements.
Section 7.05 of this Ordinance sets the standard of fees in lieu of park
land dedication based upon the fair market value, or raw acreage cost.
Currently this value is set at $40,000 per acre.
Section 7.05 further states that the City Council shall annually establish
an acreage land value cost based upon an average fair market value.
This value cost is the fee standard for the fiscal year.
An appraisal was recently conducted to determine a fair market value for
land in the City. According to the appraisal, the raw acreage cost
currently in place is undervalued. Increasing the raw acreage cost to
$60,000 per acre yields a fifty percent (50%) increase in park dedication
fees per lot for a residential dwelling and a fifty percent (50%) increase
per gross acre for commercial developments. This would bring park
dedication fees to $1,500 per residential dwelling unit, and $1,200 per
gross acre for non-residential developments.
The Park and Recreation Board considered this issue at the February 8,
1999 meeting. The Park and Recreation Board is currently researching
alternatives to the current park dedication process. However, as the fee
standard is currently undervaluing land in Southlake, the Park and
Recreation Board recommends that the fee standard be raised to reflect a
fair market value in the interim while this effort progresses.
Financial
Considerations: The current park dedication raw acreage cost standard yields a
$1,000/per lot fee for residential dwellings, and a $800/per gross acre
fee for commercial properties. Implementing the proposed raw acreage
cost yields a $1,500/per lot fee for residential dwellings and a $1,200/per
gross acre fee for commercial developments.
\\SLKSV0001\SHARED\ParkRec\BOARDS\CC\FEECHNGE.doc A
f
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
February 11, 1999
Page 2
Citizen Input/
Board Review: The Park and Recreation Board recommended that the park dedication
fee standard of raw acreage cost be raised from $40,000 per acre to
$60,000 per acre on February 8, 1999 (7-0-1).
Legal Review: Section 7.05.A.2, Ordinance 483-F states that the land value cost shall
be based on a reasonable study and investigation, and may be performed
by an independent and registered land appraisal firm. The appraisal was
performed by Misty Goodrich, MAI, of Goodrich, Schecter &
Associates, a firm that meets the stipulations as specified in the
Ordinance.
Alternatives: The Park and Recreation Board is currently reviewing the park
dedication process. This report is forthcoming with alternative methods.
Prior to the receipt of this information, the current fee structure and fee
standards can be left intact.
Supporting
Documents: Supporting documents include the following items:
(W • Resolution No. 99-07, Amending Fee Schedule for park
dedication fees.
• City of Southlake Fee Schedule with the current structure and
the proposed changes.
• City of Southlake Ordinance No. 483-F.
• Appraisal report of Goodrich, Schecter, & Associates, LLC,
dated December 7, 1998.
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 99-07, amending the fee
schedule for park dedication fees.
KH/je
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
ity anager's Office
\\SLKSV0001\SHARED\ParkRec\BOARDS\CC\FEECHNGE.doc m�
City of Southlake,Texas
RESOLUTION NO. 99-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,
TEXAS, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 98-70;
PROVIDING THAT THIS RESOLUTION SHALL BE
CUMULATIVE OF ALL PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION
NO. 97-59; 94-46, NO. 94-61, NO. 95-05, NO. 95-34, NO. 95-
50, NO. 96-57, NO. 97-50, NO. 97-59; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake heretofore adopted Ordinance
No. 592 providing for the adoption of fees and revisions thereto from time to time by
resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council with Resolution No. 98-70, set a schedule of fees for
certain services; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Fee Schedule and has determined that
certain fees should be amended in the fee schedule.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS:
Section 1. That Section II, Community Development Activities-#28 Park Land Dedication
- Raw Acreage cost be amended per the attached City of Southlake Fee Schedule.
Section 2. That this resolution shall be cumulative of all provisions of Resolution No. 98-
70 of the City of Southlake, Texas, except where the provisions of this resolution are in direct
conflict with provisions of such resolution, in which event the conflicting provisions of such
resolution are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That the fees established herein shall be effective upon passage of this
Resolution and shall take precedence over any fees previously adopted which are in conflict
herewith.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1999.
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
ATTEST:
Mayor Rick Stacy
Sandra :: LeGrand : . : . ..
City Secretary
L:\ParkRec\DEVEL\PKCREDT 'IRES99-07.doc ��
L
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FEE SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY FEE
SECTION I. Administrative Activities
1. NSF Check Return Charge (amended Res.#97-59) $20.00
Credit Card Return Charge $20.00
2. Cost of Copies of Public Information (amended Res.#98-70) according to the approved
General Services Commission
Charge Schedule (Attachment "A")
3. Water Customer Mailing Labels (Amended Res.#97-59) $45.00
4. Offense/Accident Report : (Amended Res.#95-50)
Basic $ 4.00
Certified $ 6.00
Written Certification that no report exists $ 4.00
5. Burning Permits $0.00
6. Ambulance Fees (amended Res.#98-70):
Local Transport $300.00
7. House Moving Permit $10.00 + $1,000 Surety Bond +
1.5 x hourly rate of 2 police officers
utilized in the move
8. Solicitation/Vendor Permit $35.00 (Co. license)
+$10.00/Agent + $1,000 Surety
Bond
9. Seasonal Permits $25.00
10. Vital Statistics:
Certificate of Death $9.00 / 1st copy 3.00 each add'l
copy at time of initial request
Certificate of Birth (Amended Res.#95-34) $13.00 / copy
11. Wrecker Permit Fee: (Amended Res.#94-61)
Permit fee per wrecker vehicle $24.00 per year
(waived for contract agency)
Permit Fee per authorized driver $12,00 per yeaz
(waived'for contract agency)
L:\FINANCE\BUDGET\98-99\FEE1198.DOC PAGE 1-FEE SCHEDULE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FEE SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY FEE
12. Credit Card Use Fees (added Res.#97-59)
(Municipal Court Fines and Fees Only):
up to and including $200 $2.00
$201 to $300 $4.00
$301 to $400 $6.00
$401 to $500 $8.00
$501 to $600 $10.00
$601 to $700 $12.00
$701 to $800 $14.00
$801 to $900 $16.00
$901 to $1,000 $18.00
$1,001 and up $20.00
SECTION II. Community Development Activities
1. Board of Adjustment requests $200.00/request
2. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance $200.00/request
3. Zoning Only $200.00 + $10/Acre
(W
4. Concept Plan Only + $$200.00 10/Acre
5. Zoning and Concept Plan(amended Res.#98-70) $400.00 + $20/Acre
6. Zoning and Site Plan(amended Res.#98-70) $400.00 + $20/Acre
7. Specific Use Permit $200.00 + $10/Acre
8. Site Plans $300.00 + $10/Acre
9. Amended Plat -�r 4 lots $200.00 + $20/Lot/Res
$200.00 + $20/Ac-Comm
10. Amended Plat > 4 lots $300.00 + $20/Lot-Res
$300.00 + $20/Ac-Comm
11. Plat Showing (1 lot) $200.00 + $20/Lot-Res
$200.00 + $20/Ac-Comm
12. Plat Showing,(multi&.lots) .; , ; $300.00 + $20/Lor-Res ,
$300.00 + $20/Ac/Comm
LAFINANCE\BUDGET\98-99TEE1198.DOC PAGE 2-FEE SCHEDULE
t
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FEE SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY FEE
13. Preliminary Plat (Non-P.U.D.) $300.00 + $20/Lot-Res
$300.00 + $20/Ac-Comm
14. Preliminary Plat (P.U.D.) $300.00 + $30/Lot-Res
$300.00 + $30/Ac-Comm
15. Final Plat (Non-P.U.D.) $300.00 + $20/Lot-Res
$300.00 + $20/Ac-Comm
16. Final Plat (P.U.D.) (amended Res.#98-70) $400.00 + $30/Lot-Res
$300.00 + $30/Ac-Comm
17. Plat Revision $300.00 + $20/Lot-Res
$300.00 + $20/Ac-Comm
18. Plat Vacation $200.00 Flat Fee
19. Rush Plat Filing $300.00 Flat Fee
20. Two-County Filing (amended Res.#98-70) $60.00 Flat Fee
21. Extra Plat Page Filing $20.00 Flat Fee
22. Color Mapping (1:1000) (amended Res.#98-70) $20.00 per map
23. Color Mapping (1:2000) (amended Res.#98-70) $10.00 per map
24. Aerial Photo Print (added Res.#98-70) $15.00 per photo print
25. Mapping 11"x 17" plat reduction copies $2.00 per map
26. Mapping (digital tape format) (added Res.#95-34) $140.00 per tape
27. Street Name Change $100.00 per street
28. Park Land Dedication-Raw acreage cost $494999t99$60,000 per acre
(amended Res.#97-50)
Fee Calculation in lieu of Park Land Dedication - (added Res.#98-70)
Residential - 1 acre/40 dwelling units (40 lots) $!,QQQT99 $1,500 per lot
Non-Residential 1' ac'*' gro`ss-aeres r A9,99 $1,200 per-gross'acre'' '
L:\FINANCE\BUDGET\98-99\FEE1198.DOC PAGE 3-FEE SCHEDULE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FEE SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY FEE
29. Zoning Verification Letter (amended Res.#98-70)
First letter within two months of zoning approval $0.00
All subsequent letters $25.00 each
30. Zoning Administrator Opinion/Interpretation $100.00
Letter
SECTION III. Public Works Activities
1. Administrative Processing Fee 2% Actual Construction Cost
2. Computer Drainage Study:
HEC I: $400.00 + $10/Linear Foot
HEC II: $400.00 + $10/Linear Foot
3. Construction Inspection 3% Actual Construction Cost
4. Street Cut Permit $15.00 per Street
5. Easement Abandonments $150.00 Flat Fee
6. R.O.W. Abandonments $150.00 Flat Fee
7. Easement/R.O.W. Dedications $100.00 per Easement
8. Street Light Costs Developer pays installation + 2-
year operation cost
SECTION IV. Water and Wastewater Utilities Activities (added Res.#98-yo)
1. Water Meter Fee (Including Transponder) (amended Res.#98-70)
1" Meter $460.00
2" Meter (Turbo)-Sprinkler/Irrigation Only $850.00
2" Meter (Compound)-(Residential/Commercial) $2,000.00
4" Meter $2,500.00
6" Meter $3,700.00
Meter . . . . $4;500.00
LAFINANCE\BUDGET\98-94\FEE1198.DOC PAGE 4-FEE SCHEDULE
�-1
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FEE SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY FEE
2. Sewer Tap Inspection Fee $75.00
3. Sewer Participation Fee (Added Res.#95-34) $1,300/lot
4. Water Administrative Service Charge $15.00
5. Water Deposits:
Residential Accounts $50.00
Commercial Accounts Established by Utility Billing Supervisor
6. Fire Hydrant Meter Deposit (City Meter) (amended Res.#98-70) $900.00
Hydro Storz Quick Connect System Blind Cap 75.00
total $975.00
Fire Hydrant Meter Deposit
(Privately Supplied Meter) $200.00
Hydro Storz Quick Connect System Blind Cap 75.00
total $275.00
7. Water Reconnect Fees for Non-Payment,
Business Days Only:
8 a.m.-5 p.m.: 1st/2nd/3rd & subsequent $20/$40/$60
After 5 p.m.: Ist/2nd/3rd & subsequent $40/$60/$80
Weekends, anytime $40/$60/$80
8. Water Meter Re-installation Fee $50.00
9. Water Meter Reread Fee $5.00
10. Service Charge - Damaged or Broken Lock, (amended Res.#98-70)
Meter and/or Transponder $25.00
11. Damaged meter and transponder replacement (added Res.#98-70):
1" Meter $86.00
1" Transponder $150.00
Meter Box $32.50
12. Late Utility Payment Fee 5% of Outstanding Balance
L:\FINANCE\BUDGET\98-99TEE1198.DOC PAGE 5-FEE SCHEDULE
I
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FEE SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY FEE
13. Additional or Replacement Recycling Bins $6.00
Additional or Replacement Recycling Lids $4.00
(added Res.#97-59)
SECTION V. Building Inspection Activities
1. Building Permit Fees Per the currently adopted U.B.C.
(Administrative Code)
2. Water Well Permit $42.00
3. Tent Permit $15.00
4. Sign Permit, Permanent Type (1 - 50 sq ft) $50.00 minimum
Sign Permit,.Permanent Type (> 50 sq ft) $1.00 / sq ft
Sign Permit, Temporary Type $25.00 Annually, per calendar year
(amended Res.#98-70)
Illuminated Sign, Electrical Permit $35.00 (in addition to above)
5. Sign Recovery Fee (1-50 sq ft) (added Res.N98-7o) $25.00
(>50 sq ft) $50.00
6. Request for Variance to Sign Ordinance $100.00/request
7. Culvert and/or Approach Permit $42.00
8. Building Contractor's Registration Fee $75.00
9. Tree Removal Permit $.00 per Permit
10. Temporary Batch Plant Permit $.00 per Permit
11. Smoking Area - Re-Inspection Fee (added Res.#98-70) $100.00
L:\FINANCE\BUDGET\98-99\FEE1198.DOC PAGE 6-FEE SCHEDULE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FEE SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY FEE
SECTION VI. Community Services Activities (Amended Res.#95-34,Res.#97-59,Res.#98-70)
1. Building Reservations for Residents -
Bicentennial Park and Senior Center (amended Res.#97-59,Res.#98-70):
Regular Meeting Fee per year
1 meeting $10.00
Quarterly to Monthly Scheduled Meetings $25.00
More than Monthly Meetings Scheduled $75.00
Security and Clean-up Deposit $100.00 (refundable)
Week day meeting $10.00/hr
2. Building Reservations for Special Activities (amended Res.#97-59,#98-70):
Security and Clean-up Deposit $50.00 (refundable)
Bicentennial Park- The Lodge (with Kitchen) $15.00/hr
Bicentennial Park - Community Center/room $15.00/rm/hr
Senior Center Large meeting room $15.00/hr
Senior Center Large meeting room & Kitchen $35.00/hr
Senior Center Kitchen use fee $25.00/hr
3. Organized Athletic Programs $1,000,000 General Liability
Insurance Policy
Meeting Fees (added Res.#98-7o) $100 per year
4. TV/VCR Rental Fee No charge with reservation
5. Equipment Rental: (Driver's license held)
Tennis Racket & Balls (Courts on Hill) No charge
Volleyballs No charge
Basketballs No charge
6. Reservations of Park Facilities (Bicentennial Park) (amended Res.#97-59,Res.#98-70):
Security and Clean-up Deposit
(group of 100 or more require) $50.00 (refundable)
Hilltop Picnic Area $5.00/4 hrs
Pine Tree Picnic Area $5.00/4 hrs
Bicentennial Pavilion $8.00/4 hrs
Adventure Alley Pavilions (added Res.#98-70) $8.00/4 hrs/pavilion
L:\FINANCE\BUDGET\98-99\FEE1198.DOC PAGE 7-FEE SCHEDULE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FEE SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY FEE
7. Reservations for Fields and Courts:
Ballfields (No Lights) $7.50/1.5 hr/field
Ballfields (With Lights) $15.0011.5 hr/field
Soccer Fields $2.50/1.5 hr/field
CIS Multi-use Court (Hockey/Basketball) (amended Res.#98-70) $7.50/1.5 hr
CIS Multi-use Court (With Lights) (amended Res.#98-70) $15.0011.5 hr
Sand Volleyball Courts $5.00/hr/court
Tennis Courts (Courts on Hill-Bicentennial Park) $5.0011.5 hr/court
In-Line Hockey Court (added Res.#98-70)
(Bicentennial Park-No Lights) $10.00/hr
In-Line Hockey Court(added Res.#98-70)
(Bicentennial Park-With Lights) $20.00/hr
Basketball courts (added Res.#98-70) $5.00/hr
Field Preparation Fees:
Weekday Games $25.00/field
Weekend Games $37.50/field
L:\FINANCE\BUDGET\98-9g\FEE1198.DOC PAGE 8-FEE SCHEDULE
Title 1. ADMINISTRATION
(441W Part V. GENERAL SERVICES COMMISSION
Chapter 111. EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
Subchapter C. COST OF COPIES OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
111.63 Charges for Providing Copies of Public Information
(a) The charges in this section to recover costs associated with providing copies of public
information are based on estimated average costs to governmental bodies across the state.
When actual costs are 25%higher than those used in these rules, governmental bodies
other than agencies of the state, may request an exemption in accordance with§
111.64 of this title (relating to Requesting an Exemption).
(b) Copy charge.
(1) Standard paper copy. The charge for standard paper copies reproduced by means of an
office machine copier or a computer printer is $.10 per page or part of a page. Each side
that has a printed image is considered a page.
(2)Nonstandard copy. The charges for nonstandard copies are:
(A) diskette--$1.00;
B -( )magnetic tape--$11.00 $13.50 (depending on width--see 111.70 of this title (relating
to the General Services Commission Charge Schedule));
(C) data cartridge-417.50435 (depending on series--see 111.70);
(D)tape cartridge-438445 (depending on memory--see 111.70);
(E) VHS video cassette--$2.50;
(F) audio cassette--$1.00;
(G) oversize paper copy(i.e.: 11 inches by 17 inches, greenbar, bluebar)--$.50;
(H) Mylar--$.8541.35/linear foot(depending on thickness--see § 111.70);
(I) Blueprint/Blueline paper--$.20/linear foot(all widths).
(3) The charges in this subsection are to cover the cost of materials onto which
information is copied and do not reflect any additional charges that may be associated
-with a particular request.
�� ATTACHMENT A
(c) Programming personnel. If a particular request requires the services of a programmer
in order to execute an existing program or to create a new program so that requested
information may be accessed and copied, the governmental body may charge for the
programmer's time.
(1) The hourly charge for a programmer is $26 an hour, including fringe benefits. Only
programming services shall be charged at this hourly rate.
(2) Governmental bodies that do not have in-house programming capabilities shall
comply with requests in accordance with 552.231 of the Public Information Act.
(3)If the charge for providing a copy of public information includes costs of labor, a
governmental body shall comply with the requirements of Government Code, Chapter
552, 552.261(b).
(d) Other Personnel charge.
(1) The charge for other personnel costs, incurred in processing a request for public
information is $15 an hour, including fringe benefits. Where applicable, the other
personnel charge may include the actual time to locate, compile, and reproduce the
requested information.
(2)An other personnel charge shall not be billed in connection with complying with
requests that are for 50 or fewer pages of paper records, unless the documents to be
copied are located in:
(A) more than one building; or
(B) a remote storage facility.
(3) Other personnel time shall not be recovered for any time spent by an attorney, legal
assistant, or any other person who reviews the requested information:
(A) to determine whether the governmental body will raise any exceptions to disclosure
of the requested information under Subchapter C of the Public Information Act; or
(B)to research or prepare a request for a ruling by the attorney general's office pursuant
to 552.301 of the Public Information Act.
(4) When confidential information is mixed with public information in the same page,
personnel time may be recovered for time spent to obliterate, blackout, or otherwise
obscure confidential information in order to release the public information.
•13 ATTACHMENT A
(5) If the charge for providing a copy of public information includes costs of labor, a
governmental body shall comply with the requirements of Government Code, Chapter
552, 552.261(b).
(e) Overhead charge.
(1) Whenever any personnel charge is applicable to a request, a governmental body may
include in the charges direct and indirect costs, in addition to the specific personnel
charge. This overhead charge would cover such costs as depreciation of capital assets,
rent, maintenance and repair, utilities, and administrative overhead. If a governmental
body chooses to recover such costs, a charge shall be made in accordance with the
methodology described in paragraph(3)of this subsection. Although an exact calculation
of costs will vary, the use of a standard charge will avoid complication in calculating such
costs and will provide uniformity for charges made statewide.
(2) An overhead charge shall not be made for requests for copies of 50 pages or fewer of
standard paper records.
(3) The overhead charge shall be computed at 20%of the charge made to cover any
personnel costs associated with a particular request. Example: if one hour of personnel
(programming, other personnel or a combination of both) is used for a particular request,
the formula would be as follows: $15.00 x .20=$3.00; or$26.00 x .20 = $5.20; or
$41.00 x .20=$8.20.
(f) Microfiche and microfilm charge.
(1) If a governmental body already has information that exists on microfiche or microfilm
and has copies available for sale or distribution,the charge for a copy must not exceed the
cost of its reproduction. If no copies of the requested microfiche or microfilm are
available and the information on the microfiche or microfilm can be released in its
entirety,the governmental body should make a copy of the microfiche or microfilm. The
charge for a copy shall not exceed the cost of its reproduction. The Texas State Library
and Archives Commission has the capacity to reproduce microfiche and microfilm for
state agencies. Governmental bodies that do not have in-house capability to reproduce
microfiche or microfilm may charge the actual costs of having the reproduction made
commercially.
(2) If only a master copy of information in microform is maintained, the charge is $.10
per page for standard size paper copies, plus any applicable personnel and overhead
charge for more than 50 copies.
(g) Remote document retrieval charge.
(1) Due to limited on-site capacity of storage of documents, it is frequently necessary to
store information that is not in current use in remote storage locations. Every effort
'A ATTACHMENT A
t
should be made by governmental bodies to store current records on-site. State agencies
are encouraged to store inactive or non-current records with the Texas State Library and
Archives Commission. To the extent that the retrieval of documents results in a charge to
comply with a request, it is permissible to recover costs of such services.
(2) If a governmental body has a contract with a commercial records storage company,
whereby the private company charges a fee to locate, retrieve, deliver, and return to
storage the needed record(s), no additional personnel charge shall be factored in for time
spent locating documents at the storage location by the private company's personnel. If
after delivery to the governmental body,the boxes must still be searched for records that
are responsive to the request, a personnel charge is allowed according to subsection(d)(1)
of this section.
(h) Computer resource charge.
(1) The computer resource charge is a utilization charge for computers based on the
amortized cost of acquisition, lease, operation, and maintenance of computer resources,
which might include, but is not limited to, some or all of the following: central processing
units (CPUs), servers, disk drives, local area.networks (LANs), printers, tape drives, other
peripheral devices, communications devices, software, and system utilities.
(2) These computer resource charges are not intended to substitute for cost recovery
methodologies or charges made for purposes other than responding to public information
requests.
(3) The charges in this subsection are averages based on a survey of governmental bodies
with a broad range of computer capabilities. Each governmental body using this cost
recovery charge shall determine which category(ies) of computer system(s) used to fulfill
the public information request most closely fits its existing system(s), and set its charge
accordingly. Type of System--Rate: Mainframe-410 per minute; Midsize--$1.50 per
minute; Client/Server--$2.20 per hour; PC or LAN--$1.00 per hour.
(4) The charge made to recover the computer utilization cost is the actual time the
computer takes to execute a particular program times the applicable rate. The CPU charge
is not meant to apply to programming or printing time; rather, it is solely to recover costs
associated with the actual time required by the computer to execute a program. This time,
called CPU time, can be read directly from the CPU clock, and most frequently will be a
matter of seconds. If programming is required to comply with a particular request, the
appropriate charge that may be recovered for programming time is set forth in subsection
(d) of this section.No charge should be made for computer print-out time. Example: If a
mainframe computer is used, and the processing time is 20 seconds, the charges would be
as follows: $10/ 3 = $3.33; or$10/60 x 20 =$3.33.
�'� ATTACHMENT A
(5) A governmental body that does not have in-house computer capabilities shall comply
with requests in accordance with the Public Information Act, Government Code, Chapter
552, 552.231.
(i) Miscellaneous supplies. The actual cost of miscellaneous supplies, such as labels,
boxes, and other supplies used to produce the requested information, may be added to the
total charge for public information.
(j) Postal and shipping charges. Governmental bodies may add any related postal or
shipping expenses which are necessary to transmit the reproduced information to the
requesting party.
(k) Sales tax. Sales tax shall not be added on charges for public information.
(1) The commission shall reevaluate and update these charges as necessary.
Source: The provisions of this 111.63 adopted to be effective September 18, 1996, 21
TexReg 8587; amended to be effective February 20, 1997, 22 TexReg 1625; amended to
be effective December 3, 1997, 22 TexReg 11651.
Cross Reference: This Section cited in 1 TAC 161.1, (relating to Charges for Copies of
Public Records); 1 TAC 181.11, (relating to Charges for Public Records).
�b ATTACHMENT A
1
1
ORDINANCE NO. 483-F
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 483,THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE; REVISING THE
ENTIRETY OF 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 XI, 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
Cite: and
`VFMREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to provide for adequate land for
C.1parks, 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:
SECTION 1. Article VII of Ordinance No. 483 of the City of Southlake, the Subdivision
Ordinance. as amended. is amended in its entirety and replaced by the following text:
ARTICLE VII
PARK AND RECREATION DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
7.01 PURPOSE AND INTENT: The requirements for open space. park and recreational areas
contained in this section are intended to ensure that there will be sufficient land dedicated
or otherwise set aside to meet the demand and need of the future residents for open space and
parks. In determining the size, shape and quality of open space and parks areas that should
be set aside and reserved in the manner set out in this section, the City has considered the
projected growth in population and development within the municipality and the amount of
open space and park and recreational facilities needed to accommodate such growth as stated
in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan.
7.02 APPLICABILITY:
A. Unplatted Property: This section, as amended, applies to all property for which a
final plat has not been formally submitted to the City for approval, unless otherwise
noted herein.
B. Exempt Property: Any tract or lot occupied by an existing residential dwelling unit
at the time of adoption of this ordinance shall be exempt from the dedication
requirements of this section herein if the residential dwelling remains on the lot. This
exemption pertains only to the tract or lot with the existing residential dwelling. Any
additional lots created by further subdivision of the property shall be subject to the
requirements herein.
C. Date of Assessment: All requirements contained in this section shall be assessed at
the time of approval of the final plat of any applicable property.
7.03 LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS:
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 anticipated land dedication
L:`.CTYD0CS',0ItD\RNAUSUBDIVN483F FN.WPD
oil
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.
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.
3. Off-site Dedications: A developer may dedicate the required park land for
a development at another location owned by the same developer.within the
City with the consent of the City, provided that the off-site land dedication
is in accordance with this section.
B. Transfers and Credits for Prior Dedications, Fees and Gifts: In considering the
amount of land dedication required of a proposed development. the City may. at its
discretion, apply former dedications.which were in excess of the requirement at at
LACTYDOCS`.ORD`FrNAL\SUBDIV\433F Fr>LWPD
time to current or future dedication requirements of the same owner/applicant. A
dedication or cash payment in lieu of dedication made prior to the passage of this
Ordinance shall be controlled by the provisions of the ordinance in effect at the time
such obligation arose, provided the final plat has been submitted to the City for
approval prior to the passage of this Ordinance. At the discretion of the City, any
former gift of land to the municipality may be credited under the terms of the current
Ordinance toward eventual land dedication requirements imposed on the donor of
such lands.
7.04 CHARACTERISTICS OF PARKLAND:
A. General: The Park Board shall annually recommend to the City Council a summary
of the character of dedicated park land most desirable in meeting the objectives of the
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. These characteristics shall be
provided in an abbreviated written report to all elected and appointed officials, city
staff, and the development community, and shall be placed in Appendix I l of this
ordinance: In determining whether to accept or refuse the dedication
on of park lands,
fees, facilities or a combination thereof as outlined in section 7.05 below, the Park
Board and City Council shall consider this written report as a guideline for:such
decisions.
7.05 ALTERNATIVES TO LAND DEDICATION• In any case where a dedication is required,
the City shall have the right to accept the dedication as submitted for approval,or in the
alternative, to refuse dedication of the same, 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.
A. Fee Payment Alternative:
1. Approval of. Fee Payment Alternative: The City Council shall, upon
L:\CTYDOCS\ORD�F[N'AL',SUBDIV.133F F[N*.WPD
20
recommendation of the Park Board. determine the acceptability of a
developer's payment of fees in lieu of the land dedication requirement of this
section.
2. Calculation of Fees: The City Council shall annually establish an acreage
land value cost figure to be used in calculating park fees. This determination
shall be based on a reasonable study and investigation performed annually,
and may be performed by an independent registered land appraisal firm as to
the average fair market value, as opposed to tax value, of acreage in the City.
This figure shall be the acreage cost under which all park fees are calculated
for the fiscal year.
a. Residential Dwelling Unit Fees: Fees paid in lieu of dedication shall
be based on the determined cost of one (1) acre of land divided by
fort,; (40). for a resulting fee per residential dwelling unit.
b. Non-Residential Development Fees:The fee payment alternative for
non-residential development shall be calculated by dividing the
determined cost of one1 "( ) acre of land by fifty (�0), for a resulting
fee per non-residential acre cost, or prorated portion thereof. In the
event the non-residential development is less than fifty(50) acres,the
total acreage, net of perimeter right-of-way dedications, shall be
divided by 50 to determine the prorated fee payment.
3. 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.
B. Physical or Equipment Improvements to Parks
1. Compatibility with Park Master Plan: A developer may have the option
of improving existing facilities within municipal parks or improving
dedicated park land in lieu of park land dedication or payment of cash, based
on recommendations made in the Parks. Recreation, and Open Space Master
Plan. Should any of these* options be exercised, the"municipality and the
(4r1C1_YD0CS\0 PDTrN'AL\S U B D1 V\4 FIN.WPD
developer shall. prior to initiation of work on such improvements, enter into
an agreement for credit of expenses for authorized park improvements. In no
case shall the municipality be required to reimburse the developer if he
chooses to improve parklands at an amount greater than required. Such a
proposed agreement to provide facility improvements in lieu of dedication
shall be submitted in writing with the application for any required Concept
Plan or Site Plan. In the event that no Concept Plan or Site Plan is required,
the agreement shall be submitted with the application for the preliminary plat.
7.06 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 50% of the total park and open space
dedication requirement of this ordinance.
7.07 APPROVAL PROCESS:
A. Land Dedications
1. Park Board Recommendation: The Director of Parks and Recreation or
their designee shall report to the Park Board regarding any park land
dedication issues arising from development appiications submitted to the City
for approval.The Park Board may then make a formal recommendation to the
Planning and Zoning Commission to accept or refuse any proposed dedicated
park land prior to the Commission's action on the development. .
2. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and
Zoning Commission shall consider the recommendation of the Park Board in
determining the acceptability of any land dedications proposed on any
development. The Commission recommendation shall then be forwarded to
the City.Council for final approval'w-here applicable.
(4Mr1CTYDOCS',OR-DTFNAL SCBD[VA83E HNI M� PD
-zti
3. Final Plat Dedications: Where review of development applications has
resulted in the City's desire for land dedication. such land dedication shall be
shown on a final plat and shall contain a clear fee simple dedication of that
land to the City.
B. Fee Payments in Lieu of Dedication and/or Facilities Improvements:
1. Park Board Recommendation: The Park Board shall make a formal
recommendation to the City Council as to the acceptability of any proposed
alternatives to park land dedication.
2. City Council Consideration: Upon receiving a formal recommendation
from the Park Board,the City Council shall enter into an agreement with the
developer for the provision of dedicated park land, fees in lieu of dedication,
facilities construction or improvement, or a combination thereof as outlined
below.
a. Developer's Agreements: Developer's Agreements between the City
and the developer shall include the following requirements as
applicable:
(1) Boundary Corners Established: Each comer of the park
land to be dedicated shall be permanently monumented with
3/4" iron pins set in concrete. These shall be located and
identified on a recordable plat or land survey completed by a
iand surveyor registered in the State of Texas and provided to
the City by the Owner and/or Developer.
(2) Utility Extensions to Park: A minimum size of 6" water
main and sanitary sewer, where available, shall be extended
to the park, in location(s) specified by the Director of Public
Works.
(3) Short-term Maintenance: The Owner and/or Developer
agree that no construction materials shall be disposed of or
deposited Within the perk by its contractor, subcontractors,
L^CTYDOCS\ORDIFNAL'SLBD[V1483F F[N.WPD
S�-Z3
employees or agents at any time while the subdivision is
being built. If materials are deposited or disposed of within
the park, the Owner and/or Developer shall be required to
remove these materials within 72 hours of written notice by
the City. Before the City accepts this land, the Developer
shall remove all trash and dead trees.
7.08 USE OF FUNDS:
A. Fund Established: Funds received by the City pursuant to this Section will be
deposited in a special fund dedicated to the accumulation of monies required by this
section.
B. Permitted Expenditures: Monies placed in this fund may be expended only for the
purchase, lease, or other acquisition of park and open space areas by the City of
Southlake, the improvement and site preparation of such areas and sites, the
extension of utilities to or within such sites, the installation of landscaping, play
equipment or recreation improvements on such sites, and/or attendant engineering
and planning costs associated with such park development.
C. Inappropriate Expenditures: Monies placed in this fund may not be utilized for
any other general business activity of the City- or for maintenance of park facilities.
D. Authorization for Use of Funds: All expenditures from this fund shall be made in
accordance with the City's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space iviaster Plan and shaii
be approved by the City Council after a formal recommendation of the Park Board.
�reCTYDOCS'0 RD'FINAUS U B D[V 483F FrN.WPD
These appendices are not considered a part of this ordinance and may be revised or updated as necessary by the City Staff.
(4w
APPENDIX I
Guidelines for Park Land Dedication
(approved by Park Board 5/12/97)
A. Land dedication or otherwise set aside for open space and park and recreational areas shall be of
such size,dimensions,topography and general character as is reasonably required for the type of use
necessary, to meet the demand and need of future residents, e.g., open space, linear space, trails,
active recreation for team or individual sports, playground, etc.
B. Natural areas or flood plains which provide unique opportunities may be included in areas dedicated
or otherwise set aside or reserved for open space or linear greenbelts. In considering any area for
dedication which does not meet the standards of this ordinance and where the ordinance allows the
municipality to employ its discretion, the following may be considered:
1. Preserve area of unique natural beauty, area possessing unique natural features, or other
ecologically valuable areas.
2. Facilities may be developed in partial fulfillment of required parkland dedication.
3. Whether the area is proposed to be contiguous to an existing or proposed school site.
4. A combination of land dedication and fees paid in lieu of a portion of the land dedication.
5. Where developments are contiguous, e dedications
p � o s, two or more required d dtcat ons may be combined
to form a single, viable park area.
6. Acreage dedication which would expand existing parks or recreation facilities.
7. An applicant may transfer the required parkland in a subdivision to another location owned
by the same applicant within the City of Southlake with the consent of the City Council.
CTYDOCS\ORDF[v.ai.`,SUBD[V433F FIv.W"PD
- Z�
SECTION 2 Any person, firm or co oration who violates, disobeys omits neglects g� s or
refuses to comply With or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall
be tined 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 3 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 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 5 The City Secretary of the City ofSouthlake 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
Irdinance 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.B of
the Charter of the City of Southlake.
SECTION 6 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
provisions of this ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without
further proof than the production thereof.
SECTION 7 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.
�CTYDOCS'0RD\F[N' .4. aL SLBD[V` 33F F[N.WPD
P ED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS � DAY OF
1997.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
p cif• `
O
�►Y CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS � DAY OF
1997.
``��;uunurriii�,
`
�
`�pJ ,,.""•.,,��'�.� MAYOR
O = ATT ST:
IAJI" X
�r
ITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
(,'2& j
City Attorney
Date: 15,
If
ADOPTED: 7
EFFECTIVE:
up,,-
L.'CTXDOCS`,ORD\F[N'AL,.SUBD(�'433F FI,(.WPD
GOODRICH, SCHECHTER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL AND CONSULTATION
December 7, 1998
Mr. Curtis Hawk
The City of Southlake, Texas
1725 E. Southlake Boulevard
Southlake, Texas 76092
Dear Mr. Hawk:
In response to your request, I have researched and investigated the residential land market in Southlake,
Tarrant County, Texas. This letter summarizes my findings with regard to price/value of vacant
residential land.
Scope of Analysis and Research
The scope of this analysis included research of land sales which were purchased for residential
development. The search parameters were narrowed to only those sales which occurred in 1998 and
were located within the city limits of Southlake. Tracts purchased by the Carroll Independent School
District were not included. Sources used for information included the Roddy Report, Multiple Listing
vice, the Tarrant County Court House, and conversations with active market participants(ie. buyers,
rs, brokers, Realtors), etc.
Following this letter is information summarizing 16 land sales which occurred in Southlake this year.
These sales were all purchased for residential development, either for a single house for a multi-lot
residential subdivision. These sales have been separated by size, which influences use.
Conclusions
General Conclusions: There is strong demand for residentially zoned-land in Southlake. Values have
increased significantly over the past several years. All sizes of land are in demand. There does not
appear to be a difference in demand between tracts zoned Agricultural and those zoned with the single
family categories. Most properties which have sold had municipal water, but not municipal sewer. This
was not a hindrance for the small acreage tracts. The large acreage tracts which were purchased for
subdivision development had sewer extended by the developer. The prices developers are willing to pay
is very dependent on the accessability of utilities and the proposed infrastructure costs. The buyers of
the sales identified as Sales No. 12 and No. 16 both stated that they were willing to pay a premium
because the utility and street costs were less than typical. It was found in the market that tracts of all
sizes with trees sell for more than tracts without trees.
cre Lots: Definite price breaks occurred after one acre, between about two and three acres, and
all6wafter five to nine acres. The lots containing one acre were located within platted subdivisions and
910 Collier Street, Suite 227 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (817) 335-9415 Fax (817) 335-9421
5f..Z$
Mr. Curtis Hawk
Page 2
-)Id for prices between $68,000 and $105,600 per acre. They were purchased by individuals. Lots
,,ith dense tree cover (Sale No. 5) sell for more than lots without trees Sales No. 3 an
d d No. 4).
One to Three Acre Tracts: The tracts with one to three acres were generally un-platted. They were
usually "carved" out of larger acreage tracts purchased several years ago (Sales No. 7 and No. 10).
There is no market resistance to locations outside of subdivisions; however, the unit prices of the tracts
outside of subdivisions were lower than those within subdivisions. These tracts were purchased by
individuals. These sales contained 1.049 to 1.300 acres and sold for prices between $52,431 and
$61,075 per acre.
Three to Ten Acre Tracts: No clear pattern for size was shown by this set of data; a more precise
pattern is shown by the types of buyers (individuals versus developers) and trees. The sale identified
in italics was purchased by a developer for a residential subdivision. When compared with the sales
purchased by individuals, it appears that developers are willing to pay a premium. Within this size
range, the higher price is due to infrastructure costs. Due to the cost of sewer extension and economies
of scale, it is not profitable for a developer to extend sewer to a small acreage tract. This data set
ranged in size from 3.005 to 9.998 acres and in unit price from $30,909 to $48,319 per acre.
Ten Acres and Up: The fourth set of data detailed two assemblages which were purchased for
Unit
lopment with residential subdivisions. These sales ranged in size from 26.892 to 32.183 acres and
price from $40,000 to $65,000 per acre.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you in this analysis of the Southlake land market. ;I have more
specific details of all the data used in this analysis, as well as other data not included herein, to which
you are welcome. I am available to discuss this study at any time. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
GOODRICH,SCHECHTER&ASSOCIATES,LLC
Misty Goodri h, I
b
t9
s o o0
4z �
zz 0zz } zz z z z zz
aa
W W) < <
Gn Gn Gn G7 H G7 h
en
c�
vl N
7 O %O 0 ;; O O - O O O
_ :: t\ O• n `O4A (A O 6Nq w fNA en
M h M `NO R
'••.I iA Vf Vi N VI iA N N
0 0 o a CO o v� 0 0 0 p oo
.. .:. O O O O O V t� O Do
N °o
`d
.y
O O O O OOO p O
O O - O O
"r O N 00 QO bb h r n O M b b n 000 q t�o 0 fA i.9 GA GA
iA W GA 4q K Vi M fA
00...; ;.:::.:.; b
oo OO OO
ao 00 00 00 00 co
.... Oo 00 � � � a N b coo
Cho fp��
C `
h N N vl N 1 .� 4 w
•,�, r L L � t .t r L .r .0 2S
rn V] h CA VI W h % O C
W W W f7 CA (/) ..
E
ti ~
_ 3
Q y u
x O E
� o
"«
a
o >
m u
�
u 0 „
v] u L u u 00 �
VI Y C _
a o a a ad $CD
3 $ e o
N w C4 z Cl u� cn w ° v
1 1 -
-30
Qualifications
Misty Ray Goodrich, MM
Address
910 Collier Street, Suite 227
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(817) 335-9415 FAX (817) 335-9421
Present Work
Misty Ray Goodrich is President of Goodrich, Schechter & Associates, LLC and is engaged in the
counseling and appraisal of all types of real estate for governmental, corporate, finance and private
clients. Her experience includes the valuation of various types of retail, commercial, multi-family
and industrial properties, as well as urban land, special purpose properties, mixed-use subdivisions
and single-family dwellings. Goodrich, Schechter& Associates, LLC is a real estate appraisal and
consulting firm created to fit the needs of professionals and individuals needing real estate analysis
and counseling services. The company offers appraisals, feasibility studies, highest and best use
studies, counseling, testimony, etc.
Education
University of Oklahoma - Bachelor of Business Administration (Finance)
kwZ
fessional Affiliations
Appraisal Institute - Designated MAI (Certificate No. 8087)
Young Advisory Council 1991 and 1993
Young Advisory Council Discussion Leader 1994
Appraisal Institute, Region VIII
Chairman Regional Conference Committee, 1995
Region VIII Committee Member, 1991, 1994, 1997, 1998
Appraisal Institute, Central Texas Chapter
Director 1999
President 1995
Vice President 1994
Treasurer 1993
Chairman Governmental Affairs Committee 1992
Chairman Education Committee 1991 - - - —
Chairman Admissions Committee 1989-1990
Chairman External Aff*4 Committee,1989. ,
(4,11te Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
Certificate Number: TX-1320505-G, Expires April 30, 1999
5?o 51
Licensed Real Estate Broker, State of Texas, No. 0333774
Member - International Right-of-Way Association
Former Member of Tarrant Appraisal Pp Distract Appraisal.Review Board
Teaching Experience
Ms. Goodrich has served as an instructor of Real Estate Appraisal for the Continuing Department of the University of Texas at Arlington and the Real Estate Training Insti Worth. g tute
Representative Clients Include
Nations Bank of Texas, NA
First National Bank of Grapevine Comerica Bank - Texas
Texas Commerce Bancshares, N.A. Bank One, N.A.
Tarrant County, Texas Citibank - Arizona -
Tarrant County MHMR Citizens National Bank
Sunbelt Savings Association Fort Wow Transportation Authority
AMRESCO Capital Co American Manufacturing Company
Corporation Overton Park National Bank
Bonnet Resources Corporation
Texas Department of Transportation
Federal Asset Management Company The City of Fort Worth, Texas _;;. -.
The City of Euless Texas "
' Various Law Firms
Resolution Trust Corporation
FDIC v.z
�'3Z _
City of Southlake, Texas
STAFF REPORT
February 12, 1999
CASE NO: ZA 98-149 PROJECT: Ordinance No. 480-301 /First Reading/
Rezoning and Site Plan - Barton House
Uncommon Care, Inc.
STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787
Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator, 481-5581, ext. 743
I
Attached is a letter from the applicant requesting to table this item to the March 2, 1999, City
Council meeting.
L:\COMDE V1 W P-FILES\MEMO\98CASES\98-149ZS.TBL
I
L
I
I
5n-i
A: 56a Robert Montsomery 972-985-3219 p,2
MPT
February 8, 1999
v�y—. C,-.u.W.-
�iai ililiy ai&Ij LVj Ili ty
w��nv�ui^- II AVC.
vvuu lidi�c,Tn !VtJ�G
v� ,v I-r�Iavf lat kale raunty kDa11Qn r1CuSe)Case*LA V0-14!J
Ptannina and Zanina:
Uncommon Care wishes to inform you that we will not by aAihmittincn ru it rnrrae_M p1an ten*--
by 5 o'Ckxk today. It is our goal to Correct all of the items listed can vni jr nlan rauiaw anri arm
items mentioned as corrections by the dannin� Aral 7miry nr arri
We will resubmit the plans February 22. 1999. In doina so,we a411 alsn ack that nj 11r racy ho
tabled for a March 2, 1999 hearinq before council.
We appreciate your consideration of these requests, and if you have questions. comments.
or if I can be of assistance,please contact me by telephone at 972-985-3219.
Robert(Vkxrtq�r4rll -
�C. cob txxj ra
I�w, l!. ` , REM FEB 0 8 1999 .
City of Southlake, Texas
STAFF REPORT
February 12, 1999
CASE NO: ZA 98-145 PROJECT: Site Plan /Dardan Square
STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787
Attached is a letter from the applicant requesting to table this item to the March 2, 1999, City
Council meeting.
L:\COMDEV\WP-FILIfS\MEMO\98CASES\98-145SP.TBL
FEB-12-99 03 :27 PM L. VAN JONES INS. e17 595 1417 P. 01
1
1 T% ..dkk wfw 0AW 090 Uw i+C TAft~0A
} I.Jdi ld > �7Llul1V Vl iJM11% G
- IM
' �nr. vvT r-_...LI_t__ M...J C .1•� �l1ft : C...r1.1�L. T�v�a 76 +► (SYn 488-9753
LW W. �vusulisae artvv. v'v... ..... ................ - -
T�
1
1
ieoruary 1 Z, i 9yy
1
1
htv of Southlake
blslnnina anti 7.onina
�. Lt1 70�1 TJ
1
pttention: vennis xiiiougn
1
1
bear Dennis: Al
LL10 relhls n or cMYe iintit_the Msirr_.h_S_,' t 999 City Council Meeting. We have inet with the SPIN 14
r.�YJV•Yv.. vv. . v
.i....'....s.l but we need time to finalize it. Once
�Vll►a ilsl�i 1larG NGal�LW .7VuwauH.b •..vJ rr^'.
• !it — A •M•1.. cpiw7 rmt,.♦n nM Chair finsal hiPccir7s7 We are targeting
t1I1s11LCa, WC W1U vinx Ag am ALAVVt wins. Nav y. ... •..��• ^v
rebruary 22 for our resuvmutal to y0u.
1
1 � �
1Wcerely;
Ihans T�O:FOV pr�lt�Pn'T
�Y..Y NYIIVf, • •�u.v'�•
_�. C•...i2r. •.CTI..w..a T"^
raiw a .i.vv.v V• •.....
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 w
1 EB 12 1999
1
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 736, 1st Reading, Creating a Department of Economic
Development
Action Requested: Approval of Ordinance No. 736, 1st Reading, Creating a Department of
Economic Development and renaming the Community Development
Department to the Planning Department
Background
Information: The responsibilities for economic development have evolved over the past
several years. Originally the duties were under the City Manager's office.
Over a year ago they were transferred to Community Development because
of the many synergies between the two activities. The increase in major
corporate interests in the City has necessitated a more dedicated focus. As
well, there are several programs that have been discussed, as developed by
Director Last and Kate Barlow, which deserve more focused attention.
Financial
Considerations: The creation of the new department will require the appointment of a
Director to manage its administrative affairs. This is the only new position
which would be required for the formation of the new department.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Not subject to Board review.
Legal Review: The formation of a department requires City Council action by ordinance.
The attached ordinance has been forwarded to the City Attorneys for
review. Any needed changes to the ordinance based upon the legal review
can be affected between first and second readings.
Alternatives: Economic Development activities are currently managed through the
Department of Community Development.
Supporting
Documents: Ordinance No. 736
Proposed organizational charts and duties for the Planning Department and
Department of Economic Development (draft in progress)
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 736 on first reading
5'm-1
City of Southlake, Texas
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
I
City a is ice
57M- Z
City of Southlake, Texas
i
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN
T
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Director of Economic
Development
I.
Economic
Development
Specialist
Economic
Development
Intern
5"�►'� - 3
FEBRUARY 12 1999 L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\STAFF\ORGANIZ\ED-DEPT.VSD
City of Southlake
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
February 12, 1999
DRAFT INPROGRESS
The Department of Economic Development would be organized as follows.
Economic Development Director: Greg Last, (750)
• Manages personnel, budget, and priority determination for the department
• Develops and manages programs to increase the economic health of the city
• Maintains critical contact with landowners, developers, brokers and other allies of economic
development
• Maintains communications with political allies at the state level
• Facilitates communication between developers/brokers
• Communicates development policies and procedures to citizens, developers, consultants, etc.
• Represents the City as a liaison to the Chamber of Commerce
• Represents the City at trade shows and other marketing venues
Economic Development Specialist: Kate Barlow, (766)
• Collects and maintains data including demographic, real estate, financial and infrastructure
• Responds to inquiries from prospective businesses and development community
Maintains and builds working relationship with numerous allies through communication,marketing,
networking, and program coordination efforts
(Owl Manages special projects including work performed by external consultants
• Researches and prepares various community support documents such as: Economic Development
Reports, Site Availability Guide
Administrative Assistance: Susan Chiasson, ED Intern
• Responds to the counter and phone inquiries
• Performs necessary research for preparation of community support documents
• Maintenance of multiple databases regarding economic interests in the city
• Maintains an inventory of marketing/support materials for distribution
L.^.COMDEV\WP-FILES\STAFFIORGANIZq)IVIS-7.WPD Page 2
City of Southlake, Texas
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Director of Community
Development
Senior Senior Zoning
Comprehensive Current Administrator
Planner Planner
Comprehensive Current Zoning
Planner I Planner I Assistant
(2 positions)
Community Administrative Community
Development Development
I ntern Secretary Assistant
S&7 - �
FEBRUARY 12 1999 L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\STAFF\ORGANIZ\CD-DEPT.VSD
City of Southlake
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
February 12, 1999
Community(live
Development
p t Department is organized into basically five interrelated groups. These groups
responsibilities are organized as follows:
ADMINISTRATION: New Hire, CD Director (750); Lori Farwell, Administrative Secretary (744);
Tara Brooks, Development Assistant(786); Marisa Da Silva, CD Intern.
• Manages personnel, budget, and priority determination for the department
• Handles the day-to-day aspects of processing the development requests
• Coordinates the submittal schedule and agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commission
• Coordinates preparation of Community Development items for Council packets
• Responds to the counter and phone inquiries and refers complicated issues to senior staff
• Communicates development policies and procedures to citizens, developers, consultants,etc.
ZONING ADMINISTRATION: Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator(743);Art Wright, Zoning Asst. (828).
• Coordinates the submittal schedule and agenda for the Zoning Board of Adjustment
• Interprets zoning ordinance requirements
• Researches and prepares zoning ordinance amendments to implement comprehensive plans
• Reviews development proposals for conformance with the zoning ordinance
• Communicates zoning policies and procedures to citizens, developers, consultants, etc.
Q,,_RNT PLANNIN Dennis Killough, Sr. Planner(787); Ed McRoy, Planner(880);
Lisa Sudbury, Planner(862).
• Reviews plats, concept plans, and site plans for ordinance compliance
• Communicates the technical requirements of city ordinances to developers and consultants
• Answers technical questions related to ordinances regulating development
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING: Chris Carpenter, Sr.Planner(866);Stefanie Sarakaitis,Planner(753).
• Researches and prepares comprehensive planning guidelines for the city
• Responds to inquiries concerning master plan components
• Reviews development proposals for compliance with comprehensive plans
• Updates unique ordinances, assist other departments in ordinance writing
L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\.STAFRORGANIZ\DIVIS-7.WPD t- Page I
ORDINANCE NO. 736
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2,
"ADMINISTRATION," OF THE SOUTHLAKE CITY CODE
(1996), AS AMENDED, BY; ESTABLISHING THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT;
AMENDING THE NAME OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO BE DESIGNATED AS
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT; AMENDING
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION TO BE
DESIGNATED AS THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
SERVICES; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE
SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN
THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule city acting under its
charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas
Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Local Government Code; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 4.01 of the Southlake City Charter, the City
Council has the power by Ordinance to establish administrative departments and may
redesignate existing departments or administrative offices;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE:
SECTION 1. ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
That Section 2-106 of Chapter 2 of the Southlake City Code is amended as follows:
"As provided by section 4.01 of the city Charter, the city council hereby
establishes the following administrative departments: department of general
government, to be headed by the city manager; department of public safety, to be
headed by the director of public safety; department of public works, to be headed
by the director of public works; department of finance, to be headed by the
director of finance; department of planning, to be
headed by the director of develepment.planning;and department of
community services, to be headed by a director of pafks and
r-eer-eR;ien community services: and department of economic development to be
headed by a director of economic development."
Sm - 7
SECTION 2. CUMULATIVE CLAUSE
This ordinance sh
all 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 3. 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.
SECTION 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE
All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all
violations of the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Southlake.
SECTION 5. PUBLICATION
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed
ordinance or its caption 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.
SECTION 6. 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:
Sm- 8
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF
. 1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney
Effective:
Sm - 9
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approving the Appointment of Community Development Director
Greg Last as Director of Economic Development
Chapter IV, Section 4.01, of the City Charter provides for the appointment of
departmental directors. It states, "The head of each department shall be a chief, director
or superintendent who shall be appointed by the City Manager subject to the approval of
the Council and such chief, director of superintendent shall have supervision and control
over his department. Two or more departments may be headed by the same individual
and the City Manager may head one or more departments."
In accordance with the Charter provision, please approve the appointment of Community
Development Director Greg Last as the director of the newly created Economic
Development department.
/lc
5N
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Billy Campbell, Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: Authorize City staff to reject proposals received for the replacement
of computer network servers and the upgrading and purchasing of
IBM AS 400s.
Action Requested: Council rejection of RFP's for replacing network servers and
upgrading and purchasing IBM AS 400's.
Background
Information: On January 12, 1999 we issued Request for Proposals for the
budgeted replacement of the citywide NT network infrastructure
and the purchase and upgrade of the IBM AS 400's. These
Request for Proposals were drafted and distributed. Upon the
return of these proposals we noticed that the terms "Bid" and
(6w, "Request for Proposal" were utilized simultaneously in these
documents. These terms, by definition, are conflicting and may
be confusing to our vendors. We are currently redrafting in-
house our specifications for these proposals insuring that proper
terminology is used. We should be able to bring a request for
acceptance of these proposals to the City Council in
approximately 30 days.
Financial
Considerations: None
Citizen Input/
Board Review: None
Legal Review: Action requested is under the advice of the City Attorney's
office.
Alternatives: None
Supporting
Documents: None
Curtis E. Hawk
February 12, 1999
Page 2
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the two proposals for replacement of the
network server and upgrading of purchasing IBM AS 400's be
rejected by City Council. The staff has begun the process for the
proper re-issuance of these proposals.
BC/bls
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
Cit g •'
`J
V D
s
City of Southlake, Texas
STAFF REPORT
February 12, 1999
CASE NO: ZA 98-152 PROJECT: Site Plan/Panorama Place, Phase II
STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787
REQUESTED ACTION: Site Plan for Panorama Place,Phase II,on property legally described
as a portion of Tract 5A situated in the W. W. Hall Survey, Abstract
No. 695, and being approximately 0.89 acres.
PURPOSE: Site Plan approval required for permitting.
LOCATION: On the west side of North Carroll Avenue approximately 375' south
of Southcrest Court.
OWNER: John Cole
APPLICANT: Panorama Properties, Inc.
CURRENT ZONING: "O-l" Office District
LAND USE CATEGORY: Office Commercial
NO. NOTICES SENT: Fourteen (14)
RESPONSES: One (1) response was received within the 200' notification area:
• John L. Cole, 5001 Spring Valley Rd, Ste 1100 W, Dallas, TX, in
favor, "quality use of the property." (Received December 10,
1998).
P&Z ACTION: December 17, 1998; Approved (7-0) to table and to continue the
Public Hearing to the January 7, 1999, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
January 7, 1999; Due to Case Resolution No. 97-22, this case was
not heard and was continued to January 14, 1999.
January 14, 1999; Approved (5-0) subject to Site Plan Review
Summary No. 1, dated December 11, 1998, accepting the copper
roofing as proposed.
COUNCIL ACTION: February 2, 1999;Approved(5-0)to table and to continue the Public
Hearing until February 16, 1999, meeting.
�lA 1
` City of Southlake, Texas
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has met the requirements in Site Plan Review
Summary No. 1, dated December 11, 1998, and Site Plan Review
Summary No. 2,dated January 29, 1999,with the exception of those
listed in Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated February 12, 1999.
L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\MEMO\98CASES\98-152SP.WPD
�1A-Z
millia,�i�kliha,
Em
Elm
m
•
C
C K I
��►=a
■mo■■w --
I �
0■■1=111■�' ■l■■■■ .. ■.�s�■■■ �� 1..1�
logo
MIN
mom
IRS ��I�!! ' "� �_����� . .�.._.. ,.,, �■�,� ,
�a► �� ������0����►�111� � ���- � t r��������►�� �,+ice
J n _ 4 AL.
SOUTHVIEIf TR u
N low
t.o O
4 s ' 3 x 2 z 1 s U . p
5 a TR 5D
141 ,� ,b 2.892 AC R jC A
to t.a 13t I.0 1 - AD S 481
5 a � Y
16 a 17 R 6 a
$ 15 +t 90-2.6
IN 11 S1 u1 1.0
6 a 'al SOUTHCREST CT SOUTHCREST IN
.Z 140 too aY
1n 14 ss GENESIS
13 ? 12 s 1 R w FINANCIAL K
7 a G�1EI75
6lP_`
Iu Is. INC. \
uu
137
In P. a :r /
1w = SOULIER
8 a ' ,N 9 10 = „ 0-1
e< /
�W
, , ,a, ,a7 ., - J.COLE
SOUTH BEND TR =
J.
,a. 13° D n MOORE= J
M I
8 S 7 - 6 S 5 J. HARVEY
1s In -
11SF20A1' n1 J
�
tI. VS
17.
9 a 10 g 11 Y 12 R- �R s 5A
CALLAN
KUHNEN- 29 ® a THE FECHTEL GROUP
ta! 125 ta! 123 31
OASIS CT 6a� ISO o
127 125 125 In I C. 11 C_/1 11
JACKSON a U {\J V{
20 s .19 $ 18 g 17 !M 's
BRIGGER z
2 125 173 In
'n 140 Z 'IC 1.3 Y
O oC 0 cc cc
21 34 s 25 x "s O ; s m ¢
0= g =
137 FO DRM ~ 11.101
1.Vcr I
4 26 A n 11
22 x 23
s s 1 a
4
OWNBY LN ., 5 g
110 I10 Ila so V H CT135
In
3
10 a 9 9 8 7 a 6 3 2
s
110 no I10 1ap u.
aN 177
xo
210 4"
ADJACENT OWNERS
AND ZONING
no
4
TR 3D3A TR 3D3 �7 TR.':38
7.665 AC 3.419 AC l A-q M 1.OAC
City of Southlake, Texas
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
ase No.: A 98-152 Review No: Three Date of Review: 2/12
Project Name: Site Plan-Panorama Place,Phase 2 being.99 acres out of the W.W. Hall Survey Abstract No.
695
APPLICANT: ARCHITECT:
Panorama Properties. Inc. Blake Architects
502 N. Carroll Ave. 1202 S. White Chapel Road STE A
Southlake. TX 76092 Southlake TX 76092
Phone : (817) 488-9000 Phone • (817) 488-9397
Fax : (817)488-0819 Attn: Will Edgington Fax : (817)251-3205 Attn: Skip Blake
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 02/08/99 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 Y See Comment No. I
Residential Adjacency Y See Comment No.2
wilding Articulation Y Complies
Masonry Standards Y Complies
Impervious Coverage Y Complies
Bufferyards Y See Comment No.3
Interior Landscape Y Complies
Driveways Y Complies
1. Indicate the material to be used for the screening wall around the trash dumpster. Dumpster screening
walls are required to utilize similar masonry materials to that of the building facade.
2. Building A is indicated to be 20' - 1" in height (UBC standard). Buildings greater than 20' in height
must be setback such that no part of the building encroaches above a 4:1 slope line from residential
property lines. Building A encroaches above the slope line extending from the south property line
approximately 18'.The applicant has proposed a 40' setback from Lot 30,Block 1, Southview addition
which is permitted for one story buildings 20' or less in height(UBC Standard).
3. A 190'bufferyard is indicated to be"provided"off-set along the south edge of the common driveway.
The graphic indicates approximately 160'is actually being provided. Extend the bufferyard further east
along the full length of the driveway.
�1R•5
City of Southlake, Texas
- 74. A minimum 8' screening device and a minimum 6' Type F-1 fence is required between the proposed
site and the adjacent residential properties to the south and west. The applicant has indicated that the
existing screening fence along the west crosses the property boundary. If relief is granted to allow the
use of the existing screening as shown,the applicant must provide an agreement for its maintenance as
needed with the adjacent property owners. In the absence of such relief or maintenance agreement,the
applicant must provide the applicable screening entirely within the subject property.
5. Correct the net lot area and the north and south lot dimensions to reflect the additional 0.5' dedication.
Correct any other data which may be affected.
* Buildings A and B comply with articulation requirements. The north and south elevations of both
buildings do not require articulation. The width of the wall lengths involved do not exceed three times
the wall height.,
* No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan.A separate building permit is required prior
to construction of any signs.
* The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Revised Preliminary Plat
followed by a Final Plat must be processed and filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site
plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all
required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Water
& Sewer Tap Fees, Impact Fees and related Permit Fees.
Protected trees cannot be removed outside of 6' from the proposed building without processing a Tree
Removal Permit or without approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Cuts or fills within the
limits of the critical root zone of protected trees are not permitted unless adequate construction methods
are approved by the Landscape Administrator.
* Please be aware that any change of tenant/owners with a request for a new C.O. may require that
additional parking be provided and may impact fire lane requirements.
* Denotes Informational Comment
cc: Panorama Properties,Inc. VIA FAX ABOVE
Blake Architects VIA FAX ABOVE
John Cole VIA FAX(817)488-0819
L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\REV\98\98152SP3.WPD
9A- to
City of Southlake, Texas
TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS
(Non-Residential Development)
Case: 98-152 Date of Review: 2 - 11 - 99 Number of Pages: 1
Project Name: Panorama Place-Phase II (Site Plan Resubmittal 2)
OWNER: ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS:
Panorama Properties,Inc. Blake Architects
502 N. Carroll Ave. 1202 S. White Chapel Road, Suite A
Southlake, TX 76092 Southlake,TX 76092
Phone: (817)488-9000' Phone: (817)488-9397
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:
I met with the applicant on the property and looked at the existing trees. He relayed to me that he
would like to preserve all the trees on the property but two of them are located within the parking
lot and the building pad of one of the buildings. He has made an attempt to preserve two (2)Black
Jack Oaks located on the southwest corner of the smaller building by increasing the width of the
landscape median. Although there is enough area to allow a majority of the trees root system to
remain intact,I have no idea how long the trees would remain healthy.
He also relayed that he would like to relocate the Persimmon tree to a location away from the
buildings. I think that the time, effort and money spent to transplant the tree would perhaps be
better utilized purchasing new trees to be planted on the property.
* All area within the driveway,public sidewalks,patios, septic tank and lateral lines,parking area,
pool and deck area and area within six feet(6')of the building foundation as shown on an
approved plot plan shall be exempt from the tree protection and replacement requirements of the
Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A. A tree removal permit must be obtained prior to the removal
of any other protected tree on the property.
* All protected trees within 20' of any construction occurring shall be fenced of at the outer limits of
the dripline of the tree/s.No vehicle traffic and no grade changes shall occur within area of the
critical root zone of any protected tree.No construction equipment or debris shall be deposited
within the area of the critical root zone of any protected tree.
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
L:trees/dre-98/98-152r2
City of Southlake, Texas
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 methods required
by the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585-A.
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
L:trftddre-98/9&152r2
MG-990-ll9 • INK SV931'3"Im �'.'7C01'TI'►'1MlllOi 'i/.v TdYi1r/J'N _ i ± � ` o
•- OIOtl 13d"31NM'S aut
.31M15 L 53b'Hd '37`d�d b'W�d?JON`dd I Il I n 1 i «
In
.�,�, o ,:
1.....� VNI•dONd `dW`d?�ON`dd �( -, � � §. ,. _ k
�i 4;� JJ
11
tY fw'�t Yo l m :i 00
-------------------------
-------------------------
%C In QN
�� n � � , R � Y•LL:
I
r I 1 1 ,.Ilk
i✓r ibDf Wn.
I ' p
c Y i
A viz No
�I
YV
iS
.0 4.
4Nl IL
i I •>M p z
-"-� 1 I I I {!� I..m.f.s.f+w" Nw•aan.m CK �•� 1 1 � y T�66 N � •F 0 a Q
t
1 �� � •� 1 � 1� • •ly � � 1 � I i��Ir� � all �I, (� i LI) �� esrin €
I a
3 ► c ..>,.,b aP $:.. I I I I r 4 3g $x@ is nv YYY
k� •.. � ; �.. I _ s.l..e.•� - I. I ' '� � j�ooj� s.il 3+no�Sr��: !^wool
-� � y�. _... _.. � .,.aa`.Tr1...ID.i...1.•,'- --�..�--- �. —��. is�� �� �6�� ; IS3� �_
oil
•`" L6i6-99►-LI9 L609L Svx31•3)NWIM _
r 31Y15 arox 13dND 3Nr s zxl/
y rlp p N
..rj;,k K{b•Nil !. 11 1 p t i ~ �
1Tl'1INIOM•01' I Iil r l=i rr ���
z� YoP 223� m ce
00
T s N
L.1.1 CD
7 wP
� 7 P
C13 $ ; ® 4
I Y 1
.f# 2
< 0 0 H — }
>
I11 J
1 YI
YIIIJ
CM•.\ 9 9
• l �
Im
- a
IL
L
t \ e
I II z
I
f[A4 R A
o _
� 1- 1-
� > ul
It Nl �l i� �1 IIJ
-
Iu
�
t Ill St I
9R-10
••.._ dwil 9,'C I9 • i609L SMIX 1MNl110S {YX3L'7�IY?11AOi '2A\/T101gM1"7N
Mir 4L L SWHd ,2vv-d dWb210N`dd l I�;y «
—
s10031403V 03,018�� 7N1'd02Id `dW`dZ{ONb'd !t ;i "` Y
ou-
o_
r
S
vi
1p
� u
1
t--
Ii
I I
1 1
I
I 1 1
� � 1
I '
t
1 1
\ o
dl
It W 1
t 1 r.. 2iiaidi
z
I q
1 _
i
1..
�A-II
City of Southlake, Texas
STAFF REPORT
February 12, 1999
CASE NO: ZA 98-101 PROJECT: Site Plan/Lot 3, Block 3, Diamond Circle Estates
STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787
REQUESTED ACTION: Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 3, Diamond Circle Estates, on property
legally described as being Lot 3, Block 3, Diamond Circle Estates,
an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas,
according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-177, Page 7, Plat
Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 1.02
acres.
PURPOSE: Site Plan approval required for building permits.
LOCATION: 316 East Southlake Boulevard(F.M. 1709) on the northwest corner
of the intersection of Diamond Boulevard and East Southlake
Boulevard (F.M. 1709).
OWNER: 2 Diamond Ltd.
APPLICANT: James A. Zimmerer
CURRENT ZONING: "O-1" Office District
LAND USE CATEGORY: Office Commercial
NO. NOTICES SENT: Twelve (12)
RESPONSES: One (1) response was received within the 200' notification area:
• Rich O'Day, 921 Emerald Blvd. Southlake, TX, undecided. "I
have concern over several issues with this building." See
attached letter. (Received October 22, 1998.)
A second letter was received from Mr. O'Day on December
1, 1998. See attached letter.
A third letter was received from Mr. O'Day on February 4,
1999. See attached letter. A letter from Gary Yarbrough to
Mr. O'Day is also attached.
P&Z ACTION: September 17, 1998;Approved(7-0)applicant's request to table and
to continue the Public Hearing to the October 8, 1998, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting.
City of Southlake, Texas
October 8, 1998; Approved (7-0) applicant's request to table and to
continue the Public Hearing to the October 22, 1998, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting.
October 22, 1998; Approved(7-0)applicant's request to table to the
November 19, 1998, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
(Public Hearing was closed.)
November 19, 1998; Approved (7-0) at the applicant's request to
table to the December 17, 1998, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
December 17, 1998;Approved(7-0)at the applicant's request to the
January 21, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
January 21, 1999; Approved(7-0) at the applicant's request to table
to the February 4, 1999,Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
February 4, 1999; Approved (6-0) subject to Site Plan Review
Summary No. 4, dated January 29, 1999, and recognizing Gary
Yarbrough's agreement as set forth on Rich O'Day's letter dated
February 4, 1999 (attached).
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has met all requirements in Site Plan Review
Summary No. 1, dated September 11, 1998; Site Plan Review
Summary No. 2, dated November 13, 1998; Site Plan Review
Summary No. 3, dated December 11, 1998; and Site Plan Review
Summary No. 4,dated January 29, 1999,with the exception of those
in the attached Site Plan Review Summary No. 5,dated February 12,
1999.
L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\MEMO\98CASES\98-IOISP.WPD
�a-z
t
October 21, 1998
Ms. Ann Creighton
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Southlake
667 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake,Tx 76092
RE: ZA 98-101 -
Dear Ms. Creighton:
My residential property is directly behind this proposed building
site. Initially when the concept was brought forth I met with the
developer, Mr. James Zimmer. He stated he was willing to work
with the residents of Diamond Circle Estates to help make the
project pleasing to everyone as best he could,which was back in July.
I talked with Mr. Zimmer several times in late July and early August,
but since then I have had very little contact with Mr. Zimmer. I talked
with Mr. Zimmer on September 15, 1998 when he assured me that
he would work through the screening on the backside(north)
of his property with me. Today I contacted Mr. Zimmer to express
my concern over the lack of information I had received from him.
I learned he is no longer the primary developer and does not own the
property. Southern Home Mortgage is now the owner. Mr. Don
Peterson of Peterson Designs, Inc. is apparently the new developer.
At this point I have concern over several issues with this building:
1) What is the intended use of the building? Originally I was told it would
be medical and real estate. The newest interior plan seams to indict
differently.
2) Noise- If the intended use of the building has indeed changed,what
are the effects upon the residential area with the hours the building will
be occupied and the noise generated by cars and the occupants?
3) Parking-If the intended use has changed then what affect does this
have on the planned permitted parking at the site?
(4w, 4) Lighting- Is the exterior fighting plan considerate of the neighbors
and what are the hours of its intended use?
Pale �-
�a3 WCD OCT 22 1998
5) Landscaping- Is the landscaping being proposed adequate to protect
the privacy of the residents to the east and north of the site. The home
owners need to have some input regarding the types of trees planned since
this commercial property directly affects them! Nothing has been brought
us to see!
6) New "For Sale" sign on the property - Why are there new "For Sale" signs
on the property?
7) Contacts-Who are the residents of Diamond Circle supposed to talk to
regarding our concerns? To the best of my knowledge the new principals
involved•in this project have not contacted the residents of Diamond
Circle Estates. I believe our concerns could be alleviated if we had some
contact with whomever is handling the development of this property.
I have stated in the past that I am not opposed to the this one-story
building,but I do have reservations because of the lack of information
and the absence of contact with the developer. I do request that the
Commission delay approval of the site plan until the developer takes time
to meet with those residents directly affected by the construction.
I regret that I am unable to attended this rescheduled meeting due to
a prior commitment. I do appreciate the Commission's time in addressing our
concerns. I have been and remain willing to meet with the developer to
discuss the project. I look forward to meeting with those involved in the
very near future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Rich ODay
�16•�1
s
November 27, 1998
Ann Creighton
Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of So thlake
667 North Carroll Ave
Southlake,Tx 76092
RE: ZA98-10i
Dear Ms. Creighton:
Enclosed is a letter I sea to Gloria and Gary Yarbrough
which outlines our positions on the various issues with
respect to their proposed commercial building at 316 E. Southlake
Blvd.Except for the fence iswe which we have not come to
a definite plan on,but which will be agreed to prior to the 12-17-98
P&Z meeting,I have no objections to the building plan.
I will forward to you a copy of the fence agreament asap.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
6
1 �P ,
Rich O'Day
4( ,11--
921 Emerald Blvd.
Southlake,Tx 76092
DEC 011998
�a5
t 1
November 27, 1998
Gary and Gloria Yarbrough
RE/MAX Lone Star
620 E. Southlake Blvd.
Southlake,Tx 76092
RE: ZA-98-101
Dear Gloria and Gary:
At the request of the Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission
I would like to clarify the disposition of the following items that you
and I have discussed regarding the proposed building at 316 East
Southlake Blvd.
It is my understanding that you have agreed to:
1) Submit to the city the landscaping plan the you presented to the
homeowners of Diamond Circle Estates on 1 I-16-98. In that
plan all canopy trees will be a minimum of four inch caliper.
2) The drainage and erosion problem at the south east corner of the
property which borders on the entry way to Diamond Blvd. in
the Diamond Circle Estates subdivision will be corrected.
3) The exterior lighting, except for motion type lights will be set to
turn off at 9pm.
4) Regarding the fence which separates 316 E. Southlake Blvd.
from 921 Emerald Blvd. You have stated that you would maintain
the fence and/or replace it. I believe it is in the best interests of both
parties that this fence be replaced with a durable, long lasting material
made of brick or a suitable substitute that will constructed in such a manner
as to be guaranteed secure and be maintenance free. As you are aware
the fence rises gradually from east to west. It might be beneficial and
more sightly to have a fence of uniform height in the range of 7 to
8 feet which in conjunction with the planned landscaping would provide
adequate privacy for the residents.
If you are unwilling to replace the fence, please notify me as
soon as possible so that we may discuss an alternative.
Pale �- o-F 3
�16-� W,CD DEC 011998
(aw
Thank you for your time and conaderadod.
S,hwgfviyp ,
Rich May
921 Emerald Blvd.
Southlake,Tx 76092
cc; PlamiS and Zoning 488-3394
Cow
February 4,1999
Ann Creighton
Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Southlake
667 North Carroll Ave
Southlake, Tx 76092
RE: ZA98-101
Dear Ms. Creighton:
I recently received a letter from Mr. Yarbrough, Vice President of
Southern Home Realty,which outlines the concerns he has agreed to address
when the building at 316 E. Southlake Blvd. is constructed. I am satisfied with
items 2 and 3 of his commitment. I would like to clarify the issues in item one
of his letter regarding the existing brick and wood fence along the north perimeter
of both the properties at 316 E. Southlake Blvd. and 620 E. Southlake Blvd.
The fence along the north side of the properties, extending from the east
fence boundary presently in existence perpendicular to Diamond Blvd. and ex-
tending to the west edge of the property at 620 E. Southlake Blvd.,will be
replaced with a fence a minimum height of 8ft., and which follows the
grade of the land, made of masonry brick on brick. The fence should be
engineered for proper structural rigidity, adding steel where necessary for
strength. If the existing foundation and existing brick can be used, they
will be incorporated into the structure. The new brick portions should
consist of a brick as close in color as possible to the existing brick.
Thank you for your consideration.
Enclosures
Rich OD
921 Emerald Blvd.
Southlake, Tx 76092
Ca e l o-F 3
rl6'2 WO FEB 0 4: 1999
x
January 29, 1999
Thank you for your recent support at the Southlake planning and zoning meeting. Your
support means more to us than we can ever express. At the Southlake planning and
zoning meeting we made certain commitments to the committee members that were a
direct result of our conversations with you. At the time of the planning and zoning
meeting P&Z members suggested_that we incorporate these commitments into the
building plans which we agreed to do.
In later meetings with city staff they asked us to remove all references from the plans that
outlined our sideline agreements with the adjacent homeowners stating that the city could
only deal with issues pertaining to the building plans of the subject property and could
not get involved with any side agreements we have with homeowners. The city further
stated that if we were going to attach a landscape plan at this early stage (which is
unusual and not required by the city) that the landscape plan would have to be certified
by a landscape architect. The city staff also pointed out that if we attached a landscape
plan that exceeded the city requirements we would be bound by the higher standards.
As a result of the conversation with the city we have had a landscaping architect by the
name of John Fain certify the landscape plan and attach the landscape plan as previously
agreed to our plans that have been presented to planning and zoning and city staff.
The remaining issues I have asked Linda chase our in-house attorney to incorporate into
the deed restrictions of both the new building to be built at 316 E. Southlake Blvd. and
also the existing RE/NIAX Lone Star building next door at 620 E. Southlake Blvd. These
special deed restrictions will be as follows:
1. We will replace the fence on the north side of the property with a full masonry
structure. The fence will be maintained at the full cost and expense of the property
owners at 316 E. Southlake Blvd and 620 E. Southlake Blvd.
2. The lighting behind the buildings on both lots will be limited to low level lighting that
will not be any taller than the fence on the north side of the property tine. The
lighting will turn off automatically no later than 9:00 p.m. each evening and after 9:00
p.m. each evening only motion sensitive lighting will be allowed behind the
buildings.
3. Southern Home Realty and future owners of 316 and 620 E. Southlake Blvd will have
the obligation to maintain the property along the NW corner of 1709 and Diamond
Circle. Southern Home Realty will be responsible for controlling erosion at that
comer.
P 2 3 WMW Lone Star
Corporate Office
620 E. Southlake Blvd.
Southlake,Texas 76092
Office: (817)329-3500,Fax: 488-3371
Each Office Independently Owned end Operated
If these terms are acceptable to you please sign the space below . If you need further
information please do not hesitate to call. My home phone number is 817-354-5748 and
my office number is 817-329-3500. My mobile number is 817-821-3232.
Gary Yarbrk0gli Richard Oday
Vice President
Southern Home Realty
�a to
z 22
Aww.
V/ �11�iI�U■■�! C�s� t
't '
1i . ..
RIM
Vol
Ll
mill
B WIN ig
will jilsoll
MAN
all
,ell
I6
8 7 , \�
6 7
TR 3E
069
12 11
10
"SF-1 A" o
J
co g
O
Z
p c_ O
3 "SF-1 A" Q "SF-1 A"
H _
6 5 4 O 10
z J. WOOD
im
m I R. O'DAY /
i "SF-1 A" r
Tk 3Ez
J ')LT . o c S. HUMPHREY 4 I. 44o9 a
; o _
LL m 4 "C-2"
EY x x 1 2A
37 mm
- - "C-2�� z - - - DIAMOND I LTD.
r r2- � 7
I TR.
Hi
.205
- F"OUTHLAKE BLVD - - - - - - —
TR 3t2= -
TR 5C .053 5
1.942
C TR 502 CD cn
1.698 AC n D -I TR 2D--
_ X,m m
D _
0 Z D D 2B
cn -1 CE "2.132 AC
"R-PU D" > LA i
P
TR 3A
O I a 2.96 .AAC
Z
1A3
.81
B TR 5D2B
2.78 ® o§p
ADJACENT OWNERS - AC
AND ZONING `
2c
ie ,..
a n ➢� �� P
4 Oil I
',� big � WE� gta a �I�bt Eei �a to o'8e zN
>•ai ��a _ ., �I ������ c� t: �� � Y�$,s p �'f •S� ��sf� RE pig ti
7
�R }n}s
- � '� 'EisEr�i � �Te 61;i�• AEar E� `''Y^8 �=� ^E � � ^ri:,ttil
li g� t•;Ys3 t ®?1 $ ' i@si if a 1 n� aij�
� IS
III Illillllill, i
u
rLw
---i-- -- -------i---------- �i��ii�iii� 3� w
I 9 I I r
a I z o�l I Z
d J O g
R
3i N
aYOb.�79{'1d�3i1 0.f78 ONOlf'6l �---
- ran 0114Va `Q}
's-
m l ��Yd � _]Q Z~• 9
0�i1 r n•' d R ���- �Y3S it �I
a
t N' W
--------------- -
j
n2'all
I
i
------------- --J
3
Ito
r Ir
IL
If
3 rF Z $ r
9
qy,
00
w
rn
CY) U
ZD
W
>
cr
CL
== X
j j ? _
'= W
0_;M�
City of Southlake, Texas
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
ase No.: ZA 98-101 Review No: Five Date of Review: 2/12/99
Project Name: Site Plan-Diamond Circle Estates.0-1 Zoned Prop. A portion of Lot 3. Block 3
APPLICANT: ARCHITECT:
Gloria Yarbrough M.J. Wright&Associates. Inc.
620 E. Southlake Boulevard 700 East Southlake Blvd. #170
Southlake.Texas-76092 Southlake.Texas 76092
Phone : (817)329-3500 Phone : (817)424-3664
Fax : (817)488-3371 Fax : (817) 329-0093 Attn. Mike Wright
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 2/8/99 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 LISA SUDBURY AT (817) 481-5581, EXT. 862.
General Development Standards Applies Comments
Corridor Overlay Regulations Y See Comments No. 1 -3
Residential Adiacency N Plan submitted prior to adoption of 480-CC
Building Articulation Y Complies
Nasonry Standards Y Complies
ervious Coverdge N Plan submitted prior to adoption 480-BB
Bufferyards Y Complies
Interior Landscape Y Complies
[C—amplies xvith Apprnyed CnnreDt Pfign
1. Provide a minimum 6' wood stockade fence and minimum 8' screening along the north property
line with the finished side facing the less intensive use as required for the "F-1" bufferyard. This
plan proposes using the existing wood and brick fence (height varies from 5' to T)north and
adjacent to this property rather than adding a second fence. Staff recommends that-if the use of the
existing fencing is acceptable,the applicant should provide the City a written agreement from the
adjacent property owners and the Diamond Circle Estates Homeowner's Association indicating
their understanding and acceptance of the use and maintenance of the fence prior to issuance of a
building permit.
2. Revise the grading plan to show the existing and proposed finished grade of the site,with contour
intervals not exceeding two(2)feet. Spot elevations must be shown at all critical points, including
but not limited to edges of pavement, curb returns,building corners, drainage paths, etc. Include
directional flow arrows in all flow lines,and label all existing drainage structures labeled with
size,type and flow line elevation. Also show centerline of water courses and existing drainage
easements.Note the benchmark used for the topographical information. This should correspond to
a City approved benchmark.
Remove the 35'Building Line shown on the west side of the building. Two setbacks are noted.
fig-�5
City of Southlake, Texas
4. The Common Access Easement and Reciprocal Parking Agreement should be separate documents.
The Common Access Easement requires a metes and bounds description defining location,width
and depth of the easement along with a graphic exhibit. The easement must be centered over the
driveway,a minimum of 2'wider than the driveway and extend deep enough to provided access to
the crossing connections. The reciprocal parking agreement should be granted to the owner(s),
heir(s), successor(s)and assign(s) of Lot 3,Block 3. Consult with City Staff to insure adequacy of
these documents prior to filing. The filed documents must be presented to the Building
Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
P& ZAction: February 4, 1999;Approved(6-0)subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated
January 29, 1999 and recognizing Gary Yarbrough's agreement as set forth on Rich
O'Day s letter dated February 4, 1999 (included in packet).
* This development requires 61 parking spaces,49 spaces are provided on this lot. The applicant
proposes utilizing the additional 12 required spaces from the adjoining property (ReMax). There
are 12 additional spaces available from the ReMax property.
* The proposed roofing material has been approved by the City Building Official.
* If needed,the applicant should be aware that new submittals for the next scheduled meeting must
b2 received at the City by 5:00 PM on 2/22/99. If not received by that time, no review will be
prepared until the following submittal schedule. All revised submittals must be folded 6" x 9" and
an 11"x 17"revised reduction must be provided. (17 for Council and 27 for P&Z.)
* No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required
prior to construction of any signs.
* The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a fully corrected site
plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and building plans, must be submitted for approval and all
required fees must be paid. This may include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee,
Water& Sewer Tap Fees,Impact Fees, and related Permit Fees.
* Please be aware that any change of tenant/owners with a request for a new C.O. will require that
all parking requirements are met and all fire lanes meet the Fire Department's requirements.
* Denotes Informational Comment
cc: Gloria Yarbrough VIA FAX ABOVE
M.J. Wright VIA FAX ABOVE
L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\REV\98\98101SP5.WPD
aM1.9K Il,II %tI W1♦�a�� Ar>•ll�.ad �[
ra«•ra r,w,oWa, py� y rlHvlaim Y W
a svx31'3wiKLnOS of
3'1�117 QNOWVIQ`£>WIG £101
n b a.n+,Y aw..,rcr,.era ea
00
I I I I
I
LI i
ati� + Mess p
onipn: o z n99. . r51/
c
t I14
9 -------------------------------------
�}�
f
IL
TRIG aqm=
fm d
r,.� avraar�s e..nt.waaua+x \'• .. �.. �,`\\ = 3^
A a
r 'Kin — ----_--- ---- \�
ui
to
aLL
vid
T)'� I
i —nte
-.,�I,bZ.O-,8 - i501 ,9 0-.8 .O-•VZ.O .0-.1 ,_ j Q
Y . uu 3WI 3mm ma".11
j1` LM3,aPI loll ; any
Io
S::6
-�sq
v0 SS RS •S � 1 � �e p g
g o +
Nl ra •i ,c .. x
�e •� sa ...�ff�eft�� 9,
0 0LU El
• •OOWBI.+I�.•rp•IrLrM•LRhi -3-
ni••-•e.r<,o xr.0 gwvNNv W+91�JJh1Dtl'7'
.«•-w(w,or + •a►i'�urr�wrrrlN�JILlflI'f W
�� SD'X31'3�1'v'"INtnos jtzQ F
�nb 31::)Wt7 CNOWIC'£>0016 8 t0'i n..l.."ilif•1.11tl• r_J
OW >yI1111G•NIi•ql
• �� n� � �— sty
�I~ L 3a•9 �•W� pf eb lipWgX OLI, 12 � 777€}1II1 r11►S � ��{ �+ V4� g�i I ! QF4L d oo
uj
�i 9
i'b tLL-
w ��•,� a
� riVal
ter` °
I
it
q Otl
a `°dSid33$il' a�! yO"� °->c�ad �: T. �6Y6�
tl.• O� C
e Y -
",
F - _ il — dad
� r � e n - i 0 O O.0
• t: - c: a c: � cal
l" : ;
-----.
t - - i
pl
r � '
7 jo --M.
------- of
" Z ,O i
T a
• ��� ! '
i� �Z 3
� _ � ' ! o oda � eoeon8
pp -g
SO 4 111 All
e 'ft
d --n- —. e4b' : �1 ga �i f 11 1l3a + c �
Y 1 ya �r�' r - ! . eta
1�•I�
.e°well`.1711Ww1 ,.w.
42y8NN71d I'Vl'J711
s lit SVX31 IV''3� 1N1f104
1N�JRiR1'f W �+4 F#
a � .3Y-ISIO 4NOWVId'f X)O-Ia E 101 z a
Q V CN N I:Vt MIIW 1Y1i 11l
11
V'
r r m
/ 'C= 1
< C=
CL
1 u
3 I C=
i
0
� ^ U
r� r
J �1
1
C= go
i °..
C=
1
.Rt °
Y .
4 �
.r.t
C i
r
!m
Ci .I
rev.aar+..•»•nw•.,n,.a 9a1IVIYI'id�4toatirr�ae■
��_ �•�ro,�r>os N/■•MrtN)QLLi1 '-JN'M��190M►)jnII11-1 W ����
'd 31721t7 OWOWVI4"C>W-M£10, a
j j j I
I I I f 0
j j j I i
I I I rn
rn
N
I I I
I o
i I I I w
1 I I f L'-
I I I !
f I I
I
I I I I
j j j I
I —---•—••--•—•--••--------------------•---------J — —'— -
r__t___-- AYH+*L ■ Q p�
� - I
i■
I
.-.._.--. ..—. ........ ..—. . .
FLAW tL LL
-- - _____---
1 I j
i I !
- Q - i
I i
i
i
6-2b
11b
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
PERMANENT COMMON ACCESS, PARKING EASEMENT
STATE OF TEAS
COUNTY OF TARRANT KNOW ALL NIEN BY THESE PRESENTS
That SOUTHERN HOME REALTY, INC. (Grantor) for and in consideration of the sum of
Ten and No/100 Dollars (S10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid by
Grantee hercin, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby:acknowledged and confessed, have
granted, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, sell and convey to the City of
Southlake, Grantee herein, of Tarrant County, Texas a perpetual common access and parking
easement in, into, upon, over, across.gild under that land in Tarrant County, Texas, described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
TO HAVE ANT) TO HOLD said easement tuito the City of Southlake, its successors and
assigns, and Grantor does hereby bind itself, its successors and assigns to warrant and to forever
defend, all and singular, said premises unto the City.of Southl*-e, its successors and assigns,
against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part hereof.
The term of this Dedication shall run with the land and shall.be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the City of Southlake and its successors and assigns.
WITNESS MY HAND this 3~�bf February 1999.
Grantor:
SOUTHERN HOME REALTY, INC.
By:
_---Y-I G , PRESIDENT
ACKNOWLE GMENT
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TARRANT
This instrument was acknowledged before me on February , 1999, by . G(p,r i a
YARBROUGH, PRESIDENT OF SOUTHERN HOME REALTY, INC., on behalf of said
corporation.
•-�-^-��" Notary lic, tat e exas
GARY T. YARBROUGH
o�•...Via,.;
NOTARY PUBLIC
:,! �,•*= STATE OF TEXAS
My COMM. Exp. 10-27-01
Exhibit R
Legal Description
Tract 1
A portion of Lot 2, Block 3, of DIAMOND CIRCLE TSTAI S ADDITION, an Addition to the uty of Southlakr,
Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Volume 398-177,Puge 7, Plat Records of Tarrant County,
Teams and being described by metes and bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at u 112 inch iron pin found nt the Northeast corner of said Lot 2;
TFIENCI;South 00 degrees 37 minutes 24 seconds East, 277.45 feet to a 1/Z inch pin set in the new North
right-of-way line of T.X 1709;
THII`ICE along the Nortirrlght-of-way line of Highway 1709, South 89 degrees 36 minutes 54 seconds West, 167.06
feet to a 1/2 inch steeLrod set;
TTiENCE North 00 degrees 49 minutes 34 seconds East, 276.84 feet to'a 1rZ inch steel rod found for the Northwest
corner of said Lot 2,Block 3;
TIiENCE along the North line of said Lot 2, North 89 degrees 22 minutes 36 seconds East,160.0 feet to the POINT
OF BEGINNING and containing 1.04 acres of land, more or Icss.
Tract 2
A portion of Lot 3, Block 3, DIAMOND CIRCLE ESTATES ADDITION to the City of Southlake,
Tarrant County, according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-177,Page 7,Plat Records, Tarrant County,
Texas, said portion being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at a 'h inch iron found at the Northwest corner of said Lot 3, Block 3;
THENCE North 89 degrees 22 minutes 36 seconds East 167.33 feet along the North line of said Lot 3,
to a 518 inch iron found at the Northeast comer of same, in the West line of Diamond Blvd., said point
being in a curve to the right having a radius of 500.83 feet, and whose long chord bears South 04 degrees
20 minutes 28 seconds West 86.68 feet;
THENCE with the arc of said curve a distance of 86.78 feet to a "V"cut in the East edge of a brick wall
at the point of same;
THENCE South 0 degrees 37 minutes 24 seconds East 191.25 feet continuing along the West line of said
Diamond Blvd. to a point in the North right-of-way line of East Southlake Blvd. (FM 1709), said point
being the Northeast corner of a tract, described in a deed to the State of Texas of record in Volume
10037, Page. 1691, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and from which point a TxDOT concrete
monument burs South 89 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds West 0.67 feet;
THENCE South 89 degrees 26 minutes 09 seconds West 159.83 feet along the North right-of-way line of
said East Southlake Blvd. (FM 1709).and the North line of the last referenced tract to a capped 'h inch
iron found at the Northwest corner of same in the West line of Lot 3, above referenced;
1
1
ds[ � DEGRIA
ROOMING S MM5
A
r. Mike Twedell
Sales Manager Texas Region
Tel:(817)695-109'
Carter Holt Harvey Roofing,Inc. Fax:(817)695-109
- 827 Ave.H East,Suite 211 1-800-258-97-�
Arlington,TX 76011 www.decraroof.cor.
MOOPING SYSTEMS
Good performance of roofing in a range
of climatic conditions is critical. Driving
rain,hurricane winds, and hailstorms are
all common weather conditions that a
,good roofing system should handle.
Specifiers need to be confident that their
proposed roofing system will easily meet
the challenges of all climates-that the
ability exits for the roofing system to _
handle the hottest summers, the coldest
winters,and a wide range of catastrophic
conditions. The answer lies with The top photo shows the
DECRA81 Roofing Systems that have devastation caused by
been thoroughly tested aqd proven around hurricane strength
the world. The performance information winds. The photo below
contained within this brochure has been (taken in the same area)shows a securely fastened
extracted from reports of tests conducted
worldwide under the tou,ghhest of DECRA®Roof that has withstood the severe wind
conditions. uplift force.
For each climatic test, DECRA-9 roofs were installed on buildings per the specifications of local
authorities. Only those localities with the very highest code requirements were chosen. The after
effects were noted,not only immediately after testing but also after prolonged exposure periods.
The same roofing panels,proven to endure under one extreme, were also proven under other harsh
climatic conditions.
Testing was carried out in
Dade County Florida, the area
known for strict regulations
due to the high potential of
hurricanes. The roof panels "
using a wood batten system
were fastened to plywood - -
decking. The air stream was � ' '� a-- •
driven by anVrcraft propeller. �-
Water sprays added to the
airstream upwind of the eave
at a rate of 8.8 inches of rain
per hour. The DECRAS
,roofing panels and the decking
were checked for any uplift or
leakage. The wind speeds
were steadily increased to 130
mph with no leaks occurring.
The roof remained firmly in
place throughout the test. Roofing penetration tests play a major part in the develop-
ment of every DECRA®Roof panel.
DECRAV Roofing Systems demonstrate color durability that
lasts. This has been proven under accelerated weathering
tests in laboratories, and with natural actual exposures in the
most UV prone areas in the world. Laboratory tests were
carried out in accordance with the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM). Various colored roofing
panels were tested for 5000 hours with no noticeable change.
DECRAck Roofing Systems have been installed in virtually
every country in the world. In New Zealand where these
roofing systems were first developed, DECRA-1 Roofing
Systems are renowned for their long life and weatherability.
The New Zealand climate is subject to some of the highest
levels of UV exposure in the world. Full copies of the test
reports mentioned are available from your DECRM Roofing
Systems representatives.
DECAA
c
ROOMINM SYSTEMS Distribution Centers —_
827 Avenue H East#21 1 1230 Railroad St. 8614 South 222nd St. 1360 Speers Rd.
Arlington.TX 76011 Corona,CA 91720 Kent.WA 98031 Oakville.Ontario
(817)695-1090 (8(H))258-9740 (253)872-2115 Canada L6L 5V3
(800)463-4103
TOLL FREE USA: 1-800-258-9740 www.decraroof.com
RS.CLIMATIC VERSION 1:'
Tests alone do not
prove a roofing
system' worth. In the
foreground, an entire
section of a shingle
- roof was torn away,
yet the horizontally
fastened DECRA®
Roofing System
remains completely
intact in the
background.
Tests were conducted in accordance with Underwriters Laboratories Standard 2218 for the Impact
Resistance of Prepared Roof Covering Materials. The test method is intended to evaluate the effects
of impact from various size steel balls at locations on the roof system selected to be the most
vulnerable. DECRA9 Roofing panels were subject to six double impacts at various locations from
each ball increasing by 1/4 inch increments in diameter size from 1 1/4 inches to 2 inches. Follow-
ing all of the drops,the roofing system was inspected for tearing, fracturing, cracking, splitting or
other evidence of opening of the roofing system. As a result of this testing,the DECRA&Roofing
System received a Class 4 impact resistance rating,which is the highest rating awarded by Under-
writers Laboratories.
Tests were also conducted at TerraLab Engineers Intl. according to NBS 23,where actual ice balls
were shot by an air cannon at the roofing system at speeds calculated to be the terminal velocity of
falling hailstones. The ice balls ranged in size from 1 inch in diameter to 4 inches. The results of
this testing further demonstrate the hail resistance ability of the DECRA& Roofing System.
The testing ground chosen was in Hokkaido, Japan,which is well known for high snow falls. The
conditions of snow build-up were measured over
a 4-month period through the peak of winter.
The interior temperature of the test house was
maintained at approximately 68°F. Over the
period of the test, the maximum snow depth was
20 inches. Throughout the period of snow build-
up and the subsequent thawing, the DECRAO
Roofing System maintained a constant barrier.
There was no evidence of leakage anywhere in
the entire roof area. As snow on the eaves
melted, there was no tendency for snow to build
up in the gutters. Most importantly, no damage
was caused to the roof structure by the weight of
the snow. DECRA®Roofing Systems have-been proven
under extreme snow load conditions around
the world.
if
DECRA rho-tn•Ip0
�.� pl
o
P'IOOPINO SYSTYMS ,
Mike Twedell !
Sales Manager Texas Region
Tel:(8177)695-1090
Carter Holt Harvey Roofing,Inc. Fax:(817)695-1058
827 Ave.H East,Suite 211 1-800-258-9740
ArLngton,TX 76011 -www.decraroof.corn
k
�i.
I(
Y/'f /.G.f•�^�-�.%//�/-� - /�i l//// - �++T ^r+a7wT'1�J'1T".'T 'SC J x"�'-�
--
�.�-�?�#
_._-'-- L �,� •mom son u lip{„ t._ .� ill ir=..
�. °Me map
I law
-
I 1" i
f
JIlk. _-_
• •. • • • ' •• • • . • ' ul :.ari�'Y a"• • - - - • - tip' '1� ?;' J ! 7�
-'ate•�
f
s
`s•'�-. :a_ of �''_- ...
- ey
i
Decra roofs
protect from ire where�other materials fail.Niiv
.::
DECRA RO ANIITOT-BURN!
f : r
Roof fires are a`constant threat to home owners. Decra Roo
s'stone and steel construction will shield your
home and its unique design prevents burning embers from entering the home.
DECRA ROOFS MPI ND WARRANTY.
Decra Roo fng Systems have doub a mterloc�cin ooves for maximum protection against wind;tested 120+ MPH.
is featu
a_ reas aylIable only on Decra roofs
4
.e�, 2
DECRA ROOFS QUAKE RESISTANT:
Some roofing products advertised as "lighiweig `till to eavy at E-9 lbs.per sq. ft. 1)cra RoofngSystems are truly
-lightweight at 1.51bs. per sq ft. `d its ni a esi adds to a"homes ability to resist violent shear;stress ,
R&ioofin with Decr,
g a RooR
z !eg ems.—improves,your roof's shear strengthtuptto QUA
t DEC RA FS w E RM SAFE: �3
'Decra Roofing Systems'un alle'led;strength pro `des°maximum protection from. adice_sto
f_ j
'o
40 sty ...,xi',, s .": - a... a
ECRIROOFS CAN LE HEAVY SNOW
-�'� . X."',e�,j,�'��•� :' i Py`� ^..:. .4 "4-
r Decr"a Roofing Systems ll�not'bend, break of col apse from eavyksn loads or fr a ha condition � � k
n6YL
k
i �• t
z
Decra Rooting Systems have been
proven_ around the world for over 40 years
Stone coated steel roofing; pioneered bylee
Carter Holt Harvey,has endured the most a . '
w
extreme-climactic conditions, from the Acrylic .Overglaze 4
scorching heat of Saudi Arabi4,the typhoon
vinds of the South Pacific, to the blizzard Stone Granules T
conditions -of',Alaska. Nine layers of Acrylic Base Coati r
protection enhance the superior corrosion _
resistance of 'aluminum-Zinc coated steel Acrylic Seal Coat""
and interlocking panels provide a weather Primer
tight_ barrier against the elements.
Warranted for 50 years against 120 mph Aluminum. i c Alloy Coating
winds, hail penetration and manufacturing _
�efects, Decra Roofing Systems provide f
26 Gauge Steel Base
)meowners with peace of mind and low
fife cycle cost. Available in a variety of Aluminum4lne Alloy Coating _ t
colors and manufactured in the U.S.A.,
our Tile and Shake profiles compliment Epoxy Primer.— "
any home.
Polyester Backer Coat K
e
Considering Your .Options?
Composition Shingles: The least expensive,most common roofing material, limited life cycle, poor windt � .
ze
and hail resistance, pro-rated performance warranty and flat in appearance.
• Wood Shake: Preferred appearance when new`However,ages rapidly,curls,splits and offers little resistance
to hail. Potential fire hazard and banned in.some communities.
• Concrete Tile: Heavy weight restrictse-roof applications, requires an underlayment for weather s y x
subject to breakage and usually relies_on"its own immense weight to stay on the roof _
Fiber Cement' Heavy.weight estricts re-roof applications;relies on underlaymentor weathers cu
breakable and may absorb moisture. Not suitable for all climates`due to''freeze/thaw cond ions:
• Aluminum 'Painted "commercial" look, not walkable and easilydented requir aymen o
.water. The lightest roofing material available, subject to expansion and conga ion .
r �
5� r
j �' • • • • :is t • •
/ •• 4111
I —=
I
i
e 1' 10
loop
F.S.•,:i..s0aim�.n��rmm+�e��'�meeea®avwa�an.�n®ctrmcemavaanmf�s
.� �ttaanmrrsum�wanw•✓'�lauwneeeamv®+�moa�Jinaitrmm^!,�¢tIDetct>m
J>.:OR29n0I/�10�Qntnni..'i1IS.l.Iv�L^AOIa[1111®6P'--^Nlln1'semc�c�ccelecVmCcno®®
✓m®tr:..�carir�memran,.r�ue u.o®t r:r:ID .ntulm�'-.ea111c,GeRnnmp'!�R 1tc3C.�c„.aCt�IOLR.L�
i®s➢®Rr.-✓r�lt'�.lIDr'/I/'9ninIRTQrunn'"T,Stl�rl�'-,Ilff�".q;I(�Fti�t:`•tC C•�C.C""„".R"'.C:tR1R'DIll!N'vl/®Il.'m<AR�Q"�l!.�IIi0t1:lI1FIP➢0'•.T.�S iT-..Iltl'r' ''
vrsra➢m�ac�r;rr,�m.. -
ROOFING SYSTEMS
y
-_: jam;
VEA-ffu
r1r. rV TJTrrrrI �=
Lightweight Deera Roosting Systems
come with a 50 year FULLY transferable
� •.�=,yam �. ��
factory direct limited warranty!
r
w:
"As a structural engineer specialising
in earthquake engineering, I especially
appreciate the high strength, ultralrght
moo,_ Deera Roofing System.• it actually _
enhances the structural integrity
of homes. "
Ahmed Abdel-Ghaffar
Ar Professor of Structural and Earthquake Engineering,
University of Southern California
a��
in my opinion, re-roofing with a
Deera Roofing System increases
home resale values. "
Dorothy Boberg
Coldwell Banker Real Estate
Carter Holt Harvey
Roofing
827 Avenue H Fast#211 1230 Railroad Street 861 1 South 222nd St.
.-Viin,ton.TX 76011 Coruna,C%9I720 Kent,1%A 98031
(81 1w) (909)2724180 ('106)872-2115
C NADA'1011 FREE: I8011IG:3 1►03
c
City of Southlake, Texas -
MEMORANDUM
i
February 12, 1999
I
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
I
FROM: Billy Campbell, Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 693-A, 2nd Reading, Amending Ordinance 693, providing
revisions to Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, Excavation
and Grading.
Action Requested: City Council consideration of Ordinance No. 693-A on second reading.
Background
Information: Excavation and grading activities are currently being executed before the
issuance of a building permit or before formal development approval.
These activities, at times, have created and have disturbing effects for
water, land and vegetation. Ordinance 693-A will provide changes to the
exemptions section of Appendix Chapter B, Section 3306.2 grading and
I excavation in the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Regulations of this
isection exempt specific types of earthwork and removal from permit
i requirements. All excavation and grading work not covered in these
exemptions must be done only after approval and the permit issued.
We are requesting an amendment to the Uniform Building Code that
would reduce the number of exemptions to a grading permit in order to
bring this type of work into compliance with the City's position in caring
for our trees and drainage. By requiring a permit of earthwork contractors,
the channels of communication can be opened early in the construction
process, long before the building permits are issued. A standard
excavation and grading application form has been prepared which includes
a note requiring an erosion control exhibit. The information requested on
this form will provide staff with needed details to approve or disapprove
the earth work to be performed. Requirements of local ordinances, such as
the provisions for erosion control and tree preservation, will be provided
to the contractor with the issuance of the approved permit.
A synopsis of the ordinance is as follows:
Section 5
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or
refuses to comply...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.
7C-1
S
Curtis E. Hawk
February 12, 1999
Page 2
Section 7
The City Secretary is authorized to publish this ordinance for general
distribution.
Section 10
Exempt work definitions have been reduced.
Financial
Considerations: In most cases the earth work permit fee will be included in the building
permit. Fees for earth work permits issued before the issuance of a
building permit will be deducted from the required $500 deposit. The
base fee of$TO will be collected with the issuance of the earth disturbance
permit.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: No citizen input has been received. Councilmember Scott Martin has
expressed concern and requested the need to permit earthwork contractors.
Kosse Maykus, Chairman, Building Board of Appeals, has been provided
a copy of this proposed ordinance for review.
Legal Review: The ordinance has been reviewed by City Attorney Debra Drayovitch,
who has approved the ordinance under consideration by City Council.
Alternatives: Not Applicable.
Supporting
Documents: Ordinance No. 693-A
Staff
Recommendation: Place Ordinance No. 693-A, amending Ordinance 693, providing revisions
to Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, Excavation and
Grading, on the February 16, 1999 City Council meeting agenda for
second reading.
BC/bls
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
fi
ity ager's Office
7C-2
ORDINANCE NO. 693-A
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 693, ADOPTING
LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE 1997 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE, APPENDIX CHAPTER 33 "EXCAVATION AND
GRADING," 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 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 Council of the City of Southlake deems it necessary to adopt this
ordinance providing minimum standards to safeguard the health, property, and welfare of the
citizens of Southlake by regulating grading on private property within the City.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,TEXAS:
1:\citydocs\ord\draft\earth\693a_2.doc 2
7C-3
SECTION 1
That the "Exemptions" section of Appendix Chapter 33, Section 3306.2 of the 1997
Edition of the Uniform Building code, as adopted by City of Southlake Ordinance No. 683 and
locally amended as provided in Exhibit "B" is incorporated herein and attached hereto for all
purposes of this ordinance. The City of Southlake, Texas may from time to time determine that
additional local modifications to the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition, are necessary and
appropriate to meet the unique needs of the City of Southlake, Texas. To effectuate these local
modifications, the City Council shall enact individual ordinances amending this Ordinance, fully
setting forth the change to be made in the Uniform Code. These amendments shall be
consolidated as Exhibit "B" to Ordinance N. 683.
SECTION 2
Ordinanc N e o. 693, Exhibit "B," Local Amendments To The 1997 Uniform Building
Code, Appendix Chapter 33, "Excavation and Grading," Section 3306.2, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
113306.2 Exempted Work. A grading permit is not required for the following:
1. Grading in an isolated, self-contained area if there is no danger to private or public property,
and the building official has approved the grading.
2. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a building, retaining wall
or other structure authorized by a valid building permit. This shall not exempt any fill made
with the material from such excavation or exempt any excavation having an unsupported
height greater than 5 feet(1524 mm) after the completion of such structure.
3. Cemetery graves.
4. Refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations.
5. Excavations for wells or tunnels or utilities.
Exemption from the permit requirements of this chapter shall not be deemed to grant
authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this chapter
or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction."
SECTION 3
The material contained in Ordinance No. 683, as amended, shall be maintained as a
public record in the office of the City Secretary. These Exhibits will be available for public
inspection and copying during regular business hours.
SECTION 4
'ALI
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
1:\citydocs\ord\draft\earth\693a 2.doc 3
7C-4
hereby repealed. In the event the validity of any other ordinance is questioned under this section,
the City Council shall by resolution state their intent.
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.
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 Five Hundred ($500.00) 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 any ordinances affecting the regulation and control of the use,
occupancy, maintenance, repair, design, construction and quality of materials for buildings and
structures within the City 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 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 in the
� aofficial 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.
I:\citydocs\ord\draft\earth\693a_2.doc 4
7C-S
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 1ST READING THIS DAY OF , 1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED ON 2ND READING THIS DAY OF , 1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
,ADOPTED:
EFFECTIVE:
1:\citydocs\ord\draft\earth\693 a_2.doc 5
7C-6
APPLICATION FOR AN EARTH DISTURBANCE PERMIT
Permit No.
PartProperty Owner Information Part ontractor n ormation
Site Street Address: Name of Grading or Excavation Contracting Company:
Name of Property Owner: Street Address of Contractor:
Address of Property Owner: City/State/Zip:
City/State/Zip Telephone: Drivers License Number: Telephone:
PartRequirements of EarthDisturbance Permit
(Please check all applicable boxes and provide required documents)
Q Notarized statement from property owner giving permission for the contractor/applicant to fill,grade,excavate or
otherwise disturb the property.
❑ Contractor-signed copy of attached Section 33 6.2,Appendix Chapter 33,Ordinance No.693 as amended)
adopting the 1997 Uniform Building Codes related to grading and excavation,acknowledging its receipt.
❑ Submission by the applicant of an erosion control pan approved by the City Engineer or his designee.
❑When applicable,submission and approval of a tree preservation plan.
❑When applicable,a Conditional Letter of Map Revision(LOMRfrom FEMA and a Development Permit.
❑Payment o . Refundable Deposit: 500.00
Non-refundable Permit Fee: $ 10.00
Q Special conditions of permit:
PartNotes
Upon determination by the City Engineer or his designee that no further hazard of erosion, silting, or debris
being deposited on streets, alleys,utility facilities,rights-of-way or easements exists though action taken by this
permit, the City of Southlake shall refund such deposit that is not required to reimburse the City for the expense
of removal of soil, mud, rock and debris from the above-mentioned areas. In the event the City incurs such
charges,they shall be billed at reasonable charge to the permitee and subtracted from the balance of the deposit.
The owner, applicant, developer, engineer, etc., is hereby notified that the issuance of this permit does not
indicate approval of the engineering plans and that grade revisions can and will be made if determined to be
necessary after a complete review of the final plans.
Engineering plans, development permits and building permits are still required where applicable and must be
issued before any grading work can begin.
Part 5: Acknowledgment(For office use only)
Deposited By: Permit Issued By:
Name: Name:
Address: Title:
Extension:
Phone: Date:
1:\citydocs\ord\draft\earth\693a 2.doc 7C_7 6
Statement of Contractor
(two, " 1 n T Th
City of Southlake Ordinance No. 693, Exhibit B, Local Amendments o e 1997 Uniform
Building Code, Appendix Chapter 33, "Excavation and Grading," Section 3306, states:
SECTION 3306 - PERMITS REQUIRED
3306.1 Permits Required. Except as specified in Section 3306.2 of this section, no person shall
do any grading without first having obtained a grading permit from the building official.
3306.2 Exempted Work. A grading permit is not required for the following:
1. When approved by the building official, grading in an isolated, self-contained area if there is
no danger to,private or public property.
2. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a building, retaining wall
or other structure authorized by a valid building permit. This shall not exempt any fill made
with the material from such excavation or exempt any excavation having an unsupported
height greater than 5 feet(1524.mm) after the completion of such structure.
3. Cemetery graves.
4. Refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations.
5. Excavations for wells or tunnels or utilities.
Exemption from the permit requirements of this chapter shall not be deemed to grant
authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this chapter
or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.
Statement of Contractor:
I have read the above excerpt from Ordinance No. 683-A as it pertains to grading and excavation
and I understand that any work performed without a permit, when a permit is required, is a
violation thereof.
Contracting Company:
Authorized Signature:
Date:
1:\citydocs\ord\draft\earth\693a 2.doc 7
7C-8
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 9, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Shang K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 734, 2nd Reading, Approving Rate Schedules for Texas
Utilities Electric Company
Action Requested: City Council consideration of Ordinance No. 734 on second reading.
Background
Information: The City of Southlake received an application for approval of a "time of
use" rate option for TU Electric Company customers. The program is
intended to allow participating customers (the program is strictly
voluntary) to plan and manage their energy usage to shift their loads from
peak to off-peak periods. A detailed description of the proposed time-of-
use rate option is attached to this memo.
Financial
Considerations: Given the pricing period structure, i.e., the lower unit cost per kW hour
during non-peak months and hours of the.day, it is not anticipated that this
rate structure will have mass appeal. However, should the program attract
a high number of TU customers, it is conceivable that it could affect the
City's franchise fee collection which is based on 4% of the company's
gross receipts.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: There has been no Southlake citizen or board review of this item;
however, a consortium of city representatives which exists to monitor
utility rate activities has reviewed the application. The consortium
successfully affected changes to the ordinance proposed by TU. The
revised ordinance is being forwarded for Council consideration.
Legal Review: The original TU proposal was reviewed and approved by City Attorney
Analeslie Muncy.
Alternatives: The City Council may: 1) approve the rate case by ordinance on two
readings; or 2) deny the rate case, which would move it forward to the
Public Utilities Commission, although TU has indicated they will not
move forward if the city is uninterested in making this option available.
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
February 2, 1999
Page Two
Supporting
Documents: Ordinance No. 734
Time-Of-Use Rate Summary, January 1999
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends Council consideration of Ordinance 734 on second
reading.
4S1--
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
CZNaeZr'sO ffic
7� -a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING RATE SCI)ULES FOR TEXAS
UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
THEREFOR, PROVIDING CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH RATE
SCHEDULES MAY BE CHANGED, MODIFIED, AMENDED OR
WITMRAWN, FINDING AND DETERMD4ING THAT THE MEETING AT
WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS
REQUIRED BY LAW.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF THE CITY OF
TEXAS:
SECTION 1. On January 15, 1999, Texas Utilities Electric Company (hereinafter
referred to as "TU Electric") filed with the Governing Body of this municipality a Statement of
Intent and Application to implement within the corporate limits of this municipality proposed
new rate schedules that provide additional rate options for its customers, which options are
entirely voluntary on the part of the customer, namely its proposed Rate GI'U M-General
Service Time-of-Use-Municipality, proposed Rate RTUl-M-Residential Time-of-Use Service-
Municipality, and proposed Rate GTUC-M-General Service Time-of-Use Voluntary Curtailable-
Municipality (said three proposed new rate schedules hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Time-of-Use Rate Schedules").
SECTION 2. The Time-of-Use Rate Schedules are hereby approved, and TU Electric is
( Athorized to render service and to collect charges as specified in the Tune-of-Use Rate
Itchedules from its customers electing to receive electric service under said Time-of-Use Rate
Schedules within the corporate limits of this municipality until such time as said rate schedules
may be changed, modified, amended or withdrawn with the approval of the Governing Body of
this municipality.
SECTION 3. The Time-of-Use Rate Schedules herein approved shall be effective from
and after the final passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. The filing of said Time-of-Use Rate Schedules shall constitute notice to
the consumers of electricity within its municipality of the availability and application of such
Time-of-Use Rate Schedules.
SECTION 5. TU Electric shall not seek any additional rate or surcharge mechanism to
recover any revenues lost on account of the application of these time-of-use rates, and there shall
be no imputed revenues on account of any reduction in TU Electric's revenues that may result
from the application of these time-of-use rates.
7 l)- 3
SEC IL 6. The rate reductions approved by the Public Utility Commis of Texas
In Docket No. 18490 shall be applied to the time-of-use rates approved herein, such that Rider
shall be applicable to Rate RTUI-M, Rider GSRD shall be applied to all customers taking
secondary service under either Rate GTU-M designated as GTU M-SEC or under Rate GTUC-M
designated as GTUC-M-SEC, and Rider RD shall be applied to all other customers on Rate
GTU-M or Rate GTUC-M.
SECTION 7. In its next general base rate case in which the time-of-use rates herein
approved are at issue, TU Electric will either (a) include all customers taking service under Rate
GTUC or GTUC-M during the test year involved in such base rate case as a separate rate class in
its cost allocation study, or (b) include in its cost allocation study the load and revenue data
applicable to each GTUC or GTUC-M customer taking service under Rate GTUC or GTUC-M
during the test year involved in such base rate case with the load and revenue data of the rate
class applicable to such GTUC or GIUC-M customer immediately prior to such customer's
taking service under Rate GTUC or GIUC-M. In the event, however, that industry restructuring
is mandated by legislative changes prior to the time that TU Electric has another general base
rate case and such legislation authorizes the recovery by TU Electric of any stranded costs from
its various customer classes in accordance with its last approved cost of service study, the
customers then receiving service under the time-of-use rates will be included in the customer
classes reflected in TU Electric's most recent cost of service study as follows:
(A) Customers on Rate RTUI-M shall be included in Rate Class RTU;
(B) Customers on Rate GTU M shall be included in Rate Class HV, GP, or GS,
depending upon the voltage level of the service, such that customers on Rate
GTU-M receiving service at high voltages shall be included in Rate Class HV,
customers receiving service at primary distribution voltages shall be included in
Rate Class GP, and customers receiving service at secondary distribution voltages
shall be included in Rate Class GS; and
(C) Customers on Rate GTUC-M shall be included in Rate Class NI (Noticed
Interruptible) depending upon the voltage level of the service, such that customers
on Rate GTUC-M receiving service at high voltages shall be included in Rate
Class NI (High Voltage), customers on Rate GTUC-M receiving service at
primary distribution voltages shall be included in Rate NI (Primary), and
Customers on Rate GTUC-M receiving service at secondary distribution voltages
shall be included in Rate NI(Secondary).
SECTION 8. Nothing in this Ordinance contained shall be construed now or hereafter as
limiting or modifying in any manner the right and power of the Governing Body of this
municipality under the law to regulate the rates, operations, and services of TU Electric.
SECTION 9. It is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which this
Ordinance is passed is open to the public and as required by law and that public notice of the-
time, place, and purpose of said meeting was given as required.
L
/D- T
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:
City Attomey
7�-s
TIME-OF-USE RATE SUMMARY
TO
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
January, 1999
1 would like to tell you about our request for approval of voluntary
time-of-use rate options for our customers within your City. The idea for
these rates actually came from our customers. Company personnel
worked with several of our customers in designing these rates, which will
allow customers who have the ability to shift some of their electric usage
away from our peak periods to save money on their electric bills.
We have already requested approval of these rates at the Public
Utility Commission and they are in effect on an interim basis in the areas in
(A�hich the Commission exercises on jurisdiction.jurisdiction. We're expecting the
9 P 9
Commission's final approval of these rates in the next couple of months or
so.
We'd like to also begin offering our customers in Southlake the
benefits of these time-of-use rate options. Since these rates are purely
optional on the part of the customer, only those customers who would
expect to be able to save money on their electric bills will likely take
advantage of these options. Now, why would TU Electric offer ways for a
customer to pay less for electricity? The answer is simple and
straightforward. If customers take advantage of these rates and save
money on their bills, this means that those customers will place less
demands on our system during our peak hours. This, in turn, means that
won't have to buy as much electric power to serve our customers' peak
'oad requirements, which allows us to save money overall. And those
savings not only benefit TU Electric, but they also benefit all of our
customers.
These time-of-use rates price electricity according to the time of the
year. There are four different pricing periods, with the lowest price being
during the periods when demand for electricity is the lowest, and,
consequently, the cost to produce electricity is also the lowest (CHART 1).
As you'd expect, the highest price is applicable during those afternoon and
early evening hours of our hot summer weekdays, when our cost of
electricity is at its highest. Those customers who can shift significant
portions of their electric usage away from those higher-priced periods can
save money. These time-of-use rates allow customers flexibility in
Qontrolling their energy costs.
he three time-of-use rates being proposed are:
1 . Rate GTU-M (General Service Time-of-Use - Municipality),
which is applicable to customers that are otherwise eligible for
service under the Company's existing general service rates
(i.e., GS, GP and HV);
2. Rate RTU1-M (Residential Time-of-Use Service -
Municipality), which is applicable to residential customers who
are otherwise eligible for service under existing Rate R or Rate
RTU; and
3. Rate GTUC-M (General Service Time-of-Use Voluntary
Curtailable - Municipality), which is applicable to those
general service customers eligible for Rate GTU-M that are
willing to voluntarily curtail their loads when the peak demand
7v - 7
on the system is 95% or more of the estimated peak demand
and during times of short supply conditions.
The time-of-use options are a "win-win" for all of our customers and for
all of our communities that rely on businesses for jobs and investment
(CHART 2). By having this opportunity to experience cost savings and
operating efficiencies through better management of their power needs,
businesses will be able to remain more competitive. This in turn results in
the potential for greater economic development opportunities for our
communities and more value for the customers' energy dollar.
We would like to begin achieving peak load savings for this coming
summer. But to do so, we'll need your quick approval of these additional
rate options, so we can begin contacting our customers and exploring with
}hem how they can take steps to shift electric loads away from our peak
riods and, thereby, save money on their electric bills -- so that all of us
can save.
7L)- 8
LO C L
V 7
G� O Q O O
a
c Q Q
v 0 0
N IT
Q Q N r' N
aYi Z p '
O O
Z N O N
Q 0
O
CL N III •� «s
a m N N v N Op O
O *0 N Q N o N
U �/ Z O O 00
LL > 00 COO O O O N
V y N
W o
N
GYi Z Z Z
W
J .-
W o 06
W �� Q Q NN T- N
o 0
CL > O N
J �
O
H CL
�
Y Q Q Q Q
Cl)
x
W °
� N o
a
0
cu N
� o
c E 06 E °d
O a) _ >. a CD
M. Q 0 z° can' Q
ANA
0 0 .-
>, CA
E —
�, •o �, 0 0
L1. w L' z-
0 0 as
w
z •- w w
.- 4- 0 ..
w ° •L 0 cn
m = CL � ~ 4)
w 0 L _ E
V 0 � as. . �
� 0 E �
0
LL
0
w ♦"� 0
L V L
FM 0
0 L
L .� C.) 0
C' w w m
7v-/D
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Billy Campbell, Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 735, 1" Reading, Requiring that persons under 18 wear a bicycle
helmet while riding on public ways.
Action Requested: City Council consideration of Ordinance No. 735 on first reading.
Background
Information: On November 3, 1998 members of the Greater Southlake Women's Society
made a presentation to members of the Southlake City Council requesting the
adoption of an ordinance requiring the mandatory wearing of an approved
helmet by all persons riding a bicycle under the age of eighteen (18).
Submitted at the time as reference was a proposed ordinance under adoption
by the city of Arlington. The City Council directed the Department of Public
Safety to meet with all interested persons to determine community interest,
support and need. Three meetings were held, an ordinance was drafted for
review and a substantial amount of commentary developed, along with other
alternatives. A report of activities and alternative selections is attached.
Additionally, State Representative Bill Carter has introduced legislation that,
if approved, would require all persons under eighteen (18) statewide to wear
a bicycle helmet. It is too early in the legislative session to predict that bill's
i
course. i
Financial
Considerations: The ordinance allows the Municipal Court to levy a fine upon conviction of
the first offense in an amount not less than $1.00 and not more that $50.00.
All subsequent convictions could be fined not more than $100.00.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Citizen input has been received. See attached report.
Legal Review: This ordinance was prepared by City Attorney Analeslie Muncey, who has
approved the ordinance under consideration by City Council.
Alternatives: See attached report.
Supporting
Documents: Ordinance No. 735, statistical documentation, proposed state law and
summary report.
8A-1
t
Curtis E. Hawk
February 12, 1999
Page 2
Staff
Recommendation: Place Ordinance No. 735, regulating the wearing of a bicycle helmet by
persons under the age of 18 while riding a bicycle on public ways on the
February 16, 1999 City Council meeting agenda for consideration.
BC/gg
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
ity Manager's Office
8A-2
i
t
ORDINANCE NO. 735
AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING THAT PERSONS UNDER 18
WEAR A BICYCLE HELMET WHILE RIDING A BICYCLE
ON PUBLIC WAYS;PROVIDING A PENALTY;PROVIDING
A CUMULATIVE CLAUSE;PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; 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 XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the
Local Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the city council has determined that in order to protect children who operate
or ride upon a bicycle or a device attached to a bicycle along a public way, it is necessary to require
children to wear bicycle helmets;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS:
SECTION 1.
That Chapter 18 of the Southlake City Code is hereby amended by the addition of Article
IIIA, which shall read as follows:
Article IHA. Bicycles
Sec. 18-95. Purpose
The purpose of this article is to protect children who operate or ride upon a bicycle or any
side car, trailer, child carver, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle.
Sec. 18-96. Definitions
In this ordinance:
BICYCLE means a human powered vehicle with two wheels in tandem designed to transport
by a pedaling action a person seated on a saddle seat.
CHILD means any person under 18 years of age.
CITY means the City of Southlake, Texas.
H:U.IBRARYVSoutW&c\OidirAt r\BirycIcHLnnt2(11114N8) Page 1
8A-3
ik
DEALER means a commercial establishment that sells or leases new or used bicycles,
whether its principal business activity, or in connection with the selling or leasing of other
merchandise, from a place of business within the city.
HELMET means a properly fitted bicycle helmet that is not structurally damaged and that
conforms to the standards ofthe American National Standards Institute,the American Society
for Testing and Materials,the Snell Memorial Foundation or another federal agency having
regulatory jurisdiction over bicycle helmets, as applicable, at the time of the manufacture of
the helmet.
PARENT means the natural or adoptive parent or court-appointed guardian or conservator
of a child.
PUBLIC WAY means property that is publicly owned or maintained, including, but not
limited to, a street or highway, a sidewalk, a publicly maintained trail, and a public park
facility.
WEARING A HELMET means that the person has a helmet fastened securely to the person's
head with the straps of the helmet securely tightened.
Sec. 18-97. Helmet Required.
(a) A child ten years of age or older commits an offense if the child operates or rides a bicycle
or rides in a side car, trailer, child carrier, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle unless
the child is wearing a helmet.
(b) A parent commits an offense if the parent allows a child under ten years of age to operate or
ride a bicycle or rides in a side car, trailer, carrier, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle
unless the child is wearing a helmet.
(c) It is presumed that a parent allowed a child under ten years of age to operate or ride a bicycle
or rides in a side car, trailer, carrier, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle without
wearing a helmet.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution that the bicycle was not being operated upon a public way at the
time of the alleged offense.
Sec. 18-98. Passengers.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person operates a bicycle on a public way carrying on the
bicycle more persons at one time than the number of persons for which the bicycle was
originally designed and equipped.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person was in a child carrier,side car,
or trailer specifically designed and manufactured for the purpose of carrying or pulling a
passenger on,beside,or behind a bicycle and that the carrier, side car,or trailer was equipped
x:\tE3RARY\ o�ubt.�c\aainan=\B;cycleFnmnc2(IMUM) 8A-4 Pap
1 `
with a harness to hold the person securely in the seat and that protection was provided to
keep the feet or hands of the person from hitting the spokes of the wheel of the bicycle.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person operates a bicycle on a public way while
transporting a child under the age of one year on the bicycle.
Sec. 18-99. Sale or Lease of a Bicycle by Dealers.
(a) A dealer commits an offense if the dealer sells a bicycle, bicycle side car, trailer, or child
carrier without providing a written statement to the purchaser advising of the terms of this
ordinance. The statement shall be in a form promulgated by the Director of Public Safety.
Upon request,the Director of Public Safety shall provide a sample of the required form to the
dealer. However, printing and distribution of copies shall be at the dealer's expense.
(b) A dealer may not lease a bicycle to a person for use by a child unless the dealer:
(2) provides a helmet for the use of each child who will operate or ride on the bicycle;or
(3) determines that each child who will operate or ride on the bicycle has a helmet
available.
(d) A dealer may impose an additional fee for use of a helmet if the dealer sells or leases a helmet
, to a bicycle lessee.
Sec. 18-100. Penalty.
(a) A person who violates a provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and
upon conviction shall be fined an amount not less than$1.00 nor more than$50.00 upon the
first conviction and an amount not more than$100.00 upon the second and each subsequent
conviction.
(b) The municipal court may dismiss a charge against a person for an offense under Section 18-97
upon receiving proof that:
(1) the defendant acquired a helmet for the child who was operating or riding in violation
of Section 18-97; and
(2) the defendant acquired the helmet on or before the 10"day after receiving the citation
for the violation.
(c) Upon the appearance of a person for violation of Section 18-97 for the first time, the
municipal court may dismiss the charge if:
(1) the court requires the defendant to attend a bicycle safety course approved by the
court; and
H:\LMRARY\Saahlake\Ordin�\8icycieFkmt2(I MUM) 8A-5 Page 3
(2) not later than the 90t6 day after the date of the appearance, the defendant presents to
the court, in the manner required by the court,evidence of satisfactory completion of
the required bicycle safety course.
(d) If the charge against a person is dismissed under Subsection (b) or (c), a later conviction
under Section18-97 shall be considered a second or subsequent conviction for purposes of
Subsection(a) of this section.
(e) The purpose of this ordinance is to encourage the use of helmets. In keeping with that
purpose,the municipal courts are urged to consider deferred dispositions under Article 45.54
of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, whenever the circumstances warrant deferred
dispositions.
SECTION 2.
Cumulative Clause
This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of the City of Southlake, Texas, except
where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of other ordinances,
in which event the conflicting provisions of the other ordinances are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3.
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 a phrase,clause, sentence,
paragraph, or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or
decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not effect 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 the unconstitutional
phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, or section.
SECTION 4.
Publication Clause
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
H:\LMPRARY\soud"ka\Ordinac,oa\]3igcicHb= 2(1 t/L4M) Page 4
SA-6
in the official City newspaper one time within ten days after passage ofthis ordinance, as required by
Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
SECTION 5.
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
,'1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF
, 1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
EFFECTIVE:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney
x:1LIBRARY\soiunlakc\Ordina =\sicycIcH nmt2(p MUM) SA-7 Page 5
JAB. -08191FR11 10:58 REP BILL CARTER TEL:512 465 1283 P. 002
By B. No.
A HILL TO BE ENTITLED
1 AN A=
2 relating to requiring the use of protective helmets for bicycle
3 safety; providing criminal penalties.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY TEE LEGISLATME OF THE STATE OF TESAS:
5 SECTION 1. Section 758.001, Health and Safety Code, is
6 amended to read as follows:
7 sec. 758.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
g (1) "Bicycle" means a human-powered vehicle with two
9 wheels in tandem designed to transport by a pedaling action of a
10 person seated on a saddle seat.
11 (2) "Department" means the Department of Public
12 Safety.
13 (3) "Operator" means a person who travels by pedaling
14 on a bicycle seated on a saddle seat.
15 (4) "Other public right-of-way" means any
16 right-of-way, other than a public roadway or public bicycle path,
17 that is accessible by the public and designed for use by vehicular
18 or pedestrian traffic.
19 (5) "Protective bicycle helmet" means headgear that
20 meets or exceeds the impact standards for _protective _ bicycle
21 helmets set by the United States consumer Product Safety
22 gRESission, the Snell Memorial Foundation, or an appropriate state
23 agency.
24 "Public bicycle path" means a right-of-way under
76R3022 JRD-D 1
8A-8
JAY. -08'99iFRI) 10;58 REP BILL CARTER TEL:512 465 1283 P. 003
1 the jurisdiction and control of this state or a local political
2 subdivision for use primarily by bicycles or by bicycles and
3 pedestrians.
4 in [*"] "public roadway' means a right-of-way under
5 the jurisdiction and control of this state or a local political
6 subdivision for use primarily by motor vehicles-
7 [ T--`�rfe1►eke"-meatrs--Free-whec�ed--heeen-pewre8
8 be have
9 7e nger-Vass--ai:--Yeasa
10 of-ege-]
it SECTION 2. Section 758.002(a), Health and Safety Code, is
12 amended to read as follows:
13 (a) The department may establish and administer a statewide
14 bicycle safety education program and may adopt rules to implement
15 the program. The program must include instruction concerning:
16 (1) the safe handling and use of bicycles:
17 (2) high risk traffic situations;
18 (3) bicycle and traffic handling skills;
19 (4) on-bike training;
20 (5) correct use of protective bicycle helmets; and
21 (6) traffic laws and regulations.
22 SECTION 3. Section 758.003(b), Health and Safety Code, is
23 amended to read as follows:
24 (b) The fund may be used by the department only to:
25 (1) defray the costs of administering this chapter:
26 (2) provide a bicycle training course for a child
27 younger than 10 years of age who canes from a low income family;
76R3022 JRD-D 2
8A-9
JAN. -08' 99IFRI) 10:58 REP BILL CARTER TEL:512 463 1283 P. 004
1 and
2 (3) if funding permits, assist children from low
3 inecros families in purchasing Protective bicycle helmets.
4 SECTION 4. Chapter 758, Health and Safety Coder is amended
5 by adding Sections 758.004, 758.005, 758.006, 758.007, 758.008, and
6 758.009 to read as follows:
7 Sec 758.004. gZQUIgzNMTS FOR PROTECTIVE BICYCLE HELAET
8 USE. a Thil section a lies to the use of a bigycle on a ipublic
9 roadway, public bicycle path, or other public right-of-way.
10 (b) A person younger &Wn 18 years of age Mhq is an operator
11 or passenger on a bicycle shall wear a vr2Rgrlv fit&ing DrOtec&ive
12 bicycle helmet fastened securely on the head with the straps or
13 other r riate fastener of that helmet.
14 e A parent or legal rdian of a Person Younger than 1
15 pears of ace may not knowingly or recklessly permit the person to
16 operate a bicycle or to be a pasagnaer on a gicycle unless the
17 person is wearing a protective bicycle helmet as prescribedb
18 Subsection (b).
19 Sec. 750.005 SALE OR RENTAL OF BICYCLES. (a) A person
20 regularly engaged in the business f selling bicycles aball provide
21 to each purchaser a written explanation of the requirement under
22 Section 758.204 that a person wear a protective bicycle helmt.
23 (b) A person may not rent a bicvclg to another person
24 unleast
25 (1) each per on who the 2greon renting the bicycle
26 knows will be an Mrator of WasseA021 an the bicycle 22seesses a
27 properly fitting protective bicycle helmet at the time the bicycle
76R3022 JRD-D 3
8A-10
JAy. -08' 991FR1) 10:59 REP BILL CARTER TEL:512 463 1283 P. 005
1 is rented; or
2 (2) the rental aareement includes the provision of a
3 properly fitting protective bicycle helmet for each operator or
4 passenger._
5 1le) A person who sells bicycles is not liable in civil
6 damages for:
7 (1) the failure to provide the written explanation of
8 the law as required by Subsection a or
9 (2) a bicycle operator's or passenger's failure to
10 wear a protective bicycle helmet.
11 (d) A person who rents bicycles to another In compliance
12 with Subsection (b) is not liable in civil damages for a bicycle
13 rator's or asen er's failure to wear a iprotective biaycle
14 helmet.
15 Sec 758.006. CRI![IM MALTY. (a) A person commits an
16 offense if the person violates Section 758.004 or 758.005.
17 (b) An offense under thia section is a misdemeanor
18 mrnishable by a fine of $25, unless the actor has been convicted
19 previously under this s ion in which evelit an offegAg under thi
20 section is a misdVanor yuniahable by a fine of $50.
21 c A court may waive the fine izposed under this section
22 f r a violation of Section 756.004 if it —ig the ipersonlx first
23 offense and the person presents proof to the court that the person
24 did not have a protective bicycle helmet at the tin of the
25 violation, but has minas pnrchas r obtained a protective.bicycle
26 helmet.
27 Sew 758.007. Pn=. Th custodian of the county treasury
L
76R3022 JRD-D 4
8A-11
JAN. -08'99(FR1) 10:59 REP BILL CARTER TEL,512 465 1283 P.006
i shall keep a record of the amount of the fines collected under
2 Section 758.006 and on or before the last day of the month
3 foliawing each calendar quarter, remit to the a rolle h
4 amount of the fines collected under Section 758.006 In the
5 preceding quarter. The custodian of %hg_county treasury may r tain
6 half of the fines collected under section 758.006-and the interest
7 on the retained fines as a service fee if the custodian of the
8 treasury keeps records of the amount of fines on deposit collected
9 under Section 758.006 and remits the appropriate amount to the
10 comptroller within the period pre&Cribed by this section. The
11 comptroller shall deposit the M011&s remitted under this section
12 in the bicycle safety fund estabji&Md U&4er Section 758.003.
13 Sec. 759.006. LOCAL REGULATION. This section does not
14 preempt a local regulation of the use of biUcle-helmets or affect
15 the authority of a political subdivision to adopt or enforce an
16 ordinance or requirement relating to the use of bicycle helmets if
17 the regulation, ordinance, or requirement is compatible with and
18 equal to or more stringent than this chapter.
19 Sec. 758.099. DISKISSAL OF 112SDEMEi RM CRU 9 On COIFLETION
20 OF T»N COURT PROGRAK. A juvenile court may defer adjudication
21 proceedings nailer this chapter if the child completes the
22 reauirements of Article 45.55, Code of Criminal Procedure.
23 SECTION 5. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b) of this
24 section, this Act takes effect September 1, 1999.
25 (b) Sections 758.006 and 758.007, Health and Safety Code, as
26 added by this Act, take effect January 1, 2000.
27 SECTION 6. The importance of this legislation and the
7W3022 JRD-D 5
8A-12
JAN.-08'99(FR1) 11:00 REP BILL CARTER TEL:512 463 1283 P. 007
1 crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an
2 emergency and an imperative public necessity that the
3 constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several
4 days in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended.
76R3022 JRD-D 6
8A-13
Heads -Up Helmet
Program
How one California county got kids to wear bicycle helmets.
¢y Catherine B.Kn jid ian
In 1994,kids in Yuba County,Calif.,weren't using their Elementary School, a year-round school in Marysville,
heads when it came to bicycle safety. Despite a Calif.,says that he saw a jump in students'helmet use after
California law that requires children under age 18 to Ames held her one-hour class right at the school.Cedar
wear a helmet when on their bicycles,a study showed that Lane also lends support to the Health Services program by
fewer than one in three children who rode their bikes to enforcing the state helmet law.Teachers stand outside as
school in Yuba County wore a helmet.Only one in 11 chil- school lets out, and if they see children riding without
dren wore a helmet when bicycling through residential helmets, they contact the parents."Most of the kids do
neighborhoods. wear helmets now,"says Diessner."We just want them to
joy Ames cringed whenever she saw the bare heads of be safe."
young bicyclists. So Ames,health education specialist for
the Yuba County Health Services,set out to increase hel- A Never-Ending Program
met use."Yuba County is a poor county.We knew that Between 1994 and 1997,kids'helmet use rose 26 percent
cost would be an issue with parents,"she says. Her solu- around Yuba County schools.In residential areas,the per-
tion: free bicycle helmets, with a healthy dose of safety tentage of children wearing helmets jumped 34 percent.
education for kids and their parents. Ames is pleased with the results, but she knows her
job isn't over."If I don't keep going back to the schools
Free and Easy and pushing helmet use, the numbers decline," she sans.
Ames received grant funding from the Office of Traffic "It's an ongoing struggle.-
Safety to purchase bicycle helmets and develop a bicycle- Ames can't do the whole job by herself and is w•ork-
safery•education program.She scheduled one-hour bicycle- ing with law enforcement agencies to back her up."There
safety classes in many locations across Yuba County and got is still a`hard-core'group that doesn't wear helmets,and for
the word out through the local schools, newspapers, that we need stronger enforcement," she says."We need
newsletters and the radio.To reach a broader audience,the law-enforcement officers to pull over a kid who isn't wear-
classes were available in English, Spanish and Hmong, an ing a helmet and say:`Hey,you need to wear a helmet. It's
Asian dialect spoken by many county residents. a matter of life and death, and here's where you can get
Kids who attended a class with their parents received a one:It makes a difference for those last hold-outs."
free helmet.The children learned the basics of bicycle safe- During Bicycle Safety .Month last May, officer also
ry and the importance of helmet use.Parents learned how stopped young bikers who did wear helmets and gave
to fit the new helmets properly on their children.The inter- them coupons that McDonald's donated for free french
active program really got kids involved and interested in fries and soft drinks.The children may not know it,but
topics such as wearing helmets and learning hand signals. those are the smallest rewards they receive from wearing
The grant ended in 1996, but the Yuba County bicycle helmets.
Health Services continues to support the program.Ames
still regularly holds classes and hands out free helmets.So
far,the program has distributed more than 700 helmets.
Schools are a big part of the helmet program, too.
Ames conducts safety presentations for students at the
elementary schools—complete with demonstrations
using eggs and melons to show what can hap-
pen to a head without a helmet — and /
she often shows up for"spot checks"as •
school lets out. She passes out small
rewards,like pencils,to kids who wear their • /
helmets.To kids without helmets,she gives a card
with information on how to get a free one.
Oscar Diessner, assistant principal at Cedar Lane
22 Traffic Safety January/February 1999
8A-14
City of SouUake
Soudilake DPS
Draft Ordnance and Report of
Citizen Review of Proposed Bicycle
Helmet Ordnance
8A45
Draft Ordbance and Report of G i7m Review of
Proposed Bicycle Helmet Ordkmee
ReportContents of this
Initial presentation"to Council
Presentation and results of first citizen meeting
Summary of ordinance revisions, second meeting
Discussion and alternative presentations, third citizen meeting.
Peripheral documentation
Summary matrix of options
Initial Presentation to Council
On October 22, 1998 Deputy Director Gregg met with Ginny Elder and
Councilmember Scott Martin to explore the wording of a proposed ordinance
concerning bicycle helmets. The draft ordinance initially reviewed was a copy
of one being considered for adoption by the City of Arlington. Several draft
language issues were explored and the sample draft was sent to City Attorney
Analeslie Muncy.
On November 3, 1998 Ginny Elder, project chairperson of the Greater
Southlake Women's Society (GSWS) made a public presentation to assembled
members of the Southlake City Council. Ms. Elder revealed a three part plan of
activities as adopted by her organization titled, "It Just Makes Sense!"
Ms. Elder's presentation is attached at the end of this report. It could be
summarized as follows:
Statistics were quoted to introduce the need for a bicycle helmet ordinance.
8A-16
Initial Presentation to Council, continued
The three part plan of activities were described as: 1). Southlake DPS rewards
youth wearing bicycle helmets with a tee-shirt furnished by GSWS and sponsors.
2). A dozen helmets will be furnished by GSWS and others to Southlake DPS
for those who cannot afford one. 3). A recommendation to City Council to
adopt a bicycle helmet ordinance.
Obviously, no action could take place at that time because the ordinance had not
been completed nor set for Council action that evening. Discussion and
comments that evening also came from Dawn and Andy Johnson, Southlake
residdnts who stated_ _their opposition against any proposed bicycle helmet
ordinance.
DPS staff received direction to form an "ad-hoc" committee of interested
citizens for further discussion and possible revision of the proposed ordinance.
Presentation and results of first citizen meeting
On November 23, 1998 the first meeting of the "committee" was held at the
senior citizens center. Numerous members of the GSWS were present along
with other interested members of the city, including several health care
professionals. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were not able to be present. The initial
draft ordinance was reviewed and Deputy Director Gregg initiated discussion
regarding the following topics:
1) Concern is for ordinance to be instructive and preventative and not heavily
enforcement related. Marked police unit with overhead lights on behind
seven-year-old on bicycle with training wheels not the image we wish to
conjure up.
2) Examine the ages of various other cities ordinances and state's laws.
s) Examine enforcement issues in situations where child has helmet and parent
not aware child is wearing it, child allowed to ride and doesn't have a helmet
or what if the parent has given instructions to the child to wear a helmet and
the child refuses.
a) Under the ordinance currently proposed make sure that parent or child cited
but not simultaneously.
5) Purchase of a helmet would result in dismissal of the citation.
s) The addition of attendance at a bicycle safety class resulting in the dismissal
of the citation was added to the ordinance as a result of the discussion.
2
8A-17
Presentation and results of first citizen meeting, continued
The first meeting concluded with a discussion regarding the wording of the
section regarding a presumption of guilt that the parent allowed the child to
operate or ride the bicycle without a helmet. Because the ordinance contained
the presumption, under the law, it could be rebutted by the parent with evidence
or testimony, thus becoming a legal "loophole". The ordinance revisions were
submitted to the City Attorney the following day. The next meeting was set for
December 9, 1998.
Summary-of ordinance revisions, second meeting
Present at this meeting were numerous persons who had attended the first
meeting, along with Andy and Dawn Johnson. The revised ordinance was
presented with changes the initial group had suggested. New members to the
meeting were presented with material handed out at the first meeting. Direct
opposition to the proposed ordinance begins to surface. The meeting adjourns
with a date set after all holidays are completed.
Discussion and alternative presentations, third citizen meeting.
The January 13, 1999 meeting was a SPIN district advertised meeting at the
Senior Citizens Center and probably because of timing after the holidays drew a
more diverse separated group. Objections to helmet laws were voiced in several
fashions. Several persons present objected that their status as parents was being
usurped. Rebuttal discussion stated that some parents need the bolstering of a
law or ordinance in their instructions to children. Discussion also centered
around the fact that the law would not work, or indeed place law enforcement
officers in difficult predicaments, example, issuing a citation to a twelve year old
child.
This group also had an option presented due to the recent call of the legislature.
A draft of Representative Bill Carter's bicycle helmet bill was presented to the
group and compared with the proposed Southlake ordinance. The group's
estimation was the Southlake ordinance had more options in lieu of a fine and
proposed less bureaucracy. A vocal portion of the group insisted on proceeding
ahead with the proposed city ordinance.
It was extremely interesting to note that the only consensus reached among the
group as a whole was that no individual at the meeting objected to the use and
education of children to wear helmets -just the intrusiveness of governmental
regulation in this activity of their daily lives.
3
8A-18
Summary Matzlx of Options
The following would seem to be a minimum of positions council might examine.
Place support behind proposed state law
Representative Bill Carter has introduced a bill into the Texas again this
legislative year as he has done for the previous two legislative sessions. He has
a chairmanship of a committee this year which might add to the bills success in
getting out of committee. At this time of the session it is still difficult to predict
what might develop. Rep. Carter's bill is attached to this report.
Adopt ordinance as written /modify lower fine amounts
The ordinance has been reviewed by a number of groups and individuals. It
provides several alternatives to an actual fine, to include deferred adjudication by
the judge (follow the ordinance for a set period of time and do not repeat the
offense and the judge will dismiss it), produce proof of purchase of a helmet and
the offense can be dismissed, or elect to take a bicycle safety course for
dismissal of the citation.
Modify ordinance as to age
A review of the age chart attached shows that a large number of states have a
reduced age limit at which enforcement begins. Children over the age of sixteen
are excluded in a number of cities and states.
Continue high education efforts, council resolution and monitor for
increased wearing of helmets prior to the initiation of an ordinance
No individual educational strategy has proven to be effective according to
Graitcer, et.al. However, community wide strategies that use a variety of
educational and promotional strategies have proven to be effective. The most
successful program in Seattle increased helmet wearing rates by more than 40%.
This contrasts to published statistics of as little as 11% among the 11-14 age
group. The GSWS has already joined with Southlake DPS in a beginning
program of tee-shirts and helmets. The original strategy of providing helmets to
those who could not afford them has also been expanded. DPS now contacts
those children observed riding a bicycle without a helmet. If the child states he
does not own a helmet and agrees to wear one furnished by the officer, the
helmet is given to the child on the spot. We hope this way to begin to seed a
desire to be seen in a helmet.
4
8A-19
Conclusion
In an article published in Traffic Safety magazine, Yuba County, California had
a rate of less than one child in eleven wearing a bicycle helmet in
neighborhoods. Schools were a component in the program to improve helmet
use, complete with safety demonstrations and small rewards. In three years time
helmet use rose 26% around schools and 34% in the neighborhoods. Law
enforcement was also a critical component in the equation. Officers provided
information where helmets were available to those who were still observed not
wearing one.
There are numerous statistics available and have been attached. As in any
controversial issue the statistics vary or even disagree. One paper published
perhaps succinctly stated the issue, "...legislating health behavior may result
in a kind of health authoritarianism, `smothering the good of liberty with
the good of health. ..only if there are no other means to achieve health and
safety, should laws be passed, and these laws should be enforceable. In
spite of these criticisms, laws to protect society, such as those relating to
child labor, seat belts and motorcycle helmets, have always been found valid
from a legal standpoint. Nor are they widely seen as intrusive on
individuals rights and liberties."
5
8A-20
Injuries to Children
From A Fact Sheet by the National Safe Kids Campaign
Deaths and Injuries
• In 1995, more than 250 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related
crashes. Motor vehicles were involved in 230 of these deaths.
• In 1996, more than 350,000 children ages 14 and under were treated in
hospital emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries.
• It is estimated that collisions with motor vehicles account for 90 percent of
all bicycle-related deaths and 10 percent of all nonfatal bicycle-related
injuries. Collision_with a motor vehicle increases the risk of death, severity
of injury, and the probability of sustaining a head injury.
• More than 40 percent of all head injury-related deaths and approximately
three-fourths of head injuries occur among children ages 14 and under.
Younger children suffer a higher proportion of head injuries than older
children.
When and Where Bicycle Deaths and Injuries Occur
• Children are more likely to die from bicycle crashes at non-intersection
locations (66 percent), during the months of May to August (55 percent),
and between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. (39 percent).
• Nearly 60 percent of all childhood bicycle-related deaths occur on minor
roads. The typical bicycle/motor vehicle crash occurs within one mile of the
bicyclist's home.
• Children ages 14 and under are more likely to be injured riding in non-
daylight hours (e.g., at dawn, dusk or night). The risk of sustaining an injury
during non-daylight conditions is nearly four times greater than during the
daytime.
• Among children ages 14 and under, more than 80 percent of bicycle-related
fatalities are associated with the bicyclist's behavior. The most common
crashes include riding into a street without stopping; turning left or swerving
into traffic that is coming from behind; running a stop sign; and riding
against the flow of traffic.
6
8A-21
Who is at Risk
• Riding without a bicycle helmet increases the risk of sustaining a head injury
in the event of a crash. Non-helmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be
involved in a fatal crash than bicyclists wearing a helmet.
• Collision with a motor vehicle and crashes occurring at speeds greater than
15 miles per hour increase the risk of severe bicycle-related injury and
death.
• Children ages 14 and under are five times more likely to be injured in a
bicycle-related crash than older riders.
• Males account for approximately 85 percent of bicycle-related deaths and 70
percent of nonfatal injuries and have higher bicycle-related death and injury
rates than females. Children ages 10 to 14, especially males, have the
highest death rate from bicycle-related head injury of all ages.
• Children under age 10 are at greater risk for serious injury and are more
likely to suffer head injuries than older riders. Approximately half of all
bicycle-related injuries among children under age 10 occur to the head/face,
compared to one-fifth among older children.
• Bicyclists admitted to hospitals with head injuries are 20 times more likely to
die as those without head injuries.
Bicycle Hehnet Effectiveness
• Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by as
much as 85 percent and the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 percent.
Bicycle helmets have also been shown to offer substantial protection to the
forehead and mid face.
• It is estimated that 75 percent of bicycle-related fatalities among children
could be prevented with a bicycle helmet.
• Universal use of bicycle helmets by children ages 4 to 15 could prevent
between 135 and 155 deaths, between 39,000 and 45,000 head injuries, and
between 18,000 and 55,000 scalp and face injuries annually.
• Child helmet ownership and use increases with income and educational level,
yet decreases with age. Children are more likely to wear a bicycle helmet if
riding with others (peers or adults) who are also wearing one and less likely
to wear one if their companions are not.
8A-22
Statistics from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Fatality Facts: Bicycles
• Only 2 percent of motor vehicle deaths are bicyclists. Among a majority of those
killed, the most serious injuries are head injuries.
• No state has a bicycle helmet law applying to all riders. Local ordinances in a few
states do require some or all bicyclists to wear helmets, and 15 states have helmet
laws applying to young bicyclists.
• Helmets are important for riders of all ages, especially because older bicyclists
represent two-thirds of bicycle deaths.
• Responsibility for serious collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles
corresponds to rider age. (Responsibility refers to crash initiation, not necessarily
legal culpability.) Young riders most often are responsible for their crashes, and then
probable responsibility decreases with age. Older riders more often aren't
responsible for their crashes.
• The following facts are based on analysis of data from the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System:
• 808 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 1997. This is 6
percent more than in 1996 but down 19 percent since 1975.
• Bicycle deaths are most likely to occur in summer. The peak time is 6-9 pm,
followed by 3-6 pm.
• Ninety-seven percent of bicyclists killed in 1997 reportedly weren't wearing
helmets.
Age and Gender
• Thirty-one percent of bicycle deaths in 1997 were riders younger than 16.
• Bicycle deaths per million people rise rapidly beginning at about 5 years old
and are highest among 11- and 14-year-old bicyclists. Death rates also are
high among 12-13 year-olds and 16 year-olds.
• About 7 times as many bicycle deaths are males compared with females. At
every age older than 3 years, more male than female bicyclists are killed.
Deaths per million people are higher among males than females at all ages
older than 3 years.
• Deaths of older bicyclists are an increasing problem. Sixty-nine percent of
1997 bicycle deaths were riders 16 years and older. This compares with 32
percent of bicycle deaths in 1975.
a
8A-23
Where They Died
Four states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) accounted for 42
percent of bicycle deaths in 1997. More bicyclists were killed in urban areas
than in rural areas (62 percent compared with 35 percent) in 1997. Thirty-four
percent of bicycle deaths in 1997 occurred at intersections.
Road Types
Fifty-eight percent of bicycle deaths in 1997 occurred on major roads, and 34
percent occurred on local roads. Fifty percent of bicycle deaths among children
younger than 13 and 27 percent of adult bicycle deaths occur on minor roads.
Adult bicyclists are more likely than children to be killed on major roads (64
percent compared with 45 percent).
Fatality Facts are published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an
independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to
reducing the losses - - deaths, injuries and property damage - - from crashes on
the nation's highways. The Institute is wholly supported by auto insurers.
9
8A-24
Age Limits by City/ State
There is no federal law in the U.S. requiring helmets. States and localities began
adopting laws in 1987, but there is no formal central registry for them.
Date
Jurisdiction Coverage Ages/Conditions Effective
-----------------------------------------------
Alabama
State Law State-wide Under 16 1995
Montevallo City-wide All ages 1993
Homewood City-wide All ages 1994
Arizona
Tucson City-wide Under 18 1993
Yuma City-wide Under 18 1997
California
State Law State-wide Passengers under 5 1987
State Law State-wide Riders under 18 1994
Bidwell Park, Regional park All ages 1991
Chico, CA
Connecticut
State Law State-wide Under 15 1993/1997
Seymour Town-wide All ages 1998
Delaware
State Law State-wide Under 16 1996
Florida
State Law State-wide, Under 16 1997
(fines 1-1-98)
public property
only.
Georgia
State Law State-wide Under 16 1993
Illinois
Barrington Village-wide Under 17 1997
Maryland
State Law State-wide Under 16 1995
Allegheny Co County-wide Under 16 1992
Howard County County-wide Under 17 1990
Montgomery Co County roads Under 18 1991
Sykesville City-wide All ages 1995
Massachusetts
State Law State-wide Passengers under 5 1990
State-wide Riders under 13 1994
Michigan
10
8A-25
E. Grand Rapids City-wide Under 18 1995
Adrian City-wide Under 15 1998
New Jersey
State Law State-wide Under 14 1992
New York
State Law State-wide Passengers under 5 1989
State Law State-wide Riders under 14 1994
Chemung Co. County-wide Under 15 1995
Erie County Parks County parks All ages 1993
Greenburgh City-wide All ages 1994
Guilderland Town-wide Under 14 1992
Rockland County County-wide All ages 1992
North Carolina
Black Mountain City-wide All ages 1996
Boone City-wide All ages 1995
Carolina Beach City-wide Under 16 1994
Carrboro City-wide Under 16 1997
Chapel Hill City-wide Under 16 1992
Ohio
Beachwood City-wide Under 16 1990
Brecksville
Dublin
Orange Village City-wide Ages 6 to 15 1992
Strongsville City-wide Under 12 1993
West Carrollton
Oregon
State Law State-wide Under 16 1993
Pennsylvania
State Law State-wide Passengers under 5 1991
State-wide Riders under 12 1995
Rhode Island
State Law State-wide Under 9 1996
Under 16 1998
Texas
Arlington City-wide Under 18 1997
Austin City-wide Under 18 1996/1997
Bedford City-wide Under 15 1996
Benbrook City-wide Under 17 1996
Coppell City-wide All ages 1997
Dallas City-wide All ages 1996
Fort Worth City-wide Under 18 1996
Houston City-wide Under 18 1995
Tennessee
State Law State-wide Under 12 1994
Clarksville City-wide All ages 1993
Virginia
11
8A-26
Alexandria City-wide Under 15 1994
Arlington County County-wide Under 15 1993
Blacksburg City-wide Under 15 1994
Fairfax County County-wide Under 15 1993
Falls Church City-wide Under 15 1993
Front Royal City-wide Under 15 1996
Manassas City-wide Under 15 1995
Manassas Park City-wide Under 15 1997
Newport News City-wide Under 15 1997
Prince William Co. County-wide Under 15 1995
Virginia Beach City-wide Under 15 1995
Washington State
Eatonville City-wide Under 16 1996
Fircrest City-wide All ages 1995
Gig Harbbr City-wide All ages 1996
King County (excludes Seattle) All ages 1993
Lakewood City-wide All ages 1996
Milton City-wide All ages 1997
Orting City-wide Under 17 1997
Pierce County County-wide All ages 1994
Port Angeles City-wide All ages 1993
Poulsbo City-wide Under 18 1995
Puyallup City-wide All ages 1994
Steilacoom City-wide All ages 1995
Tacoma City-wide All ages 1994
University Place City-wide All ages 1996
West Virginia
State Law State-wide Under 15 1996
Clarksburg City-wide Under 18 1993
Morgantown City-wide All ages 1993
South Charleston City-wide Under 18 1994
St. Albans City-wide Under 18 1995
Wisconsin
Port Washington City-wide Under 17 1997
12
8A-27
FROM Bill 8 Gnny Elder PHONE NO. 8174880344 Oct. 30 1998 09:51AM P02
It lust Mattes Seuset
No
A bicycle helmet initiative.
x
f
A
Greater Southlake Women's Society
tinny Elder G.
Annual Project Chair
180 Creekway Bend
Southlake,Texas 76092
Fax Number(&17)488-0486
Phone Number(817)488-0344
November 3, 1998
_.,...,.w.` rt ,......��� .... ................. . ... . ..,. �.
8A-28
FROM Bill & Girmy Elder PHONE NO. 8174880344 Oct. 30 1998 09:52AM P03
... ..........:.:..............................................................................................................I.................
....................::........... ..:...::::.......................................................,.........................
.............
..................................................:::::::::..... ........
:..........:.......... . .:.........................................................._....-- ........................-. ................:::::.:::::::::s::a
♦ Greater Southlake Women's Society is an organization whose purpose shall be the
performance of charitable, philanthropic,and educational projects to benefit human
welfare through the action of volunteers and to promote good fellowship among its
members. The purpose of this club are within the meaning of S501(cx3).
j� Ssat Ib Ms®ds A MMMIo sdMK Urdlaooce
xuaaa ak.iti fur; }0 411= �......�.���. --
. .'!G!O:'JN.Y.aY7y�i..v:M...wv�.1...w....`7w.1_w�_LY.1.:S:t:�<>.6.b:a�p�..ww........ ...."'."'1....�.
It Just Makes Sense!
♦ Between 1988 and 1995, 480 Texas cyclists were killed and approximately 22,000
were injured in bicyclelmotor vehicle crashes.
• Between 1990 and 1996 Cook Children's admitted an average of 56 children per year
for treatment of bicycle injuries. Only 3 of the 56 were wearing a helmet.
• A helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85%.
♦ A bicycle helmet ordinance would support parents who want to do the right thing!
• Just one year after New Jersey passed a mandatory helmet ordinance,bike-related
fatalities in children under 14 dropped 80%-
It Is hard ar�ae wtth oan�hers each as thesoe n lost m�kos sense
8A-29
FROM Bill & Ginny Elder PHONE NO. : e174880344 Oct. 30 199e 09:52AM PO4
...................................................:............................................... .............................................
:.:::::::..:.:.:.:..::.:........::.::.::• :::....,.....,......I...........................:
.:.:.:...............:::::•::::.............. ........................
..... . _........................................................................................
......................
.......................................................
Southlake DPS will reward those"caught"wearing their helmet with a Tee-shirt provided
by Greater Southlake Womea?rw Society that says on the front: GSWS says It lust Makes
Sense!On the back it says: I was spotted by Southlake DPS wearing my helmet.
Sponsored by Doug Strickland State Farm and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad.
10
Greater Southlake Women's Society will donate one dozen SNELL approved helmets of
various sizes to Southlake DPS for those who cannot afford to purchase one.
®ACtIly11NM
Adopt the bicycle helmet ordinance.
8A-30
FROM Bill 8 Ginny Elder PHONE NO. : 8174880344 Oct. 30 1998 09:53AM P05
...................................................... .........,..................-----.............................,.,...............................................................
::..........................::.......................................................................--..................................,,., ,.........
.....................:...............,......................................,:,..,,.., .......,.-
........................
::::::::.........:..................... .,.. ,,.
........................................
♦ Arlington helmet ordinance
♦ Bicycle-Related Fatalities in Texas 1987-1995 Chart
♦ A simple helmet could have a spared Humpty Dumpty a lot of grief brochure
• Cook Children's Medical Center/Tarrant County Safe Kids Campaign letter
♦ Review Article
• Dear Ann Landers-Ft Worth Star Telegram
• Police sponsor rally for kids to promote bicycle ordinance-Fort Worth Star Telegram
• Testimonials from Medical Doctors who reside in Southlake and practice in
surrounding areas
3A-31
i
1
City of Southlake,Texas
STAFF REPORT
February 12, 1999
CASE NO: ZA 98-118 PROJECT: Ordinance No. 480-305 /First Reading/
Rezoning and Development Plan - Chesapeake
Place
STAFF CONTACT: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator, 481-5581, ext. 743
Dennis Killough, Current Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787
REQUESTED ACTION: Zoning.Change on property legally described as Tracts 4A, 4A8,
4A9,413, and 4E2, situated in the J.G. Allen Survey,Abstract No. 18,
and being approximately 54.95 acres. A Development Plan for
Chesapeake Place will be considered with this request.
PURPOSE: Purpose of this development plan is to meet the requirements for
rezoning to accommodate residential development.
LOCATION: On the northeast corner of the intersection of South Pearson Lane and
Union Church Road.
OWNERS: Ranchland Leasing Co.,Inc., Seyed M. Mirtaheri; Michael and Laura
Musgrove
APPLICANT: Four Peaks Development, Inc.
CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural District
REQUESTED ZONING: "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District
LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential and Retail Commercial
NO. NOTICES SENT:
(1st Notification) Seventeen (17)
(2nd Notification) Nineteen (19)
RESPONSES:
(1st Notification) Six (6) responses were received within the 200' notification area:
• Joe Pipes, 2828 Cresthaven, Grapevine, TX, in favor. (Received
November 2, 1998).
t _
City of Southlake,Texas
• K. Wayne Lee, 3220 W. Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, TX, in
favor, "This letter is to inform you of my total support for this
plan as presented to you." See attached letter. (Received
November 9, 1998).
• Alan Jackson, Property Manager, St. Martin-in-the-Fields
Episcopal Church, Southlake, TX, opposed, "We trust that Four
Peaks Development, Inc. will have prepared a more acceptable
plan which addresses our concerns." See attached letter.
(Received November 13, 1998).
• Josh Davis, PO Box 14038, Fort Worth, TX, in favor. (Received
November 18, 1998).
• Larry N. White, President, Eagle Contracting Corporation, 607
South Pearson Lane, Keller, TX, in favor, "I am unopposed to the
development Plan, dated December 18, 1998, provided the open
space(park area)remains in the location shown and that adequate
measures are taken with the surface drainage/ storm water such
that our property is not adversely affected by water problems."
(Received January 20, 1999).
• Victor Conrad, 1500 Trinity, Huntsville, AL, undecided about, "If
the city rezones my property as commercial, I will favor the
request. The city's development of water towers across from my
property has already severely restricted the residential value of
my property. The only feasible potential form my property is
now commercial." (Received January 28, 1999).
Five (5) responses were received outside the 200' notification area:
• A.W. Haney, 400 Brock Drive, Southlake, TX, in favor. (Received
November 2, 1998).
• E.I. Wiesman, 2607 W. Southlake Blvd, TX, in favor. (Received
November 3, 1998).
A second response by Mr. Wiesman was received on January 13,
1999, undecided, "small size lots."
• Martha E. Horton, 320 Brock; Southlake, TX, in favor. (Received
January 13, 1999).
• Frank Cangelosi, 225 Bent Creek Ct, Southlake, TX, in favor.
(Received January 13, 1999).
• Gary G. Hill, 3119 W. Southlake Blvd, Southlake, TX, in favor.
(Received January 15, 1999).
(2nd Notification) Four (4) responses were received from within the 200' notification
area:
• Gwen N. Pipes, President, Ranchland Leasing Co, Inc., 216
Warbler Court, Bedford, TX, in favor. (Received January 27,
1999).
- ga-2
t -
t
City of Southlake,Texas
• Bob Templeton, Keller I.S.D., Demographics and Planning, 30-1
Lorine Street, Keller, TX, in favor, "The Keller Independent
School District owns approximately 30 acres on Union Church
east of Chesapeake Place. The Keller school district has no
current plans for the site. The Keller school district has no
objection with the development. Thank you for the notification
of the development. I will follow the requested action through
final approval." (Received January 28, 1999).
• Michael L. Musgrove, 2139 Union Church Road, Southlake, TX,
in favor. (Received February 4, 1999).
• Alan Jackson, Property Manager, St. Martin-In-The-Fields
Episcopal Church, 223 S. Pearson Lane, Southlake, TX, in favor,
"We have meet with and reviewed Four Peaks Development Inc
new revised development and are in favor of it as proposed." See
attached letter. (Received February 4, 1999).
Eleven(11)responses were received from outside the 200'notification
area:
• Joyce Hannah, Remington Management, 200 Wes Mill Valley,
Colleyville, TX, in favor, "This development is designed well and
will be a great asset." (Received February 1, 1999).
• David Hannah, 200 West Mill Valley, Colleyville, TX, in favor.
"As a representative of Remington Retirement community. Good
Neighbor. Like traffic flow on revised plan." (Received
February 1, 1999).
• Diania L. Hanson, Project Coordinator Remington Retirement,
800 West Southlake Blvd, Southlake, TX, in favor, "This would be
an asset to the area, especially where the drainage and residential
mix are concerned." (Received February 1, 1999).
• Ernest R. Owen, 800 West Southlake Blvd, Southlake, TX, in
favor, "Better for the area than what will probably go there if they
are not allowed to develop." (Received February 1, 1999).
• Randal B. Snow, 407 S. Pearson Lane, Keller, TX, in favor, "I
hope this helps to get services(sewer&better drainage)out here-
it's long overdue." (Received February 3, 1999).
• Mack Williams, 2034 Union Church Road, Southlake, TX, in
favor, "If you can solve the draining (water) problems."
(Received February 4, 1999).
• J. Kevin Northcutt, 2120 Union Church, Keller, TX, in favor,
"Improved streets and drainage in this area." (Received February
4, 1999).
City of Southlake,Texas
• Lisa L. Northcutt, 2120 Union Church, Keller, TX, in favor,
"better roads." (Received February 4, 1999).
• Paul Stelly, 2222 S. Pearson Lane, Keller, TX, in favor, "This is
the type of development we want to see in our immediate area,
and developers have listened to our concerns." (Received
February 4, 1999).
• Jimmie Slough, 212 S. Pearson Lane, Keller, TX, in favor.
(Received February 4, 1999).
• Marshall Slough, 212 S. Pearson Lane, Keller, TX, in favor.
(Received February 4, 1999).
P&Z ACTION: November 5, 1998; Approved(7-0) applicant's request to table and
to continue the Public Hearing to the December-3, 1998,Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting.
December 3, 1998; Approved (7-0) applicant's request to table and
to continue the Public Hearing to the December 17, 1998, Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting.
January 7, 1999; Approved (6-0) at the applicant's request to table
and to continue the Public Hearing to the January 21, 1999, Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting.
January 21, 1999; Approved(6-1) to table and to continue the Public
Hearing to the February 4, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
February 4, 1999; Motion was made to deny (3-2) the applicant's
request to table to the February 18, 1999, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Motion to deny(3-3) failed. [According to the
City Attorney, this motion is neither a motion to deny nor to approve,
but it does fulfill P&Z's responsibility to make a recommendation to
the Council. Absent Commission Rules of Procedure to the contrary,
this item moves forward to the Council for consideration and does
not require a super-majority vote of the Council.]
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has met all requirements in Development Plan Review
Summary No. 1, dated October 30, 1998, and Development Plan
Review Summary No. 2, dated January 29, 1999, with the exception
of those listed in Development Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated
February 12, 1999.
QW L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\MEMO\98CASES\98-118ZD.WPD
T= ♦ V -r a yc
Et
' � - _ �� � ..,t_ice !" 'i'. ,r y. .y3ab k-r .�'+.'t r _-.•y - 1St":�;
1 i` 'RESIDENTIAL-AND COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SPECIALIZING 1N
DFW AIRPORT-i DEC/ITUR i FbRT WORTH•TRIANGLE�AREA� r
3220 W. SOUTHLARE BLVD. r
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 76092
PROPERTIES
- November 6, 1998
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Southlake
667.N. Carroll Ave. "
Southlake, Texas 76092
To whom it may concern: -
My name is Wayne Lee. I own a ,commercial building located
at 3220 W. Southlake .Blvd.; :I have been at this location
6-1- for eighteen years. -
- I understand-that you are considering-the application' for.
zoning and platting for.Chesapeake Place which will adJoin
me to the South..
This letter is to inform you of my total support for- this
plan as presented to.you. Southlake needs this type of ,
development. This plan is -very.near-developments in the
City of Keller .which'.have much smaller?lots. In my.'opinion
Ratr there is no need to ask the developer :( Four Peaks )::for:-> _
any lower density than is shown:on -the preliminary plat
l.
Feel free t if the -'are questions.
Sin r ly,
7
ter.^; e e
P.S. The buffer shown .is more than .,generous and is .appreciated.
Ss,raEcirk rfrea _ - -
twfl..E+Ci'Y�asG .
N 0 V 0 91998
�- 3220 SOIJ HLAKE BLVD.0709/PEARSON)•SOIT HLAKE,TEXAS 76M 4 817l3J9 6568 a 817/374 6365
TIN—.IN— THE—FIELDS
S T. _ _
EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Location Address
vlallln8 Address 223 So.Parson La.
P.O.Box 524 Soathinke,Texas 76092
Kefkr,Texas 76244-0524 Fax$17/431-5407
817/431-2396 or 431-2689
November 10, 1998
City of Southlake
Planning & Zoning.Commission
667 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake,Texas 76092 -
Re: ZA98-118 Rezoning and Development Plans For
Chesapeake Place/Four Peaks Development, Inc.
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of St. Martin-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church, I would like to commend you for the way
your group listened to public comments, formed your own individual concerns and then told
developers that what they proposed was not acceptable.
We shallhave representation at the next meeting on December 3, 1998 at which time we trust that
Four Peaks Development, Inc. will have prepared a more acceptable plan which addresses our
concerns, which are as follows:
1. That the developer be made responsible to have a comprehensive storm water drainage plan
developed to handle their development so that it does not cause drainage and flooding
problems on the north and east side of our property. At present the property to the north
and northeast slopes toward our site, plus the higher televation
t a revent the water from fiowinearson e and
g is
the non-functional ditches on both sides o p
natural southwest course to the road culvert under South Pearson at the southwest corner
of our site and then into Bear Creek.
2. Our buildings and our neighbors are all on septic or aerobic sanitary water systems,and with
sanitary sewers being extended to service this newsubdivisi In S is dirt one eradjoinsary Sib be
ite
on the north, east, and south sides, we would urbe that
designed and built so that we could eventually connect into it As I am sure you are aware,
we are planning a 12,000 square foot new sanctuary and relative paved parking
whicbuilt on our vacant property on both Lots 1 & 2 in the next three to five years. We are
presently in the process of restudying our over master site development plan to facilitate
this structure.
3. I am sure you are also aware that both South Pearson Laneic d Union
..this proposed new
both narrow paved country roads which will be the only p r handle the
80 lot subdivision and will have to mRk widened
R erred and improved to properly
additional traffic requirementSP.' Rector
T fECD NOV 131998
4. If you recall, several people at the public hearing on November 5, 1998 expressed their
concerns and objections regarding the possible use of wooden stockade-type fencing by the
developer at the entries and property perimeters at the adjoining property. As you all know,
the standard wood stockade fences deteriorate very quickly and fall into a complete state of
disrepair within six to ten years, causing an ongoing maintenance and replacement problem
for the homeowners long after the developer has left the site.
In closing,we would also like this property to be developed as a low density residential development
rather than a medium density because it would provide large lots which would result in a lower
impact on the storm drainage and public streets in this areas.
As a developing community church, St Martin-in-the-Fields is committed to good community
development of the area of the City Southlake. We are looking forward to your neat public meeting
regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan H. Jackson
Jr. Warden
AHJ:br
cc: Ms. Phyllis Bess, Secretary
'Me current zoning is "AG" Agricult ralDistrict. The requested zoning is "R-PUD" Rrsidcntial
Planned Unit DevelopmeUt District. A Development Plan for Chesapeake Place will be con:ides cd
with this request.
A public hearing will be held by the City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission on
Thursday,November 5 1998,at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 667 North Carroll
Avenue, Southlake, Texas. At this timc,youu may submit your views on the matter in person, by
writing,or by representative. You are encouraged to follow the requested action through fiaal
approval because changes are often made during the review process.
if you know of any interested property owner who, for any reason, has not received A copy of this
letter,it would be greatly appreciated if you would inform them of the time and place of this hemITIC.
• Very truly yours,
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Southlake, Texas
The following form may be filled out and mailed to the City of Southlake, Planning and Zoning
Commission, 667 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake,Texas, 76092.
REFERENCE NO.: ZA 98--Ii-a
I amCijavor o (opposed to) (undecided about) the request for the following reasons:
/SEt� Go rNE T Nv %rE1,� �vp,� 17-Al' 4.do5,,--I;;I
SIGNATURE:
(Please Print Name)__ "
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
%L e�
0 STo"Zrh
4,119 q
. �G J
7.3 k-
mw
act
i
a4 �
�411 6 17S 1e
r3 c
ft� I r-W a< I `
5391.92 I i
me JLI�U r SSAS lz
sa k-
21
L I
C( id�RQOy R, Bsa+,c I
_ G
7>:4a
18
f
e k IISb?
gZ » i I
3S ! I
7Y 4c
I
TRACT MAP
SIM sits 5R2 sltl 1
1 7'r' u I INII O 1.0M, O I.00A O I.Iq).1 O 1.134 11
W r'
P.
fiR7 sR6 E ADJACENT OWNERS
1 'f-J'Jh
„ 2.411 O 3.331 O
( CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AND ZO N!N_G
1R IA1_ i
"AG" STATE OF TEXAS W SOUTIII.AKR IIIND
.iH3 O III 4A13A .1710 ig1ANA ,165 O un t09))7 IC t144A?A 1R 4A3A TR 4AtA 7R 4E01 IIt.AI.t If 1/ IR •1M01
�4 A4 n Ilt •1114
J.DAVIS . K.LE� "AG"
SOUTHLAKE R. T. I't'1I12
` 2 s6 Ir
r 1R
4') 0 r PSE,INC. a TRAVIS FLEEGER 4(T)2.A1.1, A.
Ili 4E
4.019 AC
H.CONRAD
M.
__-_— R. T. SCHAEFER
G.HILL --
t 6r,1 TRAVIS FLEEGER
1 13 n,.
IIt 4K1 IIt.4L1
1 26 A, 1.26 Ar.
36.1 G
AG"
t - -- - ---
TR 4T'2
IIt 4K If7 41
ST.MARTIN IN-THE-FIELDS n AI.
P.
I' SCHAEFER _
EPISCOPAL CHURCH
1
7.n44 ID � 1 z A�
I A.
2 -csn BINGHAM
TR I 4.1 If' 4
- ------ 4� .qn aC
ST.MARTIN IN-THE-FIELDS 67 0 Ib All 2.0 AC 7
4 EPISCOPAL CHURCH 2
"AG"
"AG"
EAGLE
CONTRACTING CORP
it
14 � a
"SP-1"
KELLER ISD
6111R R.SNOW 4A 411 IR 4C
10 AC .56.166 O 10.02 9.WO eD
9
TR 4
— •-- - ,.r-- AC
-- -- IT "AG"
J.PIPES
II III 4A19
3 a Ir
I1
nc I ants
1.00 AC
84-IO I
TR JC1
III 4.1 Ili 4A .4117 AC
E d
r1
x J >0 o A
n
R O at at it 0 at :t Q
t09 N ell.N..N n Z t0h
T A
' gym. E
7 C t a ffi a a a
x d
� Ea O) L Lx Lx LX U9 aarxE o
� 2 5 . o a EN
O E E E
� 1 C NIo
Nth
E 41 N q
_E 0 a10i No d c o
a
C IL Q 00 N N 00,y'N N N
°p11 0 0 10O u u o 0 00�
th
m C � O N O O C m O V y
N N 0 AIN N m N
tD
L'0 v C •_
> u O m q~
10 O >
N �
N 9 D C C
A 0 0
N } N N L N^ p N N N N
V O 0
41 C N ato
9 CO1r C92a2 C9a mIm m W
` N� 'a 0 V C t_C
>M a N YI a O` C C N O`
(A N ao V CO N N N....r N N.....r
C
0 _ a
C O
Q ooZ+ oo EE° E
y LL} N G i0�v C tOvA O VO in Gn
0.I N Y M A a N U N N N N A
C
d CCa ug cmi a
a CQ N N fV lh > N'7 NE N
W
N .•. 9
C C U v a E
a+ C q q
c E C
m gsv me-a' m E m.a
a
c Q �' r
A J m o
N a a
N +
w N > o 0
C N Q Z Z Z Z N L
O O
A J
'f0
n. J N N N N' N a 2 N N N a U
O C y O 10f 1I 0 0 tO')e e U O O p0 0«
U N Ns^_ N ^
C
y a a+
CL m
`vO a m am m � u°'�i cEcc
Qe N Q < '� a! moot "o
Z = ,: q 01 qm 01 q
Ta P m m m
N m q l l > > q A.K
C 0 Q M 1 x-60 Ox O in , N 0 7 7 N 7 7 O at A W e'f co
7 > >
G^l N� q 0 OD O mN m0 Nn N t0' w!f� OI w h to 10
(,+ �O �� P h C) tON N —N Omm
01 Yl
m 01 Q1 N tD A of I-e N 1p
yy N g yy O
0 Q Q N V ION N O N h 1�O N t0
V
O !`I 1�O Oi t0 10 ' ui N
q G w
f' # JIm
I^� N I hNN N InT N 000 C^O OOi
m I
A m
Z �+
N �
W — —
g '4 - -_
> mm mmm Com ;m 3 mmm
o � A Wm �LM
L L L L L Y .C 9 L L L
w EC. C. o aa. a o �aa d aaa
d t m t t
r ci C (o tl V
N N > C C C E 61
m ti li. O O O O— T
E m
E « aY s�X XX
�
(„� O O O O ON NN O
M M Vol
(*MwU E9 m z z
NE NE NE NE NE
L. G m NN NN N
S y N� NN N N N in N N
c {V M N M l V M f V M N M I V M N M C E
.7
m E
E
.C LL Q M h NP h m 0 N
a y b O N O
N N N N N N
A �
Q�}
N N N N N N N
C 41 AlC Alt„ nit, Alt Al t,
72 toA T Ia m q : m R e o e ro q *O Z.%
E } N N N CL N N N a N N a N N VI N a N
V a ins iSN in� 2SN 1nSN inSN 1nS� N� E 7
.7
«
0a/ C C1
9 V L
A 9
} Q Q N N N N C G O
.. .... .-. .t ....
LL
} G 1n in IOn N Yf 1O in in N 1n N G in VOI
M N VI N a VI N VI N.M...VI N VI
t
c a
C d
9 oinr..eUn cin—moo. in
in
a:p Vm� °;aka �ne• �.o
p inC�O� inG�O� 1n G� En ino Om
` w N r.� E in N...� E as N..,. ao W)
t
J N N
N N N N N
N O)N
V) Q O Q Q N N O N
O
J
J N M In N N N N N
G N O O O O N IN 00
44 0
y d 2'N m �Nn N m
V N N 0 u u U Y
CLN n mz 3
A
Is
t`i O CL c a3 a 3
Q e U) O A 10 nN C ne•n C� N4 OO rV d) Nap
Z� •' E rH e� OA V N e- A� w" Y)— 1 ON
IO .0.5.5
C l C C C C C 1 R A l
0 c O c cl7D� eN
m O > > cCC= em MN. ci Oc OC a O
N . N z w y7 M 7 b
(' �IM9 In 2SO10 e� - N� 01 r7M all m Ol 'N Nm N N ti
M 01 aD O n N ao as CM'1 a0 O
go y
VI Q N Infan'I�� � (IN'I 10D � Ie1D'V N o�
O
10
r Q «
J V IN o n la0 01 (M a0 M f o 10 n aD f
r�l 10 ao�� NT PIN. NN N aD N h
_> IV
> d O! y Ol N N O ; y V S V it'O
N
O O `Vy! V! y V! A = •" A= V a«p Y Iy0 C 7 C 7 C 7 y-�
y l0 A A N A Z 61 C t m C « m L N 9 9 ` 9 O ! y
O T zi
6. d 6. n' F-m a F m W CLv CL IL
y C
im
o E E E
g�-�2
E� a po
' 41 N/v `N SN HN
1
A 0 .`� at T 0 at
�- O OO O ON Yf U/ O InN
10 NO !1 0m vm
R
a`r E rn
C t o e o o m m m m
U E� o� z x z xaN c x x 0 x x K
X m M m « E u m r m m m
� A 7= NE aE,�' X aE aE aE aE aE
C cc CO N N Ny N m N� Y7 N VIN _ Nh ON
9 L N 1+1 N'mn t'.E N 17 !V PI NHl N{"1 N17
C
0° E S
E p ID r a' r
c a 0 R o o o o 0 o
O O O O 10 O N 10 N
1A N a N N N N N N
L 9 LL
A ` rnod
N
L
e0- 3 N N N N N N N
Al r
C 'O m y O' A o m i vl e m m of m 10 VI m m
o• N.n.-a s
�= ° V - m "
ar � a me— c oa ^ ca oin 000 ^ otn
V m N= E 7 1ff=N Yf h� m TnX wESN wfl X�-
r
ID C y
m 9 I'D 9)
m Q O
�- o' H o o N
A .2 X .Or i s .O.i N
LL } NNN NOh oinN in Nh pN
C'f N.�..VI N VI
O
L
C a u
o uoi n r n m
E
E
0
u
t rIn
E 3 =ONP ='o7e =aooe "tee m
Cb Iff O� t CO Gf C0 IA 00 i(f 00 .m..CD N nl mb a0h
h
O o
o
�
N_ a
N jN o 0 0 0 o
N Q o c a � o Wi o a
N ' m
A �
O
J �
J C) Q Q Q c v a
N Q a a a a a m
L
C N O O N O O O a
O O N N O V) a
ID
C m m 91 2 u
L a A 01 a R= m A q A tj m e
Q a m e
Qe N `uo oa o vy no ma o
m� PZ NO 1'1� �Pf 1+1 1AO
C� q IVO 1�0 A m
Ca m O � Go G C3 G � j
NhhIwo
ci
�O N 10ff OQ f� ?O 4 C q
a
: O a
Rr O 0 o o
E N
R # J l7 N N V O N
0 Q m e U m m
W T LL T ," T
_ EOij 7 A w 7 10 7 9 10 7 l0 7 y d
o �U � m c > o ? 2 E . m o . o o a A
0 0IL IL
0 0 0 0 0
rn
E E E E E E E
a f- F- i- t- ►_
E
N�
x J > YJC �C
7 CL m o o m�_ aai O m o
E°o cw zx cx c t�„X zK x •cx zx
V A 2 A �0.. 0 N b A 2 R 2 A A
O� m 7= aE aE a aJ� aE aE a E aE
C m Ni0 1uN mCED ON W N
N V C7 N PI N P! N NI N V
m E
Eom
O U.
a n ai a a�i a m a
Cl! N b O a00 N O O
N N N N N N N
L
�Ry D
y}
N N N N N 1'1 N N
C r I O e0-
L N N N
E v9_i} cc J"�� j� A mcx
` o ": ca oca cm o
.7
1V P 7 A 1q h� A iN e' 7 A G 7 A N
m � m N •
R C
} Q O N N N fn O O.
C L
OL}
� iq N in N
N.N..VI N.N..VI t•)N N N M
Z
C G a
cc d
to e p J
a T"
YIO4o Iff 0� 11f O� G G '9
YI m E a in
.7
J m N tl N N O
N
N CO) o O ' O
0
lA Q O ct ct w m Q Q
n Zj 2 2
O
J
r Zy r 4 r
N a N N O• N a a
N a
voi n o 0 c 0 cct
0
o w
�o
d m m e f- 4 a
y G U u o o r : u
L A A� .-mm u A
� 0 ° ; II at
U) r
Q Q N E �c, — N�
(Q m O O ai m m
O `
C y y O c O c O c Cm G O O O
m N D rri O M O eaa O OWN Cai•OtV'1 ^N .m-
(� N n .4 w e�m �N �N� ♦� N N PI
O L ap m IAA� O N
r w N
O "
O n g o
H# J m to
(! V A C1 Q G p Q m
IL
0 i m m 9 m y
a a T CL CL
CL Td Td
tn� off -� H H _ e8 = — �
�+ O «
/ C U ; U 01 7 7 O !Il N m C N 7 d 41
N V L 7 2 'O 9 w m W U) m C y � V
O O O � O OL ,� dLm = y 0 0 {L 0 {L
m a Z a C d d J N va d d 0 CL d v d y
E c9 `09 ct
8
E o m w' c� �� v
X »
AJV � �oa
o u 0 0 0 o O o x o v
-0 h WO, �e N g C 0 a
A
CC C
V G.- 0 C O a » a O N q O A O N O E.
o� X'7= aE SL3y aE gE aE g` E aE
C m �N aN in w. in a b H a0 V?
9 H of of PI O IV of to Ol N of w QI fV 17
•� C C
m U. a,
E ;9 � va
O m
tea: „:m
o..
c N 000 O O O O Q LL
to wN a w N » N�-.y..
LL LL LL LL LL
4) l0 0 0 0 O 0 0
�• .r0 7 '�'0 j "'0 a "'0 j
O O L D
O N ; q
H �
LL LL LL LL LL
41 D A `o 10
y V`N v o N my .NN..my O
E 0 j 0 j O j 0 j 0 j C
ar o eta eta 'ta eta eta c
•3 a
O
m
CIO V y q a
ie to c
O
U
C y O
O q � oyJ C7
LL} o O
e ate+ m no on v
T
a
•L c
a 0
C N Y
G Q O Z
C
E
o
m 0 5 rn
J N °L
N V) c C
co Q Q Q
C Z 2 0 CL
J
p 0 c
CL
J 0 Q V O O 2
N a a a m
O IIn NCD
C q
al a1 a a t
C _ q
0
U CL N q; 0 a O
e fn `a a c,rJ" ate. c o` m c
2 v o 0
10 E a
0 0 Z roy
C
61d
q Y
d d Q Q Q O 0 �J C A Qom,
a
(� w 2 Z Z » C C«
0 O N N of
Q ` N O\ O C QD 0 a
v a
K g a Q a
U' Q 7 2 0. o o CLM Ix
u a o c Q
O q- D
mc »t 9
%0 3 o a ay
Tt LL L X LU
9LL7a 0 C n
d d jy O v y �;m c 7 O
_T L d ` y 'f N_ Oaf.N. .0C On d
E y y w y v q 0� av 0 cn
w
7 LL 7 LL C 9 9 'O _ Zj O •_` O
� �' d V) N h U LL yNr `o� LL
a g a 5 o U O U = y ;. U = c
m 3
'Mom 5
O O
ucaiq�uo
A O x x:u q q U
City of Southlake, Texas
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
ase No.: ZA 98-118 Review No: Three Date of Review: 02/12/99
Project Name: Development Plan-"R-PUD"Zoning Request for Chesapeake Place
APPLICANT: ENGINEER/PLANNERS:
Four Peaks Development J. E. Levitt Engineers. Inc.
P.O. Box 92909 726 Commerce Street. Suite 104
Southlake. Texas 76092 Southlake. Texas 76092
Phone : 817) 329-6996 Phone : (817)488-3313
Fax : (817)481-4074 Aft. Tom Matthews Fax : (817)488-3315 Attn. John Levitt
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 02/08/99 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.
1. The Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 5.03 - K1 requires a street stub into adjacent property
at a minimum of 1,000 feet apart. Provide a street stub in the vicinity of Lot 48, Block 2,to extend
east through the Keller I.S.D. tract or through the Schaefer tract east of this site. Currently, a street
is proposed along the west side of the "The Remington Retirement Development" and is planned
to continue through the K.I.S.D. tracts to Union Church.
2. All common areas must be uniquely numbered and given a lot and block designation. Lot 1 Block
1 (Common Area No. 1)was approved by the Park Board for dedication as a public park. If this is
the intent label as such.
I
J. The following changes are needed with regard to lot configurations:
a. Provide lot lines radial or perpendicular to the adjacent R.O.W. Specifically, Lots 13 &
14, Block 2 are not radial to the adjacent cul-de-sac. Lots 7-9, 32-35, 44-47, Block 3 and
Lots 3 & 4, Block 5 have angle points at the front building lines which does not meet the
intent of the requirement.
b. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that a row or tier of lots adjacent to properties with a
Low Density Residential Land Use Designation have a rear lot line.of 125' or more. Lots
47-50 have rear lot lines of approximately 108' to 117'.
City of Southlake, Texas
4. The following changes are needed with regard to proposed development regulations:
a. The applicant has proposed the following development regulations as compared to the"SF-
20A" Zoning District:
Regulation "SF-20A" District Proposed
Min. Lot Size 20,000 sq. ft. 14,438 sq. ft.
Min. Lot Width 100' @ min. front setback line 90' @ front bldg. line
Min. Lot Width(Cul-de-Sac) 100' @ min. front setback line 60' @ front bldg. line, where
over 50% of lot is on cul-de-sac
Min. Lot Depth 125'- 120'
Min. Floor Area 1,800 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft.
Max. Building Height cannot exceed 2.5 Stories or 35' cannot exceed 2.5 Stories or 35'
Height Height
Min. Front Yard 35' 25'
Cin.
r Yard 40' (35' cul-de-sac Lots) 20'
e Yard 15' 10,
e Yard Adj. to Street 35' 20'
Max. Lot Coverage 30% 30%
Max. Res. Density 2.18 du/ac. 1.7 du/ac.
b. Within the Development Regulations and on the Development Plan clearly specify the
purpose and regulations for the shown Lot 1, Block 6 located south of Southlake Blvd.
This lot does not meet the regulations of the "SF-20" Zoning District or the development
regulations currently proposed.
C. Specify the development regulations for the proposed maximum permitted accessory
building floor area. The"SF-20A"Zoning District permits a maximum of 600 square feet.
* We find this plat conforms to the curvilinear requirements of the subdivision ordinance.
* No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required
prior to construction of any signs.
The applicant should be aware that new submittals for the next scheduled meeting must be
received at the City by 5:00 PM on 2/22/99. If not received by that time, no review will be
prepared until the following submittal schedule. All 17 revised submittals must be folded 6" x 9"
and an 11"x 17"revised reduction must be provided.
City of Southiake, Texas
(te.
Four Peaks Development
J. E. Levitt
Area Surveying
* Denotes Informational Comment
L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\REV\98\98118DP3.WPD
TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS
(COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT)
Case No: ZA 98-118 Date of Review: 10 - 22 - 98 Number of Pages: 1
Project Name: Chesapeake Place (freliminary Plat)
APPLICANT: ENGINEERS/PLANNERS:
Four Peaks Development, Inc. J. E. Levitt Engineers, Inc.
P.O. Box 92909 726 Commerce St., Suite 104
Southlake, TX 75092 Southlake, TX. 76092
Phone:(817) 329-6996 Phone: (817)458-3313
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:
The applicant has provided good-faith in providing for a majority of the protected trees located on
the site.
2. The only protected trees of concern are located along Union Church Road, in the yard of the
existing home and in the middle of the pasture behind the house. The applicant has designed the
development to preserve a majority of these trees.
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
L:trees/dre98/98-119
C"
rn
rn
:b
w
tA-
ly
:1•lF $� iil iii iiilliil W � F- r
F1l111f 1 ; F1iF1lI
if if{ It 1!I if Il a
• t� ■ • . oil. I • ■ • � • l
A p ii is i 's I i it iii
S"Y Nq�1I O1• i
I �. 1 :; �,s� ��;����E b {ll��{:I 6i I {�I!I Il1�1t1►.� � a � E�„u«�,.� 0-r.-r.s
Hj ! 1�I�1 I�t�Il�lII!t 3 opalFL
4 l� l , S • ,• I ■• kiRh!tjh! i { {•!i{ ii{,{P 1:1i W c, a'
I i _--••'_ .._1-t --�-_-----_ �`if•FS Si��'f�11 F�j Fi Si iF fi Si Fi F�Fjf � 1�1 In z c,
INS - - IIIllhhjllllllxlllhllhl5![III:IrI
1 t i11 ilk Cl
S■r--- j! 1 j i;I i t
{-E-- -r I --- — — I ��1 �['llt 1'`� li Il l 11 •! °' 1' 1t t.. ; � •_..as:;; �z' �•tt
I!� I g91�$!� I �a �� � $�� ( �-{�!�i�q',��; I� {i li��I! li; L5i• 1'
i�l
•�. � - _---- �,� g -I ��F�i�l�ij{l� I� � {i�t � i'' Ij[`I ij ij � �r^ ;,, 1,r � I
1 I 1 `'/ ;�, '3 �=��:t _ ! � 'l�! [ N; • �[�F j) !11 - '."i• [ ., ;9 ,<g
i!`Il ,, 1 ;
I� Nit i•i ^''vt 4lti�l �s:
•,: a II s
34 , 1 -- f/ '„Yt•a — �� I A '�111D'i� !! Fi i1�its Fill ii Fly Fi'F Fi ii F.aT IBC 66"4 'II;;�sii F`,"
.�r •; ,. �-t � r �3t��Jlf djil ih hl h lF{t ht lF!!hlhl h F� ���I !���������a;t;ii�t;; +�.or
He
U , a
•. -R � I � � � :r AF-l pU J 1
•': ..� _ ` ._e` � *4 I �4 • I Q�me I �<Z � [`l� J}? ��`• i
i1; �.`4F w.lF i� mat-«• l \t"'` x. � _ C� x 11 �� S } IN
(�j0 ��~
... ■ -- -...---- i .►. �; ¢ u 1
it
IP
1 u�l '� �- ... ■ -• is I d ,Sx._MOM
Iry {
- 1 I -S I t 5� _.y '\�• a r{} � r d S R �� pd ip� l
� �. •s,..l fig• � ��s 5 !I � ;8-2
01 i iii
loll,`
iR
iiij
S.Ya. I / // 't'l ■f� '3' /•� '6 �•5� 'q x -t j t1 x t!
Y'i I / // d am` °.� -%i■ . .. _ '�. . v• • t • ;; ! F!< i ` iNI •.
.�
I C '�t9a��� 1 ' �� �i "t=- r a. "�"-'"2Ze......�lp . � „� 1 ;p' �� •�t .F I:C{I
�.. S II ='• ' C i� 3 -5 {�_J�'�.�••'8l�fl%t:��'M��
rxw r hp - . 11
=i •cs���=�.a„'+�ti.-t.�.�.z 'r.�"�Q�� �i'.�:1Cx- _ .. .:Y- yam.�I�mi m•
.0 YOxI u:rrnCl. rn I -T -� --f-' - -`-`�`iin.s..�'lok-�•,1
I,�• I �. L..-.�j.,..I .......u I � I ii - � ..:.I I p Fi:_ i4. 4 k • _.�i ' 1 i
' I.Y•1 rY�, .r �. �/r I a..l I { I"II II •I A 'i-I =1
-� I _�; I =tl I I =��, I ••:, I M a j .^� a a x+_I a ng[x � I .r. I I
W20
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 480-305
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 4A,4A8,4A9,4B,AND
4E2,'SITUATED IN THE J.G.ALLEN SURVEY,ABSTRACT
NO.18,AND BEING"APPROXIMATELY 54.95 ACRES, AND
MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN
EXFIIBIT "A" FROM "AG"AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO
"R-PUD" RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AS DEPICTED ON THE APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "B", SUBJECT TO
THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS
ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST,MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND
THE ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS HEREIN
MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE
CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter
adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter
9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the
authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of
buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and
to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-305.WPD (; I
Page 1 yQ
and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "AG" Agricultural
District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a
person or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called
by the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether
these changes should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using
the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and damages;
noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights
on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of
signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic
g J P P
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,
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480305.WPD
Page 2 _
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that there is a
public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest
clearly requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the
rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed
at the time their original investment was made; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes
in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other
dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents
the over-crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate
provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and,
WIEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there
(610.1 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
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASM480-305.W PD
Page 3
amended as shown and described below:
Being Tracts 4A,4A8,4A9,4B,and 4E2,situated in the J.G.Allen Survey,Abstract
No. 18, and being approximately '54.95 acres, and more fully and completely
described in Exhibit "A" from "AG" Agricultural District to "R-PUD" Residential
Planned Unit Development District as depicted on the approved Development Plan
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", and subject to the specific
conditions established in the motion of the City Council and attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "C."
SECTION 2.
That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City
of Southlake, Texas, to reflect the herein changes in zoning.
SECTION 3.
That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall
be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other
applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections,
PP P Y g
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
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASFS'480.305.WPD 0(2 2`I
Page 4 e)
consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the
particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most
appropriate use of land throughout the community.
SECTION 5.
That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake,
Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in
those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance.
SECTION 6.
That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that
if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein
shall be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance
of said tract or tracts of land described herein.
SECTION 7.
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to
comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be
fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a
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
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES'.480-305.WPD
Page 5 0 L
not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted
until final disposition by the courts.
SECTION 9.
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed
ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a
public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if
this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of
any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the
official City newspaper one time within ten (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required
by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
SECTION 10.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication
as required by law, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
L:\CITYDOCSIORD%CASFS',480-305.W PD
Page 6 Q 1z
u V-�
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
(maw, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
ADOPTED:
EFFECTIVE:
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES%480-305.W PD
Page 7 0�•2�
EXHIBIT "A"
CHESAPEAKE PLACE
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Description for a tract of land in the J. G. ALLEN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 18,
City of Southleke, Tar.crt County, Texas, and being a portion of a tract of land
described in a deed to -croid and Medine Pipes, recorded in Volume 1738, Page 86.
Deea Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being that tract of land described in a deed
to Ranch Land Leasing Co., Inc. recorded in Volume 11387, Page 1525, Deed
Records, Tarrant County, Texas, SAVE AND EXCEPT that portion described in a deed
to Joe David Pipes, recorded in Volume 11892, Page 214. Deed Records, Tarrant
County Texas, Together With a tract of land described in a deed to Seyed M. Mirtcnerf
and wife, Chitsazan Pcr;chehr Mirtaheri recorded in Volume 12442, Page 629, Deed
Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and Together With two tracts of land described in deeds to
Lois J. Turner recorded in.Volume 7469, Page 2115 and Volume 7624, Pcge 1440, Deed
Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being described as one tract by metes and
bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at a 1/2" iron pin set with cap marked, "AREA SURVEYING" for the
southwest corner of said Harold and Madine Pipes tract, for the southwest corner of
said Ranch Land Leasing tract and for the apparent southwest corner of said Allen
Survey;
THENCE North 00 degree 13 minutes 14 seconds West a distance of 114.05 feet clong
Pearson Lane to a P.K. nail found for the southwest corner of said Joe David Pipes
tract;
THENCE North 89 degrees 58 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 342.20 feet to a
1/2" iron pin set with cap marked, "AREA SURVEYING" for the southeast corner of said
Joe David Pipes tract;
THENCE North 00 degree 19 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 384.91 feet to c
1/2" iron pin found for the northeast corner of said Joe David Pipes tract;
THENCE South 89 degrees 58 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 130.54 feet
along the north line of said Jae David Pipes tract to c 1/2" iron pin found for the
southeast corner of a tract of land described in a deed to Billy Scroggins and James
Barber, recorded in Volume 7440. Page 1514. Deed Records. Tarrant County, Texas;
THENCE North CC degree 13 minutes 14 seconds West a distance of 199.70 feet to a
1 j 2" iron pin set with ccp mcrked, "AREA SURVEYING" for the northeast corner of said
Scroggins and Barber tree-;
THENCE North 89 degrees 54 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 131.21 feet to c
metal fence post for the southeast comer of a tract of land described in a deed to
Weldon and Jean Snow, recorded in Volume 8031, Page 641. Deed Records, Tarrant
County, Texas;
THENCE North CO degree CO minute 28 seconds West a distance of 373.99 feet to a
1/2" iron pin found for the northeast corner of 'Tract 1" as described in a deed to
Weldon and Jean Snow, recorded in Volume 8031, Page 637, Deed Records, Tarrant
County, Texas, said pin vying in the south line of Lot 2, Block 1, ST. MARTINS IN—THE—
�7IELD ADDITION, according to the plot recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1.346, Plot
Records, Tarrant County, Texas.
THENCE North 89 degrees 53 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 394.17.feet to c
1/2" iron pin found for the southeast corner of said Lot 2, Block 1;
THENCE North 00 degree C3 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 726.C8 feet to c
1/2" iron pin found for northeast corner of Lot 1, Block ? of said ST. MARTINS IN—
THE—FIELD ADDITION;
page 1 of 2
REM JAN 141999
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-305.WPD
Page 8 b U (J
EXHIBIT "A"
THENCE North 89 degrees 53 minutes 14 seconds west at 717.60 feet passing a
iron pin found, in all, a total distance of 739.06 feet to a P.K. nail found in the csohc-t
acvernent of Pearson Lane:
THENCE North 00 degree 04 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 542.16 feet along
Pearson Lane to a P.K. nail found in asphalt;
THENCE South 89 degrees 59 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 425.71 feet to c
1/2" iron pin set with cep marked, "AREA SURVEYING";
THENCE Noah 00 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 144.98 feet to c
1/2" iron pin set with cop marked,. "AREA SURVEYING" in the south line of West
Southlcke Boulevard (Form to Market Highway 1709);
THENCE South 89 degrees 21 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 60.32 feet along
the south line of West Southiake Boulevard to a 5/8" iron pin found;
THENCE South 00 degree 14 minutes 29 seconds West a distance of 586.47 feet to a
fence post;
THENCE South 89 degrees 50 minutes 58 seconds East at 316.8 feet passing 0.2 of c
foot north of a 1/2" iron pin found, at 473.2 feet passing 0.1 of afoot north of a 1;2" iron
pin found, at 681.93 feet passing a 1/2" iron pin found, in all, a total distance of 682.68
feet;
THENCE North 00 degree 08 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 3.40 feet to a
iron pin found; -
THENCE South 89 degrees 48 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 302.77 feet to c
1/2" iron pin found for the northwest corner said Mirtaheri tract;
THENCE South 00 degree 09 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 814.31 feet to a
railroad cross tie fence post for a corner of said Mirtaheri tract;
THENCE South 89 degrees 02 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 68.54 feet to c
1/2' iron pin found;
THENCE South 00 degree 10 minutes 46 seconds West a distance of 1,173.68 feet tc
a 1/2" iron pin found in the north line of Union Church Road;
THENCE North 89 degrees 48 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 371.30 feet
along the north line of Union Church Road to a 5/8" iron pin found:
THENCE North 00 degree 11 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 20.89 feet to a coint for
corner in the asphalt pavement of Union Church Road;
THENCE North 89 degrees 37 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 183.44 feet to c
P.K. nail found in the asphalt pavement of Union Church Road:
THENCE North 89 degrees 37 minutes 40 seconds West c distance of 974.49 feet
along Union Church Road to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said described tract
containing 54.95 acres of land.
page 2 of 2
RECD JAN 141939
L:\CrrYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-305.WPD -
Page 9 _
EXHIBIT "B"
co
C"
D
gig
i! id il i
T : .1111j'ji Ili i Ail i If i i.
T—
C/)
I if F if r
a u
fit
r 00;
F7
lop
fo,
v kOW11
7r�
s. It i j'A 04-j I��7�� qo
10
r
ulz
A
t
m
-L-2
let
-- •SN. '•- .._. it �I i'_,• f �.� � , '' ; - :1-' 1 �� �� �I17.
V,
LJ_
6..
It I
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\4W305.WPD
Page 10
EXHIBIT "Ia"
�'p F E B 0 91999
CHESAPEAKE PLACE
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
OCTOBER 12, 1998
A Planned Unit Development District ("PUD") Residential Community
Southlake, Texas
This proposal is made by Four Peaks Development,Inc.on behalf of the current property
owners described herein requesting the property be rezoned from"AG"Agricultural to"PUD"
a Planned Unit Development to be known as CHESAPEAKE PLACE. The 54.95 acre project will
be improved as a single family residential community with a neighborhood park and open
space comprising 12.54%of the total project area. The master plan has been designed to create
a neighborhood which affords a-transition and compatibility with the existing adjacent
commercial uses to the north and west,the small lot developments to the south and the
undeveloped properties to the east,including property owned by the Keller Independent School
District.
This presentation to the City of Southlake will document and provide information in three
areas:
1. Review of the existing site with its current ownership,uses,natural features,etc.,and
review of surrounding conditions such as,adjacent zoning,land uses,perimeter streets,
etc.;
2. Description of the proposed development concept for the requested PUD including land use
and the integration with the surrounding uses,density,development standards and
requirements,mandatory homeowners association,sidewalk system and park facilities•,
3. Detailed description and evaluation of on-site and off-site development improvements
including paving,storm water drainage,water and sewer facilities and the benefits of the
integration of each into the surrounding properties and general area.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
CHESAPEAKE PLACE Subdivision will be located at the northeast corner of Union Church Road
and Pearson Lane at the extreme southwest boundary of the City of Southlake. The western
most perimeter will border and front Pearson Lane with the subdivision's primary entrance.
The western boundary borders and surrounds the north and east sides of St.Martins in the
Fields Episcopal Church,continuing south along the perimeter of the commercial businesses
known as Snows Gym and Aquatic Center,and Flower Ranch. It's perimeter continues east
along Union Church Road approximately 1500 feet,and turns north,bordering the recently
acquired Keller ISD school property.The project contains two entrances from Union Church
Rd. The property is,for the most part,unimproved except for two existing residential
structures.
The general area surrounding CHESAPEAKE PLACE is primarily unimproved,with the exception
of light commercial to the west and north. The Keller Independent School District has
purchased 30+ acres directly to the East of the subdivision. Directly to the south in the City of
Keller,is Hidden Lakes,a master-planned community of approximately 1000 acres,with lot
sizes beginning at 6,000 square feet.
Although CHESAPEAKE PLACE will be a new development in this area,it conforms to the
current uses,while creating a needed transitional buffer to both present and future
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASFS\480.305.WPD
Page 11
FAHIBIT "B"
development. The different land uses and zoning of the surrounding properties have been
taken into consideration in the creation of the development master plan and preliminary plat
for CHESAPEAKE PLACE. This planning will create a suitable and appropriate transition
between all of the different properties,while creating an attractive and marketable residential
community.
OWNERSHIP
The respective properties are currently owned by the following parties:
15.67 acres located at the southeast corner of the property owned by Seyed M.Mirtaheri;
36.17 acres,is owned by Ranchland Leasing Company,Inc.
3.11 acres,with a residential house fronting Union Church is owned by Michael and Laura
Musgrove
PROPOSED SITE ZONING AND LAND USE
The proposed zoning of CHESAPEAKE PLACE is from Agriculture (`AGE to a Planned Unit
Development District ("PUD") according to Section 30 of the City of Southlake's
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. It further complies with subsection 30.8,item 1,requiring
submittal of a Development Plan for the entire Planned Unit Development. Concurrent with
this submittal we are applying for approval of the Development Plan for CHESAPEAKE PLACE.
The proposed land use for CHESAPEAKE PLACE is for single family,detached residential units
with a maximum density of 1.7 units per acre or approximately 92 lots.
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
The goal of the CHESAPEAKE PLACE development is to have a quality,family oriented
residential community,offering a peaceful environment,while affording the enjoyment of
private park amenities and the convenience of a major thoroughfare to its residents. The open
area can accommodate a variety of recreational uses including open play areas,junior size
soccer fields and basketball court(s). The open park area offers a buffer to the residents from
the existing light commercial development,while transitioning this area to the proposed
schools and other surrounding small-lot residential developments.
Primary access to the subdivision will be located off Hwy. 1709 on Pearson Lane. Additional
access to Chesapeake Lane from Union Church Road,leads to James River Drive and five
residential cul-de-sacs.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
With the exception of the open areas,all of the property within CHESAPEAKE PLACE will be
used for a single family detached residential development.The subdivision will adhere to the
recently adopted sidewalk ordinance which will then be integrated into the walking trail and
open areas. Utility distribution facilities,temporary buildings and associated facilities for
construction purposes and temporary real estate sales offices,shall be permitted under the
requested PUD.
Q�-3z
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-305.WPD
Page 12
EXEIIBIT "B"
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The following development regulations shall be applicable within CHESAPEAKE PLACE:
1. MINIMMUM LOT SIZE: 14,438 square feet.
2. MINLNtUM LOT WIDTH - 90 feet at the building line,except 60 feet as measured on the
curve of the building line where over fifty percent (50%) of the lot is on the curve of a cul-
de-sac.
3. MINIMUM LOT DEPTH— 120 feet
4. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA—Two-thousand (2000) square feet
5. MAMMIM HEIGHT—2-1/2 stories or thirty five feet (35�
6. MINIMUM FRONT YARD—Twenty-five feet(25�
7. MINIMUM REAR YARD—Twenty feet (20
8. MINIMUM SIDE YARD—Ten feet (10
9. MINIMUM SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO STREET—Twenty feet (20
10. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE—Thirty percent (30%)
11. MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY— 1.7 units per gross acre
(we
Pursuant to the City of Southlake zoning ordinance for a Planned Unit Development,a
minimum of ten percent (10%) of the gross area,is to be set aside as open space. CHESAPEAKE
PLACE will set aside twelve and 54/100 percent (12.54%) of its gross area as open space. In
addition,CHESAPEAKE PLACE will dedicate an additional 1.79 acres (3.26%) of the gross
project area for perimeter roads of Pearson Lane and Union Church Road.
PERMITTED USES
The detached single family residential portion of the Residential Planned Unit Development ("R-
P.U.D.") shall permit those uses as set forth in Section 14,"SF-20A"Single Family Residential
District of the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No.480,as amended. The following
uses shall be specifically6 included:
• "Permitted Uses,"Section 14.2
0 "Accessory Uses,"Section 14.3
• "Specific Use Permits,"Section 14.4
• "Special Exception Uses,"Section 14.7
HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION
A mandatory homeowners association will be established and be in place from the outset of the
development whereby all homeowners will be members of the association. The responsibilities
of the association will be to maintain all community owned common areas and to enforce the
CHESAPEAKE PLACE's deed restrictions in order to maintain the quality,character and values of
CHESAPEAKE PLACE.
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASF-S\480-305.WPD
Page 13
FXEIIBIT "B"
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Roadways
As previously sited,the proposed CHESAPEAKE PLACE is bound by three existing roadways. The
roadways include a small portion of Hwy. 1709,Pearson Lane,and Union Church Road. As
currently planned,there are three ingress/egress locations into the subdivision;one on Pearson
Lane and two on Union Church Road. No direct access to Hwy. 1709 is planned.
Drainage
CHESAPEAKE PLACE is situated in the Big Bear Creek drainage basin. The majority of the
property flows to the south from Union Church into Big Bear Creek. The storm water discharge
will be taken to the right of way of Union Church Road and Pearson Lane,and will be
discharged into unnamed tributaries of Big Bear Creek.
Water Distribution and Sewage Collection Systems
CHESAPEAKE PLACE will be served by an existing 12 inch water line located in Pearson Road.
Sanitary sewer service will be provided by gravity from the S-1 interceptor. All design efforts
will be closely coordinated with the City of Southlake engineering staff,as well as the City's
consulting engineers.
SUMMARY
The proposed community of CHESAPEAKE PLACE is designed and will be developed as a family
oriented single family residential community with ample consideration given to the
surrounding zoning. CHESAPEAKE PLACE will be a positive and homogeneous addition to this
area of Southlake and its immediate neighbors in Keller. Although it will be a new
development,CHESAPEAKE PLACE conforms to the current uses of the area,while creating a
needed transitional buffer to both present and future development. The different land uses and
zonings of the surrounding properties have been taken into consideration in the creation of a
development that will appropriately enhance the transition between all of the different
surrounding properties.
We respectfully request the City of Southlake Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council consider and approve a change in zoning from "AG"agricultural to"PUD: Planned
Unit Development District pursuant to the criteria presented and discussed herein.
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-305.WPD
Page 14
EXHIBIT "C"
This page reserved for the approved City Council motions for this case.
(WWI
L:`.CITYDOCS\ORD\CASFS`480-305.WPD
Page 15
City of Southlake,Texas
STAFF REPORT
February 12, 1999
CASE NO: ZA 98-157 PROJECT: Ordinance No. 480-302 / First Reading/
Rezoning- Tracts 1AIA2B and 1AIA2C. Ben J.
Foster Survey, Abstract No. 519
STAFF CONTACT: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator, 481-5581, ext. 743
REQUESTED ACTION: Zoning Change on property legally described as being Tracts j
1AIA213 and IAIA2C situated in the Ben J. Foster Survey, Abstract
No. 519, and being approximately 4.279 acres.
PURPOSE: Purpose of this request is to rezone the property to accommodate
home construction.
LOCATION: On the northeast corner of the intersection of Randol Mill Avenue
and Gifford Court.
OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Parvez and Seema Malik
CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural District
REQUESTED ZONING: "SF-IA" Single Family Residential District
LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential
NO. NOTICES SENT: Four(4)
RESPONSES: None
P&Z ACTION: January 7, 1999; Due to Case Resolution No. 97-22, this case was
not heard and was continued to January 14, 1999.
January 14, 1999; Approved(5-0)to table and to continue the Public
Hearing to the February 4, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting due to the applicant not being present.
February 4, 1999; Approved (6-0).
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.
�f�'
Sm-
gloom
lima im
n_I �
it
1 t► �
. _III ■ •� �� ♦ ._�
rR _ - •
NO PA
�►
.42 ME ME,Ow i
.15 . , ��'" �� � °.��•.:�;�.�� .•�.�► �1�
�� �'
TR 6A1 26.405 AC TR.1A1A1
rf 0 10.33 Ac
sCo ,m
E > ,
3.9244 ® D. PRENTICE "AGO'6.78 Ac
�� 1N ,N
,`:# 91
(D
cl�In TR.6B 1 A TR.681 I'
1 Aca 1 Ac I'
417 I'
Q I'
G. MASSIE
TR.6B2 2 Ac1,,
B• TR.1AtA2C . TR.1A1A2 ' TR.1AtA2D R.1A1A2E ' ?
2.14 A Ac 2.14 Ac 2.14 Ac 2.14 Ac
I
r~
TR.6B3 a�
2 Ac
a N3
O
TR.6B4
4 Ac
S1AN q
E�A� �vctV. CLARK
50 60A I + TR.1AlA3
A. 11.5 Ac
TR.6B11 _I
6.44 Ac ,.AG(,
IC
is
ADJACENT OWNERS Fps,
4 A N974 O AND ZONING Des S
8C-3 A A
c+WOR
`� A 0g3
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 480-302
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 1A1A2B AND 1A1A2C
SITUATED IN THE BEN J. FOSTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT
NO.519,AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 4.279 ACRES,AND
MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT"A"FROM"AG"AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO
"SF-1A 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 NEWSPAPER; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter
adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter
9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the
authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of
buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to
amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-302.WPD
Page 1
Ce WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "AG" Agricultural
District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a person
or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called by
the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether these
changes should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using the
facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and damages; noise
producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights on
established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of signs
to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic reasonably
expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate neighborhood;
adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off-street parking facilities;
location of ingress and egress points for parking and off-street loading spaces, and protection of
public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the promotion of health ad
the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the over-crowding of the land; effect on the
concentration of population, and effect on transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other
public facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among
other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the view
to conserve the value of the buildings,and encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout
this City; and,
(00"
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-302.WPD
Page 2 90.6
0%,
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake,Texas,does find that there is a public
necessity for the zoning changes. that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly
requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those
who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their
original investment was made; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes
in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers,
promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over-
crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision
of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is
a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been
a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts
of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore
feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are
called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake,
Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS:
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
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASFS\480-302.W PD
Page 3
()V
amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and
amended as shown and described below:
Being Tracts lAlA2B and 1AlA2C situated in the Ben J. Foster Survey, Abstract
No. 519, and being approximately 4.279 acres, and more fully and completely
described in Exhibit "A" from"AG" Agricultural District to "SF-IA" Single Family
Residential District.
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 Ordi
nance 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
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-3G2.WPD
Page 4
2c-
among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses
and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of
land throughout the community.
SECTION 5.
That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake.
Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those
instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance.
SECTION 6.
That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if
the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be
declared to be invalid,the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract
or tracts of land described herein.
SECTION 7.
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply
with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more
than Two Thousand Dollars($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to
exist shall constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 8.
All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all
violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting
zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued
(40.1
L:\CrrYDOCSNORD\CASES\480-302.WPD
Page 5 r'
8r
violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under
such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final
disposition by the courts.
SECTION 9.
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed
ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public
hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this
ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of
its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City
newspaper one time within ten(10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13
of the Charter of the City of Southlake.
SECTION 10.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as
required by law, and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES\480-302.WPD
Page 6
SC I
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of 0999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE:
ADOPTED:
EFFECTIVE:
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASES`480-302.W PD
Page 7
,jC 10
EXHIBIT "A"
METES AND BOUNDS
for
A tract of land situated in the B. J. Foster Survey, Abstract 519, County of
Tarrant, according to the Clerks File# D196192323, Tarrant County, Texas and
being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the intersection of the east line of Randol Mill Ave, (RNV) and the
north line a 60' wide Road Easement as recorded in Volume 10634, Page 104 of
the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas;
THENCE N 000 25' 23° W along said east line of Randol Mill Ave for 561.46' to a
point;
THENCE N 890 30'00" E leaving said east line for 332.00' to a point;
THENCE S 000 25'23° E for 561.46' to a point in the said north line a 60' wide
Road Easement;
THENCE S 890 30'00"W along said north line for 332.00' to the POINT OF
BEGINNING and CONTAINING 186,405 square feet or 4.279 acres of land.
L:\CITYDOCS\ORD\CASESN480-302.WPD
Page 8
$C•II
City of Southlake, Texas
STAFF REPORT
February 12, 1999
CASE NO: ZA 98-158 PROJECT: Preliminary Plat-Lots 1 & 2, Malik Estates
Addition
STAFF CONTACT: Dennis Killough, Senior Planner, 481-5581, ext. 787
Attached is a letter from the applicant requesting to table this item to the March 2, 1999, City
Council meeting.
L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\MEMO\98CASES\98-158PP.TBL
Date: February 11. 1999
Mr. Greg Last
Community Development Director
City of Southlake
667 N. Carroll Ave
Southlake,TX 76092
t
;Re: Case No. ZA98 158 -Preliminary Plat for Lots 1 &2 Malik Estates Addition
Dear Mr. Last:
I hereby request that the City Council table the above referenced case until the City
Council meeting on March 2. 1999.
I understand that I ne to r ubmit plans on February 22. 1999.
Sincerely,
Signature:
Printed Name:
L:\COMDEV\WP-FILES\FORMS\LTR\TBL-RQST.WPD
O��
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 9, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Greg Last, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Strategies for Extension of Infrastructure and other Development Incentives for
the State Highway 114 Corridor
Action Requested: Consideration of various issues related to economic development within the
State Highway 114 Corridor
Background
Information: With the continued progress of S.H. 114 we anticipate heightened interest in the
prime sites available along the corridor. There are several sites that have
characteristics capable of attracting businesses of significant economic benefit to
the City of Southlake as well as the County and State.
We would like to receive City Council direction regarding various methods of
motivating desired businesses to strongly consider Southlake. This
consideration is intended to be general in nature and not site-specific.
Financial
Considerations: There will be financial evaluations done on any alternatives suggested by
Council on a case-by-case basis.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: None
Alternatives: Various alternatives for motivating development include but are not limited to
the following: infrastructure installation, tax abatements, fast-track approvals,
dedicated staffing, employee training programs, etc.
Supporting
Documents: A notebook of Tax Incentives and related information was previously
forwarded. Contact Greg Last or Kate Barlow should you need another copy.
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends that serious consideration be given to adoption / approval of
appropriate motivational development incentives to attract desired businesses.
Approved S mi a to City Council:
City Ma ' O
Af��
C
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Award of bid to Don L. Owen, Inc. for the painting of the 0.5-MG
elevated storage tank on Florence Road
Action Requested: Staff requests the City Council award the bid to Don L. Owen,
Inc. for the painting of the 0.5-MG elevated storage tank on
Florence Road.
Background
Information: As part of the required maintenance to the elevated storage tank,
the steel components must be periodically painted on the inside
and outside of the tank. The paint is required to protect the steel
from rust and exposure to the elements of weathering.
The tank must be taken out of service in order to be painted.
Therefore, the tank can only be painted in the fall or winter
months when the water usage is at a minimum. The painting
must be completed prior to the spring when the water usage
begins to increase.
The Florence elevated tank serves the high-pressure plane. The
current color of the Florence tank is white with the letters
"SOUTHLAKE" painted the color green. The paint design on
the bid specifications is for the tank and legs of the tank to be a
light beige color with the letters "SOUTHLAKE" painted in
green.
The painting of the inside of the tank will also be included as part
of this project. The Texas Natural Resource and Conservation
* Commission (TNRCC) requires the inside of the tank to be
painted periodically to protect the water inside the tank from the
effects of the steel in direct contact with the water. TNRCC
requires an annual inspection of all water storage facilities. The
inspection report of May 1998 shows a need for repainting.
1 OB-1
The wireless telephone companies have already removed their
equipment from the tank in order to prepare the tank for painting.
Financial
Considerations: The estimated cost in the FY98-99 CIP budget was estimated at
$105,000. This estimated cost was for a specific type of paint.
Since this cost estimation, the paint supplier developed a new
type of paint for the inside of the tank that will increase the life of
the application up to 50% longer. (see attached letter from
Tnemec, dated February 11, 1999)
The estimated cost in the CIP budget did not account for this new
type of paint because it was not an approved type paint at the
time. Therefore, approximately $20,000.00 of the increased cost
can be attributed to the new type of paint specified. (see attached
letter from Tnemec, dated February 12, 1999)
Another factor attributing to the increase in cost is the high
demand now existing in the construction industry for this
particular work discipline.
Out of a total of six bids received, the low base bid is $135,400
from Don L. Owen, Inc. and the high base bid is $300,250 from
National Contracting. (see bid tabulation)
Base bid>one color with "Southlake" letters; apply
clearcoat only to the letters. ($135,400)
Alt. A>one color with "Southlake" letters; apply
clearcoat to the entire tank. ($154,000)
Alt. B>alternative paint scheme similar to Miron Tank,
without involving the additional steel components.
($152,200)
Citizen Input/
Board Review: At the request of Council members to determine the cost of an
* enhanced design for this tank, similar to Council's decision to
respond to the residents desires expressed to Council for the
design of the Miron Tank, staff bid as alternative (Alt. Bid B) a
similar paint design. (see attached—Architectural Exhibit)
10B&-2
Alternatives: Re-bid the painting next fall with the new interior paint bid as an
alternative. However, staff does not anticipate that the costs
would be reduced due to the work demand on the contractors.
Supporting
Documents: Bid tabulation
Map exhibit
Letter from Cheatham& Associates
Letter from Tnemec, dated February 11, 1999
Letter from Tnemec, dated February 12, 1999
Architectural exhibit
Staff
Recommendation: Council may award the contract for the base bid of $135,400 or,
if desired, Alternate bid B in the amount of $152,200 for the
alternative paint scheme. Please place this item on the February
16, 1999 Regular City Council Agenda for review and
consideration.
BW/th
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
I
ty ana 's O ice
a
i ^ 0 00 0 00 0 00 0
i o co -
v o0 0 00 0 00 0
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0
N t`j r U T 48. --� M
m
U
o p p
U � �C o0o I oo 00
ts
om LCD oo o0
o w m i bCmo
W = T c0 c2 cD I I Cl cD
' W = aLL ¢
_ o co p o0 0 00 0 00 0
N o h o po 0 00 0 00 0
00 0
' 1? o o - 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0
0 00 0 0o 0
v v t"� V ri o e7 u'i o a) r co o
' U tD ti C) CO O N
a T' to to tH N cA fA
co In O b O co
O Cl
00 p0
O O
_ W O O O O 0 0
I O co Z m z MO t� O � O
Q co `
Q. Q
i
i O I 0 0 O O O G 0 0 O
00 0 00 0
6 o ai v o v v o le
d co rn co m Nv tiv
U c� Sv� vr cov_ �
' Q N \ V O t00 N_O m
_ N
_ C) cr to LO I
Vi
(� • a co Q 000 Opp O O
p
G p UO 111 m z U � V N � 04 CO
CL rn v vW co co v
O o 1 a U Q
0 E N O O CD 40
O O O O O O O
0 0 O O Co CD
O
t-L r N qw O et O O O o O N
• O N
s4S b h p U pOj O m ClQ to T w W
Cl) 69� r' T� 44 V.
MMW {{!f4 rop � O�O�
CC
L pO O NOO p CM 40jCI Q C
a :
Z I—F.
T T
T T
' J ~
a t7
�' vi vi vi vi vi vi
S Z
Y
z co p N C N p N
Q � m m off W
V W � W r' Q Q
Z o a 03 as
LU m 2 W 2 U In
W
C� co W. 0 �� a� a a�
Z J z z - F z w z
• LL N m 93 0U W J
U W
Z Q F- 06
Z.F z a J a
u�
V z a F... J f- � t-
Q a z o
W > Q J
N O
w CO
a YAW �- p ZLL
'.
Y pCC� a o CYC n p G K
in
cl
Z C O W W OJ ~ d' - Q-'� O
tu
Q J C HW a~H to~F—
3 � m
Z z F z
pe-�-
z
w Z FJ_- a W Q W W Q
= 3 p00
V O O 0 m
IL
26 m t _
z 10B-4
{ O O O O O O O O O
�.- O O C O O O 0 0 Cl
M •»s» V► 69 tf3 401,
s9
m 0
i U I
N t m Q
N i Co?Q =° LLj d U
LLI
o0 0 00 0 00 0
~ 6699 69 Cl) CD C 69 69 411* 0
N
m 0
o U
LU
h 4
2 Q i V
m
ial'D a
minU =Q �
vvo 00 0 00 0 00 0
N O p O O O O O 0 O O O
CD O too t00 66 co
! U �� N 0 N O N N O N N O N
I Q� C �pO OO O OO O LdO 96
' C 0�tSlcScpr U N� c0'f MM 0 0" C.)M
U C 0 O O (A ER 69 6A
cp :0 7 �7
J r O O p p O O
' 0 caU OO OO OO
M U � m
� w oo 0
0pUNO �
p CV O NLC t0 r Z j ,CO .— � Z ..{► r- ch OM CD Cl)
0 O { Z 4. C'V co ('Y(0 LL
Q CO M Q Ci M a' O 00 40 O 00 O Cl0 O
Z M N 0 0 O O Cl O 0 O O
{� y Q I . 0 N fA 6A O 69 iH G O
i ^r) Cl) 0 U '4 46 c o
.CO COca
V� N
F- U Ch y
o 0 W
m ym mZ m
� �a3aie
a
Z �� J� n J J
J J
{ Q m�
m m so
vW LU a� Q
01)
�a O m W U W W
C7 IN J 0 0 Z Z F- F- Z~ Z~
Z ; U.� a
U W
00 0 0 0 O W
Z a ` Z W O z U J
_ E-- o a a a
U z a -� F, {-
Q O Y aW d J Z oJY Z
LLI N i �ul W caSao
ta-a °
0 OR
_ m
Q 0 W W° ~ m ° m W ~ v
HF aFW F
W Q w J cc � m
W z a W Waa
Q G W • • i--
= 3 m o
V ° o m t
Z 108-5
Painting of Florence Elevated Storage Tank
Florence Rd.
- -
— _ Flor--ence
levated --
E , ;
- - ,, Stofage
Tan k
_.
F Johnson
e
`ram
� N
No Scale
CHEATHAM
AND
ASSOCIATES
eon�as• 1 i. '.499
Robert Whitehead. P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Southlak�-
66, N. Carroll A,,I-nue
Sout hlake. TX -6092
RE: Water Tank Repainting
Florence Street 0.50 INIG Elevated Storage Tank
Recommendations for Award
Engineer's Project No. 001-536
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
We have reviev-ed the bids received on January 228, 1999 on the above referenced project. The low
bidder, Don L. Owen, Inc. was also the low bidder on both alternate bids. Mr. Owen is a reputable
inting contractor with extensive experience in painting water tanks.
We do recommend the City award this contract to the low bidder,Don L. Owen,Inc. based on the
council's selection of the base bid$135,400.00,the Alternate A Bid for$154,000.00 or Alternate
B Bid for$152,200.00.
We have listed a brief description of the work to be accomplished in each bid as follows:
Base Bid: Repaint exterior of tank including the name Southlake on two sides with a final clear
coat painted over the name Southlake.
Repaint the tank interior.
Alternate A: Repaint exterior of tank including the name Southlake on two sides with a final clear
coat painted on all exterior surfaces.
Repaint tank interior.
71
Alternate B: Repaint exterior of tank including the painting of architectural patterns in three
different colors followed by a clear coat painted on all exterior surfaces.
Repaint tank interior.
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
A Subsidiary Firm of Southwest Planning and Design,Inc.
1601 E. Lamar Blvd.•Suite 200 a Arlington,Texas 76011
817/548-0696-Metru 255-8-8 A aX 817265-8532 -
10B-7
J
JOutll,a�. a=t
We realize the base bid received was above the budgeted amount for this project(S105,000.00). We
feel we owe the City an explanation as to why the bids were higher than the budgeted amount.
We prepared the original specifications based on good quality- Tnemec paints. recognized as a
standard in the industry and applicable to potable water tanks. VV e based our estimated cost on
._.filar projects being bid in 199" a^id 1998. In Novernce: 1998. •we % ere contacted b% T lemec
�a__.. .ecreseniari��es who ad-.-Sed ou_ o'. ce of a re.� corrosion: resisra~- ,ai.t =^e,: had developed
:or 1^s:oe tan:coatings. 1 re paint and p=' ,-r 91-H_O ;ydroz:nc a6 oe'u 46'o to 0"o' llie exneciarc':
in the frequency of additional time between required repainting intervals. The standard interior
coating system should last from 8 to 12 years, however,the newly FDA approved Hydrozinc system
would extend this time from 16 to 20 years.
` l— felt it was cost effective and in the best interest of the City to alter our specifications to obtain
the best product available in the industry.
The cost of this paint is higher than existing interior tank paints and painting contractors are
unfamiliar with this new product and of their costs when applying it to tanks. We feel that these
xpressed conditions contributed to the higher base bid cost.
The second contributing factor for higher bids is due to specific areas of the construction industry
being very busy. Unlike general utility work,tank painting and elevated water tank painting does
not have the resource pool of contractors available during times of increased construction activity
due to the specialized technical disciplines of this type of construction work. In order to generate
or expand notices to prospective contractors, we sent special invitations by fax to 15 painting
contractors, in Texas and elsewhere in the United States, in addition to our regular resources for
notifying prospective bidders by advertisements and publications.
We feel the bids you received on this project could not be lowered by re-advertising now,or in the
foreseeable future, based on the activity we are witnessing in specialized areas of the construction
industry.
Sincerely,
Bill Lohrke
F:\WOKD�\SOUTH LAK 53611tr.W hitehcadcecommendatianswpd
1 OB--8
Feb-11-99 02139P P.06
i•w Lr av inv ic•v� la%m .. ---- -• ----- ..,,.
-Ytflff Caart,sl WCRrCt7?EO
rf;r70 tCRSS;, M.
rILr1.':Gr£S7 A71rt, Srl{G Z014, rlla9. Tl 13124 iZG: 112 �77•H10 /�1: r12 417•riil
Qfil(ES 4— 1AUAS. 839SIOr. UMAG TEXAS
Ft&uwy I I, I 9"
Mr.Bill 18rke
Chatbna A Associates
1601£.Lamar Blvd,Suite 2CC
Arg-agm—a TX 60!i
Ike: Sere rs Life Pmj4xUm of Series 91-HIO Hydro-Zicc Z M)
Dear BM:
The:sarAct life of cOa ft sytaetas for shed wbstraoca dcprsds cn maay variabks S%uugk%Y^
deVa of sorlbce pft paQatfaa,quulity of applkstrM film ftdM--s,tamomm cmdhww and Md==t
schedIAM
Today,tM most t;yq r speti5od coating systwu fartanit in s6m we two coati of Tneasrec twq-
oampaomt cvww• For took acaocioa the most$egomtly wecd ed syse ==taco cost of Themrc tsto-
ooa Ton-t qmw w4 aloe cod of eta=alipbsjk nretirMPL we row brie over 25 yew of muse bts uem
„Ah d=C Warr=k systems. As a geaaab nJt,a sY:re M sbMW bC t"Qvtd and r4PWqd
Whft
i%to S%biQwv has occurred. Wbcn prgpcdy sPDfi4the mcsE wuu ta7siGcotctWo sy6mm roues
ft�&Y:Y➢icaj�y proves 12-15 y0am aervkc life(cm7odw proton:Cm)witb We;W94MMM .
Brav %%R,oebo*.Moimf"y and Sbiek%bare oeeainae'"IF iv*$tVtrM(a dto Sao Hfe of
dal h ms ruftim tme eoaes7R syso m rhea have bees s ubjumd to a vta dgq e[MCP osna"Mditfmwt ffi
rwww ft thdr paper an this aebjeet,tttae will ad*s an pwde Prim rypieft COOD&dw
seevioa I&of t wr•Grnpoaoa apWW V)=mo and t epoorpWWbwuc a mo me tgs by 40-
50%do g an d,e wgmme at:vacomaet.
As dims.+ed strove,we sow%maw that peepeely appbed boo-car poftmut qmY SYMM"for imk htaedocs
and twovmWoomt cPotty1dipr'ao9 Iaae symmm for tasih a tomes rypieaty Ptrvide 12-1 S peaes
coarc um pr000ctim By vabig the above mfec m, amo-dob m z&m as t primer fort me symmi and
4S%as doe avtmvL pnoj}ecaed bocreme m tavics 16e.d"1841 ytta corrosion proteoeun for sleet Vmw
twim with hwe mammmmce bn am ttan sb3tw-
Ptme bstme lama►ff ow haw W gatea kw or need fort)sr info dan•
Sincat�,
oho l+d.Berry
J Int06c Tcuis RqccsCw:ui
a I• bvvwn.ldd.an09 and SbAML-UOdroad Restive C.oa0139 Cover.Produm and Service L de.*
RAKE Catfoeioa 96r Yapcs l4iwabw a77
L
1 OB-9
FtB-12-99 FRI 09:28 Teehno — Tnemec FAX NO. 9724736661 P. 01
x� CDAiINGS. 1'{t. ?? 56eG �X: 97: 473 66e1
O qu'(E_
34e 't! S'
:c ;s.. gsltAs. !+ou5�or. tEv�ti: ifXAS
February 12, 1999
Nit.gill L.arke
ClIeatham&Associates
1601 E.Lamar 331vd.,Suite 200
Arlington.TX 76011
1te: Estimated cost for Tnemec Series 91-H:0 Hydro-Zing:200
Dear Bill:
In regards to the increased��cost for adding above reference d primer w the inside of the tan1;,,there are
internal s ew• Considering all
many variables that come into play such as tank he�o rev ated moorage tank,that a contractor would spend
these factors,I would estimate that on a 500,000,
an additional S 5,5500.00 oa materials when ding thoe 91-�t elY m Oe000 00 to your protect. Thtwo coats of Series 20 us numb On
a 100'ta11 tank(�Pam),you would be ,app.
should,in most cases,cover material and labor.
Please let ma know in you have any questions or need ftuther in:brmation.
Qe Sincerely,
hn A Barry
Tnemec Texas Repti"e
100r-10
Jan-20-99 02 :24P P. 14
GdGtt �
-` � `ty fw.•lt�.S�
1
r `y
1
�ac.rri�aCE �b�i-- �c�rvv`�J►�,lY. Cot.o��Er'tE
moo'
D
ARTHURWEINMAN The fdlowing colors and color codes
T — po" are based on Tnemec Paints.
Color•A: Tea 8iscaat.Y
Color.•B" Esrdcer �iiare EN11
ARCHITECTURAL EXHIBIT FOR Color GC,* Ani6er'Canyo—EM114
ALTERNATE PROPOSAL, SCHEDULE B
1OB-1 •
` City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1 to Whitewater Construction for 315 Pine Street sewer
Action Requested: Staff requests the City Council to consider Change Order No. 1 to the
contract with Whitewater Construction in the amount of $43,912.50 (see
attached Change Order No. 1). Whitewater Construction was awarded the
contract for the sanitary sewer and paving improvements to Lilac Lane.
Background
Information: The contract to install sanitary sewer along Lilac Lane as well as
reconstruct Lilac Lane was awarded by City Council on January 19, 1999.
The contract documents have been executed and a pre-construction
conference is scheduled for February 12, 1999. Construction of the sewer
line along Lilac Lane should begin by the end of February. The
construction contract with Whitewater Construction includes constructing
the sanitary sewer along Lilac Lane from Dominion Drive to the
intersection of Pine and Lilac (see map exhibit). The anticipated
completion date for the construction of the sanitary sewer along Lilac
Lane is April 23, 1999.
The Lilac Lane project is the first phase of the project to reconstruct the
Lilac Lane / Pine Drive "roadway" from Byron Nelson to White Chapel.
Due to funding considerations and construction timetables (brought about
by right-of-way issues on Pine Drive), the project was split into two
phases. The second phase, Pine Drive, will be initiated in the fall of 1999,
contingent upon the required right-of-way acquisition. The second phase
will also include the construction of the sanitary sewer along Pine Drive.
Concerning the item for Change Order No. 1, Mr. Brad Barrington
approached city staff regarding the status of the sewer line construction
along Pine Drive. Mr. Barrington is in the process of constructing his
residence at 315 Pine Drive. Mr. Barrington paid his sewer impact fee at
the time he received his building permit and would like to connect to City
sewer rather than installing a septic system for his house under
construction. In order for Mr. Barrington to connect to the sanitary sewer,
the sanitary sewer line will have to be extended along Pine Drive from it's
current termination point (at the intersection of Pine and Lilac) to the
corner of Mr. Barrington's property (315 Pine Drive).
10C- I
The extension of the sanitary sewer along Pine can be accomplished by the
proposed Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Whitewater
Construction for the amount of $43,912.50, The design of the sanitary
sewer along Pine Drive is complete, therefore construction plans can be
generated for the Change Order No. 1. Pine Drive is currently scheduled
to be reconstructed following the installation of the sanitary sewer. Funds
have been allocated in the FY98-99 CIP budget for the construction of the
sanitary sewer and reconstruction of Pine Drive. The project will be
advertised for bids following the completion of the construction plans and
acquisition of the required right-of-way.
The reconstruction of Pine Drive will include realigning the intersection of
Pine Drive with S. White Chapel. In order to mitigate tree damage for the
reconstruction of Pine Drive, the engineer recommends designing the road
with horizontal curves or in other words, constructing Pine Drive to
meander around the large specimen trees. Therefore, additional right-of-
way will be required from some of the homeowners along Pine Drive,
especially the properties that are not platted. As in past experience, any
right-of-way acquisition required may delay the reconstruction of Pine
Drive. The amount a right-of-way required to reconstruct Pine Drive will
be known following the completion of the construction plans that are
being designed.
Due to the amount of time required for the acquisition of the required
right-of-way along Pine, Mr. Barrington's house will be completed prior
to the installation of the sewer along Pine. Therefore, he would be forced
to install a septic system. Mr. Barrington has explained to staff that he
would rather connect to sanitary sewer rather going through the expense of
installing a septic system and then connecting to the sewer a short time
later following construction of the sewer line.
The extension of the sanitary sewer line from the intersection of Pine and
Lilac to Mr. Barrington's property will only serve one additional property
along Pine until the sanitary sewer line is extended further north along
Pine in the future.
Financial
Considerations: The estimated cost for the engineering, surveying, and construction cost to
reconstruct Pine Drive and install the sanitary sewer along Pine Drive is
$400,000. In the CIP budget, $200,000 has been budgeted in the FY98-99
budget and $200,000 is planned to be budgeted in the FY99-00 for the
design and construction of Pine Drive. Therefore, the required $43,912.50
to change order the existing contract with Whitewater Construction can be
funded from the $200,000 budgeted in the FY98-99 CIP budget for the
Pine Drive improvements.
Q-1Citizen Input/
Board Review: Not applicable
10C-2
C
Legal Review: Not applicable
Alternatives: In discussions with Mr. Barrington to determine the alternatives to install
the sanitary sewer to his residence, the option to change order the existing
contract with Whitewater Construction seemed to be the simplest.
However, Staff has prepared a list of alternatives below for consideration
by City Council:
♦ Do not install the sanitary sewer along Pine Drive until the
construction plans are complete for the reconstruction of Pine and the
required right-of-way is obtained. The construction of the sanitary
sewer along Pine and the reconstruction of Pine would be bid as one
project. Therefore, Mr. Barrington will have to install a septic system
to serve his residence or pay a contractor himself to install the sanitary
sewer extension. A Developer's Agreement would have to be
obtained if Mr. Barrington chose to have a contractor build the
extension.
♦ Bid out the sanitary sewer along Pine Drive as a separate contract
immediately to expedite the installation. Then following the
completion of the construction plans and acquisition of the required
right-of-way, bid out the contract for the reconstruction of Pine Drive.
The sanitary sewer will be installed in the existing right-of-way. It
should be pointed out that bidding out the construction of the sanitary
sewer along Pine and reconstruction of Pine as two separate contracts
would increase the total cost due to duplicating mobilization and the
economy of scale.
Supporting
Documents: Change Order No. 1
Map Exhibit
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends Council consider Change Order No. 1 to Whitewater
Construction for 315 Pine Street sewer in the amount of $43,912.50.
Please place this item on the February 16, 1999 Regular City Council
Agenda for City Council review and consideration.
BW/sep
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
City Mana ice g
10C-3
CHANGE ORDER No. 1
Dated: February 10, 1999
OWNER=S Project No. ENGINEER=s Project No. 001-453
Project Sanitary Sewer. Water&Paving Improvements to Serve Lilac Lane
OWNER City ofSouthlake
Contract for Sewer, Water&Paving Contract Date: February 10, 1999
To: Whitewater Construction, Inc.
Contractor
You are directed to make the changes noted below in the subject contract:
Owner
By:
Date: ,1999
Nature of the �Y
changes: Extend sanitary sewer north on Pine Drive to serve new residence.
g
350 L.F. 8"PVC(SDR-35)in 10'to 12'trench @ $60.00 = $21,000.00
150 L.F. 8"PVC(SDR-35)in 12'to 14'trench @ 65.00 = 9,750.00
1 EA. Standard 4'dia.manhole(0'-6'depth) @ 1,500.00 = 1,500.00
8.5 L.F. Extra depth for manhole @ 125.00 = 1,062.50
480 L.F. Pavement replacement @ 20.00 = 9,600.00
2 EA. Sanitary sewer services @ 200.00 = 400.00
40 L.F. 4"PVC sewer pipe @ 15.00 = 600.00
$43,912.50
These changes result in the following adjustment of contract price and contract time:
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order $ 287,099.00
Net Increase Resulting from this Change Order $ 43,912.50
Current Contract Price Including this Change Order ,$ 331,011.50
NSPE-ASCE 1910-8-B(1978 Edition)
1 0C-4
Contract Time Prior to this Change 60 Calendar
(Days or Date)
Net Increase Resulting from this Change Order 15 Calendar
(Days)
Current Contract Time Including this Change Order 75 Calendar
(Days or Date)
The above changes are recommended:
Engineer
By:
Date: 1999
The above changes are recommended:
City
By:
Title:
Date: ' 1999
The above changes are accepted:
Contractor
By:
Date: 1999
FAWORDWORKMChange Order.wpd
1 OC-5
CHANGE ORDER N 0 . 1 TO
WH I TEWATER CONSTRUCTION
SOUTHLAKE BLS • °'
awe
,a Ac .76 Ac
Ac
.,.Ac
l]U AC
1.0 AC u AC ,4.AC Uis AC
1.0 AC Im AC
PRO OSED SEWER
EXTE SION INCLUDE
"A` N FlITURE PINE OR
RECONSTRUCTION
GPSN CON RACT
PG�ES '
2 3..
1.0 AC
W 1.0 AC a•AC
Z
a r AC
n Ae
in
M
G
PCR S ' s
ENE
3 ,a AC
BARRINGTON PROPERTY TT-M
c
a PROP ED SEW R
XTEN ION PER
CHAN ORDER NO. 1 XI TING MANHOLE
an
• ULAC
PROPOSED SEWER
TO BE NSTALLED
» W• ,;:. BY WHI rEWAlTFER CO T.
r.h d+AM cr MAC
sa AC NVA Ail
a AJ AC yy{AO
PUBLIC WORKS/
• ENGINEERING
-- I
1 OC-6 I
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Proposed Traffic Management Bond Issue
Action Requested: Discuss the needs and develop a plan for a proposed traffic
management bond issue.
Background
Information: City Council, at the 1998 June retreat, discussed the concept of
improvements to the intersection along F.M. 1709 and along
S.H. 114. On August 18, 1998, at a City Council meeting, some
preliminary cost estimates were presented. However, the idea of
a bond issue was delayed because of the CISD bond proposal.
Because of the continual increase in traffic on F.M. 1709 and the
impending construction on S.H. 114, improvements to the City's
intersecting streets is becoming critical to safely and effectively
managing the traffic along these highways.
Financial
Considerations: Finance Director Lou Ann Heath will have the financial
alternatives available for City Council meetings. The intent is to
structure a bond package that will minimize or require no tax rate
increase.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: None at the current time. Prior to an election, publicity and
presentations will be made to as many residents as possible.
Legal Review: City Attorneys will be involved at the appropriate time for legal
review and developing the bond package.
Alternatives: City Council may want to review and change priorities and add or
delete proposed projects.
11A-1
Supporting
Documents: February 3, 1999 memo with attachments to Curtis E. Hawk
discussing the various intersection improvements and updated
cost estimates.
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the needs and
consider developing a plan for a proposed traffic management
bond issue. Please place this on the February 16, 1999 Regular
City Council Agenda for review and consideration.
4tlt/rF4
-
BW/
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
Ci4a ' O ce
11A-2
c
City of Southlake, Texas
- I
i
MEMORANDUM
i
February 12, 1999
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Greg Last, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Amendments to Landscape Ordinance No. 544.
Action Requested: City Council direction to proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission
with an amendment to the Landscape Ordinance.
Background
Information: An amendment to this ordinance was requested by Councilmembers Scott
Martin and Debra Edmondson per the enclosed Project Advocacy Form
(PAF). Staff has met with these Councilmembers as a work group to
i evaluate potential revisions.
i
j
Some significant revisions include the following:
• Requirements for utilizing existing tree credits.
• An increase in the minimum size of plant material required at the time of
planting.
• The tenants responsibility to provided continued maintenance in
perpetuity of all landscape and irrigation.
• The elimination of credits which reduce the overall required amount of
plant material required for proposed developments.
i
Financial
Consideration: Not applicable.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: A work group composed of Councilmembers Scott Martin and Debra
Edmondson, staff members Greg Last and Keith Martin, has met and
discussed the revisions as proposed in this draft.
Legal Review: A copy of this draft has been forward to the City Attorneys office for
review.
Alternatives: Not applicable.
11B-1
Curtis E. Hawk
February 12, 1999
Page 2
Supporting
Documents: • Landscape Ordinance 544-A, Draft No. 4, Dated 02 /09/99.
• Project Advocacy Form (PAF) for the requested revisions to the
Landscape Ordinance.
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council give direction to staff to proceed to
the Planning and Zoning Commission with the amended ordinance as
proposed by the work group. Given this direction, we expect the
following timeline.
• Planning and Zoning - February 18, 1999
• City Council V Reading - March 2, 1999
• City Council 2nd Reading - March 16, 1999
�L
GL/km
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
Aw-
Q/ty nager's Office
11B-2
PROJECT ADVOCACY FORM
��HORT TITLE: Revisions to Landscape Ordinance
TYPE OF PROJECT: Scope: New , Minor Revision XX , Major Revision
Type: Ordinance XX , Master Plan Component , Project
Other:
REQUESTED BY: Scott Martin & Debra Edmondson, Councilmembers
STAFF CONTACT: Keith Martin. Landscape Administrator, 481-5581. ext. 848
DATE OF REQUEST; 6-24-98 DATE RECEIVED: 6-25-98 BY: GL
Outline problem, concern or opportunity. (Do not define solution)
±r
1. Coordinate Section 3.4 (parking lot landscaping) with concurrent revisions to the commercial
parking requirements.
2. Coordinate this ordinance with the revised"Tree Preservation Ordinance" with regards to credits, Y.
protection, irrigation, etc.
Insure proper maintenance & replacement of commercial landscaping & assessment of plant
material replacement standards.
List any potential considerations. (Do not define solution)
1. Update listed recommended plant materials.
General Comments:
List any references to be reviewed (other cities, etc.) or any documents attached to this request.
a. Revised Tree Preservation Ordinance.
b. Recommended plant materials from the Texas Agricultural Extension Service.
LICOMDEVIWP-FQ.ESPROJECTSPRIORrrY\PROJ-REQ.FP-Wi,INDSCOI.WPD Form Date: June 25,1998 Page I of I
11B-3
2 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE NO. 544 -A
4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE ESTABLISHING
5 CRITERIA AND REGULATIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
6 LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS ON NON-RESIDENTIAL
7 CONSTRUCTION AND MULTI-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION, OTHER
8 THAN DUPLEX USES; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING
9 FOR IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR PROTECTION
10 OF A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE; PROVIDING FOR THE PRESERVATION
11 OF EXISTING TREES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION OF
12 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS; PROVIDING FOR
13 LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY;
14 PROVIDING FOR MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING
15 IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATIONS, VARIANCES,
16 AND APPEALS FROM THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT THIS
17 ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES;
is PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
19 FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE;
20 PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND
?s PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(44�
WHEREAS the City of Southlake Texas is a home rule City acting under its charter
24 adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9
25 of the Local Government Code; and,
26 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake has determined that minimum
27 landscaping requirements for non-residential and multi-family dwelling (other than duplex) uses is
28 necessary to adequately protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
29
30 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
31 SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS:
L:CITYDOCS\ORD\DRAFTLANDSCAP4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 2/0 12/99 Page 1
11B-4
c
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
2 Table of Contents
3
4 PAGE
5 1.0 PURPOSE AND INTENT
6
7 2.0 DEFINITIONS
8 2.1 General Rules 1
9 2.2 Definitions 2
10
11 3.0 LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS
12 3.1 General 3
13 a: Existing Buildings 3
14 b. Pad Site Developments 3
15 c. Expansion orReconfiguration of Paved,Areas 3
Y _...m. _.,.
16 3.2 Bufferyards 4
17 3.3 Interior Landscape Area Requirements 4
18 a. Planting Requirements 4
19 b. Example 5
20 C. Locational Requirements 5 Credits
a R.O.W. L--ands6"ing Credits 5
d. Xeriscape Landscaping Credits 5
24 3.4 Parking Lot Landscape Area Requirements 5
25 a. Existing Trees 6
26 b. Planting Requirements 6
27 C. Exemptions 6
28 3.5 Visibility Triangle 6
29 3.6 Irrigation Requirements 6
30 a. Water Conservation 6
31 bWatefEenserwatien Credits 6
32
33 4.0 EXISTING TREE PRESERVATION
34 4.1 General 7
35 4- Trees-12"er-Greater- 7
36 a. Building Fee nt 7
37 b. Par-king Areas 7
38 43 42 Existing Tree Credits 7
39 a. Existing Tree Credit Calculation
4o 5.0 PLANT MATERIAL
41 5.1 Quality Standard 7
42 5.2 Recommended Plants 7
5.3 Size Requirements When Planted 8
a. Tree Measurement 8
b. Minimum Sizes 8
46
47
L.CrrYDocs\oRUKDRAFr1A.N'DSCAP4 _ LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 2
11B-5
,• LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
2 Table of Contents (continued)
3
4 PAGE
5 6.0 LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
6 6.1 Qualifications to Prepare Plans 8
7 6.2 Landscape Plan Requirements 8
8 6.3 Irrigation Plan Requirements 9
9
10 7.0 OTHER RELATED REQUIREMENTS
11 7.1 Screening (Ord. 480, Section 39) 10
12 7.2 Outside Storage(Ord. 480, Section 38) 10
13 7.3 B-ufferyards (Ord. 480, Section 42) 10
14
15 8.0 IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC R.O.W./EASEMENTS
16 8.1 General 10
17 8.2 R.O.W. Use greements 10
18 93 8.2 Replacement Responsibilities 10
19
20 9.0 REVIEW PROCEDURES
21 9.1 Submittal Requirements 11
a. Application Checklist 11
b. Fees 11
24 9.2 Authority for Review 11
25 9.3 Review Process 11
26
27 10.0 MAINTENANCE
28 10.1 General 11
29 10.2 Plant Material Replacement 11
30 a. ,'-Deferral of Landscape Replacement
31 10.3 Plan Requirements 12
32
33 11.0 ENFORCEMENT
34 11.1 Building Permit 12
35 11.2 Certificate of Occupancy 12
36 a. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 12
37 11.3- Deferral of Required landscape Installation
38 12.0 MODIFICATIONS, VARIANCES AND APPEALS
39 12.1 Modifications 12
40 12.2 Variances and Appeals 13
41
42 13.0 VIOLATIONS 13
14.0 SEVERABILITY 13
46 15.0 CONFLICTING ORDINANCES 14
47
L.CITYDOMORMDRAMLANDSCAP4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 3
- 11B-6
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
2 Table of Contents (continued)
3
4 PAGE
5 16.0 SAVINGS CLAUSE 14
6
7 17.0 PUBLICATIONS CLAUSE 14
8
9 18.0 EFFECTIVE DATE 14
10
11 19.0 APPENDICES 14
12 Appendix `A' - Recommended Plants 16
13 Appendix `B' - Required Landscape Summary 17
14 Appendix `C' - Typical Plant List 18
15 Appendix `D' —Application 19
16 Appendix `E' - Typical Plans 21
17
LC[TYDOCS\ORD\DRAFr,L1NDSCAP4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 4
11B-7
2 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
4 1.0 PURPOSE AND INTENT
5
6 The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the orderly and aesthetic development of the
7 City.and to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community. It is the intent
8 of this ordinance to achieve the following:
9
10 - A balance between the need for landscape treatments and the need for commercial growth
11 in the City.
12
13 - Promote a flexible attitude of enforcement sufficient to meet the spirit and intent of these
14 requirements.
15
16 -Promote mutually beneficial improvements by utilizing incentives rather than penalties.
17
18 - To aid in stabilizing the environment's ecological balance by contributing to the processes
19 of air purification, oxygen regeneration, ground-water recharge, storm water runoff
20 retardation and erosion control.
c
- Provide for the separation and buffering of incongruous uses and intensity of activities; and
provide for the visual softening of building masses.
24
25 - Reduce glare from paved surfaces, dust nuisances and the impact of noise.
26
27 - Protect and promote the value of residential and commercial properties within the City.
28
29 - Promote a positive image for the attraction of new business enterprises within the City.
30
31 - Encourage the protection of healthy trees and vegetation and promote the natural
32 ecological environmental and aesthetic qualities of the City;
33
34 2.0 DEFINITIONS
35
36 2.1 GENERAL RULES: For the purpose of this ordinance, the following rules shall be
37 applied in constructing, interpreting or otherwise defining the terms and provisions
38 hereof:
39
40 1. Words used in the present tense shall include the future, words used in the
41 singular number shall include the plural number and words used in the plural
42 shall include the singular.
2. The word "shall" is mandatory and the word "may" is permissive.
46 2.2 DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this ordinance, certain words or terms applicable
47 hereto are defined as hereinafter provided. Words and terms used in this ordinance,
L:CITYDOCS.OMDRAFM ANDSCAP4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 5
11B-8
,,. but not defined in this ordinance shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the
2 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City. Words and terms defined in both
3 ordinances shall be read in harmony unless there exists an irreconcilable conflict in
4 which case the definition contained in this ordinance shall control.
5
6 BUFFERYARD: A bufferyard is a unit of land, together with a specified amount of
7 planting thereon, and any structures which may be required between land uses to
8 eliminate or minimize conflicts between them.
9
10 BUILDING FOOTPRINT: The area of the building in contact with the ground.
11
12 CALIPER: Diameter of the trunk measured one foot(l') above ground level.
13
14 CANOPY TREES: A perennial woody plant, single or multiple trunk, contributing
15 to the uppermost spreading branchy layer of a forest and may be commonly referred
16 to as shade trees.
17
18 N14ANCL�V�j-ERjj. Apen:neable a
ueub ' ti o p n o ent
19 material -t a s pedestFian of v L 1, a p „t ineltiao
20
1
GROUND COVER: Low growing, dense spreading plants typically planted from
containers.
24
25 INTERIOR L-GT LANDSCAPE AREA: The area of the lot remaining after
26 subtracting out the area included in the required bufferyards.
27
28 LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR: The City Manager or his designee.
29
30 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: A person registered as a Landscape Architect in the
31 State of Texas pursuant to state law.
32
33 LANDSCAPE AREA: An area which is covered by natufal living grass, ground
34 cover, or other implant materials.
35
36 LAWN GRASSES: Thin bladed surface growing plants typically planted from seed,
37 sprigs or plugs.
38
39 LICENSED IRRIGATOR: A person duly licensed by the State of Texas to design
40 and install irrigation systems.
41
42 PERMEABLE PAVEMENT: A paving material that permits water penetration.
R.O.W. PARKWAY: That area within the public right-of-way (R.O.W.) between
the back of curb or edge of pavement and the right-of-way line.
46
47 SEASONAL COLOR: Landscape areas used for annual and perennial flowers
L:CITYDOCS\OMDRAFIMLANDSCAP4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 6
11B-9
intended to maintain year-round color accents.
2
3 SHRUBS: Plants which grow vertically in a multi-branched growth pattern.
4
5 UNDERSTORY/ACCENT TREES: Small evergreen or deciduous perennial woody
6 plants which would grow below the top layer of the forest and typically has unique
7 branching, textural or seasonal color characteristics.
8
9 3.0 LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS
10
11 3.1 GENERAL: The requirements herein shall apply to all new non-residential
12 construction and multi-family construction other than duplex uses. The requirements
13 for landscaping shall combine the bufferyard requirements, minimum landscape
14 areas on the interior portion of the lot, and minimum landscape areas for parking
15 areas.
16
17 a. Existing buildings: Buildings in existence on the effective date of this
18 ordinance shall be considered legally nonconforming as it pertains to this
19 ordinance. The r-equireawnts herein shall net apply to new eenstmeti
20 neeessafy ter—eplaee a legally nenee4afming—stfuettife -Whieh has
21 dest-eyed b 'fir-e New construction intended to increase the square footage of
the existing building by 30% or greater shall be required to meet the
requirements herein. Such 30% shall be based on the original nonconforming
24 structure in existence on the date of approval of this ordinance. Any new
25 construction which exceeds 5,000 square feet shall be required to-meet the
26 requirements herein. The requirements herein shall pertain only to the square
27 footage of the proposed new construction.
28
29 b. Pad site developments: Pad site developments or ground lease developments
30 shall be required to provide landscaping in accordance with the interior
31 landscape requirements of Section 3.3 herein.
32 _ r.
33 c. `- Expansions or eco hon of Paved Areas Any expansion r or
34 qua oaf: �e argeas s�abe ui accordance tenth Section�4 herein.
�_.,.x .� F a..wy....._v_ � y.., r.._ .�...w,......_ W �.�,_
35
36 3.2 BUFFERYARDS: All plant material required by the bufferyard section of the
37 Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 480 as amended, Section 42) shall be shown on the
38 required Landscape Plan.
39
40 3.3 INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIREMENTS: The amount of landscape
41 area required on the interior of the lot (excludes bufferyards) shall be based on the
42 square footage of the proposed buildings. The square footage of the building for the
purposes of this ordinance will be the square footage of the first floor or the square
footage of the largest floor, whichever is greater. Fer--single stei=y retail a ehe
,
46 shall be the fr-ent width ef the building mulfip4ied by a depth ef sixty feet (60').
47
L:CiTYDOCS\ORD\DRAFPLANDSCAP4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 7
11B-10
t
The required landscape area for each zoning shall be based on the percentage (%) of
2 the floor area as determined above in accordance with the following chart.
3
4
5 ZONING PERCENT OF FLOOR AREA
6 MF-2, 0-1, 0-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
7 C-1, C-2, C-3,HC . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
8 CS, B-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30%
9 C-4, B-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
10 I-1, &I-2 Building less than 10,000 S.F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
11 1-1, & I-2 Buildings 10,000 S.F. or greater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
12
13 All buildings in SP1 and SP2 and buildings other than Single Family or Duplex uses
14 within PUD or other districts shall meet the requirements of the closest zoning
15 category noted above.
16
17 a. Planting Requirements: The following plants shall be required within the
18 required interior landscape areas at the ratio indicated.
19
20 - 1 Canopy Tree per 600 square feet
- 1 Understory Tree per 300 square feet
- 1 Shrub per 60 square feet
- Ground Cover- 10% of required area
24 - Seasonal Cover-2°!0 of Required area
25
26 b. Example: Three story office building (0-2 Zoning), each floor has 4,000
27 square feet.
28
29 First Floor = 4,000
30 Second Floor = 0
31 Third Floor = 0
32 Effective Floor area 4,000
33
34 Times 50% x .50
35 =Required Landscape area 2,000 sq.ft.
36
37 Required Canopy Trees @ 1/600 sq. ft. = 3
38 Required Understory Trees @ 1/300 sq. ft. = 7
39 Required Shrubs @ 1/60 sq. ft. = 33
40 Required Ground cover area @ 10% =200 sq. ft.
41
42 C. Location Requirements: A minimum of 75% of all required
within the inter-ier- landseaf
ii� .; � antna th
cata' areas shall be in the front and along either side of
4 the building between the building and the interior edge of the required
46 bufferyards.
47
LCIrYD0cs\0RD\DRAFr1.ANDscar4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 8
11B-11
d. lr 1, a Pavement Credits; 1; J ene � a feet /1 ) of enh e pn o ..et
2 afea, the required iiAer-ier- landseape area may be r-edueed by one half feet
3
(.5'). The fit given fer- enhaneed pa-vement shall be ten per-
4 ° .
5
6 e. R.G.W. LmxdsEaping-Creditb' The requiredinter-ier_ laud senYa area be
auaau.an��
7 0
8 establish, �SR.O.W.SSSS �/nFk-way ale
„g
0
9 the fient ef their- pr-epefty.--The percentage credit shall be 1..n..e.a +I e
uav
10 0paFkwayo
11 credit}
12
13 e. Xeriscape Landscaping credits The required interior landscape area may be
14 reduceeieb a m fiver' :;ercent' 5°O when the apIicant chooses to
15 design the�scap of tolerant�itant species as approved b}r,the
16 T;andscap� 1ratoThis credit slap only be c6nsidered if.at least 50°fo
17 of the iota re r aired 1 F� ' A
andscape plantings"aze:drought tolerant plant species.
18
19 3.4 PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIREMENTS: Planter- islands shall 1,
20
21 The parking
lot landscape area requirements shall be modified as'follows based on the percentage
,.� of parking located between the building facade and 4he R.O.W..
24
25
26 Less than 25%'= ,. , `°`l0 sq:ft.per parking stall
27 25% -75%o = 13 sq. ft.per parking stall
28 Greater than 75% = 23 sq. ft.per parking stall
29
30 Each row of parking stalls shall provide the required landscape area, however, it
31 shall be the applicant's right to place the islands near the buildings, throughout the
32 parking, or at the end of the rows away from the building. The Landscape
33 Administrator may modify the island requirement for each row in situations where it
34 would appear beneficial to combine an awkward or hazardous island into a larger
35 island within the parking area. Planter islands shall have a minimum width of 8! 22'
36 back-to-back if curbed or 9' 13' edge-to-edge if no curb is intended, and shall be
37 equal to the length of the parking stall. Parking lot landscape areas do count
38 towards the total required interior landscape area.
39
40 a. Existing Trees: The Landscape Administrator may approve variations to the
41 planter island requirements in order to preserve existing trees in interior
42 parking areas. For existing trees the minimum width of the planter island
shall be as follows:
46
47
L:C1TYDDCs\ORD\DRAFr1ANDSCAP4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 9
11B-12 -
(Moe A �Isla�dWic�lfi � �nr )�3�s��'reeto.Cttrb
��� Qf ... .,:a*1,
2 v ealiper--6r-l2Sss — �ufn width
3 6" - 12" caliper = 12' minimum width 41"
4 greater than 12" caliper = 18'minimum width 8'
5
6 b. Planting Requirements: " minimtffn of 50,o a= All planter islands in
7 parking areas shall contain a minimum of one (1) canopy tree with the
8 remaining area in shrubs, ground cover, grasses or seasonal color. Planter
9 islands which have light poles for lighting the parking areas may substitute
10 two (2) understory/accent trees for the required canopy tree.
11
12 C. Exemptions: Parking garages are not required to provide landscape areas
13 interior to the"parking area.
14
15 3.5 VISIBILITY TRIANGLE: No requirements herein shall be deemed to require
16 plantings which would conflict with the visibility triangle at the intersection of
17 public R.O.W. as defined in the Subdivision Ordinance. Consideration should also
18 be given to visibility at the intersection of major driveways with the public R.O.W.
19
20 3.6 IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS: All required landscape areas shall be irrigated by
21 an automatic irrigation system designed by a Licensed Irrigator, Landscape Architect
or other professional authorized by the State to design such systems. Natural
meadows of wild flowers or other native habitat shall not be required to be irrigated.
24
25 b. Water Conservation: The City would like to promote the use of efficient
26 irrigation methods and practices. Where possible in planting beds, flood
27 irrigation, porous pipe or emitter/drip systems should be utilized. Where
28 slopes do not allow flood systems, flat spray heads should be utilized under
29 shrubs rather than upward spray heads on risers above shrubs. Lawn
30 spray heads should have low precipitation rates, run for longer periods of
31 time, and water infrequently to promote deep root growth for grasses.
32
33 Water- Cens21si�en Cr-e�s t4 4`Isystems—JJTU---rr--A —4 zr� �� Y
34 0
35 0
36
37 4.0 EXISTING TREE PRESERVATION
38
39 4.1 GENERAL: One of the City's greatest assets is the existence of many specimen
40 quality native trees. One objective of this ordinance is the preservation of these trees
41 while allowingqualitydevelopment to take lace. D :e1 enfnttstalaa co p
42
a o�3rdiiance
4 E- 1.211 O GG-R A Tl~D All t a r ne 4--- with 1 f 1
(Awl gFeater- sha4l be saved in landseape areas as a paft of the develepmen
�z
46
47
L:C1rYD0Cs\0RD\DRAF\ANDSCAP4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 10
11B-13
(Swe
a. Building F *rxxr�ii The abe;er-equir-eme„t shall not
2intended or- the +, l building f r t t plus a r-easenable ,1 * l`` " . :ae
3 this-area- er-eenstfuetien vehiele e «b and grading r-eq e„ts
4
5 b P--af n, Areas. The b t shall apply ll not * the ., ,,„te le d
�s K
6 T., fire laneer- aFl6 g staff�
7
8 44 4.2 EXISTING TREE CREDITS Credits may only be gr ited if the tree/s are in healthy
9 condition and all re a eats oftheTree Preservation Ordn�nce:have een met as
to determined byfibe .ariscape Adstraor at the tirrie of inspection for a Permanent
11 Certificatesof Occiparicy
t
12
13 a. ._ ExstmgYee C-rediVCalculation Existing trees which are saved in landscape
14 areas and have at least 59°�0 ?5 of the `Critical Root Zone' within
15 that area&Ball 6W be granted credits toward reducing the required plantings
16 asfollows:
17
18 Size of Tree Saved Canopy Understory
19 6" - 12" DBH =-2 l or -3- 2
20 Greater'than 12"DBH =-3 2 or -4. 3
21
5.0 PLANT MATERIAL
24 5.1 QUALITY STANDARD: All plant material shall be of No. 1 grade, free from plant
25 disease, of typical growth for the species, have a healthy, normal root system,
26 rounded branching pattern, and shall conform to the code of standards set forth
27 in the current addition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock.
28
29 5.2 RECOMMENDED PLANTS: Shown in Appendix 'A' is a list of recommended
30 plants within each plant material type. The applicant may propose plants other
31 than those listed if the plant seems appropriate for the intended use or the applicant
32 maintains a plant care program sufficient to properly care for the proposed plant
33 material. The City reserves the right to approve or disapprove required plants and
34 planting through lx i c pe Adniuustrator of. City appointed Landscape
35 Architect, horticulturist, or other person so qualified.
36
37 5.3 SIZE REQUIREMENTS WHEN PLANTED: All plants shall equal or exceed the
38 following measurements when planted. Plants larger than specified may be used but
39 use of such plants shall not decrease the size requirements of other proposed
40 plants.
41
42 a. Tree measurement: Canopy and understory trees with single trunks shall be
measured by caliper size one foot (1') above the ground line. Multi-Trunk
trees shall be measured by the height of the tree.
46
47
L:CrrYD0CS\0RD\DRAFPIUNDSCAP4 _ LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 11
11B-14
b. Minimum Sizes: Minimum plant size when planted shall be as follows:
2
3 Plant Material Type Minimum Size
4 Canopy Tree
5 Single Trunk " 21/2'l caliper
6 Multi-Trunk Clump 6-feet g feet(height)
7 Understory Tree 4 feet f"i fee (height)
8 Shrub* 3atlgi
9 Dee..eus '-5 in-,
10 Evergreen
12 inehes (height)
11 Groundcover 4" containers
12
13 * ,The Landscape Administrator may approve smaller size shrubs based on unusual
14 growing circumstances and/or on a specific design which reflects the overall intent of
15 this ordinance.
16
17 6.0 LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
18
19 6.1 QUALIFICATION TO PREPARE PLANS: For all lots greater than 30,000 square
20 feet, Landscape Plans shall be prepared by a Registered Landscape Architect. For
21 lots less than 30,000 square feet, a Landscape Designer or Landscape Contractor,
knowledgeable in plant materials and landscape design may also prepare the
(hooe landscape plan. Irrigation plans shall be prepared by a Licensed Irrigator or
24 Landscape Architect. The Landscape Acmmtrator may rejects plansf deemed of
25 unprofessional°.quality orv'corr Ieteness -and.regtured That bplans;be -prepared, by a
26 Registered'Landscape'Architect i' ther qualifed professional.
27
28 6.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The following items shall be provided on
29 the required landscape plan.
30
31 a. Sheet size 24" x 36", or as approved.
32
33 b. Acceptable scale: 1" = 10', 1" =20', 1" — 4 0'or as approved.
34
35 c. North arrow, graphic and written scale in close proximity.
36
37 d. Appropriate title(i.e. "Landscape Plan")
38
39 e. Title block includes street address, lot and block, subdivision name, city,
40 state, date of preparation.
41
42 f. Name and address of owner.
(W g. Name, address and phone of firm preparing plan.
46 h. Boundary shown with dimensions.
47
L.CITYDOCS\ORD\DRAFP NDSC"4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 12
11B-15
i. Any existing utilities shown. (i.e. water, sewer, storm drain, gas, electric,
2 cable, etc.)
3
4 j. Width and type of bufferyards labeled on all sides.
5
6 k. Location, caliper size and name of all existing trees 6" caliper or more which
7 are to be preserved.
8
9 1. Location, quantity, size and name of all proposed plant materials.
10
11 M. Maintenance note provided. (Section 10.1)
12
1> Label t5pe i'y enhaneed r r~ter"
14
15 n. Pravidestandard $ufferyard and Tntenor Landscape' Calculatiozi Chart from
16 4proy Siq` a
17
18 0. Visibility triangles shown.
19
20 p. Landscape Architect seal signed and dated.
21
q. Plant list shown with format similar to Appendix 'C'.
24 r. Any berms delineated with one-foot(P) contour intervals.
25
26 6.3 IRRIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: The following items shall be provided on
27 the required irrigation plan.
28
29 a. Sheet size 24" x 36", or as approved.
30
31 b. Acceptable scale: 1" = 10', 1" = 20', 1" = 40' or as approved. (Must be same
32 as Landscape Plan)
33
34 C. North arrow, graphic and written scale in close proximity.
35
36 d. Appropriate title (i.e. "Irrigation Plan")
37
38 e. Title block includes street address, lot and block, subdivision name, city,
39 state, date of preparation.
40
41 f. Name and address of owner.
42
g. Name, address and phone of firm preparing plan.
h. Boundary shown with dimensions.
46
47 i. Location of all existing trees 6" caliper or larger which are to be saved.
L:CITYDOMORMDRAF "XI)SCAP4 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 Dated 02/12/99 Page 13
11B-16
2 j. All pipes labeled as to size.
3
4 k. All heads labeled as to type. (Legend is acceptable)
5
6 1. Backflow prevention labeled with type and size.
7
8 m. Connection to water service shown after meter.
9
10 n. Second meter(with size) shown if intended.
11
12 o. - Any existing utilities shown. (i.e. water, sewer, storm drain, gas, electric,
13 cable, etc.)
14
15 P. Note on plan: "All backflow installations and connections to city water
16 lines must be permitted separately by the City inspection staff. Call (817)
17 481 5581,, ext. 0.
1s
19 q. Maintenance note provided. (Section 10.1)
20
21 r. Plan sealed, signed and dated by qualified professional as authorized by
State law.
24
25 7.0 OTHER RELATED REQUIREMENTS
26
27 7.1 SCREENING: All the requirements of the Screening section of the Zoning
28 Ordinance (Ord. 480 as amended, Section 39) shall be met and shown on the
29 required landscape plan.
30
31 7.2 OUTSIDE STORAGE: All the requirements of the Outside Storage section of the
32 Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 480 as amended, Section 38) shall be met and shown on
33 the required landscape plan.
34
35 7.3 BUFFERYARDS: All plant material required by the bufferyard section of the
36 Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 480 as amended, Section 42) shall be shown on
37 the required Landscape Plan.
38
39 8.0 IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC R.O.W. /EASEMENTS
40
41 8.1 GENERAL: it is net the ipAeat ef this er-dinanee te r- -ife 'an seape
3ed o ra ire
a • ae , ` A maximum of
(�We ten percent (10%) of the required interior plant material may be placed within
the R.O.W. parkway. :s +ea• Should the applicant elect
46 to provide iWreve '� ublic R.O.W.,
47 3` a erl a ,� ,1 co e a e xce l
L:CITYDWS%0RDDRAFrLANDSCAN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE 544-A Draft No.4 _ Dated 02/12/99 Page 14
11B-17
3 82 U.O.W. USE AGREEMENTS. Pfie. to y 1.,,,.aseape/:,..igatie .z—e t"
—� --r- --ate «.,rpw
4 within publie R.O.W., a R.G.W. Use Agr-eefnent shall I
etited in
5 cvazivrirrmzcc-with rcri tco—set—occ�oT the Drr ..t.,. ... . .....l... ,..,&.,.
6
7 9:3 8..2 REPLACEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES: The City shall endeavor to require
8 replacement of all landscape/irrigation improvements as a part of contracts to
9 install public utilities within public R.O.W. and/or public easements. The City
10 and owner shall not be responsible for replacing these improvements. In the event
11 the City anticipates utility improvements conflicting with intended
12 landscape/irrigation improvements, the City may require that the applicant wait
13 to install said improvements until after the public improvements have been
14 installed or under certain circumstances, the City may prohibit landscape
15 improvements within the R.O.W.
16
17 9.0 REVIEW PROCEDURES
18
19 9.1 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The Landscape Administrator shall establish
20 administrative procedures necessary to facilitate the implementation and
21 enforcement of this ordinance.
22
a. Application Checklist: All submittals shall be accompanied by an
(W application form and completed checklist. Landscape Plans shall be
25 accompanied by the required Landscape Summary(Appendix 'B').
26
27 b. Fees: All submittals shall be accompanied by a check payable to the City
28 in the amount specified by City Council.
29
30 9.2 AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW: The Landscape Administrator shall be
31 responsible for the review of all plans submitted in accordance with the
32 requirements of this ordinance.
33
34 9.3 REVIEW PROCESS: The Landscape Administrator shall review the required
35 submittals and provide the applicant with a written summary of the review. It
36 shall be the applicant's responsibility to revise the submittals as necessary to
37 obtain approval.
38
39 10.0 MAINTENANCE
40
41 10.1 GENERAL: The Owner, tenant and their agent, if any, shall be jointly and
42 severally responsible for the c wom maintenance m perpetuity of all
43 landscaping and irrigation. All required landscaping shall be maintained in a neat
ce
and orderly manner at all times. This shall include mowing, edging, pruning,
fertilizing, watering, weeding, and other such. activities common to the
maintenance of landscaping. Landscaped areas shall be kept free of trash, litter;
47 weeds and other such material or plants not a part of the landscaping. All plant
48 materials shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition as is
Landscape Ordinance 544-A Draft No. 1 Dated 02/12/99 Page 15
11B-18
appropriate for the season of the year. All irrigation heads or lines which are
2 broken and flow water shall be replaced/ repaired immediately to prevent the
3 waste of water.
4
5 10.2 PL '`TT r "NDSCA kANT -1VIATERTAI REPLACEMENT: The Owner
6 shall be responsible for replacing all '*gWjed plant material which shows dead
7 branching over 7S°� 50% or more of the normal branching pattern and repair
8 of irrigation system requirements set herein in perpetuity: for- the period ef one
9 (1) year—fr-em the-date-ef the issuanee of a Gei4ifieate of Oe Plant
10 materials which die shall be replaced with plant material of similar variety and
11 similar initial size. Upon notification by the City of such replacements, the
12 Owner shall have thirty (30) days to comply with these requirements.
13 •
14 a. DefenalYof Land eape R lacement' The Landscape Admuustrator may
� .
15 approve a deferral of.requued plant_v replacement in ;accord nce with
'.f .. ._
16 Section 11.3 herein.
17
18 10.3 PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Paragraph 10.1 above shall be shown on the
19 Landscape Plan and the Irrigation Plan.
20
21 11.0 ENFORCEMENT
11.1 BUILDING PERMIT: No building permits for building, paving, grading or
24 construction shall be issued until a Landscape Plan meeting the requirements
25 of this ordinance has been approved by the Landscape Administrator.
26 Under certain conditions such as a "Fast Track" building process for large
27 developments, the developer and the Landscape Administrator may negotiate
28 the submittal of a Landscape Plan at some time after the issuance of the
29 original building permit.
30
31 11.2 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: All plantings, screening, berms or other
32 requirements of this ordinance shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
33 Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). Any sod intended must be installed, hydromulch
34 areas must be sprayed. Turf establishment is not required prior to issuance of a
35 C.O.
36
37 a. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy In any casenwhich a temporary
WWI
38 GertlficateofQce anc C 0 i ecbecause d"Iay f=lhe
39 re andscap a'on sal eor ce. e one3
40
41 A,1 t + detefmines that it weuld be ;..,p-retie l to install plam4i figs
14111�
42 as required herein,
issued er-the intended use 4' period..et tee ee.l x ...� (6) ..ths D« .�
the ph ..t shall p i.le a lets Fe,-e.lit
(we eser-ew s6-tczl'r8-iSSl�t3EG-v , � 1-VSzl�ul�, ••
deposit e I1� J14i11Kt1V11 of
46
47 Suet, t shall b ,i ,1 1.y an itemized bid p a ,e,l by a eli��l
Landscape Ordinance 544-A Draft No. 1 Dated 02/12/99 Page 16
11B-19
.,treete UeMthete f iluretheof the n,phea.,t to plate the stellet;.,r
11V11
2 e e.,ts the City sha l have the right to draw ,pen the letter e f e-erl;t
3 eser-e . de sit to `e l`t` the install».ie o f the - e --efRe ,tV t,ere_.,
..mot.; `�:1,. ... ..... �1::
4 Aft), P,nds in e e o f these required to_eemplete the i„st.,llet:e„ s e„l
5 be retai ed by the G ty to eFF et its administfatien eest..
6
7 11": Def ofRe'wr e'Zi1S a' 12�y eas a�C O:�fs
8 sought-'- ptan ac"`" sxe u ed£a a seas h e ch the
9 Lai�dsa�e n� ermui p �e 1 (all
10 plantings as herein; a�rary ca a ancy
11 (T'.0 O)or a def of the require plant epla-e nnent ma be gt en foi a
12 period not toexceedsix6) months. Theappl�cant shairbee `to
13 provide;a letter.Q a _ t,or escro d ostt ' amour eient to
14 cover,the msfallatr ' of tlie�landa e' n requzremt ws lierem
15 plus a I Q°fo conhn G # uch "am deneedi , emtzed
_" F
16 bid preparedbyza ecl icon r onth failure�oy $TT, cant to
� r
17 complete they insta, a oegwr en a ty shall haven gitto
18 draw pon the ale er of escrow credit d ep r ' osit to eomplete the
19 installation of the requirements lmpr& Ai'y funds m;excess of those
20 required to complete the;installatton should be retained by theCity to
21 offset its administration costs.
(W
24 12.0 MODIFICATIONS. VARIANCES AND APPEALS
25
26 12.1 MODIFICATIONS: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in
27 complying with the provisions of this ordinance, the Landscape Administrator
28 may grant modifications in individual cases provided he shall first find that a
29 special individual reason makes strict compliance with this ordinance impractical;
30 that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this
31 ordinance; and that the proposed modification is at least the equivalent of the
32 requirements prescribed by this ordinance. Such modification may only be made
33 upon written application filed with the Landscape Administrator and the details of
34 any action granting a modification shall be recorded and entered into the files of
35 the City.
36
37 12.2 VARIANCES AND APPEALS: Any applicant who desires a variance or
38 elimination of the requirements herein, or who desires to appeal a decision by the
39 Landscape Administrator, shall file a written appeal with the City Manager for
40 consideration by the City Council. Such appeal shall be accompanied by adequate
41 graphic reproductions, a written summary of the request, and justification for such
42 request. The City Council shall have the authority to grant an interpretation or
variance to the requirements of this ordinance. In granting any variance, the City
Council shall determine that a literal enforcement of the regulations herein will
create an unnecessary hardship or a practical difficulty on the applicant, that the
46 situation causing the unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty is unique to the
47 affected property and is not self-imposed, that the variance will not injure and will
Landscape Ordinance 544-A Draft No. 1 Dated 02/12/99 Page 17
11B-20
be wholly compatible with the use and permitted development of adjacent
2 properties, and that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit
3 and purpose of this ordinance. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
4
5 13.0 VIOLATIONS
6
7 Any person, firm, corporation, agent or employee thereof who violates any of the
8 provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof
9 shall be fined not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($500.00) for all
10 violations. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate
11 offense.
12
13 14.0 SEVERABILITY
14
15 It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases,
16 clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if
17 any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared
18 unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction,
19 such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses,
20 sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been
21 enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such
(W unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
24 15.0 CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
25
26 This Ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be cumulative of all other
27 ordinances of the city; and this Ordinance shall not operate to repeal or affect any of
28 such other ordinances except insofar as the provisions thereof might be inconsistent
29 or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance, in which event such conflicting
30 provisions, if any, in such other ordinance or ordinances are hereby repealed.
31
32 16.0 SAVINGS CLAUSE
33
34 All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all
35 violations of the provisions of any ordinances affecting the regulations for installation
36 of landscaping improvements which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this
37 ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and
38 criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be
39 affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts.
40
41 17.0 PUBLICATIONS CLAUSE
42
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
4 for a public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this
46 ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or
47 forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall
Landscape Ordinance 544-A Draft No. 1 Dated 02/12/99 Page 18
lip-?1
Le
additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten
2 days after passage of this ordinance, as required by section 3.13 of the Charter of the
3 City of Southlake.
4
5 18.0 EFFECTIVE DATE
6
7 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication
8 as required by law, and it is so ordained.
9
to 19.0 APPENDICES
11
12 It is anticipated that the following appendices will be changed periodically by the
13 Landscape Administrator in response to changes in the administration of this ordinance.
14
Landscape Ordinance 544-A Draft No. 1 Dated 02/12/99 Page 19
11B-22
APPENDIX 'A' - Recommended Plants
Common Name Botanical Name y Comments
Overstory/Canopy Tree
Pecan Carya illinoensis Deep tap root
Cedar Elm Ulmus crassifolia Disease resistant
Red Oak Quercus Shumardii Red fall color
Live Oak Quercus virginiana Hardy evergreen
Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Nice.:branch character
Lacebark Elm Ulmus parvifolia Fast growth, disease resistant
Chin. Pistache Pistacia chinensis Fall color, disese resistant
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum Likes wet feet, fall color
Honeylocust .Gladitsia triacanthos 'var. ' Lacy foliage, fall color .
Southern Magnolia ' Magnolia grandiflora Large evergreen, white flower
Understory/Accent Trees
Bradford Pear Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' Shiny foliage, disease resist.
Yaupon Tree Ilex vomitoria Very hardy
Jap. Black Pine Pinus thunbergi Great color, best of pines
Redbud Cercis canadensis Long flowering in spring
Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica Some die-back
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Fall color, messy fruit
Purp ,-deaf Plum Prunus cerasifera Purple foliage
Shrubs
Photinia Photinia Fraseri Tall, red foliage spring/fall
Eleagrus Eleagnus pungens Gray, tolerates heat/drought
Dwarf Yaupon Holly Ilex vomitoria 'nana' Dense rounded growth
Dwarf Burford Holly Ilex cornuta 'Burfordii nana' Shiny green leaf
Dwarf Chinese Holly Ilex cornuta 'Rotunda' Low rounded growth, tough
Tam Juniper Juniperus sabina 'Tam' Low growth, tolerates heat
Sea Green Juniper Juniperus Chinensis 'Sea Green' Arching growth
Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergi Thorns, red foliage
Flowering Quince Chanomeles 'Texas Scarlet' Red flower, early spring
Texas Sage Leucophyllum frutescens 'nana' Gray foliage
Forsythia Forsythia intermedia Yellow flower in early spring
Spiraea 'Bridal Wreath' Spiraea prunifolia White flower, April-May
Pampas Grass Cordateria Selloana Fall flower
Ground Covers
Juniper Species Jun. horizontalis, procumbens Tolerates heat/drought
Monkey Grass Liriope muscari Hardy, blue flower
Mondo Grass ophiopogon japonicus Small dark leaves
Asian Jasmine Trachelospermun asiaticum Some die back
Vinca/Periwinkle Vinca Major Shade
Purple Euonymus Euonymus fortunei 'coloratus'
Ce Vines
Carolina Jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens Yellow flower
Halls Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica 'Halls' White flower
Coral Honeysuckle Lonicera sempervirens Red flower
Lady Banks Rose Rosa Banksiae Yellow flower
11B-23 -16-
APPENDIX IB•
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SUMMARY
PLANTS PROVIDED
Canopy Understory Shrubs
B YARD SUMMARY Trees Trees
North: Width = Level =
South: Width = Level =
East: Width = Level =
West: Width = I:evel =
INTERIOR LANDSCAPE SUMMARY
Building square footage- - First or Largest Floor =
Multiply by $ based on zoning = x A
Required interior landscape area = sq. ft.
CREDIT SUMMARY
Less 10 % credit for water conservation
Les -credit for enhanced pavement (max. 10%)
Le redit for R.O.W. Landscaping (max. 10%)
Net required interior landscape area - sq. ft.
REQUIRED PLANTING SUM-MARY
Existing* Net
Required Tree Cr. Required
Canopy Trees @ 1/600 sq. ft. _
Understory Trees @ 1/300 sq. ft. _
Shrubs @ 1/60 sq. ft. _
Ground cover area @ 10% = sq. ft.
75% of required planting in front and along sides of building? Yes No
*EXISTING TREE CREDIT SUMMARY Applied To
Canopy Understory
Trees Trees
ees @ 6" - 12" caliper
:ees @ 12" caliper or greater
-17-
11B-24
N
r4
r-Q-1
0,
�4 V
N o 49
In
00 ° oo O o 00
• • o • • • � � � ,-� � aoc cow co
r�-1 1 � 1 f'1 f7 C7 N f'1 f'1 RS � r-1 rl CO r-1 r-i N r•1
� to �'
41 � S1
C�
aaaada aaaaa8 a aaa
ti CA al fA W R1 t� Rl CA G LLB W Cq �1 J� -0iJ 4J J� -P J-� 1J 4j -P -P -P .0 -P -P
a aca a amm a a c8m- --m8oa 888888 88888 8888 8
N 8.8 8 8 8 8 8 8 r 0 co 8 R r-1 ri i--1 r-I r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 e i r-1 i--1 r-1 r i
to cnmmMmmm 1pN (` M %DN1` N U1totoNU1Loto LO Hr-i '-iH rI ri . 1 .-1tf1ri
Z �
O
.as
< Q HO
18
-.�
,a & �4 --i
44
. -� _ off' - � -p �, W
g � A* 9 , f-i 0
8 9
x x o 8 a • '.�..�
wa Ri 11W-, a o h � >. >. vlbN -
w x r�
x - - � 92 h
N
9 rAc8 &>
� E8 ��
C• V.• �• t+• C- r V. �C,: ol(%• (I• Cl-- C- C• Cl-- �• r C- �• c�. cam. �. �• �• �• Cl-: cl.. Cl-: Cl-: C% c�• �• �• C• c�- r
cl-
-18- 11B-25
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 01/23/92
LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION PLAN APPLICATION
OF PROJECT:
SUBDIVISION NAME: LOT: BLOCK:
OWNER LANDSCAPE ARCHT./DESIGNER
NAME:
CONTACT:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
I hereby certify that these plans are in conformance with the requirements of the
Landscape Ordinance No. 544, amendments, and other ordinances, maps and codes of the
City of Southlake that pertain to this submittal.
Signed: Date:
For City Use Only:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of the Landscape/irrigation plan application and the
application fee in the amount of $ on this the day of , 19
S Title:
The following checklist is a partial summary of'landscape/irrigation plan
requirements required by the City of Southlake. The applicant should further refer to
Landscape Ordinance No. 544, amendments and other ordinances, maps and codes available
at the City Hall that may pertain to this landscape/irrigation plan submittal.
LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Shown Not
On Plan Applic.
Sheet size: 24" X 3611, or as approved.
Acceptable scale: 1" = 101 , 1"=201 , 1"=401 , or as approved.
North arrow, graphic and written scale in close proximity.
Appropriate title (i.e. "Landscape Plan").
Title block includes street address, lot and block, subdivision
name, city, state, date of preparation.
Name and address of owner.
Name, address and phone of firm preparing plan.
Boundary shown with dimensions.
Any existing utilities shown. (i.e. water, sewer, storm drain, gas,
electric, cable, etc. )
Width and type of bufferyards labeled on all sides.
Location, caliper size and name of all existing trees with 6"
caliper or more which are to be preserved.
Location, quantity, size and name of all proposed plant materials,
including plant list and legend.
Maintenance note provided.
Label type of any enhanced pavement proposed.
Visibility triangles shown.
Landscape Architect seal signed and dated.
Plant list shown with format similar to Appendix 'C' .
Any berms delineated with one foot (11 ) contour intervals.
-19= 11B-26
Landscape/Irrigation Plan Checklist
(W Page 2 of 2
IRRIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Shown Not
On Plan Applic.
Sheet size: 24" X 36", or as approved.
Acceptable scale: 1" = 101 , 1" = 201 , 1" = 40' or as approved.
(Must be same as Landscape Plan.)
North arrow, graphic and written scale in close proximity.
Appropriate title (i.e. "Irrigation Plan") .
Title block includes street address, lot and block, subdivision
name, city, state, date of preparation.
Name and address of owner.
Name, address and phone of firm preparing plan.
Boundary shown with-dimensions.
Location of all existing trees 6" caliper are larger which are to be
saved.
All pipes labeled as to size.
All heads labeled as to type. (Legend is acceptable)
Backflow prevention labeled with type and size.
Connection to water service shown after meter.
Second meter (with size) shown if intended.
Any existing utilities shown. (i.e. water, sewer, storm drain, gas
electric, cable, etc. )
Note on plan: "All backflow installations and connections to city
water lines must be permitted separately by the City inspection
staff". call (817) 481-5581, ext. 742.
Maintenance note provided.
Plan sealed, signed and dated by qualified professional as authorized
by State law.
L
-20-
11B-27
( Z,OF\\tVC3
�'$5
i •
(law
icm
,.,!to
�� �•' we A
E,"R u s S
h I
r t
T'Zc'c
ID
15 50 SQ.FT
uul �. rA It -wg a.
L oT C,PLSA% —
`�
L(\ 30005 S.F. t11
.. 'C
a•
°I
I. 7pNtNG _ C-12 • j 1
1 i • t
lo' 6uFnF-yAF C>
ST FEE E�
\ IN'iFBIDEt LANDSCAPE A$E!1
REQUIRED REQD. REQD. PROVIDED PROVIDED TOTAL.
INTERIOR BUFFER TOTAL INTERIOR BUFFER PROVIDED
LANDSCAPE AREA (S.F. ) 1,275 3,835 5,110 2,700 3,835 6,535
AS % OF LOT AREA 4% 13% 17% 9% 13% 22%
CANOPY TREES 2 6 8 2 6 8
ACCENT TREES 4 14 18 4 14 18
SHRUBS 21 56 77 21 56 77
GROUND COVER (S.F. ) 128 0 128 128 0 128
-21- 11B-28
Tj' DUpf%p-P-,f KD A C-1 ZO N IN Ca
C.4a WMA4
A,40 5• t^ Ji Y
tu
I0U.
Stl
i CANOPY -TeEE
I
I 5 FI R U 8rS
_ CtA`o STATION I N
W 1500 e42. FT I AG GENT TREE
LGT ARER= I385f
ZoNIN(,
_W
}
u
U.
u IC i
O �
® = IIi=OR LANDSCAPE AREA
REQUIRED REQD. REQD. PROVIDED PROVIDED TOTAL
INTERIOR BUFFER TOTAL INTERIOR BUFFER PROVIDED
LANDSCAPE AREA (S.F. ) 1,350 5,000 6,350 1,922 5,000 6,922
AS % OF LOT AREA 4% 13% 17% 5% 13% 18%
CANOPY TREES 2 8 10 2 8 10
ACCENT TREES 5 11 16 5 11 16
SHRUBS 23 56 79 23 56 79
GROUND COVER (S.F. ) 135 0 135 135 0 135
-99- 11B-29
L
p �O'
0-2
L O N 1 N Gi
IS-
/. S'M RU BS
4,700
5404r CAKOFY
-t Rrc6
4 Zoe
A%44 S NT
TREE
U
� 37e 0
O[
i y-
OC
2ul
168# 08 u .
Q t2o' m
D
STORY BANK 15UII_OIN4 635 O
40
79
�
2.ONINC� 1
0 = 0-a mm
1,770 m -
x
360�
LOT 97) 4-76 S•F oc
-
uCIO
'L
/ l
ZONIN�j
I
O 4,704�
' 3 50*
O-Z Zoo'
zOK�r�G SUFFI:RYD.20
® INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREA
REQUIRED REQD. REQD. PROVIDED PROVIDED TOTAL
INTERIOR BUFFER TOTAL INTERIOR BUFFER PROVIDED
LOOMSCAPE AREA (S.F. ) 4,760 7,155 11,915 15,706 7,155 22,861
AS % OF LOT AREA 5% 8% 13% 18% 8% 26%
CANOPY TREES 8 11 19 8 11 19
ACCENT TREES 16 23 39 16 23 39
SHRUBS 80 92 172 80 92 172
GROUND COVER (S.F. ) 476 0 476 476 0 476
11 R-M
STREET
cu R6�
lOt 3uF1=EfLYARO 'E-, 5 612
0 0 00 .000 -
7 O ` 450* pGGENT TREE
CDt30P`C TzsE
lu
,p
WALK0 o[
cb
;O
w :\
O N LOT AR E a=
N I O 2 6�6%a s.>r
.�
I 4
{ ,Sl$ S.F. won tta
1 Nll
ZoMlt46%
4,73olb
O
I O
' 00 t \ O
00 00 z-1 000 zogE %>A 000_
1 )
r 6-, 51 B�:F�ER`(pcRO iNIJ
® = INTERIOR LANDSCAPE AREA
REQUIRED REQD. REQD. PROVIDED PROVIDED TOTAL
INTERIOR BUFFER TOTAL INTERIOR BUFFER PROVIDED
LANDSCAPE AREA (S.F. ) 769 3,875 4,644 7,621 3,875 11,496
AS % OF LOT AREA 3% 14% 17% 28% 17% 43%
CANOPY TREES 1 5 6 1 5 6
ACCENT TREES 3 11 14 3 11 14
SHRUBS 13 41 54 13 41 54
GROUND COVER (S.F. ) 77 0 77 77 0 77
11P-Z1
_ STREET ip' auP�FERYARD 'E
/;
�30
360 360
'+s •� 44,i'SO¢ 5
�' 3 36D" 360
// ' C.OADINIa AP4EA
360 v
n,
o�[ ��� // 100,000 SQ. F? SBUFFERYAPD A ti
•� .`" '% // LOT s►z>= = 3z1)z00 S.
DfiIYE 5}4Ku n gGLEr+T T2EE cA`ia�� Tst6E L,.O�
•57' BUFFERYNk,o A:
INTERIOR LANDSCAPE ARFA
REQUIRED REQD. REQD. PROVIDED PROVIDED TOTAL
INTERIOR BUFFER TOTAL INTERIOR BUFFER PROVIDED
LANDSCAPE AREA (S.F. ) 10,000 15,800 25,800 57,690 15,800 "73,490
AS % OF LOT AREA 3% 5% 8% 18% 5% 23%
CANOPY TREES 17 22 39 17 22 39
ACCENT TREES 33 50 83 33 50 83
SHRUBS 167 176 343 167 176 343
GROUND COVER (S.F. ) 1,000 0 11000 1,000 0 1,000
nc 'I�R_Z7
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.
Page is too large to OCR.