The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-11-19 CC Packet 111„,.,A City of Southlake Southick Department of Planning ( MEMORANDUM November 15, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Ken Baker, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Resolution No. 02-065 an amendment to The Master Thoroughfare Plan Text and Map to indicate the general alignment and roadway classification and design for the FM 1709-S. Kimball Road Connector(S.Village Center Drive). ACTION REQUESTED: Amend the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Map and Text to indicate the following (See Attachment A—Resolution 02-065): S. Village Center Drive - designate a C2U-60' collector between the FM 1709/Village Center Drive intersection and Kimball Avenue (just north.of Dawson/Eubanks school complex) and a north/south C2U-60' collector located along the Pigg/Quicksall property line from FM 1709 south to the C.I.S.D. northern property line (See Attachment A-Exhibit#1). Amend the MTP text to include the following: Design features of S.Village Center Drive Connector include (See Attachment A Exhibit#2): • Approximately 35' wide roadway with the possibility of parallel parking on one (1) or both sides along portions of the roadway or an approximately 27'-30'roadway without parallel parking (See Attachment B). • "Urban" cross section which includes curb, gutters, street trees and sidewalks (cross-sections shall adhere to the designs illustrated on Attachments C & D). • Traffic calming measures shall be implemented along the portion of the roadway adjacent to the residential and C.I.S.D. properties. • Speed limit not to exceed 25 m.p.h. • Design as a local slow movement roadway. . • Stops signs will be installed at the following locations: 1) the two (2)-way. intersection located at the southwest corner of the Gateway Church property; and 2) the three(3)-way intersection located at the corner of the Quicksall/Pigg/C.I.S.D properties (See Attachment B). • The north/south portion of the roadway located along the Pigg/Quicksall property line should be a full access drive at FM 1709 and align with a future drive proposed on the existing Wal-Mart site. This entrance shall be . designed with three lanes and a 150' stacking depth. There will be one•(1) south bound lane, one (1) left hand turn northbound lane and one (1)right turn north bound lane (See Attachment B). • The eastern most drive on the Buchanan Addition property to be closed at the time the roadway along the Pigg/Quicksall property connects into FM 1709. Development in this general area should access onto this north/south roadway versus accessing directly onto FM 1709 when possible (See Attachment B). • Pedestrian crossing near school should be provided (See Attachment B). • Fencing of the school north boundary to minimize vehicle/pedestrian conflict (See Attachment B). • Any office/retail uses constructed in the southern portion of the Gateway ty_ Church property, Pigg property or Quicksall property should front onto the collector road with parking in the rear when possible (See Attachment E). • Provide access point to S. Village Center Drive from Westwood Drive in the Woodland Heights Subdivision (See Attachment B). BACKGROUND: ROLE OF THE CURRENT MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN The current Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) was adopted in March of 1997. The MTP is the City's general plan for guiding thoroughfare system improvements, including the widening and extensions of streets and highways. The plan primarily consists of a map showing locations and ultimate cross sections of future road improvements. The primary objective of the current MTP is to ensure the reservation/dedication of adequate right-of-way on appropriate alignments to allow for orderly and efficient expansion. Also,there are many other benefits that the MTP provides which include: • Minimizing the amount of land required for street and highway purposes; • Identifying the functional role(i.e. collector, arterial)that each street should be designed in order to promote and maintain the stability of traffic and land -2- Resolution 02-065 11/15/02 use patterns; - • Informing citizens of future street plans so that private land use decisions can anticipate which streets will become major facilities; • Provide information on thoroughfare improvements needs which can be used to determine priorities and schedules in the capital improvements program; and • Minimizing the negative impacts of street widening and construction on neighborhood areas and the overall community,by recognizing where future street improvements may be needed. FUTURE ROLE OF THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN (MOBILITY PLAN)—AS • AN ELEMENT OF THE SOUTHLAKE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The current MTP consists of a map which identifies arterials and collectors for future improvements.The plan does not evaluate such critical transportation factors such as: 1)local road networks;2)detailed road design; 3)streetscapes;4)alternative modes, of transportation (i.e. walking/bicycle/rail); 5) critical connections of sidewalks; 6) unified access and circulation;7)stub streets; 8)internal circulation;9)prioritization of projects; and 10) financial planning. The staff is planning to significantly broaden the scope of the MTP in conjunction with the development of the Southlake 2025 Comprehensive Plan in order to address many the transportation issues facing Southlake,including those listed above. By addressing such issues in a planning document, it is believed that the MTP will evolve into a true Mobility Plan for the City of Southlake. The first step in the creation of the new Mobility Plan is to update the current MTP map. In August 2001,the planning staff approached the City Council and requested that it consider amending the MTP map to include a series of local collector roads throughout the City to allow the residents to access existing and future retail, office and other major traffic generators such as schools without having to travel FM 1709 and SH-114. It is believed that implementing a local collector system will improve traffic efficiency and safety for the residents of the City. City Council agreed to consider amending the MTP to include local collector streets,during the recent past the MTP map has been amended to include the following local collectors. • Durham Road Collector • Kirkwood Boulevard Extension • Remington Road • Rucker Road -3 - Resolution 02-065 11/15/02. BACKGROUND: WHY IMPLEMENT A LOCAL COLLECTOR NETWORK THE FOLLOWING IS BACKGROUND INFORMATION THAT PROVIDED THE BASIS FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A LOCAL COLLECTOR ROAD NETWORK THROUGHOUT THE CITY. STATE HIGHWAY(SH) 114 Broadly defined, the SH 114 corridor is an approximately forty (40) mile stretch, from its intersection with Interstate 35E in Dallas to Interstate 35W in Fort Worth. Southlake's transportation planning efforts generally focus on that portion of SH 114 west of SH 121. The corridor includes some of the fastest growing communities in Dallas-Fort Worth and links several of its major employment centers (Los Colinas, DFW Airport and Alliance Airport). The corridor will also serve future employment centers in Southlake and Westlake(Circle T Ranch).State Highway 114's function as a link between DFW Airport and Alliance Airport deserves particular emphasis: DFW is one of the nation's busiest airports, while Alliance is an increasingly' important multimodal distribution center. Together, they represent the key transportation hub of the mid-continent United States and make the area extremely attractive nationally and internationally as a location for business and industry. State Highway 114 should be viewed as an economic development imperative, both to accommodate a steadily increasing volume of motor vehicle traffic and to ensure that traffic congestion does not jeopardize the ability of the corridor communities to compete successfully for new business and capital investment(Source-Explosive Growth in the 114 Corridor,H. Gross,PhD.,B. Weinstein,PhD.And T.Glower,MS-University ofNorth Texas Center for Economic Development and Research). FM 1709 FM 1709, is a regional arterial that runs from SH 114 west to Interstate 35W. This roadway is designed to serve regional and major traffic generators. Its primary purpose is to carry what is considered through traffic. ROLE OF SH 114 AND FM 1709 State Highway 114 and FM 1709 in Southlake are design to function as thoroughfares that: • Carry high volumes of traffic regionally and inter-regionally • Carry traffic into Southlake (i.e. shopping/work) • Conduct traffic out of Southlake (i.e. Dallas commute) • Pass traffic through Southlake. The SH-114 freeway and FM 1709 are not designed to carry local trips. 1 -4- Resolution 02-065 11/15/02 WHY IS TRAFFIC CONGESTION OCCURRING ON SH 114 AND FM 1709? (' j Much of the traffic on FM 1709 and SH 114 is non-Southlake residents traveling to and from work and places of business in Dallas, DFW, Alliance Airport, Los Colinas and other employment centers. In addition, most of the local Southlake traffic is forced onto FM 1709 and SH 114 to access the area's shopping centers, - , businesses, employment centers, etc. This results in the mixing of local trips and regional trips on FM 1709 and SH 114. See Figure#1 te „t. „.„, la as 3. fie} ? 11/4 in n r za 4 err o. 6, 2 6. +,off Figure#1-Typical Suburban Roadway Design Layout. Every vehicle trip from one use to another makes use of an arterial. WILL TRAFFIC VOLUMES CONTINUE TO INCREASE ON SH 114 AND FM 1709? Yes, Southlake is expected to more than triple its daytime workforce to over 30,000 persons over the next twenty (20-25) years. Most of the commercial and office development constructed to accommodate this future workforce will occur on the SH 114 and FM 1709 corridors,which will likely increase peak traffic volumes on these roadways. In addition, traffic pressures along SH 114 and FM 1709 will escalate further as development continues at Alliance Airport, Circle T Ranch,DFW Airport and communities surrounding Southlake continue to grow. WHAT CAN SOUTHLAKE Do TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON SH 114 AND FM 1709? - Realistically,until an alternative form of transportation(i.e.light rail)is provided for -5- Resolution 02-065 11/15/02 the area, the traffic congestion levels along SH 114 and FM 1709 will continue to worsen. The possibility of providing light rail in Southlake is at least 20 years into the future. The widening of SH 114 and FM 1709 will only provide temporary relief to Southlake's congestion issues and do not offer a long term solution. However, Southlake can provide a local roadway network that allows its citizens and , work force the ability to access the City's commercial, office and shopping areas without having to drive on SH 114 or FM 1709 (See Figure#2). real'; 4 40 47 4 0 :a a ,or 4 . Vi e a tt c/ Figure#2—Every trip from one use to another makes use of a local collector instead of the major arterial. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: S.VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE PROPOSED MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT: THE FOLLOWING EVALUATES THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED S.VILLAGE CENTER MTP AMENDMENT. LOCATION The designated C2U-60' collector will begin at the existing FM 1709/Village Center Drive intersection and continue east to Kimball Avenue (just north of Dawson/Eubanks school complex). A north/south C2U-60' collector section will be located along the Pigg/Quicksall property line from FM 1709 to the C.I.S.D. northern property line. The length of the entire roadway is approximately 3,000 feet. Also, a future access point to the proposed road is possible from Westwood Drive in the Woodland Heights subdivision(See Attachment A). ___ -6- Resolution 02-065 11/15/02 SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS The purpose of the connector road is to be a local, slow-movement roadway with a speed limit not to exceed 25 m.p.h. The roadway is proposed to be a typical urban cross section which will include curb,gutter,street trees,traffic calming devices and sidewalks (See Attachments C & D). A detailed description of the design characteristics of the proposed roadway can be found on pages 1 &2 of this memo. MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN FM 1709 is considered a principal arterial. According to the MTP,principal arterials should serve major traffic generators and specialized land use and direct access should be controlled. The MTP also states that access spacing and design control should be used to insure traffic flow and safety. PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES The proposed S. Village Drive Connector roadway will not only improve traffic • circulation in the area but it will also address a number of public safety issues.These issues are outlined below. 1) Driveway Cuts- As development occurs on the south side of FM 1709 between Village Center Drive and Kimball Avenue, there will likely be a number of driveway cuts allowed onto FM 1709. As development increases, more and more vehicles will be accessing and leaving this area via FM 1709. This will result in increased unprotected left turns onto FM 1709 across ultimately four(4) lanes of traffic(FM 1709 will be expanded to seven (7) lanes in the next few years. This will require a left hand turning vehicle to cross three (3)east bound lanes and the center turn lane). The highest daily traffic volumes along FM 1709 occur between Kimball Avenue and Carroll Avenue (55,684 ADT). Also,many of the future uses (i.e. restaurants/retail) fronting onto FM 1709 may have peak traffic generation times that correspond with peaks traffic times (rush hour) along FM 1709 which will increase the likelihood of vehicle conflicts. 2) Uncontrolled Traffic Movements through the site - As development occurs on the south side of FM 1709 between Village Center Drive and Kimball Avenue, common access easements will be required per the Subdivision Ordinance to allow vehicular movement from one parcel to the next. This will. result in the movement of vehicles across parking lots or fire lanes in a scattered or uncontrolled manner in order to access the light at S. Village Center which increased the likelihood of vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Resolution 02-065 11/15/02 3) Stacking of vehicles to pick-up and drop-off students at the Eubanks/Dawson school complex—Vehicles are stacking on S. Kimball Avenue as parents drop-off and pick-up their children from the Eubanks and Dawson schools. South Kimball Avenue is a major arterial and will be ultimately designed as a four(4) lane divided roadway and stacking of traffic on this roadway creates an unsafe condition. Also, vehicle trips are expected to increase significantly once S. Kimball is extended south to allow a direct connection to SH 26. 4) School bus traffic at the Kimball Avenue/FM 1709 intersection-The Kimball Avenue/FM 1709 intersection has the highest vehicular accident incidence rate in the city. The majority of the bus trips originating from the school site currently utilize this intersection. Analysis of Connecting Roadway (Traffic/Circulation Benefits) In evaluating the possible connecting roadway between S.Kimball Avenue and FM 1709, the following benefits of such a roadway were identified: • The roadway can provide motorist signalized access points to FM 1709 via two signalized intersections on FM 1709(Village Center Drive/Kimball Ave.)for the future retail/office development in this area. This will allow protected left turn movements to and from FM 1709 for this traffic. • The roadway will allow traffic generated by the Gateway Church and the future development other access options rather than only FM 1709 access. Traffic generated from the south by these developments can avoid FM.1709 entirely. With the extension of Kimball Avenue south to SH 26, there will be additional demand in the area from that direction. • The roadway improves traffic circulation through the property located south of FM 1709 between S.Village Center and S.Kimball Avenue by channeling traffic to a specific location as it moves through the site. • The roadway results in decreased drive cuts onto FM 1709. • The majority of the vehicles and school busses accessing the school site are traveling east on FM 1709 and then south on Kimball Avenue. The location of the roadway can provide an additional access option from the west for school traffic. This will disperse traffic in the area and will eliminate or greatly reduce stacking on S. Kimball Avenue. • The roadway can reduce the number of bus and vehicle trips that currently use the -8 - Resolution 02-065 11/15/02 FM 1709/Kimball Avenue intersection. • Possible for an access point to be provided between Woodland Heights subdivision and the proposed connecting roadway. Such an access point to the connecting roadway will allow motorists in Woodland Heights subdivision access to a signalized intersection at Village Center Drive when attempting to enter/ exit the subdivision. from FM 1709. PREVIOUS MEETING: • This item was presented to the CISD School Board on September 9, 2002. • • A City wide SPIN was held on October 7, 2002. • On October 17,2002,the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item. The item was approved (4-1) stipulating that access points from Westwood Drive in the Woodland Heights subdivision be removed and that the proposed road be placed as far south on the Gateway Church property as possible. • On November 5, 2002, the City Council tabled this item. Attachments • ATTACHMENT A -9- Resolution 02-065 11/15/02 RESOLUTION NO. 02-065 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, AMENDING THE ADOPTED MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP TO INDICATE THE GENERAL ALIGNMENT DESIGNATING SOUTH VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE AS A C2U-60' R.O.W. COLLECTOR LOCATED BETWEEN THE FM 1709/VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE INTERSECTION AND SOUTH KIMBALL AVENUE (JUST NORTH OF DAWSON/EUBANKS SCHOOL COMPLEX) AND A NORTH/SOUTH C2U-60' COLLECTOR LOCATED ALONG THE PIGG/QUICKSALL PROPERTY LINE FROM FM 1709 SOUTH TO THE C.I.S.D. NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND SPECIFYING DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE ROAD. 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, Section 11.06 of the Southlake City Charter provides for the adoption and updating of a Comprehensive Master Plan and its components, including the Master Thoroughfare Plan; and WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission has forwarded a recommendation that the Master Thoroughfare Plan be amended as set forth herein below and the City Council having conducted a public hearing on proposed changes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: - 10- Resolution 02-065 11/15/02 SECTION 1 ( Pursuant to Section 11.06 of the Southlake City Charter,the Comprehensive Master Plan,of which the Master Thoroughfare Plan is a component, may be submitted in whole or in part from time to time to the Council for their adoption,accompanied by a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission,and shall contain a planning consideration for a period of at least ten(10)years. The proposed amendments to the Master Thoroughfare Plan which designate the general alignment of S. Village Center Drive are noted by graphical depiction in Exhibit "1" and written description in Exhibit "2" attached hereto, is hereby approved. SECTION 2 The different elements of the Comprehensive Master Plan, as adopted and amended by the City Council from time to time, shall be kept on file in the office of the City Secretary of the City of Southlake, along with a copy of the minute order of the Council so adopting or approving same.Any existing element of the Comprehensive Master Plan which has been heretofore adopted by the City.Council-shall remain in full force and effect until amended by the City Council as provided herein. SECTION 3 This resolution shall become effective on the date of approval by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2002. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE - 11 - Resolution 02-065 11/15/02 By: L�' Rick Stacy, Mayor ATTEST: Lori Farwell City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney City of Southlake, Texas - 12- Resolution 02-065 11/15/02 , __ , , ,, __ GENERAL ALIGNMENT OF S. VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE 1 , ' 1.--Intiiiic --.'' NE oppina a! 1 M�i•ff�t. - as ��1 imi The north/south portion of I ■per the roadway along the Pigg- U 11 ■a�� I .5. ut Quicksall property line can be a ., 'i Common Access Easement or ? ! -,,_� a public ROW. bilit • - ,—y ---Ildickl. III"gift 1 • F. ill ii..,.., inli gq--WI " a . mil 1I•.:::- - I=EL. ,Illr7..,,..4,_ Proposed 1 ; Ali nment == 'ra ' -- j , ....._1,. 1 s 11 '.1 _.1,. 9 •: , .;-,'I-lP llt1lis mti i p.'",u....i I e :land CISD .. r � iiN_M� m- i 1 1_ ui H i.&i Property } 1�•- A.�y,� g 1 _ •m` i •• - , OJ "�•� � i m r17 - !-; I I. . 1 •Approximately 35' wide roadwaywith the possibilityof parallel parkingon one (1) or both sides along } 9 portions of the roadway or an approximately 27'-30' roadway without parallel parking (See Attachment B). •"Urban" cross section which includes curb, gutters, street trees and sidewalks (cross-sections shall adhere to the designs illustrated on Attachments C & D). •Traffic calming measures shall be implemented along the portion of the roadway adjacent to the residential and C.I.S.D. properties. •Speed limit not to exceed 25 m.p.h. -Design as a local slow movement roadway. •Stops signs will be installed at the following locations: 1) the two (2)-way intersection located at the southwest corner of the Gateway Church property; and 2) the three (3)-way intersection located at the corner of the Quicksall/Pigg/C.I.S.D properties (See Attachment B). -The north/south portion of the roadway located along the Pigg/Quicksall property line should be a full access drive at FM 1709 and align with a future drive proposed on the existing Wal-Mart site. This entrance shall be designed with three lanes and a 150' stacking depth. There will be one (1) south bound lane, one (1 ) left hand turn northbound lane and one (1) right turn north, bound lane (See Attachment B). -The eastern most drive on the Buchanan Addition property to be closed at the time the roadway along the Pigg/Quicksall property connects into FM 1709. Development in this general area should access onto this north/south roadway versus accessing directly onto FM 1709 when possible (See Attachment B). -Pedestrian crossing near school should be provided (See Attachment B). -Fencing of the school north boundary to minimize vehicle/pedestrian conflict (See Attachment B). m •Any office/retail uses constructed in the southern portion of the Gateway Church property, Pigg property or Quicksall property should front onto the collector road with parking in the rear when possible (See Attachment E). Provide access point to S. Village Center Drive from Westwood Drive in the Woodland Heights Subdivision (See Attachment B). .�� rgt n ' • � �� .-: � tu"-,- D;:ramv L�ocat ...L , >: � _ .• ,P - -� - ..� J � r�_ c am, � . 0 .. tp,l ate ' —�—, a. ull Acqess Drive w -o t _i>I11r11Li ilii. ;`� of stac ng t 11110 Close drive once lr `N Access Po i' = north/south • \ Option#15 `fu r j road constructed } t -- i ,, L i , I s , s t1 ,' —11 1 II "•` COMMON ACCESS OR PUBLIC ROW IP, A- I � I i :Access Poi , o a t n#2 rj ?} r . Parking 4'' OILt `-r-.-_: 1),1E sTraffic CalgiingTraffic Catmi " PP`S' f _ - ` striaq Crossing , 4 J V ' y , ' .NA• daff7 - } 5 ♦ .:.}� ..9 P may` �+` N • !.a Stop ., t Sto!, •, en,� geof{S R ropp ty--' 'Si�0p b it Sign ♦� M ,• i , e• n,, $% , . ..4 , ,,9 Sign 04 �' ' • W` r ,. i� _; A.N i:ice �`.1.4j .' ' ��+ 000„ a S • a FM 1709/Kimball Ave. Connector- General Alignment ►, , •►.;,,Woodland', . .- 41eiis ghts .� - t ,D . �: Connector Road 1 '`T Possible Future Access Points . , t ,•: Buffering ``' +x. ,_ .. Possible FM 1709/Kimball Connector, Layout Adjacent to Residential Property„...., < 18' --->< 10' ---><----- 13" >..,, . 13" -- 1, . 6' • 4 "-''•...5,'. 1/.:.. /--;• . • , .,:r4.."' - : :,....":0....'''.-i::::......Y...--...,/:- __-. .. -"IV 3 ...::-.-• --: -'r-••• T.; 3 .3,4'1- E-•1"53',33 :,• -• -• ..,,..3-2.-1•3•, ..,-,••,,:-.3:,:::•.:.-.,,''.-.: - • "... -3.4.. 6 t.. ___1„,,,..,-,..,,,.,._ .- .• .. 44,141itprAll - ..._ ,,, . - •-I•L•";;Z" -,•.1.• ',.....:3`..3,' . . : . --',.,-""13.--•*,I.,'3,..---'3"3:'-'72'-'14334:42t"7.1-',I3C " ,.3%71-IV, hi',i ' • -. • . - :•.,, ...,•&-i;:'3,..,;,,,!''" ,3•3411, •• ,„4,- / , I • 3.-f•a-C3/.,:-.,-...-:-.7.:'-:• :.1.71?!..t„;:•-•--,, • ges„.• ,-.4%,...,' ..f.,•_, .v, . - . k4-• 1 - • ' '''''...'.03'3'f''''3' - I :':•"•3. ...:*-':3':::' __ay'374,.•C..._,•<":4-:----3;''' '3,4...'''''t'' 3-.•• •••:' ItC::2' " 3i'''''-t3-:- - :- - yC:- 5;,' . . • .. . , -0; ?' -,•='''' '‘V . 1.;'- ' ' . . .J•'=,-P-..,,?...;'..::'`;, ,i'-''''" Ct I.,',;!:-'4,--/46%), . Am tt,g- -r,i,v, 310/11{. \ to ..l . Ilk - 4,• ,---- -,••• -1, ' ', 1.--X'''C).X'4:•,'" ',..- ›- ' *r;',1•1--..4.14••• •••• ..,!cx."."-PQ... .i -;:-.11:-.--: ::''''.1,1.''.. - .t ‘1; '11 , ... - _ ., 7"..D.‘4 .r...;''''' '..:,.. '.:- '-. ' - ', '1A. I s.1 :i f:..?-1-- : :_f •( ..,- i ,'',.-9 ...1$..-.:. _ ;Jr.:. -:'2•.:•:. :. I, t L.L.•,:.:•••,-..:?ps,:;-•;,•,-...,- -• •••••••;,.P.Litc '41,‘"- ''' ',.:-.;;.:':--- ' Me ti ' ';''' 'it-'''-11. • , :ti,_ -- - LLJ .- ....:.:-,......‘,,,,,,,.. ..,;; ,:-.f... .:-;:i.,:-.•...; ---7.:;,. .(40,7.5;,,,,41,• •,•,,,-21:1-•, . ,......7.2 ,, .'r, '-- -0 - - ii , '",,.: :`-r ,..,.,,.. 7.... .; 1!-,.1...i,!-- ;f:0_,:;-.: :•::: . ,L.- .i.--;,7.-.-: r.:-...z-s''.:7.--•:,---1--Y,..,.4-°,?-.....:,,h--., - t.....4.1..:c-Npytslok, . cii,..9 ..+.w.r.-:- _. , . '','.. '-.-- - ' -:,-.., ,i- :. ----.64, A. ...4. ft,,,,, ',.. . '''' i ,.. 1,-7.. '-,•.';:'..-.1 , ,..4_,...,,,,,,s.-...p,--::4;..-:,::: 0:1 I:,::,-7•...., ,„. 1,a, 111), ::,--, - 4,:VIISiir•;-TVEtV -7- A.., r..,,..e. :. O 1 _:z.,..1.,:,41,,‘,0,„ze froya ...-,.. =5-..; i.p,i,,- --or; ,4, , .w " , • • ,I:.., --.,..,. ' qwr ...oP •,, : •--.4 •4°7...40\ ..iffl• k - -r, , LU -''r 7'-'"-•'`,-EfrIbk-VS,- gfe.'0 ' -..:ti..: ------%400. - - 11,..\I z•-1:-27-7-i,' .., .., _. •1 I ',--'i•-qiiti•;4k4:-....,.••, .•.-' '1 -- ' ''.': :'".". .'*.------ ' - .1 It:. . irn.' ii..,,,:, .. _.,p,z. '..."-I'..'': '—• ' ,..},,, - '-:.C.r.%•:',.";•-.Z...:'-'...'.!" ,. . ...• 'H 1:::''''. :.':.''/ del.' -Sf7- 2.: :'-',:7:.'::::-;,--:•;;G:' •." -i- '7'"-:.'r,a-,:-;.,...:-- -,' ;a ti...A i' 2:1.4?••• ._f c`3...,".6.:.-,s:3.-"•3","...-"-•• --"..-: 3,,1::.- :1‘.....''3;3_...,-,•:_l_.;---_:-..1.. •,3;••••:".•,"•:".("•••-• • -::--- ; /API r.,7121$: .I .,.,.;,.„,-r;:."::"_". •=.3-•,-.4 X' • •-3- 4 ot,,r Ito Pi V 4Pg.c: .0.f.--7. - - : ---.---:,:,-It":-. .'.-..72.:'4.',?"-.'"'.--,'; ".'---to-67,-;; . ,F__-4-___,,P.:" ,!1.fi • PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDINGS I '..:7-,,g,--,,,z-.-f•-.----!::4••••7•.:-;-'4, - • ,7::-3 1 .--...'t P"'era l•;3'-'3"3.4.t4'-- -.,....-‘,..","-10*27,3' 3.-.":333,,,'--v.:, - ,.. ...: , •••:44. ,••••• i..,,,a -- ,'-'3,7•:. ..: 1:-:!;jy;4i,".:4-...t.;.r-°:;,•"--:::,,..,.. •-, - •••„.=si:r.A.arre'•....,..,,-,-42._ : ..., r+, , _ ...:::'., :::,4 0-uano• ,-:. -,------. -:--- ---, ,ir .,-- ,r,, -.•",,,, " - j, , _,..,. 1 . . _ . .....,,: _. 4-Accent 5uffer 5t.rip Sicipwalk Plant.ing 5 t.ri p 1 NORTH ,,,i,, - Sielew.alk > 12-Schrubs H , ..., —I •v. . l. . -, IVA • .Lawft,,,v -&4:‘,,, ' .N14.''''.;,.: '''. .;-.. Atit5W"' t',.--'i,'-.'7-,-;•0:::i-s,,3/4 --.7*-"-'11,,,,V.-;,:'-7--:'':-,:iitt,::,- -"Aft" --:...-',1, ..•'' . -' Iliterftc. ..ii,Ar' ,-- ,' ciriz,.--._ :-..--,,,, ...c.,:.:-,c':'..-• --a p.--:4• 41t13i. <:,- t ,._,,.:::::,_. 0,..?..:..:?_07".2.-„,Em.- . ....,:,.,, ,,,,,, fi, / ...,__.._. , _-.,0, ._ -t ., , - ..,„,.... , , , „,...,,, -e...s`5--...0'sairt Ar..- 4... ..-, .......r.---; eklo4r 2---..- -; 4,-,..Nr.-.-.44-:-•-;ow .. JII, - 4.....-4.04,IVI. -Amp. ... , --•:.,"-; ,,,,-It.:-„,--.?.:i.,,.. ;, :;-:•• .r.,..,-,75.-.0.--„L..-tp , jp*ele.Z., •••,...:r...r,.1 -0,f,,,t.t..., 8,455...," ,s,• "•..i.a,.--:joitrek•i if ):._ .. _,I...,„.„0, 401.-ii,../4,7„.=._ ....u„._...., :t, ..._......0_, ...„.. .....4; ........7 . ... —v.%:2 ....:..,,A, /F.. me . ,:.:,..*..--,:.,,,,,,,,,..,..,::,--,---,--.------ ..{,i'7`;'1;•;?-17:4!;:1:';`-',7- „ , , —., -....,,...t _ -.f, 77-', .. -`,........ ...Q.. ,, ;111!('.*,,'fC' I:, 4 . . -- _. ..;1 - 1--------r- -1 _____Il-- =-•-•___} 1 DESIGN OF FM 1709/S. KIMBALL AVE CONNECTOR ADJACENT TO CISD PROPERTY AND OTHER AREAS NOT ADJACENT TO WOODLAND HEIGHTS -1 •1 ,j 1 ,t lr k P' x ti • • F.J ten. . .;' vf'3 'F'�S�ie,�'r�^�C�''n t! ' ` t`'�� u^x t� 1 4'r n� ,. / T r i'L t ,t 1e � . . - . c i cif ,��"+y f�q✓,�aa'.f�'5 r d, 1 kq �x M i Iti ,i� In * i��4� � .��' I i t r radeuwlk' A„}s.n� _"'.-king I .f aye.l ,: f"rAUGI- Par 3 ' • gu.{ew::: ') • far t Lctn-e Lat1'G.- '-'�: S ri - P. 1 ` j `j ;5 AAQ.-11 7 r lr. • 1 a I�r•amX �� r— L NORTH__L� , ..., r f sw+s r X^` H I Approximately 35' i _ 0 1 , Possible FM 17091Kimball ' Dum alter . Connector Layout j 1x- ri Parking and dumpster — 7 i - .10 - �':_t'�`w, _I • in the rear of buildings R� - � � ,a'Y - ' I 4,4 r ra. - 0lAl, gligE :%.41 tN 4E2 11 ::.0.,-. -. I-I -- ..ftk ,.'2."--'--,,- ....--'-- ILHELAP .11111i.. I Gt I q - �I<)II� III] r. _ ri= K=f r J}y � ��DDDv \ 4 r r, aft �L ,,, — - ._ 40 • -x ' x �- : , ,_� �� 'i .H: �: I1 � Ii; OFFICE ' " �u . IOW'Il. 12 OFFICE ��s -'�11�e OFFICE �1'�r�,. _!' . _ _ -��„iv!" OFFICE �- , - ,1111... ' �a�� IUIIJMxi. - c�'\'�`'( 1 �`I ,� =fit\ �g; - II �m: 111Er ' �\1{ I� 111�11 c I�•r, •^J'uF� .�...._ ��'� � �fi�. �. .1j R a lllll'I11111111I111�111 : •41 = ``� I - jam-r;* Frontof Buildin 1�E �pa - Fro wf BuII�.,�� ;F g -ROADWAY ;or - � c� ,.t�1S4"dil.--., ,sera =.. •�l.. St� {f lv. i�� :1' a�.a - .'^�-Wiry r.'-d T i'Air � �� `� A gyp: �. i lei ' .. m SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION GATEWAY CHURCH City Assessed Costs Associated with Development (Excluding Planning Administrative Fees) $10,940.00 PARK FEES — CREDITED WITH 8' MULTIPURPOSE TRAIL FEES 3" COMMERCIAL $2,515.00 - 3" WATER METER + SERVICE CHARGE $12,133.19 - WATER IMPACT FEE FOR 3" MET.ER $7,560.96 - SEWER IMPACT FEE $75.00 - SEWER TAP FEE ( FEES 2" SPRINKLER $865.00 - 2" WATER METER $7,583.24 -WATER IMPACT ROADWAY IMPACT FEES $3,222.27 -ROADWAY IMPACT FEE OTHER FEES $2,247.50 -ENGINEERING/BUILDING INFECTION & ADMINISTRATIVE FEES TOTAL = 36,202. 16 • _ z r swK— \4 �'-. ._.S R9'I9's6'F 71472'_.�_ _ —•t89'39'56�E 425.0J'vwa--'' 4't —. i x,aola • t "OWNER SC LAI LAND LTCI _ _� ` ' D I I I I i I I J rill III II 1 I I I2tI � _ `- EC C : C 6 E.C.AL �-. . °(.1a.� TO , 0 t °® -5 APPROVED ZONE; F q ( n - 1 TIDY i"ai_ I; , ' k a LP-I 11 I I a4 . " QQ(= 'a 3.s7.rr.r, ,:■,taaG sinan SITE PLAN. Ian a ,` ; �.¢ ..ti .� T� ;� 60' ROW I , i _9.• 1'J PIONEEP i \ 1:.------ ii i'lx, •• . Ir .• Ia u, I. ail t ----- -- t, I LUG= OFFICE :CAME lAL '� _ �, co . 890' x 60' a G--irY - I''{ 61\� �!' I nvuto 1: a F �+ ' ROW- Ijs =:r•±I Si 1 1 ,' <-.-:Ru 4�a�� 44 Am 53 400 sq. ft. SCENARIOS- �'I •Ipxauumt I � � �� = I -ter ,+T,T ,, x`I fin ' _, 7:• _ or 1 .22 acres o -4I-' =1-i 4r -_I -'.4= ,fir, t 2- I- 4s MI In n T `—__T;iY1. 'ytp�F. j I-`--. "- I. ..;Y ,,,,,.„ �1 "*,;ae.� �,- ,,, z n I I - 4 'n o• ft j I I I ...�s5 + '4 '" o I , ."11 1 _ ,.V r Yz.,'a .'•. j {}S:;Y.•:.\ = I r<4 I j _.,� • .- H Hy. : �itr'.+ _' 50' ROW 'd eo 4:3. 3 dfr!1rr.YL �• •;:�••••,•Yf_:-.1,' k■ ,g s. 8Q — 'I1 —� Ij I srwinc rm t ,sk+s r Air 1P' IS n 890 x 50 4 . 1-I BriAY:LEAtN b ;# t - r `., a a SRL`[7 ro•rP.k. i ,, I I rPQU£n U[pour; 1 A T'�"�i:'. '11 r :•� N ° a Pry �� — is SLUMS SD="I _7 � Wr r V . : o44 500 s ft. N ROAD LOCATION I S 69'37'45•Ell 3943 , . `-_-R_� 'I ham;: ?' 3 ; q F . r. I , r.••, •;L•;1;Y;r,-: >; = - a � m or 1 .02 acres • �� C , ' L 1'�, irr:T pL�l!.:3L'Uf{i . +.+' a •� 78' -,19-12 :i�?-I p • 1 0• i 47, Ti--- i,:_ti.,F :\ . "4,_.- --� '1 ,-_'!.^ 0 r- TT-LTr iqd t, rL _._,_17 rr, J_ - 40 ROW i IIII II -a ,• 1 I if I I I II!Ir„f ' -1 .fi.«Iiii ... .. I . I.!-ki yam; .i 'Ii:II .. r. .-6-,* •`. r . . r� N ii :: _ g- ' . .1 . ,'�T r�;; ;I: ;! . 3 890' x 40' = il, •,�'°.shoP; °Isro� Ions .�r 35 600 sq. ft. 7.'\, • PxLE I PA7@G ETD " ADM'/021DG 9°IL OMIT.M at mt.au Z-- • �/ -: ui_;_l_t�ti_.-t_�, a :; 'I�y-t I1__�_ill;_:_LI _.. i:_1_ tile::iiic , r� •• L ` 111 `x �1�4 :1 : IEP C or .81 acres 3 b F,t o•C 9C '- S ssn ou giAtUD - T.�P.yt AM(G t.wmG _ �� ID WEN MAC !U( ol n • I. IS&■II4IIgfl1L�AcL O. i w ADO I 'F l�.■ri Y7—MAIM \ /I' p_4 vr4.9't.er maw • L - -irfE•.W.- `■7 �rrr7..--.- -rrFr.l* .r'�Frr auiaarJ�U..JJJLrLIIP.P.RJ -- - � N'89'22'30%71 796.34 �_ /•... POLES / C'.r;E3 JC4Pi �.r;R • '.7;M z tC•E]=. CHA='.I'ii •i :U� I I In_. ,.',41 n=UCI TV PCCIr:.',rl.,l n1n.`I...,r rc ci Tv c_e...c..na 1 ( . • ' • • . . . • . - . • . . . . . . • • ,. .. . • . . . . . . • . . . • : • . . . . . .. . -. . . ' R DC .. , . 0 ' I/ACCESS 0, -.1---N ,. . . '' . \1\I . . . . . .- 0.-1-._.1.11.939.56 F 719.72._ -__ i_f_39:39:56•E 425.03. --;•••,1 4;14 el • ., . - I `-'I'' ,1 i .g-31 1.,-. ....,I . . . 1 ...__,__ ____. , , , , -., ..(1, 1:1J 1.1 1111 1,11kil 1111111 1211------ 7.• GATEWAY CHURCH pvev SC 11-;LAX: LAND LTC' _..7• - ZONED OF E CIL E7*(CIAL itr.-::7. -1.7. .. • • . . , . 1147;,:p 1 ri 'Jr . , • , ..,..... ,„.. .:..--. .,, . . , . . r!....... 1 I M 1 --• •''f:1• • 1•1 ; %..,ITTITIFFTM-1tfil - , • . • - • i 4--I r-71--- • • 1 271 It ' 1 ist‘r ', • . •--•. . . • I 4/ vb.,iii.' \,• • 1-6----.- I I •--- I • i 'I ' •••'''''''' Ill-17.11 I IllI *--1 I,. -•_ ',..=7",•- ,_) , • 7)1,1 F..1.1 AtItiri Ainr• i • , '-1-' 1 / • .04„Ca _ r ill PIONttP • .,:: ; ,•1,---,%. , - • i . . . • Nef- -!...',"'. y-, 'tai!1 7 . r !er...0. 'fi7wirel.. lb El in ria D•••r- ,4.,--4. 1, LW= OFFICE .31.Q.IE• IAL 1\ ...:, 1 ....i S 5--------lii. ,J----- .,-,------- -.1. ei,.' • i ' .- 1 -0'ix-0 w')c>•••_} an:-.•'...- :s. •:., X., ' •I• . riiw - , ,i• .., - ,--- ,.. .21 mi .0• .. ,I ..+0. NE . . g ,..-- .. ;._,...,4:•=. . _.....y li. 25.-0• !S;;„ : I uC I ---- J ;:c77. \\ mg1 U NE kr. • . . .• , • ' 1,14 ' .-- .... • f ' _, • ,. '--- • I ••• Lei 1 0*. I 00 ri.g00. '• I e-rf m.Da' -1..-/ . b 5:All UPODIT r ,. • ....-i 1 , -- r-- rell I ,.." : .. ,.__SFROAC rD*An 1 I teX•Cf 61.91•41. um. p2, ... 0 „.• In 1 In r---7 .41 CI nI,. '."-"j RN• • '• .7-.. •• '. • ' MN •-• - 4_7,tE • :WU OM 3 • 1!----:-. *4.. t •i EI.D.ING A.A9l I- '.„ 1t, , ,rtz.1 ...:11,2, ,., 1 „-3 1--.• ep PHASE BUILDING In mmi ri,-.:.-_ . . •;•zic?moo Piaam , • ._; 11,.., - f?•• r---pr_ --.1- --' .r.1.----/ I n . - ,-__, ,, -- :I+cm.,mac vat= - %A 3nali , .• ,A. . ... . 1.- q• 16,--. vi•. c3:- _ -g- i.- I v..0.4 limo i3o,r-Is fr. . ' •Z.o.' a 1--- ,1 ._., -1.-------c 1.6. ,...... . .: .. ....... .i:i..i... .ti::.,,,,..% .....• , • . :•••••-- ,. . ,1-, t.. . „.. I 0 0 :I .......,,th.., ; , _ 1 .4,TI-H..ICE-. ._, • . • .....- ..4.- ,.....,........,........./• ,„.. [2_.... ...;__i , - .-,-4- • ___ . •.-,..Y IG:P.11-. . D-I 1- I i 1 '4.-Cr"11E4'4 17.2-"S.,.1\./. t.:7 Ald:,,:..:. -'),-;.,:.:::•1 H- J-61 n • • :Z--- I.._ I i-Mel••••=7X.W--1 ‘-"---.s.L-2 1.--, .- I. 1 FHASE BUILDING r' r -•••••••-•:--;,%$:4411 ' 'A-Ism.,,ALF.VD I &MAIM' • . .1 , . r.... '...e.:!•ka.7.4.-,......' . L. 3i :--- rffs AI 4 ; 1.-- ' ,•1 v-us i -1. \ :!:PYAliMr. •I.L.I•• , :-- if ? -:...310 ICiAD3/APPDIC . • :::.„...-.--....', ..I -- 1_•..• : •• mion i\r) r; ;: ;I ;;: • x , • I ,, L.U I.,_ -,:i /..• I --ri.r ,,,m7, 'Cf "-- r ' ‘•- " 1,;›, It - 1--I'L L s ACKM.1.1.044 I.A ./* .*.. •.,. I. 4 I • I , ', ; $:i._-_-1,"1 DAMS(AC At MS.1 - - 1.40,21,... 1,,- ••I 1.---. ..c., a MDP....*7 IT T.P.11--.Ti . , I i :'.. I 1-.mactr.•ix III.::\k, ..1% ri .•axa...9.i L.:-,a.no 7 ; '-' I. • ', , • . - ,.1 -,-.' ‘1,-,----- -.I i t .1PCIUM1r:StakS7016 ?• ME 75 0, ..M7 , : " - cj 111 10-3FA.PALE SD, • % I\ IS MOND MI1!Aa 71. •-0) 1 ._.,. ) , _.- l___, C 0 ' ,____00 ' 00 -6 * J ' L__ --. 2 ;S 891745-1E1394.3 ',I--• '-‘ -..- ••.• . LK •-..-'-‘....-•.-.1-',-.:X„...7.1". 'II/I-r..L.,..""UM' --/- :d 78-: . __Li,.. ,c- A . ••, ,.. ../..) I- .a....-II- a:. " ' ,-A P.:. ,r___/•,..... .I..,_,, . -,..... , -,:.,:: 'r •,,'riirzTit'ald-1-:;.fir'f..-r TIT r-;::r r;t;ill, . • I rl • 7-, $ ; r,pE,.:$ •,, 1 i :-:i;:I ;;;•;;;;.-„, -, 1 ri;-,2 A_A-;GR;;;Aa.• ,. •,.. - ...; e- - 18-.I•4 21. :14,_''' • , ' • • '4,s./ ei ; ;$,4'1:-',..''‘4,.' $ ;$ „7- ii I • '1 . . , , , --t- .... c -. 1 #,;.... • -NI,-;,.. . „-.. . .. . %,,----N ,t... 1 ‘-':V....." -4 '. • vs • • • , ,, • . 0 ;:"(-71:1-7-r" r3/4-,-7-7-r-r-r-;-•;Trr77-7, ' PI .1'v.,4-7-77:•Cryr177,-7-r:,4tr-1-7 r±,:l.'‘ . • ,;..„... e••••11; • • 1.7.,„? 4, ...V,ig• ...i.:_irr,.1 ;; ::1:; -.-s-7, \ + • , . _- • ' - , „' , ------''•••••----• .•;,, i ii,i•,•. r2 VI; - `. ‘7.-__ .... / ' • cc. ; 7\. 4. / .•'- 13 ..`;`-• ,,:fel4a;:; ;i.. . . . ,r-";• ,P•'1t; :11 J .. . . fe,f'-'-, ;, '* ... :-- - • ot '. .. a' '---;-,• -ir-,------.---s....-;-,-- . ,", ,•;" .,,,,--.14-....,---.........L,.. , so , .•,,-.'U f .1/ P• rt-r-:--71-r-r-r-1-7-7-T-Pr-47. 1- • •4 • • MI- 7.17 re-CV ' '''''I '' •..• 13-9•-•• •••• •••• • • • •••• to, •• .... ;kl 111111 . •,' ' ••• • " .4 ..-1;': r;;; 1!!:;; . ;;!'.4•',."1- 4' "4.- . '-,:- -"K "...- :.--; . *71 " it •4, ;-1^ • -..; -7. ''...,..„..'..V..__I- . - , : . .__ - ,,:•.•..4j1t1...;1-41,/1.a1t!!;!1!t! ;1:1 ii;;t!-!!iI !i!!I;\-‘'F.--?..n./vI, ,\,:•"--.-`z-1N,6i r.e';l',,i y!1!!-!.!.!.!:II.r!rI..r‘tr.'T.,1., •,1-.4.-_---.P-...---,:---,,-f.9--'.--..r...".'--A--L..,..---•.-:-4k;4• ._=_-____- . . ‘ r - , / D , ..1:• TCr.oD - •-- - .,.1i11 :,-. -n. • . • ,-.-•....,,,w?1ANG(MS XICAITS " DHJItt PM UT:Lon - K__ . • --<... 1... ' % MAX 1 PIMI(I EX '' ; ' HI•20./MPG mi.cosy*DIM UOTT.MS .11.. . D.D DC PEWS. r-; 1-';;: 1; ;;'::1 ;; ;' •i 1,I. L.1.!,_;_l_k_Li.;_11.1!' '-••• co . rt. • 11.73: ' . F'7;•VA 99 g,t • 1 a:t6-17v(p4As.,-. j OWNER C -..'n.. '• r sae cw max, •IDD 13 MIA•15-at .---____ WI . i vocVm.Ir.mi.Par•APADCDC tr. , --..... 1 V ItAICX NUM . • --....... DU EXP. . ' I id MI SUPPCL.0 . , • . .F4 . 4 SIXD CH tenl.;,ATL. CO , ' 1 I , On. • ' • ( . CDS714 PDO . p , ' !C:SAM •TVA Di'S C • . . , II- -orai 1• . • .. . . Z • . 4 SIA4 SETIOCC 113210.3 ' . \ . ' • / ' ' I I- --. . • • . . ...• L • ".--- ----• . . J . - • . . ! _ . - 1/.-'.....) • ..-/ _..• / N.89-2230•-W 796.34!-. • - .., • .. : •-- -----ir -, ---• ; LUC • • rams/ . .• . , Dr:E :Gst4 7, :71 / . mAP•.;i4 . I, 1 A 1rJZITY..DC:Mr. ki. - , „,', Ow rro I-,..,,,..• - • • I . . • \ . .. . . • ., • . •• . \(Q ) • \•LN- CITY OF SOUTHLAKE WATER FEES 32 / - o — &Ad y 6/04/4// ti)/44- FiemuK 6,4/e_ eiDATE , STREET # STET jL66//-14 RE SUBDIVISION 0 LOT BLK BUILDER Plibe-e4 FEES 12." 4122E44" SINGLE FAMILY COMMERCIAL SPRINKLER WT01-METER $ 460.00 .METER $ 500s METER $ 75-o • SC01- SER. CHG. 15.00 SER.CHG. 15.00 SER.CHG 15.00 FE20-WAT. IMP. •WAT. IMP. /,2//3.3,/8, WAT.IMP 29 FE19- SEW.IMP. • 'SEW.IMP. 75.4,bVG SEXanfr /7/Iit • ST01- SEW.TAP 75.00 SEW.TAP 75.00 SF AM- TOTAL $ TOTAL $ NOTES S " 4 Ken Baker From: Charles Bloomberg ent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:36 AM ; Ken Baker Subject: Gateway Church- 2121 E. Southlake Blvd. _ Ken, Gateway Church paid $ 3222.27 for roadway impact fee with their building permit. Permit#CH 2013, Issued 07-13-2002. If interested in water and sewer impact fees, contact Charlotte Kelsey at Utility Billing. Chuck • • • R • City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM 1 _, . . May 9, 2002 . • . • '. . To: Billy Campbell, City Manger . - . From: Pedram Farahnak, P.E., Director of Public Works, 4.81-2308 Subject: • Authorize the Mayor to execute a Commercial Developer's • Agreement for Gateway Church located on East Southlake Boulevard . across from Village Center. . Action . Requested: . . Authorize the Mayor to .execute a Commercial Developer's • - Agreement for Gateway.-Church located in. the 2100 Block of E. . Southlake Boulevard. • Background • Information:. The final.plat for Gateway Church,was approved on May 9, 2002. The property is located on the south side of Southlake Boulevard • just east of Village Center-Drive. This developer's agreement covers the installation of an 8-inch public water line on site - ' connected to a 12-inch main on FM 1709. There are no'waivers being requested. . . Financial 0 - Consideration: The required .Park Fee for this. 13.675 acres development is. . 310,940. The.Park Board recommends credit for the fee be met • with.the construction of an 8' wide multi-use trail; on the FM 1709 . •. property. Citizen Input/ - . . Board Review: •• - None. . • Legal Review: This is the City's standard Commercial Developer's Agreement originally drafted by the City Attorney. • Alternatives: The Council may approve, deny it or modify the agreement. • Supporting • - - Documents:, Commercial Developer's Agreement • ' Location Map Final •Plat - • . S ' (., . ..7 i -, j - To: Finance . . From: Karen Webster Date: June 18, 2002 Subject:. Gateway Church - Inspection and Admn. Fees Enclosed, you find check#5595 in the amount of$2,247.50 for inspection and • administrative fees for Gateway Church from Llano Utility Services, Inc. cve.-- oq Inspection fees: $1,348.50 , _ Administrative fees: $899.00.--- r5 (0 - Total: _ $2,247.50 S • . , . , - , . ( . , _ ..- . . . • _ BANK ONE-GUMM PROFESSIONAL OFFICES . City Assessed Costs Associated with Development (Excluding Administrative Fees) $4,006 — PARK FEES $6,066 - WATER IMPACT FEE ( $3,544 - WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE CP $3,780 - ROADWAY IMPACT FEE $13,763 — ENGINEERING/BUILDING INFECTION & ADMINISTRATIVE FEES $268,072-CONSTRUCTION OF S.VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE • �_ City of Southlake, Texas ; ' MEMORANDUM - - • fr.et . . October 16, 2001 • To: Billy Campbell, City Manager . • From: Pedram Farahnak, P.E., Director of Public Works . Subject: Authorize Mayor to execute a Commercial Developer's Agreement for - • Gumm-Scifres Addition (Lots 1 through 4, Block -1, Gumm-Scifres ' ' Addition) • • • Action Requested: Authorize Mayor to execute a Commercial Developer's Agreement - .• for Gumm-Scift s_Addition (Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, Gumm- Scifres Addition), a 5.0075 acre development. . •' . Background ' Information: A plat revision for Gumm-Scifres Addition which includes the '. . . right-of-way dedication,for South Village Center Dave which'is . located on the south side of FM 1709 across from Village Center was.approved on August 7, 2001: The developer•of Lot 2, Block 1 . (Bank One) desires to construct the street improvements which includes 37- feet of pavement for South Village Center Drive, . which also includes a deceleration lane approximately 232 feet long on FM 1709 and the relocation of a traffic signal pole at the intersection of 1709 and South Village Center Drive. The construction will also include the installation of an 8-inch water and 8-inch sanitary sewer lines within the right-of-way of South . Village Center Drive. . This is the standard developer's agreement with no request for any waivers. • Financial . Consideration: None Citizen Input/ - I Board Review: Park Board recommends a Park Fee of$4,006.00 l` . -— • —S.-------1 �...1 mi,5792N. I Dodson-Bateman 214.369.9600 Fax.363.9269 8350 Meadow Road Suite 181 Dallas Texaz 75231 a, & C O M P A N Y PEKFORMANND STATE OFTEY.AS $ • Bond No. 46BCSAA9186 COUNTY OF TARRANT KNOW ALL MEN By THESE PRESENTS: That Frank Dale Construction, Inc, whose address 250 Bank Street. Southlake, TX 76092 _ .hereinafter caned Prindpal,and Hartford Fire Insurance Company ,a corporation organized and existing under the taws Or the state of Connecticut and fully authorized to transact business In the State of Texas, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Southlake,a municipal corporation orvanized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, hereinafter Trammell Crow.Corporate Services, Inc. _ called'city, andAuthorized Anent for Banc One, Inc. hereinafter called `Owner,in the penal sum Of Two Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand, Seventy-Two and no/100 — DOLLARS(S 26$,072.00 l plus • 3 percent of the stated penal sum as an additional surn of money representing additional court expenses, attorneys fees, and liquidated damages arising out of or connected with the below Identified Contract In lawful money of-the United States,to be paid in Tarrant County,Texas,for the Payment of which sum well and truly to be made,We hereby bind ourselves,our heirs,executors, administrators and successors, Jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. This Bond shall ` automatically be increased by the amount of any.Change order or SUpplemental Agreement. which increases the Contract price, but In no event shall a Change Oder or Supplemental Agreement which reduces the Contract price decrease the penal sum of this Band. • THE oBUOATIONTO PAY SAME is conditioned as follows: Whereas,the Principal entered Into a certain Contract, identified by plans pile No.:TX00111754 with the Owner,dated the - 25th day of October AA• 2001 a copy of which Is hereto attached and made Bank One -Southlake Roadwork, a part hereof, for the construction of Southlake Village Center Drive to serve the Southlake Village Center Drive Addition. NoW,THBREFORE.If the Prtndpa1 ill well,truly and faithfully perform and fulfil all of • the undertakings, covenants;terms,conditions and agreements of said Contract In accordance With the plans,specifications and Contract Documents during the original term thereof and any extension thereof which may be granted by the Owner,with or without notice to the Surety and during the aft of any guaranty or warranty required under this Contract,and shag also waif and truly Perform and fulfill au the undertakings,covenants.terms,conditions and agreements of arty • and all duly authorized modifications of said Contract that may hereafter be made, notice of which modifications to the Surety being hereby waived;and,If the Principal shall repair andlor - • - replace tQ defects due to fautty materials and workmanship that appear within a period of one c1i year from the date of final completion and final acceptance of the work by the city;and. If the Principal shall fully Indemnify and save harmless the ownercar the City in the case of the one- Yearwarranty perloW from all costs and damages Which owner(or the sty in the case of the one. Year warranty period) may suffer by reason of failure to so Perform herein and shall fully reimburse and repay Owner of at outlay and expense Which the owner(or the City In the case of • the one•year warranty perloai may incur in making good any default or deficiency, ttlen.tfls obligation shall be void;otherwise,It shall remain In full force and effect PROVIDED FUG,that if any legal action be flied upon this Sons. exclusive.venue Shall lie In Tarrant county State of Texas. • HO • "=ems ;;,,.�-'J, Dodson-Bateman.Bateman 214.369.9600 s Texas 3..9269 ^' `' J 8350 Meadow Road Suite 181 Dallas, Texa 75231 pERFORMANC$ ND • STATE OF TEXT. S Bond No.46BCSAA9186 I COUNTY OF TARRANT j • KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS; That _ Frank Dale Construction. Inc. Whose address 250 Bank Street, Southlake, TX 76092 _ ,hereinafter caned Principal,and . Hartford Fire Insurance Company a corporation organized and existing under the taws Or the State of Connecticut and fully authorized to transact . business in the State of Texas, as Surety, are held and_firmly bound unto the City. of Southlake,a municipal corporation ortranizcd and existing.under the laws of the State of Tens, hereinafter Trammell Crow Corporate Services; Inc. called'City', and Authorized Agent for Banc One, Inc. , hereinafter called`Owner', In the,penai sum • • of Two Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand, Seventy-Two and no/100— bot.LARS cs 26E3.072.00 i plus • • 3 percent of the stated penal sum as an additional sum of money representing additional court expenses, attorneys fees, and liquidated damages arising out of or connected w[tn the below Identifled•Contract In lawful money of the United States,to be paid in Tarrant County,Texas,for the • Payment of which sum well end truly to be made,We hereby bind ourselves,our help, executors, administrators and successors,lointly.and severally, firmly by these presents. This lsond shall • automatically be increased by the amount of any Change order or Supplemental Agreement • which increases the Contract price, but in no event shall a change Order or Supplemental Agreement which reduces the Contract price decrease the penal sum of this Bond. T s OBLIGATION TO PAY SAME Is conditioned as follows: Whereas,the Principal entered • into a certain Contract, Identified by plans fills NO.:TX00111754 -with the owner,.dated the 2"day of October _A•p, 2001 a opy Of which is hereto attached and made • Bank One-Southlake Roadwork, a part hereof, for the construction of Southlake Village Oenter Drive to serve the Southlake Village Center Drive Addition. . .Now,ThEREFoRB,if the Principal shall wen,truty and faithfully perform and fulfill all of the undertakings, covenants, terms,coridttions and agreements of said Contract in accordance With the plans,specifications and Contract Documents during the original term thereof and any extension thereof which may be granted by the Owner,with or without notice to the Surety and during the life of any Cuararity or warranty required under this Contract,and stall also well sad trUtY perform and fulfill aU the undertakings,covenant,terms,conditions and agreements of any . and all duty authorized modifications of sales contract that may hereafter b.e made, notice of. Which modifications to the-Surety being hereby waived;and,if the Principal shall repair and/or replace au defects due to nutty materials and wort rnanshlp that appear within a period of one . (1)year froth the date of final completion and final acceptance of the Work by the city;and, If• • the Principal shall fully Indemnify and save harmless the Owner(or the City in the case of the one- - year warranty period)from all costs and damages Which owner(or the City In the case of the one- Year Warranty. period) may suttee by reason of failure to so perform herein and shall fully reimburse and repay Owner of ail outlay and expense Which the Owner(or the City In the case of the one-year Warranty period) may incur in malting good any default or deficiency, then this obligation shall be void;otherwise, It shall remain in full force and effect PROVIC® FURTHER,that if any legal action be filed upon this Bond, exclusive venue . stall tie in Tarrant county.state of Texas, fc,' "' V ;, :2.?! Legal Review: This is the City's standard developer's agreement originally /1 ' drafted by the City Secretary. Alternatives: Council may approve, deny or modify this agreement Supporting Documents: Developer's Agreement Plat Exhibit Location Map Staff Recommendation: Please place on City Council agenda for October 16, 2001 for Council review and consideration. - Staff _ - Contact: Charlie Thomas, P.E., City Engineer, 481-2175 Pedram Faralmak, P.E., Director of Public Works, Mike Patterson, Operations Manager, 481-2101 , - PF/kw 55 ,- - . . - .. • II • • • November 5, 2002 Southlake City Council City of Southlake, Texas 76092 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I have attended the Spin meetings regarding a possible amendment to the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan, concerning extension of S. Village Center Drive from 1709 to S.Kimball Avenue. As a friend and neighbor of Gateway Church we do not support you taking land that has been platted • and approved by the council and Westwood Heights. We believe the safety of the school children could be addressed in other alternatives. We support a connector road-across from Wal-Mart down the commercial property of Pigg/Quicksall to the schools and Kimball Avenue. This would be at no cost to the city and relieve the congestion that exists on Kimball This road that you propose raises more issues, besides illegally taking land from a Church. The buffer area you propose will not act as a fence protecting the back of our property on Westwood Drive. We will have almost'/4 of a mile of poorly lit, almost deserted road every night. I can only imagine the problems this would create. We ask that you take our neighborhood into consideration. We voted for a Church and stand behind that- Church in whatever action becomes necessary.If you decide to go forward. S' cere • .1111' i Llo .Raney,y Frankie L.Raney • • • NOV - 5 2002 209 WESTWOOD;DRIVE • SOUTHLAKE TEXAS • 76092 PHONE: 817-329-4962 • FAX: 817-329-4967 Page 1 of 2 Lori Farwell From: Mike & Dana Peters [mikeanddanal @attbi.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:00 PM To: webmaster@cityofsouthlake.com; mayor@cityofsouthlake.com; bcampbell@cityofsouthlake.com; syelverton@cityofsouthlake.com; slegrand@cityofsouthlake.com; glast@cityofsouthlake.com Cc: Stephen & Karen.(E-mail) - Subject: PETITION: Proposed Road through 1709 Southlake Blvd. Importance: High To the Mayor Rick Stacy, City Council Members and Other Administrative Officials of the City of Southlake: Our family attends Gateway Church who is currently building a new facility at 1709 Southlake Blvd. We drive to your fine city every week to attend this 1200-member church (currently meeting at their temporary location on Timberline Drive in Grapevine). Your city has played a significant role in our decision to move our family to your area in the spring to be closer to our _ church family. It has come to our attention that the city of Southlake has proposed a road to be built right through Gateway Church's new property. We are writing to make you aware that we strongly oppose this proposed planning for this road for the following reasons: 1. We strongly believe that the city granting public access through the church property causes a serious safety concern to our members. We have plans to build a children and youth education building at the site where the road has been,proposed. 2. We respectfully ask Mayor Rick Stacy, City Council Members and other Administrative Officials to not add this road to the master thoroughfare plan and to remove- the current cross-access easement from the church's property. 3. The current concerns the City of Southlake has with traffic and protected left turns onto FM 1709 can be solved other ways without taking the church property; other suggestions presented would be significantly less expensive to the city. 4. We do not believe that there is a public need for this road in the city of Southlake. Please reconsider this proposed plan for a road at this location. Respectfully yours, ° u Michael &Dana Peters - Plano, Texas 11/8/2002 Page 2 of 2 mike & dana peters © home in piano reach us @ 214 .755 . 8913/1006 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11/8/2002 Page 1of1 Lori Farwell From: EricaSCarr@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:48 PM To: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Gateway Church I oppose the street to run beside Gateway Church 11/11/2002 Lori Farwell From: TinkerBelIQT4@aol.com ( ent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:52 PM o: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Gateway Church OPPOSE the street beside the church I oppose the street to run alongside Gateway Church l 1 1 Lorrie Fletcher am: Lori Farwell ( `nt: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:53 PM Lorrie Fletcher Subject: FW: Gateway Church For your records on the MTP plan Lori Farwell, City Secretary 1400 Main Street, Suite 270 Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-1519 Original Message From: EricaSCarr@aol.com [mailto:EricaSCarr@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:48 PM To: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Gateway Church I oppose the street to run beside Gateway Church • . y'' I 5 Page 1of1 Lori Farwell From: Drymycloak@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 5:50 PM To: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Item 7b on Schedule The Gateway church property road plan. I would like to comment that children will be using this property and needing to traverse the whole property line. Please consider the safety issue of placing a road through here. I do not think it is wize. I would also like to have the Cross Access Easment removed. Thank you, Austin Gates 8725 Irongate Drive North-richland Hills, TX 76180 • • 11/11/2002 Lori Farwell ~rom: barnett howeth.[bhoweth@charter.net] 'ent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 5:03 PM To: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Gateway church • My family attends Gateway Church and we would like to address the issue of a public road being routed through our parking lot. 1 We do not believe that there is a need for a public road • 2. The concerns that the city has with traffic and protected left turns onto • 1709 can be solved other ways without taking the church property and these • other ways would be significantly less expensive to the city. 3. We strongly believe that the city granting public access thru the church • - property causes a serious safety concern to our members. This is very important when there is any kind of pedestrian - traffic . 4. We respectfully ask the Mayor and City Council to not add this road to the master thoroughfare plan and to remove the current cross-access easement from the church's property. Thank you for your consideration, Barnett Howeth & Family 817-280-0096 • • • • ' Pa�elofl - Lori Farwell ' ( / '- ---` -- - -- ~ -- -�--- -'--�--- --~- -----~-~'-- Pnmom: PurterMoportar27@aoicom Sent: Tuaodoy, NnvombarO5. 20024100 pK4 ' To: Kanwe|@oitvofnouthhake.com Subject: Road through Gateway Church Property ' As Gateway Church owns the property for the church it is building and has permission' to build Uhe oh/ roh. it Is entirely inappropriate to novvde�dabo build a rood through this property. As mature citizens who have lived in many lovely cities,we do not nee what advantage this road vvnu|d be to the citizens of8outh|ake. Thinking long- term we believe it would be o detriment to the city ofSouth|ake. James and Mary Ann Moore. ' ` ` _ ` ` ` ` - ' . ` ' ` ` ' ' /- � 11/11/2002. ' Page 1 of 1 Lori Farwell From: WDWBEAR©aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:58 PM To: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Street through the property of Gateway Church I am strongly opposed to running a street through the property of Gateway Church. My primary concern is the safety issue. The volume of potential traffic combined with the large membership of the church would_be a disaster waiting to happen. The church is growing at a phenomenal rate as is evidenced by the need for a much larger new building. If anticipated future growth comes to fruition, the problem will grow even worse. I am also concerned with the potential liability of the church as well as that of the City of Southlake. .I am sure there are valid reasons for wanting to build the road,.but I cannot think of one that supersedes the safety of our citizens. In my opinion, it would be unconscionable to place convenience over safety. If you do, Southlake will be making a statement that I don't think it really wants to make. • • 11/11/2002 • Lori Farwell prom: Jovian72@aol.com sient: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:26 PM o: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Cc: TonjaWells@aol.com Subject: Concerning possible road on Gateway Church property Dear City Council: I would like to ask you please remove a current cross access easement from the church property at Gateway Church on 1709. I feal putting in a road here will be a safety issue for the members of the church. Thanks for your consideration. Tonja Wells 817-485-7239 1 Lori Farwell ---rom: TyShields@aol.com \ Bent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:55 PM ro: IFarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Oppose the street by Gateway Church <PRE>I Oppose the street 1 Page 1 of 1 Lori Farwell From: dowell shea [cscdowell@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:32 PM To: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Hello- • My name is Shea Dowell and I am a member of Gateway Church. I am writing this letter to protest the' City of Southlake putting in a street thru our church property. This will be a danger to every person who has to cross this street from our parking lot to the doors of our church. I'm sure that the city does not want to be sued by someone who has been hit by a car because of this street. So please reconsider this decision.Thank You- Shea Dowell 817-468-1447 Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now 11/11/2002 Lori Farwell 1,rom: Laura Fletcher[Idf972@yahoo.com] ;ent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:59 PM —To: sarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Public road access To Whom It May Concern: As a member of Gateway Church, I am deeply troubled abut the decision of Southlake City Council to put a public road through our church parking lot. I am specifically concerned about,the safety issues surrounding our children. I respectfully request that the City Council members remove the Cross Access Easement Plan from our church property. Sincerely, Laura Fletcher Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ 1 Page 1 of 1 • Lori Farwell From: Jeffrey Peterson [taxprep@ifriendly.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 5:16 PM To: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Cc: webmaster@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: city throughfare on property of Gateway Church To whom it may concern: • As members of Gateway Church,we would like you to reconsider the plan you are considering to put a city thoroughfare through the property of our church. We are concerned with the safety of members being forced to cross back-and-forth on a city street to access the various buildings,parking,etc. at our future church. Perhaps there is a better way to address your concern that there is a need for additional protected left turns onto 1709. Might there be a less expensive and intrusive way to solve the city's need than to place this street through the church's grounds? We respectfully ask that you vigorously explore other options. We also respectfully ask that this plan not be added to the city's master throughfare plan. Thank you for your time, attention to our concern,and consideration of other options. Sincerely, Jeffrey and Brenda Peterson Gateway Church members 1'1/11/2002 /7FflTfl . NNOV - 5 ZOOZ 11/05/2002 Martha T. Taylor John G. Taylor OFFICE OF CITY SECRETARY 209 Eastwood Dr. Southlake, TX 76092 Southlake City Council City of Southlake, TX 76092 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We have attended all of the recent Citywide SPIN and Southlake Planning and Zoning meetings concerning a possible amendment to the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan to include the extension of S. Village Center Drive from FM 1709 to S. Kimball Avenue. During these meetings, we were shocked to learn that the city has, for a portion of this venture, cavalierly planned to confiscate property from Gateway Church- land that the church must have for imminent future growth. Once again, some of our city officials seem to be operating under"Crisis Management Philosophy". They see a serious problem and create several others with quick, easy, and poorly planned solutions. This became readily apparent when their blustery justifications included patent phrases:"Unlike you, we're looking at the Big Picture.", "bla,bla... what's • Best for the Community", and of course,"WE are concerned for the safety of the school children". (as if anyone opposed to their plans is short-sighted, and lacks concern for the good of the community and child safety!) As neighbors and friends of Gateway Church,we DO NOT support this option for the following reasons: 1.Representatives of Gateway Church have made compelling arguments for why they need ALL of their property for future growth. This church is being built for the life of our community and will be here long after everyone in this room is gone. The members, many of whom vote in this city, have already committed and spent over$8 Million on this piece of property. So far, our city planning department and all but one of our Planning and Zoning Commissioners have displayed short-sightedness and an arrogant disregard for these church members and their land needs concerning future growth of their church. When completed, this large church will draw in thousands of people from surrounding communities to worship and spend their dollars in our city at restaurants and stores. To confiscate their land-is to drive them and their spending to another community. Southlake desires to quickly lay claim to this right of way, yet doesn't have the funds to build the road across church property, much less funds to buy this land from the church, so church officials can negotiate for other adjoining property. Fortunately, there are state and federal laws that will prevent the city from placing undue restrictions on the growth ( of this church and from confiscating their property without prompt compensation. We're tired of meddlesome agents of the city getting Southiake involved in foolish lawsuits they can't win, so please don't make this another one. Stop the bullying, leave the church alone, and let them build, expand, and grow on the land they bought for the purpose, all fitting in with their long range plans which, we must remind you again, will also benefit Southlake. 2. A viable option exists, which we DO support. Maps provided by city planners illustrate a connector road which would extend from FM 1709, across from Wal Mart, down the Pigg/Quicksall property line to the schools and Kimball Avenue. This road option is encouraged by the developer/owners of the property in consideration and would help their • future development. I'm certain that the city can"encourage"these.developer/owners to dedicate this right of way and build this road at NO COST to the city. 3.By slowing the work on the FM 1709/Kimball intersection, the city has created the illusion of a safety crisis that our city planners incorrectly declare can only be alleviated by the S. Village Center/S. Kimball connector. This sudden urgency and serious concern for the"safety of the school children"immediately after interrupting construction of a critical intersection doesn't appear to be sincere, Properly complete the FM1709/Kimball intersection and encourage developers to install the optional connector across the Pigg/ Quicksall properties before trying to confiscate the church property. Sincerely, Martha T. Tayl John G.Taylor , GATEWAY CHURCH September 27, 2002 Mr. Bruce C. Payne, AICP Director of Planning City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Re: Gateway Church Dear Bruce: Over the past several weeks we have had several discussions about the city's interest in creating a • new public street through the church's property so that property owners and public traffic generated east of the church have access to the Village Circle traffic light. Based on many calls we have received about this issue, we thought it would be appropriate to document our position in this letter. • As you recall, when the church first received Final Plat approval, the City Council added a last minute item to the Final Plat. That item was the dedication of a cross-access easement creating the ability for the adjacent property owner to the east to``access the Village Circle light by going through the church's property. Public vehicular access through'the property creates many concerns; the most important of which is safety. As with every church we will have considerable pedestrian traffic of all ages, from children to the elderly. Granted, there will be some risk to them from on- site traffic, however the risk from off-site traffic will be very different. Off-site traffic will be using the cross-access easement for one reason; namely, to get to the Village Circle light as easily and quickly as possible. This."cut-through"traffic will pose a significant and continuing danger to our congregation that would not exist but for he easement. Gateway now understands that the city is taking the next step towards locating a new public street through the church's property. We want to be good neighbors and work with the city, but we want to make clear the following: 1. Any public access through the church's property, whether by using the existing cross-access easement or a new public street,poses a significant and continuing danger to our congregation. Gateway Church does not support public access of any kind through its property. 2. If the city determines that a new public street is required, it should be along the perimeter of the church's property(along the southern and western boundary) and ? Office: 817.481 .9898 • 100 West Southlake Blvd. # 142-800 Fax: 817.329.1897 Southlake, Texas76092_ www.gatewaydfw.com REC'D SEP U ZUUa should not bisect the property; and in such event, the existing cross-access easement should be abandoned. 3. An enormous amount of time, energy and money have been expended to maximize the church's use of its property to meet the current and future needs of its congregation. The ongoing construction has been planned with all those needs in mind. If the city decides that a new public street must be constructed, the impact on the remainder of the church's property, and on the intended future use thereof,will be very serious. Any such decision, therefore, must take into consideration, and must fully mitigate, those impacts. I'm sure you understand that the financial impact on the church of any new street will far exceed the value of the right-of-way that will be required. • Bruce, I hope this-letter clearly outlines our position and concerns. Again, Gateway Church wants to work with the City of Southlake in regards to this issue and will make ourselves available to the city for discussions. And I trust that you will work with us, in good faith, to make sure that our congregation is treated fairly. Sincerely, 0S‘ie Jeff Drott Executive Senior Pastor cc: Rick Patterson - George Grubbs Rex Whitton Ike Shupe - Hughes &Luce, LLP - GATEWAY CHURCH October 29, 2002 or and City Council City o outhlake 1400 Mai treet, #310 Southlake, T 6092 Re: Gateway Church Dear Mayor Stacy and Members of the City Council: As you may be aware, we-are in the process of building our new church in Southlake. During the course of our efforts over the past"several months, we have had numerous discussions with Bruce Payne and his staff regarding the interest.;of the city in creating anew public street through the church's property so that land owners and public traffic senerated east of the church have access to the Village Circle traffic light. We have also discussed this matter with our neighbors:and with members of our congregation,most of whom also oppose the new street. We have`-attended meetings of the appropriate "Spin" group as well as meetings of your Planning and Zoning Commission.. Based on the Commission's vote last week recommending revision of the city's thoroughfare plan to include the new street, we thought it appropriate to communicate our serious concerns directly to each of you. By way of background, when we received Final.Plat approval, the Council added a last minute condition, namely, the dedication of a cross-access easement across our property creating the ability for the adjacent property owner to the east to access the Village Circle light by going through our property. I'm sure you can understand that the City Council's requirement to allow public vehicular access through our property creates many serious public safety issues. As with every church, we will have considerable pedestrian traffic of all ages, from children to the elderly: Granted, there will be some risk to them from our own traffic; however, the risk from off-site traffic will be very different. Off-site traffic will be using the cross-access easement for one reason, namely, to get to the Village Circle light as easily and quickly as possible. This "cut-through"traffic will pose a significant and continuing danger to our congregation that would not exist but for this easement. Notwithstanding unanimous public opposition to the proposed new public street through the church's property voiced at the meeting, your Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended a revision to the city's thoroughfare plan that includes the new street. In addition, we have been advised by your staff that the revised thoroughfare plan will give the city the right to "reserve" the right-of-way for Office: 817.481 ..9898 100 West Southlake Blvd. # 142-800 Fax: 817.329.1897 Southlake, Texas76092 www.gatewaydfw.com REC'D OCT 31 2002 the future street and thereby prevent full development of the church's property. Our lawyers at Hughes & Luce advise us otherwise. You have the right to revise your thoroughfare plan; however, if you treat the t _ plan as a reservation of right-of-way and deny us the right to develop our property, then your denial will be a "taking" of our property. If you are interested in the law on this point, you might read a 1999 court of appeals decision called City of Houston.v. Kolb. It can be found beginning on page 949 of Volume 982 of the Southwestern 2nd Reporter. I will be happy to send you a copy. This matter will be before you for a decision next week. As we have repeatedly said, we want to be good neighbors and work with the city, but we want to make clear the following: 1. Any public access through the church's property, whether by using the existing cross access easement or a new public street, poses a significant and continuing danger to our congregation. Gateway Church does not support public access of any kind through its property and strongly recommends the removal of the current cross-access easement imposed by this City Council which poses serious public safety issues for our congregation. 2. If the city determines that a new public street is required, it should be along the perimeter of the church's property(along the southern and western boundary) and should not bisect the property. In such event, the existing cross-access easement, if not already removed as • requested in paragraph 1, should be abandoned. 3. An enormous amount of time, energy and money have been expended to maximize the church's use of its property to meet the current and future needs of its congregation. The ongoing construction has been planned with all those needs in mind. If the city decides that a new public street must be constructed, the impact on the remainder of the church's property, and on the intended future use thereof, will be very serious. Any such decision, therefore, must take into consideration, and must fully mitigate, those impacts. I'm sure you understand that the financial impact on the church of any new street will far exceed the value of the right-of-way that will be required. I hope this letter clearly outlines our position and concerns. Again, Gateway Church wants to work with the City of Southlake in regards to this issue and will make ourselves available to the city for discussions. And I trust that you will work with us, in good faith, to make sure that our congregation is treated fairly. Sincerely, o9Aat— eff ott Executive Pastor, Gateway Church cc: Billy Campbell, City Manager, City of Southlake Aruce Payne, Director of Planning, City of Southlake Ike Shupe, Counsel to Gateway Church, Hughes and Luce R.CD O C T 31 2002 205 WESTWOOD DRIVE SOUTHLAKE,TX 76092 September 25, 2002 Mr. Bruce Payne, AICP S Director of Planning City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 Southlake, TX 76092 Dear Mr. Payne: As we will be out of town for the Citywide SPIN meeting scheduled for October 7th to discuss the extension of Village Center Drive from FM 1709 to S. Kimball Avenue and the possible connection of Westwood Drive in the Woodlands Heights Subdivision (the "Subdivision") to the South Village Drive roadway, we would like to make our comments in writing for consideration. As residents of Woodland Heights for the last 19 years we have seen many changes to the area surrounding our Subdivision, many over the objections and to the detriment of the long term residents of the Subdivision, but none quite as stupid as the proposal to connect the Subdivision to the proposed South Village Drive roadway. If Woodland Heights were to be connected to the South Village Drive roadway the immediate and continuing reaction would be a massive transfer of traffic from FM 1709 into the Subdivision as parents taking their children to school; spectators attending football games or other school functions; and customers attracted to the businesses along the South Village Drive roadway cut through the Subdivision in order to avoid stoplights and traffic on FM 1709. Depending upon where the common access easement connecting Westwood Drive to South Village Drive were to be located, some residents of the Subdivision would have difficulty entering or leaving their driveways. Others would lose their ability to walk or jog throughout the Subdivision; children would be less safe; trees, shrubs and fences separating the Subdivision from the unsightly flat-roofed office building next to my house could be lost; and crime would likely increase as criminals in automobiles would be provided with a second escape route. If we have not been clear, let us state for the record that we are vehemently opposed to any right of way connecting the Woodland Heights Subdivision to the proposed South Village Drive roadway. Sincerely, The Barclays " REC'D. SE P 3 0 2002 Martha T. Taylor John G. Taylor 209 Eastwood Dr. Southlake, TX 76092 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Southlake, TX 76092 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: On October 7, we attended the Citywide SPIN meeting concerning a possible amendment to the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan to include the extension of S. Village Center Drive from FM 1709 to S. Kimball Avenue. During the meeting, we were shocked to hear that the city has plans to confiscate property from Gateway Church for a portion of this venture. As neighbors and friends of Gateway Church,we DO NOT support this option for the following reasons: 1. Gateway Church needs ALL of their property for future growth. This church is being built for the life of our community and will be here long after everyone in this room is gone. The members, many of whom vote in this city, have already committed and spent millions of dollars on this piece of property. The head of our city planning department has displayed an arrogant disregard for these members and the land needs for future growth of this church. Leave the church alone and let them build and expand according to their long range plans. 2. A viable option exists, which we DO support. The connector road from FM 1709 would extend across from Wal Mart down the Pigg/ Quicksall property line to the schools and Kimball Avenue. This road option is encouraged by the developer/owners of the property in consideration and would help their future development. 3. By ceasing the work on the FM 1709/Kimball intersection, the city has created the illusion of a safety crisis that our city planners wrongly declare can only be alleviated by the S. Village Center/S. Kimball connector. This sudden urgency and serious concern for the safety of the school children immediately after stopping construction of a critical intersection doesn't appear to be sincere. Finish the FM1709/Kimball intersection and install the optional connector across the Pigg/ Quicksall properties before trying to confiscate the church property. Sincerelly��, intuit- • RE. CrT 1 2002C)r(i." 631j • rage l or I • Subj: Proposed Roadway between FM1709 and Kimball Rd. Date: 10/6/2002 11:57:09 PM Central Standard Time From: D747min To: Pminder108 Oct 6,2002 Planning and Zoning - City of Southlake Members of P&Z, • My name is Dennis Minder and reside at 223 Eastwood Dr., Southlake, Tx. I am writing letter as I will be unable to attend the Spin meeting scheduled for Monday night on Oct 7,2002. I have no problem With extending an access road opposite Walmart running south along the Pigg property and turning east to connect with Kiimball Road. I am, however, vehemently opposed to extending the road behind the Banc 1 building, across the Gateway Church property, and-across the Pigg property. Our nieighborhood had an,agreement with Mr. Grubbs and the Gateway. Church group as well as with Mr Pigg to have no road access across the rear of their properties. We would support their project as long as no roadway was placed between our neighborhood and their properties. This was bargained in good faith by all persons concerned and went thru the P&Z process in that form. The turn around to the south of Village drive was to have been made of asphalt so that at some time in the future when Gateway had expanded their parking and a road surface was available for emergency equipment that the turn around would be removed and the land • returned to green space. • Neither Gateway Church or Mr. Pigg wanted the roadway as they would loose property that could be used for recreation or open space. There is no need for the road to extended across the rear of Woodland Heights as this would create more noise, increase the exposure to crime and would not service any businesses or the rear or the • church in any more efficient manner. Not only does the city not have funds to build this road but it is not wanted by the residents or the users west of the Pigg property. The agreements are'in the minutes of the Spin meeting and P&Z and they should be honored and not just tossed out at the whim of the city planner. Kimball Road will shortly be four lanes and will adequately handle traffic going to the schools located on Kimball and traffic will flow smoothly down Kimball to.Giepevine Highway. • Opposed to roadway behind Woodland Heights though the Gateway Church propety and across the Pigg property, have no problem with the extension across from Walmart going south and then turning east and joing up with Kimball Rd. Thank You, Dennis Minder 817-481-7492 • RECD O C T 0 7 2002 • • • Monday, October 07, 2002 America.Onli.ne: Pminder108 Bruce Payne Shupe,,Dwight [ike.shupe@hughesluce.com] Friday, October 25., 2002 10:00 AM To: Bruce Payne (E-mail) Cc: Rick Patterson (E-mail) Subject: FW: Houston v. Kolb PDF AHuhc Houston v. Kolb.pdf (682 KB) • > Original Message > From: Beaver, Dorothy > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 9:09 AM > To: Shupe, Dwight > Subject: Houston v. Kolb > «Houston v. Kolb.pdf>> . Bruce: I represent Gateway Church in connection with its new building in Southlake. I am particularly concerned about the city's desire to locate a new public street across the church's property. I.understand from Rick Patterson that the P&Z has approved an amendment to the city's thoroughfare plan that includes the new street. I also understand from Rick that it is your position 4,1at the new thoroughfare plan will operate as a reservation of the right-of-way and prevent full `,_,I;evelopment of the church's property. I think your lawyers will advise you that is not the case unless you are prepared to pay for the land, including damages to the remainder. If you want to reserve the right-of-way and prohibit development, then an inverse condemnation will have occurred. Attached is a recent appellate decision for your review. Ike Shupe This message and all attachments are confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client or other privileges. Any review, use, disclosure or distribution by persons other than the intended recipients is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission or calling Hughes & Luce at 214-939-5500 or 512-482-6800 and delete this message and any copy of it (in any form) without disclosing it. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message should be construed as a digital or electronic signature. Thank you. *************************************************************** - Hughes & Luce. Know-how to win. • Lorrie Fletcher From: Lori Farwell nit: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:12 PM �,. Lorrie Fletcher Subject: FW: Road through Gateway Church Property FYI Lori Farwell, City Secretary 1400 Main Street, Suite 270 Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-1519 Original Message From: PorterMaporter27@aol.com [mailto:PorterMaporter27@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:00 PM " To: Ifarwell@city of southlake.com Subject: Road through Gateway Church Property As Gateway Church owns the property for the church it is building and has permission to build the church, it is entirely • inappropriate to now decide to build a road through this property. As mature citizens who have lived in manylovely cities, we do not see what advantage this road would be to the citizens of Southlake. Thinking long-term we believe it would be a etriment to the city of Southlake. James and Mary Ann Moore. Lorrie Fletcher From: Lori Farwell Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:12 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject: FW: Street through the property of Gateway Church FYI Lori Farwell, City Secretary 1400 Main Street, Suite 270 Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-1519 Original Message From: WDWBEAR@aol.com [mailto:WDWBEAR@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:58 PM To: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Street through the property of Gateway Church ! i am strongly opposed to running a street through the property of Gateway Church. My primary concern is the safety issue. The volume of potential traffic combined with the large membership of the church would be a disaster waiting to happen. The church is growing at a phenomenal rate as is evidenced by the need for a much larger new building. If anticipated future growth comes to fruition, the problem will grow even worse. 1 I am also concerned with the potential liability of the church as well as that of the City of Southlake. I am sure there are valid reasons for wanting to build the road, but I cannot think of one that supersedes the safety of our citizens. In my opinion, it would be unconscionable to place convenience over safety. If you do, Southlake will be making a statement that "ion't think it really wants to make. Lorrie Fletcher From: Lori Farwell Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:48 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject: FW: Gateway Church cross easement is wrong - Remove it! Lori Farwell, City Secretary 1400 Main Street, Suite 270 Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-1519 Original Message • From: Brad Sanders [mailto:Brad.Sanders@UTSouthwestern.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:46 PM To: lfarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Gateway Church cross easement is wrong - Remove it! --_`ateway Church cross easement is wrong - Remove it! We are shocked and appalled upon hearing of city plans for a street through our church property. At issue are 1. the safety of churchgoers and 2. there is no public need for the cross access easement . Please remove the cross access easement from our church property! Thank you, Brad and Linda Sanders 2 • Lorrie Fletcher From: Lori Farwell ent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:30 PM Lorrie Fletcher Subject: FW: Concerning possible road on Gateway Church property ditto Lori Farwell, City Secretary 1400 Main Street, Suite 270 Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-1519 Original Message From: Jovian72@aol.com [mailto:Jovian72@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:26 PM To: lfarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Cc: TonjaWells@aol.com Subject: Concerning possible road on Gateway Church property Dear City Council: I would like to ask you please remove a current cross access easement from the church property at Gateway Church on 1709. I feal putting in a road here will be a safety issue for the members of the church. Thanks for your consideration. Tonja Wells ( 717-485-7239 Lorrie Fletcher From: Lori Farwell Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:25 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject: FW: Gateway Church property For your records on the MTP amendment (I made copies for Council) Lori Farwell, City Secretary 1400 Main Street, Suite 270 Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-1519 Original Message From: Judy Woodliff [mailto:judy@gatewaydfw.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:23 PM To: lfarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Gateway Church property To the Mayor and Members of the City Council: r- is a member and an employee of Gateway Church, I want to express my concerns about a 3treet being put through our property in Southlake. I hope you will consider the safety issues this will create for our membership. PLEASE RECONSIDER. Surely there is some alternative to what the city hopes to accomplish other than running a street through our property. 3 Respectfully, Judy Woodliff Lorrie Fletcher From: Lori Farwell Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:10 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject: FW: Oppose the street by Gateway Church For your records on the MTP amendment. (P.S. I have made copies of the last emails for Council tonight. ) Lori Farwell, City Secretary 1400 Main Street, Suite 270 Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-1519 Original Message From: TyShields@aol.com [mailto:TyShields@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:55 PM To: 1Farwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Oppose the street by Gateway Church <PRE>I .Oppose the street Morrie Fletcher From: Lori Farwell Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:53 PM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject: FW: Gateway Church OPPOSE the street beside the church For your records on the MTP item Lori Farwell, City Secretary 1400 Main Street, Suite 270 Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-1519 Original Message From: TinkerBellQT4@aol.com [mailto:TinkerBellQT4@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:52 PM To: lfarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: Gateway Church OPPOSE the- street beside the church I oppose the street to run alongside Gateway Church 4 Message Page 1 of 1 Lorrie Fletcher -.� From: Lori Farwell Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:41 AM To: Lorrie Fletcher Subject: FW: city throughfare on property of Gateway Church to add to your MTP file - Lori Farwell, City Secretary 1400 Main Street, Suite 270 Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-1519 Original Message From: Jeffrey Peterson [mailto:taxprep@ifriendly.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 5:16 PM To: Ifarwell@cityofsouthlake.com Cc: webmaster@cityofsouthlake.com Subject: city throughfare on property of Gateway Church To whom it may concern: As members of Gateway Church,we would like you to reconsider the plan you are considering to put a city thoroughfare -- through the property of our church. We are concerned with the safety of members being forced to cross back-and-forth on a city street to access the various buildings,parking,etc. at our future church. Perhaps there is a better way to address your concern that there is a need for additional protected left turns onto 1709. Might there be a less expensive and intrusive way . to solve the city's need than to place this street through the church's grounds? We respectfully ask that you vigorously explore other options. We also respectfully ask that this plan not be added to the city's master throughfare plan. Thank you for your time,attention to our concern,and consideration of other options. Sincerely, . Jeffrey and Brenda Peterson Gateway Church members REC'D N O V 0 7 2002 11/7/2002 Lorrie Fletcher 7rom: Christensen, Mark J [mark.j.christenskn@Imco.com] ant: Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:59 PM i`o: 'Ifletcher@ci.southlake.tx.us' Subject: Protest of Proposed Plat Revision for Lot 1, Block 1, Peytonville Park Addition (Case No. ZA02-077) Dear Ms. Fletcher: My wife, Socorro, and I would like to go on record as opposing the subject proposed plat revision. We are new homeowners in Southlake Woods, having just closed last week on a home located at 409 Indian Paintbrush Way in Southlake. We and our two children are currently in the process of moving in. • My wife and I were extremely disappointed to learn just after we had closed on our home that there was a proposal to rezone the plat directly in back of our home from "Agricultural District" to "Office District. " We had no expectation that an office building and parking lot would be proposed to be built on the other side of our back fence. During the months we looked for a new home in the Fort Worth area, we deliberately avoided such homes that backed up to .water towers, water treatment facilities, highways,. parking lots, etc. The proposed rezoning would obviously have a serious effect on the value of our property. Furthermore, our enjoyment of the home would be greatly impacted. Presently the area behind our home is a natural, wooded setting with many large trees, which insulate our neighborhood from Southlake Blvd. on the other side of the plat. The proposed rezoning would result in the destruction of most if not all the trees, a substantial increase in 's:ehicular traffic in and around the planned office building, and a significant increase in oise from cars, motorcycles, horns honking, doors slamming, car alarms blaring, etc. Finally, with the increased traffic flow can be expected to be a large amount of waste paper, trash, bottles, cans, etc. littering the parking lot and our backyard.. In the event of a protest such as I am hereby making, Texas Local Government Code section 212.015, Additional Requirements for Certain Replats, Subsection (c) , clearly places the burden of persuasion on the party proposing a replat requiring a variance, by mandating that the proposed replat must receive the affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of the members present of the municipal planning commission or governing body, or both. The reason the law requires that a 3/4 super-majority approve such a variance clearly is the significant negative impact that such a replat can have on local homeowners such as my wife and myself and our immediate neighbors. The potential for the .present owners of the • agricultural plat to profit by the proposed replat should not outweigh the harm to others such as myself from the resulting decline in market value of our homes and from the loss of enjoyment in those homes. I respectfully request that my protest of the subject proposed plat revision be upheld at the public hearing that is scheduled for tonight at 6:30 p.m. I plan to be in attendance at the hearing to reiterate my strong objection to the requested replat and rezoning. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. • Sincerely, Mark J. Christensen • Socorro M. Christensen (Note: • Our signatures our present on the written protest of the subject plat revision that was filed at Town Hall yesterday by Leigh Hwang, our neighbor on Indian Paintbrush r' RE CO OCT 1 7 2002 1 Lori Farwell --from: Rick Patterson [rick.patterson@charter.net] lent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:10 AM Y o: mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us Subject: Connector Road Mayor Stacy, I would like about 15 minutes with you sometime between now and the council meeting next week to discuss the proposed connector road and its effect on Gateway Church. I know your time is extremely valuable and I • appreciate your consideration of this. You can reach-me at this email, my cell phone, 214-208-7878 , or my home, 817-329-1503. Thank you Rick Patterson • • 40 LA,"-{" n Cub-d 06. • n-rt & koLA- Le.;.4-Lcr Q Gu±v-Le-n, b-ey k24,(i- (WH2-va 0-C 6-,cf eLvej CJAA.Ircir)• 36, 0_6 A c_1-0.41 b F/btu tr fliouvA Tx 150 a. : . NOV EICIEGWEE - 8 2002 ' Project Number: (For TxDOT use only) Date Received: Texas eTransportation SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM Form 2084(rev.7/2002) (GSD-EPC Word 97) Application Read instructions carefully. All sections must be completed. Failure to provide required information will disqualify the application. Applicant(Political Subdivision) (required): City of Southlake (Preface with "City of'or"County of') Contact Person (required): Ken Baker (Individual familiar with the project and who can answer questions.) Title: Senior Planner Mailing Address: 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 City/State/Zip: Southlake,TX 76092 Daytime Phone: (817) 481-2046 Sponsoring School District (required) Include all districts involved.: Carroll Independent School District School Name(s) (required)List all schools—here or on an attached list—directly involved with or affected by the project—no exceptions: Old Union Elementary TxDOT District: Fort Worth Brief Description of Proposed Improvements(50 words or fewer) (required): The project includes approximately 500 linear feet of sidewalk along the north side of E. Continental Boulevard and approximately 800 linear feet along the east side of Breezeway Drive. A crosswalk will be provided on the north side of E. Continental Boulevard at the intersection with Breezeway Drive. Detailed Location of Project (required)Provide street name(s) and additional project location references. Attach map showing location of improvements and the school(s). Indicate proximity of proposed improvement to each affected school: The sidewalk along the north side of E. Continental Boulevard will be constructed between Breezeway Drive and S. Carroll Avenue/Brumlow Boulevard. Continental Boulevard is a major arterial thoroughfare that provides access to Old Union Elmentary for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. A sidewalk will be constructed along the east side of Breezeway Drive between N. Carroll Avenue and E. Continental Boulevard. A crosswalk will be provided at the intersection of N. Continental Boulevard and Breezeway Drive for children walking and biking to Old Union Elementary from the west. Please see the attached map showing the locations of the proposed improvements. (Attachment 1) Page 1 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 . 1Y �s-. Ott trap.. OP A • GB=o V , s A Old Union ' = Elementary School Win, Si Auer . :. iwa il, IOA Or . al g 0 ` Safe Routes to School 64 •IF r. 1 o Grant Proposal 1 dN.,,, .81 - III . 0 v . —i 12 - ' 1*0 " ' 11 S° lk ltr C l -�. El< DM Existing Crosswalks i t ` v e :, Old Union MI Proposed Crosswalks ' Elementary School Undeveloped ♦ Proposed Sidewalk �i� I Public Park ♦ s♦ connections I Private Iz Building Footprints Residenc- B Ai Existing Sidewalks ,1ligi 51 � Parcel Boundaries �t xisting A/ Ede of Pavement « ..■■..��ue r STOP _._ . 9 ._day 7 =^ = 1 y U11 200 0 200 Feet p �J o w,_ REE 1 &‘11111ZENIIL MA Safe ao�trc WO v• -4112c! Ii1uuIt \ ..,qto School ,,,, f J r Pt�Tbb4 ■ =-- - _ 4/41111- itt411*IN. / 1101111 ut ok -I J October 15,2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Section 1: Project Cost Estimate Include only the costs requested for this project. The"Federal Funds Requested" (Line 16) cannot exceed$500,000. Preliminary Engineering Environmental 1. $ PS&E 2. $ 5,003 Right of Way 3. $ Construction Construction 4. $ 50,030 Construction Engineering 5. $ 5,003 Mobilization &Barricades, Signs, Traffic Handling 6. $ 0 Subtotal (Add Lines 1 through 6) 7. $ 60,036 In-Kind Contributions (if applicable) Note:All donations must be documented. Applicants may not donate contributions to themselves. This means that an applicant may not perform required job services(i.e.preliminary engineering)or use materials owned by the applicant and consider this an in-kind contribution.These types of services or materials must be donated to the applicant from a source other than the applicant. Real Property 8. $ Materials 9. $ Preliminary Engineering (limited to 10%of Line 12,Total Value of Project) 10. $ Total In-Kind Contributions (Add Lines 8 through 10) 11. $ 0 Total Value of Project (Line 7+ Line 11) 12. $ 60,036 Local Match (required) Must be at least 20%of Line 12, Total Value of Project($12,007) 13. $ 12,007 Less total in-kind contributions (Line 11) 14. $ 0 Local Dollar Match (Line 13 less Line 14) 15. $ 12,007 Federal Funds Requested (Line 12 less Line 13)— cannot exceed 80%of Line 12 ($48,028) or$500,000, whichever is less 16. $ 48,029 Note: Section 10 of this form, "Detailed Construction Costs," requires further details on the construction costs. The amount shown for"Construction" (Line 4) on this estimate, above, should match the total construction costs tallied in Section 10, or an explanation must be given for the discrepancy. Section 2: Application Signature(s) (required) An authorized representative of the applying political subdivision must sign the application. The undersigned affirms that the statements contained in the application package are true and complete to the best of the applicant's knowledge. If portions of the improvements extend into areas where the applicant has no jurisdictional authority, an authorized representative from the other political subdivision must also sign the application. "Agency Official"means Director, Assistant Director, Executive Director, Assistant Executive Director, or their respective designated administrators, engineers, or planners. Political Subdivision Official: Signature(required) Rick Stacy Name(required) Mayor Title(required) November 29, 2002 (817) 481-1519 Date(required) Phone Number(required) Page 2 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 4 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) The following sections of this application request specific project related information. Most request narration related to a specific topic. Other sections contain questions that can simply be answered in the space provided. Pictures, maps, exhibits, diagrams, survey summaries, petitions, etc. must be attached to the application. If a section does not apply to the proposed project or if data is not available, simply write"DNA" beneath the section number. Section 3: Identification of Current and Proposed Walking and Bicycling Routes to School Identify current and potential walking and bicycling routes to school by providing a map(s)of the area showing all existing and proposed routes. The map(s)should include all schools affected by the improvement: Currently children are walking and biking along E. Continental Boulevard, S. Carroll Avenue, and adjacent neighborhood streets to access Old Union Elementary School. Provide the following information for each school affected by the proposed improvement: YES NO Does your project involve the improvement to an existing walking route? ® ❑ Does your project involve the improvement of an existing bicycling route? ❑ IZI Does your project involve the creation of a new walking route? ® ❑ Does your project involve the creation of a new bicycling route? ❑ El Page 3 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Section 4: Identification and Demonstration of Needs and Safety Hazards Describe the problem in detail. Include background information about the risks children are exposed to because of unsafe routes to the school(s) in the proposed project area. How and by whom have unsafe routes been identified as a local problem by organizations and officials (e.g., council or board resolution, agency's plan, etc.)? Given that unsafe routes may exist in numerous locations in your jurisdiction, explain why the selected routes have been targeted for improvements. Describe the magnitude of the risks facing children who walk or bicycle to schools. Identify documented safety hazards,through quantitative data, within the proposed project limits. Include documentation to support the data provided (copies of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident(MVTA) Reports,traffic volume counts, incident reports, trauma data, etc.). ADT data should be provided for all roadways proposed for improvement within the project limits. This information can be obtained from the responsible entity maintaining the roadway. MVTA and incident data should only be included if the event occurred in the area proposed for improvement. Provide photographs as attachments to illustrate the problem or hazard: Critical connections in the sidewalk system have not been constructed and prevent adequate access for children walking and biking to the school. Children are also forced to cross busy arterial streets where no sidewalks exist. Children are forced to walk in the grass, or more likely in the streets. The lack of a complete sidewalk system, and the need to cross streets with a high-volume of traffic, has created a congestion problem due to the fact that more parents insist on driving and dropping their children off at the front of the school. During the past summer, the City of Southlake extended Kimball Avenue south to State Highway 26, which provides a direct connection to State Highway 114. E. Continental Boulevard connects directly to Kimball Avenue. As result,traffic volumes in the last year along Continental Boulevard have increased substantially as motorists use this road to avoid Southlake Boulevard and access State Highway 114. The traffic counts on E. Continental Boulevard and S. Carroll Avenue adiacent to the school are approximately 9,000 vehicles 5,500 vehicles repectively. According to the 2002 Southlake Traffic Study,the traffic volume along E. Continental Boulevard from Byron Nelson Parkway to S. White Chapel has increased 109%over last year. The traffic volume on E. Continental Boulevard from Crooked Lane to Carroll has increased 84%over last year(see attachment 2). The Carroll Independent School District is a Chapter 41 (Robin Hood) district. As a result, the CISD is currently experiencing a budget deficit. In an attempt to off-set this deficit,the CISD Trustees approved a policy this past summer to charge students$150 per year to ride the school bus if they live within a two (2) mile radius of their home campus. As a result, more children are walking or riding their bikes to school than in the years past. This location was identified as a high priority site due to the very high volume of traffic on the adiacent streets,the lack of connectivity in the sidewalk and trail system, and the very high concentration of school age children in the surrounding neighborhoods. Old Union Elementary completed construction prior to the 2002/2003 school year. Although no MVTA's have been reported, preliminary reports verify that over 50%of all citations written on E. Continental Boulevard and S. Carroll Avenue since the start of the school year were for speeding in the designated school zone. Check the categories that most closely reflect the primary need(s)your project is targeting: ® Increasing connectivity. ® Separating children from motor vehicles. ® Improving children's ability to cross streets. ❑ Improving pedestrian pathways. ❑ Improving bicycle pathways. ❑ Improving visibility of motorists and children (by restricting obstacles, improving sight-lines, etc.). ❑ Improving slow or safe driving by motorists. [' Other(please describe): Provide the following data: Roadway#1: E. Continental Boulevard Current ADT: 9,172 Future (20 year) ADT: 14,500 Page 4 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 EXHIBIT 2 c Segment Begin End Direction 2000' 3 2001 2002 . 2002 2002 24 Hourr_ 24-Hour 24-Hour AM Peak, PM Peak r1Total :Total Total: Hour .Hour ,, -,`3 Total Total Continental Crooked Lane Carroll WB 978 :- ,1954 3550 173 525 `'; 11:00-12:00 5:00-6:00 Continental Crooked Lane Carroll EB z a A 2162 1959, 3663 608 230. � x # 7:00-8:00 4:00-5:00 Continental Carroll Byron Nelson WB ,,i3 .38584E _ '_ 3854• 4737 238 668 Y 8:00-9:00 5:00-6:00 Continental Carroll Byron Nelson EB 3945 4047 4435 674 299 7:00-8:00 4:00-5:00 Continental Byron Nelson White Chapel WB 4490 2898. 6795 417 910- `;}. 7:00-8:00 5:00-6:00 Continental Byron Nelson White Chapel EB = 4235 ` •3285 6167` 824 524 r Y:,v 7:00-8:00 4:00-5:00 Continental White Chapel Peytonville WB 3745`° - 2255 4228 373 565 7:00-8:00 5:00-6:00 Continental White Chapel Peytonville EB <3196 :. 2718 4553 599 • 313 ``` , k 7:00-8:00 5:00-6:00 Continental Peytonville FM 1938 WB 1413; 2017: 3080 490 215 � . 7:00-8:00 . 6:00-7:00 Continental Peytonville FM 1938 EB 1255; 2186 3552 279 526 - 7:00-8:00 5:00-6:00 �`' Every segment of Continental Boulevard has seen and increase of traffic volume and its associated side effects, i.e. congestion, speeding, and accidents. r 1 PHOTOS View looking north across c� Continental Boulevard at the r intersection of Champions Drive. Notice the section of sidewalk missing from the crosswalk over to ,�,.; the existing sidewalk. ''`j �' `" ' , . tlii 1G1 hill 1i[ illli ill) I,1I � 4 ..I �f I yip. .- i.-- �I �� .. ,ci, .,..+. __ is View looking south from the northwest corner of Carroll Avenue - and Continental Boulevard. No sidewalk has been built extending to F '; a the west (right). A connection for a future sidewalk has been provided. ., „."6, "i„. r .- yes:wqK '° v .F .',.� y_ . t evAt • r'4 P 'a!' Fle .t&1L�1 l '�J F 5�•a fir,? y'f ..'}��.� � !. View looking north along the east • 1 of Breezeway. Children must ``n y} ,f3 , , walk in the drainage channel and ; '� grass to get to school. :� ,, (;�„ z :7 k 10,,,,,...`' i. -,:A.:: Lei• ,-7- 'yam.r. ; z I. 7�t�$ � b -f.:..-:.,- side •• I r - 11 Iy � hI • t 1 r �r. .J r i r_.bY i..� 5} x �r h ,%.. 'Fl.'!S 1§_' r5 f a.S„ • ,.b".�'+v. .:f'--ziC ..:^y.u: Kl....r �:kS�;" (�:z. �.,a .�, .:c t,tat�a ,,r•..7�w,.>,, .,.. . TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Roadway#2: S. Carroll Avenue Current ADT: 5,637 Future (20 year) ADT: 20,800 Roadway#3: N/A Current ADT: Future (20 year) ADT: Pedestrian-and pedalcyclist-involved MVTAs (Most Current 3 years available): Pedestrian- and pedalcyclist-involved incidents (Trauma, School reports, etc.): Note: Information on the number of students currently walking and bicycling to and from school is shown in Section 6 below. Section 5: Potential for Proposed Improvement to Correct or Improve the Problem Describe how the proposed solution will address the identified need and safety hazards identified in Section 4. Use the following guidelines to provide a detailed description: • How does the proposed project correct or improve the pedestrian/bicycle traffic safety at or near the project site, especially in reducing child injuries and fatalities? Justify your response. • Discuss how the proposed improvement is the best, most cost effective solution to the problem. • Describe options or alternatives that were considered. • If applicable, describe how the proposed solution improves traffic safety for other users of the facility or system. • If it will help describe and define the scope of the improvements, provide pictures, diagrams, exhibits, or maps as attachments. The proposed project will (1) provide a sidewalk system that is complete, interconnected and useable around the school, (2) provide a crosswalk and sidewalk for children walking and biking on the north side of E. Continental Boulevard from the west across Breezeway Drive, and (3) separate children away from the street where no sidewalks exist. Other options, such as traffic calming devices, increased signage, and on-street biking lanes, would be pointless without a completed sidewalk system in place first. Future plans for both E. Continental Boulevard and S. Carroll Avenue include the designation of on-street bikeways. The proposed sidewalks will greatly improve the mobility for all pedestrian and bicycle users as the City owns several acres of undeveloped land adjacent to the school for development of a public park. The proposed improvements will allow all users the ability to access either the school or the park. Section 6: Potential for Encouraging Increased Walking and Bicycling Among Students Answer the following questions for each school affected by the proposed improvement: School: Old Union Elementary Student Population: 466 Grade or age range of students at the school: Kindergarten through 4ih grade Number of Students who walk to school: Number of Students who bike to school: Number of Students who take a bus to school: Number of Students driven to school with parents or others: Number of cars used to drive students to school;• Percentage of students living within 2 miles of school: 100% Page 5 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) YES NO Will the route improvements create shorter walking distances? ® ❑ Will the improvements create shorter bicycling routes? ❑ El Will the improvements create more direct walking routes? ® ❑ Will the improvements create more direct bicycling routes? ❑ Will the improvements improve connectivity of the routes? ® ❑ Does this project affect pedestrian level of service? ® ❑ Does this project affect bicycle level of service? ❑ IZ Will the improvements enable or encourage walking alongthe route(s) for other than school trips? ® ❑ Will the improvements enable or encourage bicycling along the route(s)for other than school trips? ❑ El Describe the benefits the proposed improvements will provide to students: A complete, interconnected, and useable sidewalk system will allow children to walk to school. It will also give both students and parents more security if they choose to walk to shcool. The completed sidewalks will also promote more walking. This will reduce the amount of vehicles use by parents taking their children to school which in turn will create an even safer environment by reducing the congestion in the area. This will make the air cleaner, neighborhoods will be quieter. Walking promotes a healthy lifestyle and gives children exercise, which is beneficial both physically and mentally. The proposed improvements will also provide access for children and parents alike to the future public park. Attach any pictures, diagrams, exhibits, or maps that will help describe how the project will encourage students to walk or bicycle to school. Section 7: Support for the Project by the Community and Interested Parties Provide information on the consultation and support for the project. List the participants and the roles they played in the development of this proposal. Identify organizations that pledged their support of the project. Possible project partners may include school officials, local traffic engineers, law enforcement agencies, public health agencies or organizations, school-based associations, local elected officials, and other community groups. Attach no more than one letter of support from each organization. Support letters should be addressed to the political subdivision, not TxDOT. Include these letters as attachments to the application. Letters of support submitted after published TxDOT submission deadline will not be accepted nor considered in the project evaluation. Do not submit or attach individual student survey sheets or petitions. Narratives and summaries of the surveys or petitions are acceptable. Several local agencies and groups support this project including the Carroll Independent School District, the Old Union PTA, the Timarron Home Owner's Association, the City of Southlake Park Board. A committee was organized consisting of representatives from each body and held numerous meetings to identify the need of the proposed improvements. Page 6 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 • ' TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Section 8: Coordination with a Comprehensive Traffic Safety Plan Describe how the proposed improvement was developed in coordination with an existing or planned Safe Routes to School Plan or Transportation Improvement Plan. This plan may be as simple as a page or two of policies and practices that identify an overall strategic plan for general traffic safety improvements, or it can be a detailed master plan that proposes specific improvements and programs to enhance traffic safety for the school site or school district. A typical plan would address engineering solutions, enforcement efforts, education programs, and encouragement practices, or any combination thereof. Use the following questions and statements as a guide: • Does a Safe Routes to School Plan exist for the schools in the project area? If yes, provide authoring agency and year the plan was approved or implemented. Describe the plan's specific objectives as they pertain to this project. Do not provide a copy of the plan if it exceeds two pages. Quotations and excerpts from the document are acceptable. Provide the address where the document can be viewed and a telephone number to call. • List or describe any related policies, practices, or documents that demonstrate an overall strategic plan for traffic safety improvements specifically targeted for the school site or school district. In May of 2001,the City of Southlake approved a Pathways Master Plan with the objective of providing an alternative means of transportation to the residents of the city and providing multi-use pedestrian and equestrian trails for recreation. The transportation aspect of the plan emphasizes identificaiton and refinement of potential non-motorized connections to local schools,parks and other key destination throughout the city. The Pathways Master Plan has been the guiding document to help the committee determine the sites most in need of sidewalks and crosswalks for the safety of children walking to school. Section 9: Coordination with Other Activities Describe how other funding sources will extend the benefits of the proposed project. Use the following questions and statements as a guide: • Have other funding sources been requested or secured from other agencies or grant providers (e.g. public health, public safety, etc.)for related traffic improvements including, but not limited to, education, enforcement, and engineering? If so, identify status, source, and amount of funds. • Elaborate on how these other funding sources are necessary to make the entire project a success. • Attach any documents or exhibits that will help demonstrate efforts to leverage or coordinate other funding sources. The City will approach the Carroll Independent School District and surrounding neighborhood (i.e. Timarron) Home Owner Associations asking for commitment in contributing a total of 10%of the overall project cost, or half of the local match required for the project. Section 10: Detailed Construction Costs (required) Identify the category(or categories)that contain descriptions of work included in the proposed project. Provide details of the estimated costs associated with specific components. Example detailed estimates are shown in the Chapter 2, Section 1 of the SRS Program Guidelines. Sidewalk Improvements Includes new sidewalks, widened sidewalks, sidewalk gap closures, sidewalk repairs, curb cuts for ramps, and the construction of curb and gutters. New Sidewalks: 1,280 L.F. @ $20/L.F. =$25,600 Demo/tie-in to existing paths: 100 sq.ft @ $2/sq. ft. =$200 ADA curb ramps: 4 ramps @ $350/ramp=$1,750 21" RCP along Breezeway: 200 L.F. @ $65/L.F. =$13,000 Retaining wall 1-4' along Breezeway: 140 sq. ft. @ $23/sq.ft=$3,220 Metal railing over retaining wall: 70 L.F. @ $68/L.F. _$4,760 Page 7 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing Improvements Includes new or upgraded traffic signals, crosswalks, median refuges, pavement markings,traffic signs, pedestrian and/or bicycle over-crossings and under-crossings,flashing beacons, traffic signal phasing extensions, bicycle-sensitive signal actuation devices, pedestrian activated signal upgrades, and sight distance improvements. Includes new crosswalk pavement markings and crosswalk signs=$1,500 On-Street Bicycle Facilities Includes new or upgraded bike lanes, widening outside lanes and/or roadway shoulders, geometric improvements,turning lanes, channelization and roadway realignment,traffic signs, and pavement markings. N/A Traffic Diversion Improvements Includes improved pick-up/drop-off areas, separation of pedestrians and bicycles from vehicular traffic adjacent to school facilities, and traffic diversion away from school zones or designated routes to school. N/A Off-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Includes exclusive multi-use bicycle and/or pedestrian trails and pathways. N/A Traffic Calming Measures for Off-System Roads Includes roundabouts, traffic circles, curb extensions at intersections that reduce curb-to-curb roadway travel widths, center islands, full and half-street closures, and other speed reduction techniques. N/A Total Construction Costs Add all costs shown above and write the total amount on this line. This amount should match the "Construction" line item cost estimate shown in Section 1, Line 4 ($50,030). If the amounts do not match, explain the discrepancy in this space.): $50,030 Section 11: Compliance with TxDOT Design Standards (required) Provide information on compliance of the proposed improvement with TxDOT requirements. Typical cross sections or typical layouts depicting the proposed improvement must be attached to the application: Page 8 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 x .--- > 7.2 4 f 4- f-/ \II 17,_ \ 17 ' if I 1 \ (P )'\ k �, cCtr) Undeveloped Continental Blvd ii CI 5 ... i Public Fork Edge of Pavement' 3' Min. 6'-0" R O W Line 11'- 6" Typical cross-section for proposed sidewalks Along Continental Boulevard � I •� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL - DISTRICT TO SPONSER THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF • TRANSPORTATIONS "SAFE ROUTE SCHOOL PROGRAM" APPLICATION FOR TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND RELEATED IMPROVEMENTS IN AND AROUND OLD UNION AND ROCKENBAUGH ELEMENTARIES. Whereas, the Carroll Independent School District concurs with efforts to make areas in and around school areas safer for children to walk and ride their bikes through trail construction and related improvements, and Whereas, the Texas Department of Transportation offers a "Safe Route to School" Program in which a certain amount of state funding is earmarked for trail, signal, crossing and other pedestrian-related improvements specifically designed to improve non-motorized travel to and from Iocal schools;and Whereas,the City of Southlake is planning to submit a"Safe Route School Program" grant application to complete trail connections and related improvements along Continental Avenue, Breeze Way, and Byron Nelson Parkway which lead to and from Old Union Elementary and Rockenbaugh Elementary and are represented on Exhibits A, B, and C; and Whereas,the proposed projects are located near schools and in and around the City's most populous neighborhoods where many children walk or ride their bikes to school;and Whereas, the City of Southlake has requested that the Carroll independent School District sponsor its"Safe Routes to School Program" grant request. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, I ` That the Carroll Independent School District shall agree to sponsor the City of Southlake's "Safe Route to School Program" grant request to construct trail connections and related improvements attached as Exhibits A,B and C. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE DAY OF OCTOBER,2002 Ro 41/144) Darla' ee ( ` , I Board President Board Secretary • Sift) Old u • '51 IA Elementary Scl?ool 11 eievae° Est. 2001 November 14, 2002 piQdra Bartor? • prigcipai Dear Mayor Stacy, T1• 2istait'Prir?cipa a �oma As administrators for Old Union Elementary School, we are writing in �l l strong support of the Safe Routes to School Grant, which will provide construction of sidewalks linking the campus to adjacent neighborhoods. Barbara Year i• The construction of sidewalks adjoining our school will allow many of our children to commute to school via walking or riding their bicycles. cougselor Currently, many students from these neighborhoods commute an .. alternative route; however, safety is grave concern. Students are DeAr1a J-Ierldersor? crossing continental Boulevard, an extremely hazardous thoroughfare. Lbrariari Therefore, the establishment of additional sidewalks adjoining the campus will allow families to arrive at school via a much safer route. We encourage you to consider the establishment of the sidewalks adjoining our campus in the Safe Routes to School Grant. We can assure you that you will be funding a project that will be utilized for years to come. The safety of our children is something that must remain a priority;therefore, we thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to come by the campus for a tour of the grounds and community, as we will be more than happy to illustrate our concerns. Respectfully Submitted, Andra' B on, Principal ) cJ I. ' (I LY rY C J Tina Homan, Assistant Principal ioso 5outl? Carroll J iie. outf?lake, Texas 76092 • )f?or?e: 817.949.460o fax: 8i7.949.4646 www.soutl?lakecarroll.edu .4 ,11,,UES Ice , Pa rent/ T-e-'%' ciier „..* L.:-:-: ..P.,/ ( -- ., e 5 -, ton :::, •s� dosew Old Union Elementary School 2002 ® 2003 rA- tC0_ c_P,- -,,,, q, c-30,,--uLt,/,, , a . , ,,- il-- CD"., tt;z Z' c ..--_-)d,,,, k---Q-1-LA-CA) . ..„1-4t-- ./4-2-i4./.:1',..(... L., Nancy McClain '' r ' C• am^ C��,g - �� ' President r Zt.:� G1'Lue _fi ;� � t --fits Cynd i Thatcher 5- C . . k_ / ,..„ �. c -f(u f r/ Vice President of Programs {, f/ i�: �� (�,,� `ter 1� ( l�;l / GL-t^- -- - Gt,%1.t7-&-c" ( �i i Donna Maple - .,4 . 0u,\ AJL._ti_tte':it cL1L-C-c. L-c, (:,'ltie,(1_-c_,,,, �� " President of volunteers ' i �/ Mimi Best _ ,, ) • �kL -.c . e-, ,y--et. ,G-tz.� _S, C�- t;Z�-•l a_ �`i__i_ a—c-- t_-c._.� -Lc_2!� , Vice President of Fundraising ` �c`�'�✓ )eriann Crawford . Vice President of Operations "L2e.0 ` (r•_-.: ,,,,, ' a.- -Li- p i-L`:-j'� L 5 6-7_e_k--��` r- ! ..., Beth Hewett Treasurer j, -c./ ..r ,e.L,u,-i /i % -)>? ?1. /A2_ijLLc`z Patricia Heintzeiman //ii-t- 1., -711.z y-, ! Secretary `/ --tLwr y, --F6'-e ' 6 1rvr '-'(, ; L A � 1 'J tz?1- 461--;--- 61:.--c.(1,1:-A-Q--(c., _ '1050 South Carroll Ave. JI. 0 t,, ,- t Southlake, TX 76092 v ' Phone 817.949.4600 Fax 817.949,4646 / -1.\--6L%--u_Lj MA/W.solthI akecar olI.edLi 0 i October 28, 2002 Mrs. Tina Homan Old Union Elementary 1050 South Carroll Ave. Southlake, TX 76092 Dear Mrs. Homan: I am writing today as a concerned parent. The lack of a sidewalk on Continental Blvd. is still a great safety hazard for our children. A connecting sidewalk would allow our kids to walk and ride bikes to school safely. We live in the Wyndsor Creek subdivision of Timarron. My children can safely walk to school until they get to the corner of Breezeway and Continental. They then must either walk up Breezeway with NO sidewalk and many cars or they must cross Continental Blvd. with even more cars. It is not safe. There are no connecting sidewalks and the potential is there for a child to be struck by passing cars. I would also like to point out that Continental Blvd. has become a major route taken by commuters who are passing— often VERY QUICKLY- through our neighborhood. The crossing guards are often at risk just trying to get the aggressive drivers to stop and allow the children to cross the street. The fact that there are no sidewalks makes a potentially dangerous situation even worse. Please know that our family fully supports City of Southlake's plans for these NECESSARY new sidewalks. Sincerely, Lisa Gilbert 712 Wyndsor Creek Drive • Southlake, Texas 76092 October 28, 2002 Mrs. Tina Homan Old Union Elementary 1050 South Carroll Ave. Southlake, TX 76092 Dear Mrs. Homan: I am writing today as a concerned parent. The lack of a sidewalk on Continental Blvd. is still a great safety hazard for our children. A connecting sidewalk would allow our kids to walk and ride bikes to school safely. We live in the Wyndsor Creek subdivision of Timarron. My children can safely walk to school until they get to the corner of Breezeway and Continental. They then must either walk up Breezeway with NO sidewalk and many cars or they must cross Continental Blvd. with even more cars. It is not safe. There are no connecting sidewalks and the potential is there for a child to be struck by passing cars. Please know that our family supports any efforts to get this sidewalk issue resolved. Sincerely, 1///,,t4. /0L Bethany Detrich ' 10/31/2002 21:54 8174243699 LYNNETTE:DEAN BURNS PAGE 01 October 30, 2002 To whom it may concern, This letter is in support of the Sale Routes to Stoo/grant. As residents of Wyndsor Creek, we find the addition of sidewalks beneficial to the safety and well being of our children. Currently, our children do not have direct sidewalk access when walking or bike riding to Old Union Elementary. This leaves much concern for their safety when traveling on Continental Blvd. or Breezeway with out sidewalks. in short, we support the Safe Routs dv Sdioo/grant for all the right reasons. Sincerely, Dean &Lynnette Burns Nov 07 02 10: OOa OLD UNION (917) 949-4646 p. 1 November 1, 2002 Mrs. Tina Homan Old Union Elementary 1050 S. Carroll Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 Dear Mrs. Homan, As a parent of an OUES student, I am writing in strong support of the construction of sidewalks to link our neighborhood to OUES. Currently, our children have to cross Continental Blvd. two times— on of which is without the aid of a crossing guard. Even with adult supervision, this is extremely dangerous. By constructing a sidewalk along Breezeway, my child and many other neighborhood children, would be able to walk to OUES without ever crossing Continental Blvd. As you know, traffic along Continental Blvd. has increased as commuters look for alternative routes to avoid FM.1709 and Highway 26. Crossing Continental Blvd. is no longer a safe option, even with parent supervision and a crossing guard. It is my hope that we would place more emphasis on the safety of the children in our community, rather than the money it would cost to construct a sidewalk that should have been constructed when the school was built. There is no monetary or replacement value we can place on the lost life of a child. Let's put up the sidewalks before the city or school district has to deal with losing one of our children. I am thrilled this issue has finally been voiced by someone other than myself because this was my number one concern when the school was built. I attended town meetings at Rockenbaugh Elementary and brought up this issue and even called the city regarding sidewalk plans. I was assured by the city that sidewalks were in the city plan but it never happened. I felt like my concerns continually fell on deaf ears. I am elated to know that it now has become obvious that constructing these sidewalks is a necessity to keep our children safe. Thank you, Juli Bledsoe Lisa M. Greavu 1220 Sarah Park Trail Southlake,Texas 7.6092 Phn:(817)424-5628 email: greaw@att.net October 31,2002 City of Southlake Southlake,Texas 76092 RE: Safe Routes to Schools Grant Dear City of Southlake: My name is Lisa Greavu and I am writing to express my family's strong support for the Safe Routes to Schools grant that The City of Southlake and the Carroll ISD are currently considering funding. We reside in the Wyndsor Creek II subdivision in Timarron and presently have two children attending Old Union Elementary School: Our daughter is in 4th grade and our son is in Kindergarten. We have a third child that will also begin attending Old Union next fall. In our opinion,it is imperative that the City and the CISD fund this grant for new sidewallcs and feel it is only fair that they do so. Families in our neighborhood are in a"lose-lose"situation given the current sidewalk situation,which was exacerbated further by the recently imposed bus fee. Please allow me to explain. Though our neighborhood is only two blocks from the school,our children cannot walk there safely because there are no sidewalks along Breezeway, nor north of Continental Avenue. That is, in order to reach Old Union from our neighborhood,our kids must cross busy Continental Avenue not once,but twice in one block On many occasions when my husband and I have walked our children to school, cars with agitated or impatient drivers have honked,rushed and jeered at us as we were attempting to cross Continental Avenue, even though the area where we cross is designated as a 20 MPH school zone. Furthermore, crossing Continental can only be attempted after you have waited long enough for a break in the traffic to try it Then, assuming you make it safely across in your first attempt,you have the pleasure of toying it again! (Frankly,I am grateful that the Southlake Police Department patrols this corridor as frequently as they do,and believe they must have hundreds of ticket receipts to prove how often drivers speed through this area. If the City corrected the sidewalk situation,perhaps their time could be better spent elsewhere during school hours?) The point is,to have to cross this very busy road four times daily(twice each way, both morning and night) puts our children at unnecessary risk. As such,the City should immediately take steps to address and rectify this situation before a child gets hurt(or worse)by a thoughtless,careless or impatient driver. Finally,in deference to the bus fee for which we enjoy the privilege of paying extra,my children certainly can ride the bus. However,we(along with several other parents in our neighborhood)feel that we where short- changed by the bus fee policy: Making our kids spend up to 30 minutes on a bus fora two-block ride is neither fair nor healthy for them, and we would much rather these funds be put towards constructing more sidewalks so they can walk safely to and from school Please consider our children's future health and safety as you contemplate this important issue. Sincerely, >Le. • i . October 31, 2002 Dear Ms. Homan: I a writing in support of the Safe Route to Schools grant currently being considered in our area. I am a resident with children attending Old Union Elementary School. I live in a Timarron neighborhood on the north side of Continental, between Byron Nelson and Breezeway. The residents in my neighborhood would truly benefit from a safe route to school. Due to a lack of sidewalks at this time , there is no safe route for my child to walk to school. Currently he must cross three streets (Continental two times as well as Champions Way) within a single intersection. With the addition of these new sidewalks we would have a safe route for our children to get to Old Union. At this time none of the elementary students in our neighborhood are utilizing the bus service in the mornings because the bus does not come into our neighborhood. The pick up point for these elementary students is on Continental Blvd. Since this road is so busy in the mornings we are uncomfortable letting them try to get on there. We would welcome the addition of these sidewalks to provide walking as a viable option for our kids to get to school. I am elated with the possibility of sidewalks being added to the north side of Continental Blvd. and the east side of Breezeway. With this addition my child and numerous others at Old Union Elementary would be able to walk to school safely. I appreciate your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, 'lam�,�1,• 1?.A1C.-;t1 TammyRiley Y Concerned Parent from Old Union Elementary School Project Number: (For TxDOT use only) Date Received: 'Texas rrtaOen SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM partment Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Application (GSD-EPC Word 97) pp Read instructions carefully. All sections must be completed. Failure to provide required information will disqualify the application. Applicant(Political Subdivision) (required): City of Southlake (Preface with "City of"or"County of") Contact Person-(required): Ken Baker (Individual familiar with the project and who'can answer questions.) Title: Senior Planner Mailing Address: 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 City/State/Zip: Southlake,TX 76092 Daytime Phone: (817) 481-2046 • - Sponsoring School District (required) Include-all districts involved.: Carroll Independent School District - School Name(s) (required) List all schools—here or on an attached list—directly involved with or affected by the project—no exceptions: . Rockenbaugh Elementary TxDOT District: Fort Worth Brief Description of Proposed Improvements (50 words or fewer) (required): The project includes approximately 2,000 linear feet of sidewalk along the west side of Bryon Nelson Parkway. The project includes providing ADA accessible curb ramps at street intersections and appropriate sidewalk connections. - Detailed Location of Project (required).Provide street name(s) and additional project location ' references. Attach map showing location of improvements and the school(s). Indicate proximity of proposed improvement to each affected school: The sidewalk along the west side of Byron Nelson Parkway will be constructed between Wentwood Drive and Parkwood Drive. Rockenbaugh Elementary is located on Byron Nelson Parkway close to the intersection with E. Southlake Boulevard,the major east/west arterial street in Southlake. Please see the attached map showing the locations of the proposed improvements. (Attachment 1) Page 1 of 9 . . Updated 7/8/2002 4-- i 1 a , -- I/ C =3 r.9 vA;',. VA, Rockenbaugh 'No ti:,t; Ir(r.' ._____ p±.r Lt i j1,._i•1--- b, / 4,..i.4,.. • Elementary School 4*:r. ‘'.'-. ' ' --tt Ira ail ::',* F-11W*,' ..&.-d.i,3-,,,ra-m.• I 44,1.4 3 , b. •• •1•4.--Pig."-v..;- JIM di : .,::,— • ' i4;cf-c.4;tf-Sz.:-:tc EleRocke Safe Routes to School mentary Schnbaugh ool Grant Proposal 2 r201 - , ,ippw w •,./t _....----- VA> i , ..i, - „ A .:4 -------, '••. , . ---- -zraft-inv••II _,..---____ FIN 711- . ,.. 1----------------- ____._______.flt.• ___, ... ' V '1: :,',411 ' ''qi -'t:-- i% V p ums,..- .E.• ':k, . MA.. , ‘. ..... . Existing Crosswalks • Proposed Sidewalk f..,-Lf,•_. real moo , se_ii-Plp.„,- azftreft•••7z,_, # ** connections u vi go I S•4 11 lia 1 Inv )1 .'t- Li.Vill - , ,i ri Y4 --u- rigt. . •f. .3 et. Building Footprints N 1 ,.,40.# * ,A "-ki. * Af Existing Sidewalks gil II 'E. --6-7,4•10 f tt.I.: ., S'eurplin ''Y ' 7 _.,,vita 1 Parcel Boundaries k511). v, A/ Edge of Pavement 4 . , •i'f- ,1.' iag- 1",:, t, '3' .4-' * ihi _lc ;a witt-4/-0. 'PA' >r so I I --, '7E1- isio II 4. u 0 200 0 200 Feet 6 111 * 04' '•!` - q •5. ig..4 do .t. - liZt _.'1,..` WentWOOd •,..--- .4.1 i) ..,1•1 ,. I 1 .‘ :-.' 4 Recreation P,' • '' tA _, . N irw _ ;c,,, .. Jr S -hts '-,,, ." , '. 1.'6,, '1, '1=Y4 --•Center , . .k. 10.,4 LI!..1_1_0‘44 4,.. i f_*-, -V, 41—. .,,,,ts, . t- , v ''' /..,..,. 0 ,, Of> tito za / ,. '""--. .. ----11***• -_,.4'...,.....,—L, -- ' , :-,..- .,...-. ;•. ai - 0°v ,#, NO4.30P-r 44EN o,. , l, 4..„, ., , _)1 st.utio _ , 4 ___,_— ..-- ..:„. ,,-ef- . -- ..-', 'T-, . , 1.,. -J, tir 1- t. vi i .1,. October 15,2002 ..ztj f • 420 113. ___ _rffa nu crsTEI Oki 2ag ensl • TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Section 1: Project Cost Estimate ( Include only the costs requested for this project. The "Federal Funds Requested" (Line 16) cannot exceed $500,000. Preliminary Engineering • Environmental 1. $ PS&E 2. $ -5,090 Right of Way_ 3. $ Construction .Construction 4. $ 50,900 Construction Engineering 5. $ 5,090 Mobilization & Barricades, Signs, Traffic Handling 6. $ 0 Subtotal (Add Lines 1 through 6) 7. $ 61,080 In-Kind Contributions (if applicable) Note:All donations must be documented. Applicants may not donate contributions to themselves. This means that an applicant may not perform required job services(i.e.preliminary engineering)or • use materials owned by the applicant and consider this an in-kind contribution.These types of services or materials must be donated to the applicant from a source other than the applicant. Real Property 8. $ Materials 9. $ Preliminary Engineering (limited to 10%of Line-12,Total Value of Project) 10. $ • Total In-Kind Contributions (Add Lines 8 through 10) 11. $ 0 Total Value of Project (Line 7+ Line 11) 12. $ 61,080 Local Match (required) Must be at least 20% of Line 12,Total Value of Project ($12,216) 13. $ 12,216 - Less total in-kind contributions (Line 11) 14. $ 0 Local Dollar Match (Line 13 less Line 14) 15. $ 12,216 Federal Funds Requested (Line 12 less Line 13)— cannot exceed 80%of Line 12 ($48,864) or$500,000, whichever is less 16. $ 48,864 Note: Section 10 of this form, "Detailed Construction Costs," requires further details on the construction costs. The amount shown for"Construction" (Line 4) on this estimate, above, should match the total construction costs tallied in Section 10, or an explanation must be given for the discrepancy. Section 2: Application Signature(s) (required) An authorized representative of the applying political subdivision must sign the application. The undersigned affirms that the statements contained in the application package are true and complete to the best of the applicant's knowledge. If portions of the improvements extend into areas where the applicant has no jurisdictional authority, an authorized representative from the other political subdivision must also sign the application. "Agency Official" means Director, Assistant Director, Executive Director, Assistant Executive Director, or their respective designated administrators, engineers; or planners. Political Subdivision Official: Signature(required) Rick Stacy Name(required) Mayor Title(required) November 29, 2002 (817) 481-1519 Date(required) Phone Number(required) Page 2 of 9 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) The following sections of this application request specific project related,information. Most request narration related to a specific topic. Other sections contain questions that can simply be answered in the space provided. Pictures, maps, exhibits, diagrams, survey summaries, petitions, etc. must be attached to the application. If a section does not apply to the proposed project or if data is not available, simply write"DNA" beneath the section number. Section 3: Identification of Current and Proposed Walking and Bicycling Routes to School Identify current and potential walking and bicycling routes to school by providing a map(s) of the area showing all existing and proposed routes. The map(s) should include all schools affected by the improvement: Currently, children are walking and biking north along Byron Nelson Parkway to get to Rockenbaugh Elementary School. Provide the following information for each school affected by the proposed improvement: YES NO Does your project involve the improvement to an existing walking route? ❑ Does your project involve the improvement of an existing bicycling route? ❑ Does your project involve the creation of a new walking route? ® ❑ Does your project involve the creation of a new bicycling route? ❑ Page 3 of 9 Updated'7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Section 4: Identification and Demonstration of Needs and Safety Hazards Describe the problem in detail. Include background information about the risks children are exposed to because of unsafe routes to the school(s) in the proposed project area. How and by whom have unsafe routes been identified as a local problem by organizations and officials (e.g., council or board resolution, agency's plan, etc.)? Given that unsafe routes may exist in numerous locations in your jurisdiction, explain why the selected routes have been targeted for improvements. Describe the magnitude of the risks facing children who walk or bicycle to schools. Identify documented safety hazards,through quantitative data, within the proposed project limits. Include documentation to support the data provided (copies of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident (MVTA) Reports, traffic volume counts, incident reports, trauma data, etc.). .ADT data should be provided for all roadways proposed for improvement within the project limits. This information can be obtained from the responsible entity maintaining the roadway. MVTA and incident data should only be included if the event occurred in the area proposed for improvement. Provide photographs as attachments to illustrate the problem or hazard:. Byron Nelson Parkway is an arterial street that provides connection between E. Continental Boulevard and E. Southlake Boulevard. Each of these arterial streets are heavily travelled carrying approximately 12,000 vehicles and 43,000 vehicles repectively. Byron Nelson Parkway averages approximately 5,000 vehicles trips per day. Although a sidewalk exists on the east side of Byron Nelson Parkway, children who live on the west side of the street are forced to cross at one of three locations. Unfortunately, only the crosswalk in front of the school (at Parkwood Drive) is located within a designated school zone. The lack of a complete sidewalk system on the west side of Byron Nelson Parkway, and the need to cross streets with a high-volume of traffic at an unprotected crosswalk, has created a congestion problem due to the fact that more parents insist on driving and dropping their children off at the front of the school. Children walking from the Dominion or Wyndsor Grove subdivisions must cross the 4-lane divided arterial • street outside the protection of a designated school zone. In the case of children walking to school from Northwood Drive, no crosswalk, or sidewalk leading to a crosswalk, exists. These children must cross Byron Nelson Parkway with no protection of a crosswalk or walk in the grass or street to reach a crosswalk. Additionally, the Carroll Independent School District is a Chapter 41 (Robin Hood) district. As a result, the CISD is currently experiencing a budget deficit. In an attempt to off-set this deficit, the CISD Trustees approved a policy this past summer to charge students$150 per year to ride the school bus if they live within a two (2) mile radius of their home campus. The result is that more children are walking and riding their bikes to school than in the years past. The proposed sidewalk will provide a designated sidewalk that will allow children walking and biking to school to cross Byron Nelson Parkway at a crosswalk that is protected by a designated school zone.- The committee learned of a "near-miss" incident in this area in Late October. Traffic reports show that almost 2 out of every 3 citations are issued for speeding in the school zone near Rockenbaugh Elementary. Check the categories that most closely reflect the primary need(s)your project is targeting: I Increasing connectivity. El Separating children from motor vehicles. • ❑ Improving children's ability to cross streets. ❑ Improving pedestrian pathways. ❑ Improving bicycle pathways. ❑ Improving visibility of motorists and children (by restricting obstacles, improving sight-lines, etc.). ❑ Improving slow or safe driving by motorists. ❑ Other (please describe): Provide the following data: Roadway#1: Byron Nelson Parkway Current ADT: 5,088 Future (20 year) ADT: 23,200 Roadway#2: Current ADT: Future (20 year) ADT: Page 4 of 9 Updated 7/8/2002 • • • • • PHOTOS ( ¢vyF �R+ 4"+ rFth4 'w.`g^",'7�C $• A Yam'"'; Y"f yi -:.� 3 T n 'F 0i •i View looking west across Byron t , . P'-'*; p�.� Sd�s'f�`.t 7n s°k �,.00 yi+,,;.tx s V^'d i 41� 7• C - ,xi't 1 y j Nelson Parkway in front of r �F ti r t f Rockenbaugh Elementary. Children r "w j ��' - t x ,� must cross four lanes of traffic plus a ! ;' > �„ ' ;` ' ' '' fi ;` 4 fit,,., .r tr 4? JQ - ,ig J4--1, ,.... . �, . • left-turn lane in the median. Notice {� ti r t.sN �, °� , r— �.3 ,, -• a� the lack of sidewalks extending to ;rr rn � r (� — " rR ru w 3 mid. t r F a , T} P jAx ¢ , the south across the street. 1 ;; _ ,,r tC F ry <1 °` • . . 3 f v-MX .f 7 1a7: ". r• " ..3-:_, v+y . ?;'v.,�t Px.., �..w = c+l t, View • • • • looking west across B ron �Y,, ' ' s t� , , ice, v a 4`. g/ gY u, x , -,° r Nelson Parkway from the median t S 4 { • z No sidewalks exist on the west side r b; �.�'i,o ;° ��,;' z ;; r ;A� of Byron Nelson. , p a• ;.' ;R1�, �. : ` . Y t •� Y t▪ t t • dY r, 1 F r rr �' t 0,, rA • Yg x It • ire �• '� J �r ! M �t� Z � F 411 1y r aG✓Na � 44 i L �'{tr 1 ^'gn9. WI. ▪ Vi � mnf rs'0s fiS Ll4ii:� ',YN w." • ,.'1' ' x >w nsC'^ ' -V ;W r"3*!+ wok g 6r G " . Tex{Kavnr..,. .,rv'�vb+ R"^ y.„�-�S vd.� 4� t wry � 'r' „+-cr-wai." �� .-,t, Vet_ r '2'ofh :41;41• f7,- t`—1:, --^': cif o- �r} � 1 +��.�xsa�g TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Roadway#3: • Current ADT: _ Future (20 year) ADT: • Pedestrian- and pedalcyclist-involved.MVTAs (Most Current 3 years available): Pedestrian- and pedalcyclist-involved incidents (Trauma, School reports, etc.): • Note: Information on the number of students currently walking and bicycling to and from school is shown in Section 6 below. Section 5: . Potential for Proposed Improvement to Correct or Improve the Problem Describe how the proposed solution will address the identified need and safety hazards identified in Section 4. Use the following guidelines to provide a detailed description: • How does the proposed project correct or improve the pedestrian/bicycle traffic safety at or near the project site, especially in reducing child injuries and fatalities? Justify your response. • • Discuss how the proposed improvement is the best, most cost effective solution to the problem. • Describe options or alternatives that were considered. , • If applicable, describe how the proposed solution improves traffic safety for other users of the facility or system. • If it will help describe and define the scope of the improvements, provide pictures, diagrams, exhibits, or maps as attachments. The proposed project will (1) provide connection to the multiple sidewalks that dead-end at Byron Nelson Parkway, (2) eliminate the need for children to cross Byron Nelson Parkway outside of the school zone, where traffic speeds are greater and driver attention is diminished, and (3) offer children on the west side of Byron Nelson Parkway the same opportunity as the ones on the east side of the street. Other options, such as traffic calming devices, increased sianage, and on-street biking lanes, were considred, but the committee determined the sidewalk provided the best results for safety. The purpose of Byron Nelson Parkway is to channel traffic to and from Continental Boulevard and Southlake Boulevard. Traffic calming techniques would discourage the inteded use of the roadway and possibly create a dangerous situation where drives become annoyed and begin to drive aggresively between devices. The extension of the school zone-to include the two southern crosswalks was also considered, but was deemed dangerous as it too would test the patience of the driver and may lead to greater safety concerns. Future plans for Byron Nelson Parkway include the designation of an on-street bikeway. The proposed sidewalks will greatly improve the mobility for all pedestrian and bicycle users as it will provide the residents on the west • side of Byron Nelson Parkway an option to walk or bike, rather than drive, to their shopping destinations. Section 6: Potential for Encouraging Increased Walking and Bicycling Among Students • Answer the following questions for each school affected by the proposed improvement: • • • Page 5 of 9 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) School: Rockenbaugh Elementary Student Population: 581 Grade or age range of students at the school: Kindegarten through 4th grade • Number of Students who walk to school: . Number of Students who bike to school: Number of.Students who take a bus to school: Number of Students driven to school with parents or others: Number of cars used to drive students to school: • Percentage of students living within 2 miles of school: 100% YES NO • Will the route improvements create shorter walkingdistances? ® ❑ Will the improvements create shorter bicycling routes? ❑ , Will the improvements create more direct walking.routes? Z ❑ Will the improvements create more direct bicycling routes? - ❑ - Will Will the,improvements improve connectivity of the routes? Does this project affect pedestrian level of service? ® ❑ Does this project affect bicycle level of service? ❑ . El Will the improvements enable or encourage walking along the route(s) for other than school trips? S ® ❑ Will the improvements enable-or encourage bicycling along the route(s) for other than school trips? ❑ Describe the benefits the proposed improvements will provide to students: A sidewalk on the west side of Byron Nelson Parkway will allow children to walk to school and cross the street within a designated school zone. The completed sidewalks will also promote more walking. This will reduce the amount of vehicles use by parents taking their children to school which in turn will create an even safer environment by reducing the congestion in the area. This will also make the air cleaner and neighborhoods will be quieter. Walking promotes a healthy lifestyle and gives children exercise, which is beneficial both physically and mentally. Attach any pictures, diagrams, exhibits, or maps that will help describe•how the project will encourage students to walk or bicycle to school. Page 6 of • Updated 7/8/2002 • TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) • Section 7: Support for the Project by the Community and Interested Parties Provide information on the consultation and support for the project. List the participants and the roles they played in the development of this proposal. Identify organizations that pledged their support of the project. Possible project partners may include school officials, local traffic engineers, law enforcement agencies, public health agencies or organizations, school-based associations, local elected officials, and other community groups. Attach no more than one letter of support from each organization. Support letters-should be addressed to the political subdivision, not TxDOT. Include these letters as attachments to the application. Letters of support submitted after published TxDOT submission,deadline will not be accepted nor considered in the project evaluation. Do not submit or attach individual student survey sheets or petitions. Narratives and summaries of the surveys or petitions are acceptable. Several local agencies and groups support this project including the Carroll Independent School District, the Rockenbaugh Elementary PTA, and the City of Southlake Park Board. A committee was organized -consisting of representatives from each body and held numerous meetings to identify the need of the proposed improvements. . Section 8: Coordination with a Comprehensive Traffic Safety Plan Describe how the proposed improvement was developed in coordination with an existing or planned Safe Routes to School Plan or Transportation Improvement Plan.-- This plan may be as simple as a page or two of policies and practices that identify an overall strategic plan for general traffic safety improvements, or it can be a detailed master plan that proposes specific improvements and programs to enhance traffic safety for the school site or school district. A typical plan would address engineering solutions, enforcement efforts,.education programs, and encouragement practices,or any-combination thereof. Use the following questions and statements as a guide: • Does a Safe Routes to School Plan exist for the schools in the project area? If yes, provide authoring agency and year the plan was approved or implemented. Describe the plan's specific objectives as they pertain to this project. Do not provide a copy of the plan if it exceeds two pages. Quotations and excerpts from the document are acceptable. Provide the address where the document can be viewed and a telephone number to call. • List or describe any related policies, practices, or documents that demonstrate an overall strategic plan for traffic safety improvements specifically targeted for the school site or school district. - In May of 2001, the City of Southlake approved a Pathways Master Plan with the objective of providing an alternative means of transportation to the residents of the city and providing multi-use pedestrian and equestrian trails for recreation. The transportation aspect of the plan emphasizes identificaiton and refinement of potential non-motorized connections to local schools, parks and other key destination throughout the city. The Pathways Master Plan has been the guiding document to help the committee determine the sites most in need of sidewalks and crosswalks for the safety of children walking to school. • • Page 7 of 9 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Section 9: Coordination with Other Activities Describe how other funding sources will extend the benefits of the proposed project. Use the following questions and statements as a guide: • Have other-funding.sources been requested or secured from other agencies or grant providers (e.g. public health, public safety, etc.)for related traffic improvements including, but not limited to, education, enforcement, and engineering? If so, identify status, source, and amount of funds. • Elaborate on how these other funding sources are necessary to make the entire project a success. • • Attach any documents or exhibits that will help demonstrate efforts to leverage or coordinate other funding sources. The City will approach the Carroll Independent School District and surrounding neighborhood (i.e. Northwood Park, Dominion) Home Owner Associations asking for commitment in contributing a total of 10% of the overall project cost, or half of the local match required for the project. Section 10: Detailed Construction Costs (required) Identify the category(or categories)that contain descriptions of work included in the proposed project. Provide details of the estimated costs associated with specific components. Example detailed estimates are shown in the Chapter 2, Section 1 of the SRS Program Guidelines. Sidewalk Improvements - Includes new sidewalks, widened sidewalks, sidewalk gap closures, sidewalk repairs, curb cuts for ramps, and the construction of curb and gutters. New Sidewalks: 2,013 L.F. @ $20/L.F. =$40,260 V • ADA curb ramps: 9 ramps @ $350/ramp =$3,150 V Wrought iron gate: 1 gate @ $800 =$800 Adjust electrical manhole: 1 @ $400=$400 • Relocate existing Timarron sign: 1 @ $1,000=$1,000 , Retaining wall/ 1-2' in height: 30 sq.ft. @ $23/sq. ft. =$690 Headwalls for 18" RCP: 2 @ $800=$1,600. _ 18" RCP: 50 L.F. @ $60/L.F. =$3,000 V Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing Improvements V Includes new or upgraded traffic signals, crosswalks, median refuges, pavement markings, traffic signs, pedestrian and/or bicycle over-crossings and under-crossings,flashing beacons, traffic signal phasing extensions, bicycle-sensitive signal actuation devices, pedestrian activated signal upgrades, and sight distance improvements. V N/A On-Street BicycleFacilities Includes new or upgraded bike lanes, widening outside lanes and/or roadway shoulders, geometric • improvements, turning lanes, channelization and roadway realignment, traffic signs, and pavement . markings. - - N/A Traffic Diversion Improvements V Includes improved pick-up/drop-off areas, separation of pedestrians and bicycles from vehicular traffic adjacent to school facilities, and traffic diversion away from school zones or designated routes to school. N/A Off-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Includes exclusive multi-use bicycle and/or pedestrian trails and pathways. N/A • Page 8 of 9 V Updated 7/8/2002 { TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Traffic Calming Measures for Off-System Roads Includes roundabouts, traffic circles, curb extensions at intersections that reduce curb-to-curb roadway travel widths, center islands, full and half-street closures, and other speed reduction techniques. N/A Total Construction Costs Add all costs shown above and write the total amount on this line. This amount should match the "Construction" line item cost estimate shown in Section 1, Line 4($50,900). If the amounts do not match, explain the discrepancy in this space.): $50,900 • Section 11: Compliance with TxDOT Design Standards (required) Provide information on compliance of the proposed improvement with TxDOT requirements. Typical cross sections or typical layouts depicting the proposed improvement must be attached to the application: • • Page 9 of 9 Updated 7/8/2002 - • • • • • • • • • rQ • • • Byron Nelson Parkway ��?��.yrr • — 4'Min 6'_0' • • Typical cross-section for proposed sidewalk along Byron Nelson Parkway Project Number: (For TxDOT use only) --- ► Date Received: ArTexto Department Transportation SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Application (GSD-EPC Word 97) pp Read instructions carefully. All sections must be completed. Failure to provide required information will disqualify the application. Applicant(Political Subdivision) (required): City of Southlake (Preface with "City of"or"County of") Contact Person (required): Ken Baker (Individual familiar with the project and who can answer questions.). Title: Senior Planner Mailing Address: 1400 Main Street, Suite 310 City/State/Zip: Southlake,TX 76092 Daytime Phone: (817)481-2046 Sponsoring School District (required) Include all districts involved.: Carroll Independent School District School Name(s) (required)List all schools—here or on an attached list—directly involved with or affected by the project—no exceptions: Old Union Elementary; Carroll Elementary TxDOT District: Fort Worth Brief Description of Proposed Improvements(50 words or fewer) (required): The project includes approximately 1,060 linear feet of sidewalk along the south side of E. Continental Boulevard. The project includes providing ADA accessible curb ramps, appropriate sidewalk connections, and the extension of a culvert with associated wing wall improvements. Detailed Location of Project (required)Provide street name(s) and additional project location references. Attach map showing location of improvements and the school(s). Indicate proximity of proposed improvement to each affected school: The sidewalk along the south side of E. Continental Boulevard will be constructed between S. White Chapel Boulevard and Bent Creek Drive. The sidewalk will be the last connection required to provide a direct sidewalk between Old Union Elementary to the east and Carroll Elementary to the west. Please see the attached map showing the locations of the proposed improvements. (Attachment I) • Page 1 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 Or- ' ' ,,---- e * IA ..i.-4 , .4 ,�k • Il Continental Blvd i Connection at Aventerra ,,,,,,4 • 1. 1 I. 1K. a a, p _ . = x,b Information Center ®- _ a F �iay. �s mow# ,. Safe Routes to School 01 ,r {_ �... se Grant Proposal 3 �` ' ,ii�� ,F ir. J\D ►b` x { faA 411Ik hi .�riLnercl�T J id ; 1.2 Miles to • Proposed Sidewalk rro ,,,,.,' - L Mile Old Union Elemeta ,• __CONTINERTr ---Carroll Ele �e aA irQNTIN�N ;�— _ connections T v_ Building Footprints N Existing Sidewalks -YAa`� enter i Parcel Boundaries 4'" ��, � F FNoif Edge of Pavement ------ \ �x. Tim aron Recre n \ —� Center ,--g x. T p 0 • /-<- + >, z jr.. \ s 200 0 200 Feet d4.. -,: , 1 ;gip . 4 3- \\\--7-) 4 , ®foutC/ t©A School! '114' 1 rf .., . lf 44 ® .. 3 1 Eji po' • .,. i 4, v 4- — v uthla 4'. , SC i to ' � I. r t• g:g ._, tea' I € 'Y� l # November 14,2002 r , TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Section 1: Project Cost Estimate Include only the costs requested for this project. The"Federal Funds Requested" (Line 16) cannot exceed$500,000. Preliminary Engineering Environmental 1. $ PS&E 2. $ 3,187 Right of Way 3. $ Construction Construction 4. $ 31,870 Construction Engineering 5. $ 3,187 Mobilization & Barricades, Signs,Traffic Handling 6. $ 0 Subtotal (Add Lines 1 through 6) 7. $ 38,244 In-Kind Contributions (if applicable) Note:All donations must be documented. Applicants may not donate contributions to themselves. This means that an applicant may not perform required job services(i.e.preliminary engineering)or use materials owned by the applicant and consider this an in-kind contribution.These types of services or materials must be donated to the applicant from a source other than the applicant. Real Property 8. $ Materials 9. $ Preliminary Engineering (limited to 10%of Line 12,Total Value of Project) 10. $ Total In-Kind Contributions (Add Lines 8 through 10) 11. $ 0 Total Value of Project(Line 7+ Line 11) 12. $ 38,244 Local Match (required) Must be at least 20%of Line 12,Total Value of Project($7,648) 13. $ 7,648 Less total in-kind contributions (Line 11) 14. $ 0 Local Dollar Match (Line 13 less Line 14) 15. $ 7,648 Federal Funds Requested (Line 12 less Line 13)— cannot exceed 80%of Line 12 ($30,595) or$500,000, whichever is less 16. $ 30,596 Note: Section 10 of this form, "Detailed Construction Costs," requires further details on the construction costs. The amount shown for"Construction" (Line 4) on this estimate, above, should match the total construction costs tallied in Section 10, or an explanation must be given for the discrepancy. Section 2: Application Signature(s) (required) An authorized representative of the applying political subdivision must sign the application. The undersigned affirms that the statements contained in the application package are true and complete to the best of the applicant's knowledge. If portions of the improvements extend into areas where the applicant has no jurisdictional authority, an authorized representative from the other political subdivision must also sign the application. "Agency Official" means Director, Assistant Director, Executive Director, Assistant Executive Director, or their respective designated administrators, engineers, or planners. Political Subdivision Official: Signature(required) Rick Stacy Name(required) Mayor _, Title(required) • November 29, 2002 (817) 481-1519 Date(required) Phone Number(required) Page 2 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) The following sections of this application request specific project related information. Most request narration related to a specific topic. .pther sections contain questions that can simply be answered in the space provided. Pictures, maps, exhibits, diagrams, survey summaries, petitions, etc. must be attached to the application. If a section does not apply to the proposed project or if data is not available, simply write"DNA"beneath the section number. Section 3: Identification of Current and Proposed Walking and Bicycling Routes to School • Identify current and potential walking and bicycling routes to school by providing a map(s)of the area showing all existing and proposed routes. The map(s)should include all schools affected by the improvement: Currently, children are walking and biking along Continental Boulevard to get to either Old Union Elementary School or Carroll Elementary School. Provide the following information for each school affected by the proposed improvement: YES NO Does your project involve the improvement to an existing walking route? Does your project involve the improvement of an existing bicycling route? ❑ El Does your project involve the creation of a new walking route? ❑ Does your project involve the creation of a new bicycling route? ❑ El Section 4: Identification and Demonstration of Needs and Safety Hazards Describe the problem in detail. Include background information about the risks children are exposed to because of unsafe routes to the school(s) in the proposed project area. How and by whom have unsafe routes been identified as a local problem by organizations and officials (e.g., council or board resolution, agency's plan, etc.)? Given that unsafe routes may exist in numerous locations in your jurisdiction, explain why the selected routes have been targeted for improvements. Describe the magnitude of the risks facing children who walk or bicycle to schools. Identify documented safety hazards, through quantitative data, within the proposed project limits. Include documentation to support the data provided (copies of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident(MVTA) Reports, traffic volume counts, incident reports,trauma data, etc.). ADT data should be provided for all roadways proposed for improvement within the project limits. This information can be obtained from the responsible entity maintaining the roadway. MVTA and incident data should only be included if the event occurred in the area proposed for improvement. Provide photographs as attachments to illustrate the problem or hazard: Continental Boulevard is a maior arterial street that runs along the entire length of the City of Southlake from east to west. The street also provides a connection between Old Union Elementary and Carroll Elementary schools. Continental Boulevard is located through the part of the City with the highest density rate of residents and is travelled heavily carrying approximately 12,000 vehicles per day. During the past summer, the City of Southlake extended Kimball Avenue south to State Highway 26, which provides a direct connection to State Highway 114. E. Continental Boulevard connects directly to Kimball Avenue. As result,traffic volumes in the last year along Continental Boulevard have increased substantially as motorists use this road to avoid Southlake Boulevard and access State Highway 114. According to the 2002 Southlake Traffic Study,the traffic volume along E. Continental Boulevard from Byron Nelson Parkway to S. White Chapel has increased 109%over last year. Although a sidewalk currently exists along most of Continental Boulevard, one section near the intersection of S. White Chapel Boulevard was not built. Children walking along Continental Boulevard do not have a place to walk and are forced into the grass and the street. The proposed sidewalk will provide a designated sidewalk that will take children and pedestrians out of the street and allow them to walk and bike in safety. The sidewalk will also make the necessary connection from Old Union Elementary and Carroll Elementary as an alternate means of transportation for pedestrians and bicyclists. Page 3 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 , EXHIBIT 2 Segment Begin End Direction ;"2000 2001 2002 ' .2002 2002 24 Hour ' 24-Hour 24-Hour AM Peak PM Peak TotaltX . Total Total Hoar-.: 'Hour _Total Total Continental Crooked Lane Carroll WB a 1978 1954 3550 173 " '525 . , 11:00-12:00 5:00-6:00_ Continental Crooked Lane Carroll EB ;2162 1959 3663 608 230 z . 7:00-8:00 4:00-5:00 Continental Carroll Byron Nelson WB 3858 3854 - 4737 238` 668 ;:,r, t• :, ,; 8:00-9:00 5:00-6:00 Continental Carroll Byron Nelson EB 3945 4047 . 4435 674 299 g : - - = . 7:00-8r00 4:00-5:00 Continental Byron Nelson White Chapel WB ', -449Q`! 2898 6795 „ 417. 910 n 7:00-8:00 5:00-6:00 Continental Byron Nelson White Chapel EB i k %4235 3285 6167 824 ;524 7:00-8:00 4:00-5:00 Continental White Chapel Peytonville WB 37451`;. 2255 4228 373 565 r g ? 7:00-8:00 5:00-6:00 Fv4,w .:a Continental White Chapel Peytonville EB < r3'196 2718 4553 599 - 313 - 7:00-8:00 5:00-6:00 Continental Peytonville FM 1938 WB 3413 2017 •'3080 490 215 : i' 7:00-8:00. 6:00-7:00 Continental Peytonville FM 1938 EB 11255 2186 3552 279 526 zi. ,' 7:00-8:00 . '5:00-6:00 Every segment of Continental Boulevard has seen and increase of traffic volume and its associated side effects, i.e. congestion,speeding,and accidents. J PHOTOS View looking west along the south - , ; 4 ) side of E. Continental Boulevard. ` _ • Notice the sidewalk turning to the south towards the Aventerra Information Center. No sidewalk r7. connect exists to connect to the t , r . - exiting sidewalk west of S. White , 0 _ , •, .a. ', y Chapel Boulevard. '" "= "'�` '" ' IM c 'skY ^7 ' 4�f� a iA cry . ,.�yy,,,� S' View looking east along E. Continental Boulevard at the west entrance into the Aventerra Information Center. Children and " '' pedestrians must go around the ";4' ri! entrance feature by diverting their Y' r ,••• path into the street. No sidewalk .. , . exists along this portion of E. tiY `' ' '' Continental Boulevard. . , '410ti- :ate �M .• ."..7...;*4,, I'VFtt:.W4ir. .!'4n'....,.,.... 40:::::',-:PV47 4'',.1'.'i.-.;-,(ky*Y,1*.A...1t.).„4:_. ',..„,.4 4 ,'4.`Y i u-,z.•i?u. oY.-:?;c r-.-. .A'•4 d.!YRtt na 3 4 r.ai'iP+u. ;Y , 1 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Check the categories that most closely reflect the primary need(s)your project is targeting: ❑ Increasing connectivity. ® Separating children from motor vehicles. ❑ Improving children's ability to cross streets. El Improving pedestrian pathways. ❑ Improving bicycle pathways. ❑ Improving visibility of motorists and children (by restricting obstacles, improving sight-lines, etc.). ❑ Improving slow or safe driving by motorists. ❑ Other(please describe): Provide the following data: Roadway#1: Continental Boulevard Current ADT: 12,000 (avg.) Future (20 year)ADT: 14,500 Roadway#2: Current ADT: Future(20 year)ADT: Roadway#3: Current ADT: Future(20 year) ADT: Pedestrian-and pedalcyclist-involved MVTAs (Most Current 3 years available): Pedestrian-and pedalcyclist-involved incidents (Trauma, School reports, etc.): Note: Information on the number of students currently walking and bicycling to and from school is shown in Section 6 below. Section 5: Potential for Proposed Improvement to Correct or Improve the Problem Describe how the proposed solution will address the identified need and safety hazards identified in Section 4. Use the following guidelines to provide a detailed description: • How does the proposed project correct or improve the pedestrian/bicycle traffic safety at or near the project site, especially in reducing child injuries and fatalities? Justify your response. • Discuss how the proposed improvement is the best, most cost effective solution to the problem. • Describe options or alternatives that were considered. • If applicable, describe how the proposed solution improves traffic safety for other users of the facility or system. • If it will help describe and define the scope of the improvements, provide pictures, diagrams, exhibits, or maps as attachments. The proposed proiect will (1) make a critical link in the trail/sidewalk system that will ink Old Union Elementary to Carroll Elementary and (2) provide a sidewalk that will bring children and pedestrians away from the street traffic where no sidewalks currently exist. The committee determined that the sidewalk provided the best results for safety. Continental Boulevard is a heavily travelled arterial street in the southern portion of Southlake. Traffic calming techniques would discourage the inteded use of the roadway and possibly create a dangerous situation where drives become annoyed and begin to drive aggresively between devices. Future plans for Continental Boulevard include the designation of an on- street bikeway. Until then, the proposed sidewalks will greatly improve the mobility for all pedestrian and bicycle users as it will provide the children and residents a link between Old Union Elementary and Carroll Elementary schools, as well as an option to walk or bike, rather than drive,to their various destinations. Page 4 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Section 6: Pjotential for Encouraging Increased Walking and Bicycling Among Students Answer the following questions for each school affected by the proposed improvement: School: Old Union Elementary/Carroll Elementary Student Population: 466/574 Grade or age range of students at the school: Kindergarten through 4th grade Number of Students who walk to school: Number of Students who bike to school: Number of Students who take a bus to school: Number of Students driven to school with parents or others: Number of cars used to drive students to school: Percentage of students living within 2 miles of school: 100%/90% YES NO Will the route improvements create shorter walking distances? ❑ Will the improvements create shorter bicycling routes? ❑ Will the improvements create more direct walking routes? ❑ El Will the improvements create more direct bicycling routes? ❑ Will the improvements improve connectivity of the routes? ® ❑ Does this project affect pedestrian level of service? ® ❑ Does this project affect bicycle level of service? ❑ Z Will the improvements enable or encourage walking along the route(s)for other than school trips? ® ❑ Will the improvements enable or encourage bicycling along the route(s) for other than school trips? ❑ El Describe the benefits the proposed improvements will provide to students: The proposed sidewalk connection on the south side of Continental Boulevard will allow children to walk to school along a designated sidewalk/trail without the need to walk in the grass or share the roadway with motor vehicles. It will also provide a much needed connection for children and parents alike who choose to walk and bike to the schools and other desitnations. The completed sidewalks will also promote more walking. This will reduce the amount of vehicles use by parents taking their children to school which in turn will create an even safer environment by reducing the congestion in the area. This will make the air cleaner, neighborhoods will be quieter. Walking promotes a healthy lifestyle and gives children exercise, which is beneficial both physically and mentally. Attach any pictures, diagrams, exhibits, or maps that will help describe how the project will encourage students to walk or bicycle to school. Page 5 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Section 7: Support for the Project by the Community and Interested Parties Provide information on the consultation and support for the project. List the participants and the roles they played in the development of this proposal. Identify organizations that pledged their support of the project. Possible project partners may include school officials, local traffic engineers, law enforcement agencies, public health agencies or organizations, school-based associations, local elected officials, and other community groups. Attach no more than one letter of support from each organization. Support letters should be addressed to the political subdivision, not TxDOT. Include these letters as attachments to the application. Letters of support submitted after published TxDOT submission deadline will not be accepted nor considered in the project evaluation. Do not submit or attach individual student survey sheets or petitions. Narratives and summaries of the surveys or petitions are acceptable. Several local agencies and groups support this project including the Carroll Independent School District, the school PTAs, and the City of Southlake Park Board. A committee was organized consisting of representatives from each body and held numerous meetings to identify the need of the proposed improvements. Section 8: Coordination with a Comprehensive Traffic Safety Plan Describe how the proposed improvement was developed in coordination with an existing or planned Safe Routes to School Plan or Transportation Improvement Plan. This plan may be as simple as a page or two of policies and practices that identify an overall strategic plan for general traffic safety improvements, or it can be a detailed master plan that proposes specific improvements and programs to enhance traffic safety for the school site or school district. A typical plan would address engineering solutions, enforcement efforts, education programs, and encouragement practices, or any combination thereof. Use the following questions and statements as a guide: • Does a Safe Routes to School Plan exist for the schools in the project area? If yes, provide authoring agency and year the plan was approved or implemented. Describe the plan's specific objectives as they pertain to this project. Do not provide a copy of the plan if it exceeds two pages. Quotations and excerpts from the document are acceptable. Provide the address where the document can be viewed and a telephone number to call. • List or describe any related policies, practices, or documents that demonstrate an overall strategic plan for traffic safety improvements specifically targeted for the school site or school district. In May of 2001,the City of Southlake approved a Pathways Master Plan with the objective of providing an alternative means of transportation to the residents of the city and providing multi-use pedestrian and equestrian trails for recreation. The transportation aspect of the plan emphasizes identificaiton and refinement of potential non-motorized connections to local schools, parks and other key destination throughout the city. The Pathways Master Plan has been the guiding document to help the committee determine the sites most in need of sidewalks and crosswalks for the safety of children walking to school. Page 6 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Section 9: Coordination with Other Activities Describe how other funding sources will extend the benefits of the proposed project. Use the following questions and statements as a guide: • Have other funding sources been requested or secured from other agencies or grant providers (e.g. public health, public safety, etc.) for related traffic improvements including, but not limited to, education, enforcement, and engineering? If so, identify status, source, and amount of funds. • Elaborate on how these other funding sources are necessary to make the entire project a success. • Attach any documents or exhibits that will help demonstrate efforts to leverage or coordinate other funding sources. The City will approach the Carroll Independent School District and surrounding neighborhood (i.e. Timarron) Home Owner Associations asking for commitment in contributing a total of 10%of the overall project cost, or half of the local match required for the project. Section 10: Detailed Construction Costs (required) Identify the category(or categories)that contain descriptions of work included in the proposed project. Provide details of the estimated costs associated with specific components. Example detailed estimates are shown in the Chapter 2, Section 1 of the SRS Program Guidelines. Sidewalk Improvements Includes new sidewalks, widened sidewalks, sidewalk gap closures, sidewalk repairs, curb cuts for ramps, and the construction of curb and gutters. New Sidewalks: 1,060 L.F. C $20/L.F. =$21,200 Culver extension: 15 L.F. @ $220/L.F. =$3,300 Headwall hand reail : 30 L.F. @ $68/L.F. =$2,040 Demo and rebuild rock face wing walls: 80 sq. ft. Q $23/sq.ft. =$1,840 Demo/tie-in to existing paths: 120 sq.ft Q $2/sq.ft=$240 ADA curb ramps: 5 ramps © $350/ramp=$1,750 Easement preparation=$1,500 Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing Improvements Includes new or upgraded traffic signals, crosswalks, median refuges, pavement markings,traffic signs, pedestrian and/or bicycle over-crossings and under-crossings,flashing beacons, traffic signal phasing extensions, bicycle-sensitive signal actuation devices, pedestrian activated signal upgrades, and sight distance improvements. N/A On-Street Bicycle Facilities Includes new or upgraded bike lanes, widening outside lanes and/or roadway shoulders, geometric improvements, turning lanes, channelization and roadway realignment,traffic signs, and pavement markings. N/A Traffic Diversion Improvements Includes improved pick-up/drop-off areas, separation of pedestrians and bicycles from vehicular traffic adjacent to school facilities, and traffic diversion away from school zones or designated routes to school. N/A Off-Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Includes exclusive multi-use bicycle and/or pedestrian trails and pathways. N/A • Page 7 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 TxDOT Form 2084(rev.7/2002) Applicant: City of Southlake (GSD-EPC Word 97) Traffic Calming Measures for Off-System Roads Includes roundabouts,traffic circles, curb extert$ions at intersections that reduce curb-to-curb ( roadway travel widths, center islands,full and half-street closures, and other speed reduction techniques. N/A Total Construction Costs Add all costs shown above and write the total amount on this line. This amount should match the "Construction" line item cost estimate shown in Section 1, Line 4 ($31,870). If the amounts do not match, explain the discrepancy in this space.): $31,870 Section 11: Compliance with TxDOT Design Standards (required) Provide information on compliance of the proposed improvement with TxDOT requirements. Typical cross sections or typical layouts depicting the proposed improvement must be attached to the application: • Page 8 of 8 Updated 7/8/2002 4-.7;' .. T , C / " iv ..-----7- \I"--,...1 ', ' p / a I—) -e 7-7 ) i--)' ''..._ ... /::...-----...„, \Cy \ °.----1' l' r f-'\ i (Th----.. VI c .7 �. ( . 1 . 1 '': 1 °L)') . t.a Continental Blvd 4 it :. i.:. R-O-W Line Edge of Pavement 3' Min. 61-0" 11'- 6" Typical cross-section for proposed sidewalks Along Continental Boulevard • C1 a • bto r Fete tot ( CAPITAL BUDGET YEAR (FY 2002-03) SPREADSHEET WITH THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE'S RANKING OF ALL CIP PROJECTS REQUESTING FUNDING IN FY 2002-03 The following is the capital budget year spreadsheet with the Technical Committee's ranking of all CIP projects requesting funding in this fiscal year (FY 2002-03). Unfortunately, the funds available in the first year of the CIP do not provide for all the requests submitted. As a result, the Technical Committee had to determine which projects to recommend for funding this year and which projects should be recommend for funding in a later year. All projects requesting funding were scored by the technical committee members based on the criteria established in the CIP Project Ranking Form. Once scored, the projects were ranked by their appropriate funding source (i.e. general fund, utility fund, crime control, SPDC) based on the score received. The Technical Committee then reviewed the dollar amount available in each fund and recommended projects to be funded in the upcoming year (FY 2002-03). The red line on the spreadsheet is the cut-off line. The cut-off line represents the point where project dollar requests exceed the dollar amount in each of the fund categories. Projects above the red line, are recommended for funding in FY 2002-03. Projects below the red line can not be funded in FY 2002-03 due to fiscal constraints. CIP Technical Committee - Rankings for all c_. Projects Requesting Funding in FY 2002-03 Project Name: (PD=Planning&Design, LA=Land c } Acquisition,C=Construction,SI/U=Site Improvement. FY 2002 d o Funding Utility, FE=Furniture and Equipment,R=ROW) FUNDING d o ; N E Ill Source *Multiple Funding Sources REQUEST . a 2 iteo o. w Notes D. Ranked as#4 project in General Fund category in FY 01-02. General Fund Stormwater Phase II-Drainage Master Plan PD $647,000 97 Y - N N. Carroll Ave(Federal Way to SH 114)Ultimate Roadway& Ranked as#1 project in Utility Fund category in FY 01-02. Fund General Fund 12"water line PD-LA $347,000 87 Y N request moved to General Fund in FY 02-03. General Fund Traffic Signal at FM 1709 and Nolen Drive PD-C $165,000 81 Y N Ranked as#6 project in General Fund category in FY 01-02. Ranked as the#2 project in the General Fund category in FY 01-02. General Fund Pavement Management System PD $150,000 77 Y N Ranked as#3 project in Roadway Impact Fee category.in FY 01-02. General Fund Dove Road Widening(SH 114 to Kirkwood) C $465,000 76 Y N Project moved to General Fund in FY 02-03. Ranked as the#1 project in the Sewer Impact Fee fund and as the#2 in the Water Impact Fee fund in FY 01-02. This project has multiple funding sources in FY 02-03.$141,500 is requested from the Utility General Fund Developer Reimbursement for over sizing utilities* SI/U $142,000 74 Y N Fund. Ranked as the#8 project in the General Fund category in FY 01-02. Union Church Road/S. Pearson Reconstruction/12"Water The City of Keller is participating in the cost of the project. Prior General Fund Line PD-C $2,438,000 72 Y Y$89,000 funding for planning and design work. Ranked as the#2 project in the Roadway Impact Fee category in FY 01-02.Project moved to the General Fund in FY 02-03. General Fund N.White Chapel(Emerald to SH 114)Ultimate Roadway PD $135,000 72 Y N Project not ranked in FY 01-02. FY 02-03 is the first year of scheduled funding. Prior funding for planning and design work. General Fund Dove Creek Drainage Improvements C $800,000 71 N Y $100,000 Ranked as the#10 project in the General Fund category in FY 01-02. General Fund Localized Drainage Projects-Multiple Projects SI/U $500,000 70 Y N General Fund S.Kimball Ave.(Crooked to Continental Ave.)(Half of PD-C $1,305,000 70 Y N This project is being promoted above other projects with lower scores Ultimate Roadway) because:1)It will improve the traffic flow from FM 1709 to SH 26;2)It will provide increase in capacity for Kimball which is needed due to the . increase traffic counts in the area;3)It will provide capacity for the future when the construction of the Soccer Complex and St.John's Church are completed.This project had multiple funding sources in FY 01-02: ranked as the#3 project in the General Fund and as the#4 project in the Roadway Impact Fee fund in FY 01-02. All funds moved to the General Fund in FY 02-03. General Fund FM 1938 Right-of-Way Acquisition(FM 1709 to City Limits) R $330,000 NA N N New project request. Not ranked by the CIP Technical Committee. Ranked as the#5 project in the General Fund category in FY 01-02. Prior funding for urban design landscaping along SH 114. General Fund_n_d_ TMB Proposition Two-(SH 114 Urban Desi•n Const.) . C _ $600,000 60 _ Y_ _ Y$1,550,000 RECOMMENDED FOR FISCAL CONSTRAINTS 02,03 DUE TO • $S.O24 000. d p%jeers recommended rot funding In FY02-o9. CUTOFF LINE PROJECTS`BELOVV-THIS'LINE,ARE NOT ; "The$8 o2l;000 rqure-represents the dollar inwunr for tyeltrfat I I + Fun 1 J. .f,. .f_e, CIP Technical Committee November 15,2002 1 CIP Technical Committee - Rankings for all i.rr` Projects Requesting Funding in FY 2002-03 Project Name: (PD=Planning&Design,LA=Land Acquisition,C=Construction,SI/U=Site Improvement. FY 2002 w m= a. 3 Funding Utility,FE=Furniture and Equipment,R=ROW) FUNDING A . E; d N se., LL o c o. Source *Multiple Funding Sources REQUEST a' a ,o o. w Notes General Fund TMB Proposition One-(Intersection Improvements at Pearson C $1,500,000 78 Y Y$10,181,000 Lane) This project(Intersection improvements at Pearson and FM 1709) was recommended to be moved out to a future year in order to allow: • • 1)Kimball Ave.to be constructed in FY 2002-03 and 2)allow staff to attempt to secure future State funding for this project.The TMB Proposition 1 project was ranked#1 in General Fund category in FY 01-02;however,many of the planned TMB projects will now be • constructed using State funds instead of City funds. For example,the intersection of Rondo!Mill Avenue and FM 1709 will now be likely ' constructed by TXDOT in conjunction with the FM 1938 extension . project. Also,the State Regional Transportation Commission(RTC) ' recently approved the City's application to be included in the 2002 Strategic Program Funding Initiative. This program allows the City to use Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)funds instead of City funds to construct all 16 deceleration lanes at minor intersections along FM 1709 from Jellico to Bank Street. General Fund Fire Service Apparatus FE $160,000 60 N N New DPS Request. Ranked as the#12 project in the General Fund category in FY 01-02. General Fund Miscellaneous Pavement Rehabilitation PD-C $517,000 53 Y •N Ranked as the#15 project in the General Fund category in FY 01-02. Prior funding for the Carslie Road project. - General Fund Sidewalks along various roadways PD-C $110,000 52 Y Y $110,000 . Ranked as the#14 project in the General Fund category in FY 01-02. General Fund Silverwood Circle - PD-C $245,000 49 Y N Saddle Ridge Rd.,Sam Bass Ridge,Soda Ridge,Shumaker, Ranked as the#16 project in the General Fund category in FY 01-02. General Fund Sunshine,Sweet Streets Rehabilitation. PD $240,000 45 N Y $111,000 This-project was below the cutoff line in FY 01-02. New Project Request. General Fund Florence Road Rehabilitation PD-C • $987,000 44 N N Ranked as the#11 project in the General Fund category in FY 01-02. General Fund - Public Works Center Improvements - SI/U $300,000 41 Y N General Fund Outdoor Warning System FE-C $200,000 39 N N New DPS Project Request. General Fund Cross Timber Hills Neighborhood Road Repair PD-C $1,320,000 - 34 N N New Project Request The$5,579,000 figure represents the dollar amount for General Fund Projects that requested funding in FY 02-03 but could not be funded due to fiscal constraints. TOTAL $5,579,000 Projected PV 02-00 Uti i Fu 'd Avai able 4 000 U00 Ranked as the#1 project in Water Impact Fee funding category in FY 01-02. Moved to the Utility Fund in FY 02-03. Utili Fund Redundant Water Sue.1 PD-C $4 036 000 102 Y Y $2,567,417 CUTOFF LINE-PROJECTS BELOW THIS LINE ARE NOT The S4,036,000 figure represents the dollar amount for Utility RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING IN FY 02-03 DUE TO Fund Project recommended for funding in FY 02-03. FISCAL CONSTRAINTS $4,036,000 CIP Technical Committee November 15,2002 2 • • .- CIP Technical Committee - Rankings for all CAP Projects Requesting Funding in FY 2002-03 Project Name: (PD=Planning&Design, LA=Land o d Acquisition,C=Construction,SI/U=Site Improvement. FY 2002 w d o -= cu tm Funding Utility, FE=Furniture and Equipment, R=ROW) FUNDING o g ,, S. 12Source *Multiple Funding Sources REQUEST a a o a w Notes Ranked as the#6 project in Water Impact Fee funding category in FY 12'water line along Randol Mill Ave. (Randol Mill Bend to FM 01-02. Moved to the Utility Fund in FY 02-03. Utility Fund 1709) PD-LA $54,000 83 Y N Ranked as the#2 project in the Sewer Impact Fee Fund Category in Utility Fund N-2 Sewer Interceptor Construction C $581,000 77 Y FY 01-02.Moved to the Utility Find in FY 02-03. Ranked as the#1 project in the Sewer Impact Fee fund and as the#2 project in the Water Impact Fee fund categories in FY 01-02. This project has multiple funding sources in FY 02-03. $141,500 is requested from the General Fund.Moved to the Utility Fund in FY 02- Utility Fund Developer Reimbursement for over sizing utilities* Slu $141,500 74 Y N 03. Ranked as the#2 project in Sewer Impact Fee funding category in Utility Fund S. Kimball S-7 Line -- PD-C - $387,000 . 70 Y - .N FY 01-02. Moved to the Utility Fund in FY 02-03. Johnson Road Rehabilitation and Sewer(Pearson Ln.to PD-LA- Ranked as the#2 project in the Utility Fund category in FY 01-02. Utility Fund Randol Mill Ave.) C $230,000 69 Y Y $1,200,000 12"Water Line Along SH 114-Northside(N. Kimball to New Project Request. Utility Fund Briarwood) PD $45,000 67 N N Project not ranked in FY 01-02. FY 02-03 is the first year of Utility Fund 12"Water Line on N.Carroll from Dove to Primrose PD-LA $50,000 65 N N scheduled funding. Ranked as the#4 project in Sewer Impact Fee funding category in 12"Water Line on Shady Oaks from Highland Ave.to W. FY 01-02. Moved to the Utility Fund in FY 02-03. Utility Fund Dove PD-C $111,000 65 Y N 12"Water Line along FM 1709 from Parkwood to White Project not ranked in FY 01-02. FY 02-03 is the first year of Utility Fund Chapel PD-C $165,000 64 N N scheduled funding. Ranked as the#3 project in the Water Impact Fee category in FY 01- 20"Water Line from along SH 114 from Town Square to N. 02.Moved to the Utility Fund in FY 02-03. Prior funding for design Utility Fund White Chapel C $1,100,000 63 Y •Y $74,000 work. Garden Add., Heatherwood, Hershaw, Loma Vista, Royal PD-LA- Ranked as the#3 project in the Utility Fund category in FY 01-02. Utility Fund Oaks, etc.Sanitary Sewer C $1,706,000 62 Y Y $203,000 Project not ranked in FY 01-02. FY 02-03 is the first year of Utility Fund 12"Water Line on E.Highland N.Carroll to N. Kimball PD-LA $92,000 60 N N scheduled funding. Project not ranked in FY 01-02. FY 02-03 is the first year of Utility Fund 12"Water Line on E. Dove from N.Carroll to Kimball PD-LA $121,000 60 N N scheduled funding. PD-LA- Project not ranked in FY 01-02. FY 02-03 is the first year of Utility Fund N. Peytonville 8"Water Line(Low Pressure Plane) C $682,000 60 N N scheduled funding. PD-LA- New Project Request. Utility Fund Shady Oaks Sewer from the Basin Line to FM 1709 C $468,000 59 N N 8"Water Line on Highland Between White Chapel and Shady New Project Request. Utility Fund Oaks PD $32,000 58 N N PD- Ranked as the#4 project in the Utility Fund category in FY 01-02. Utility Fund Casey Court(Oaks Addition)Sewer SI/U-C $109,000 57 Y N PD-LA- Ranked as the#5 project in the Utility Fund category in FY 01-02. Utility Fund Quail Creek Estates,Woodland Heights Sewer(PD/LA/C) C $1,244,000 56 Y N 12"Water Line on White Chapel form Bicent. Park to Highland New Project Request. Utility Fund Ave.(PD) PD $38,000 56 N N CIP Technical Committee November 15,2002 3 r CIP Technical Committee - Rankings for all uir Projects Requesting Funding in FY 2002-03 , Project Name: (PD=Planning&Design, LA=Land o Acquisition,C=Construction,SI/U=Site Improvement. FY 2002 v' m .s a. Funding Utility, FE=Furniture and Equipment,R=ROW) FUNDING co d o g N d a o 8 a Source *Multiple Funding Sources REQUEST a a re w o a. w Notes Ranked as the#1 project in the Utility Fund category in FY 01-02. Utility Fund T.W. King Rehab-SH 114 to Bob Jones, 12"W.L. PD-C $633,000 54 Y Y $800,000 Prior funding for road construction. Utility Fund Bank Street Lift Station PD-C $30,000 52 N N New Project Request. The$8,019,500 figure represents the dollar amount for Utility Fund Projects that requested funding in FY 02-03 but could not be funded due to fiscal constraints. TOTAL $8,019,500 '` 4 a'vaii`a61e. RrojectecIEFY 027,3,S.e, er Impact Fund 4 W.A W ... ,;i4 54 $0,g ... k . ,.4. ,, .. r: -4` TOTAL $0 y % `' 'W.., '- f.;:i :: > 0} No funds'av`ailable. r .;:r:�,Prto,0,t01FY102 , W,,,atetimpactAFOWIa�.;.i.4: iii. 4, a i ,. a.M$0. _. .,. n .. . TOTAL $0 _ Yi� , n ,c,, yr:K,:'�zn4P�r -;t 1, ,i�. - 't<t.- 2, z t,3 '�"`�n ti :,Frlo�ect.(fir.�:#2 03rCrime Cont FundPAvatiab- �r'.144 6-� . $t1I*300 OOU } Protect no:"ranked in FY 01 02 FY 02 03 is the fir a of t "t ye r Cnme_Control _,North DP S Facility.__ ____. _ PD __ $300,000 _sscheduledfundih ^_ ;Crime Control: Rad i onlhfiastFuctur_e FE:_ _: _$1,9011000 _—_„_—___ -_� _ New Pr_____ equest. _ _ —_ __, __ TOTAL $1,300,000 �, . ,PAI5JactedWFAY 02„03 SPD,C Bari t Aua!lablet,',,;„ i : ,; i,*r.; $3.,-209,698 ,.-, ti, . . SPDC Bob Jones Park Development SI/U $1,115,967 60 Y Y $449,000 Ranked as the#1 project in the SPDC Fund category in FY 01-02. Includes$815,967 for completion of prior Bob Jones projects that was reauthorized for FY 02-03. Prior funding for various construction projects throughout the park. Ranked as the#4 project in the SPDC Fund category in FY 01-02. SPDC Girls Softball Complex LA-C $1,399,400 51 Y Y $355,000 Prior funding for land acquisition. SPDC Neighborhood Park Development C $123,331 48 Y Y $63,000 Not Ranked last year. SPDC Trail Development C $41,000 48 N Y $58,000 Ranked as# project in the SPDC Fund category in FY 01-02 Ranked as the#7 project in the SPDC Fund category in FY 01-02. SPDC Nature Center Improvements C $10,000 38 Y N Y Project added to CIP to reflect SPDC allocated funding. Prior funding SPDC CISD Aquatic Center-Contribution to Joint Use Facility NA $250,000 NA Y $500,000 reflects contractual contribution to Joint Use Facility. SPDC Matching Funds(Grant) NA $200,000 NA Y Y $200,000 Project added to CIP to reflect SPDC allocated funding. SPDC Joint Use NA $20,000 NA Y Y $20,000 Project added to CIP to reflect SPDC allocated funding. Y SPDC Special Projects NA $50,000 NA Y - $50,000 Project added to CIP to reflect SPDC allocated funding. CIP Technical Committee November 15,2002 4 CIP Technical Committee - Rankings for all(c��`' Projects Requesting Funding in FY 2002-03 . Project Name: PD=Plannin &Design,LA=Land LL H , 9 9 0 ` Acquisition,C=Construction,Sl/U=Site Improvement. FY 2002 w d • = a 3 Funding Utility, FE=Furniture and Equipment,R=ROW) FUNDING 12 d E LL N d Source *Multiple Funding Sources REQUEST a a a ,o 0. ui Notes CUTOFF LINE-PROJECTS BELOW THIS LINE ARE NOT The$3,209,698 figure represents the dollar amount for SPDC Projects recommended for funding in FY 02-03. RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING IN FY 02-03 DUE TO FISCAL CONSTRAINTS $3,209,698 _ Project ranked#1 by CIP Technical Committee;however,project Y removed from CIP Program due to fiscal constraints. Prior funding for SPDC Recreation Center C $8,650,000 61 Y $7,000 Planning and Design work. The;8,650,000 figure represents the dollar amount for SPDC Projects that requested funding in FY 02-03 but could not be funded due to fiscal constraints. TOTAL $8,650,000 CIP Technical Committee November 15,2002 5 Jr. , _. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED FY 2002- 03 TO FY 2006-07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BY FUND TYPE AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE'S PROJECT SCORES The following spreadsheet is the Technical Committee's proposed FY 2002-03 to FY 2006-07 Capital Improvements Program by fund type (i.e. general fund, utility fund, crime control fund, SPDC fund). Also, this spreadsheet includes the Technical Committee's project score. Once each project was scored it was placed in the appropriate funding category. The Technical Committee then reviewed the dollar amount available in each fund by fiscal year and recommended the projects to be funded. In most cases, the projects that receive the highest scores received funding priority. There are a few cases in which a lower scored project received priority funding over a higher scored project. An attachment to the back of this spreadsheet explains the justification for those few projects that have been recommended for funding over a higher scored project. The CIP establishes a five (5) year funding schedule for the purchase, construction or replacement of physical assets of the city. The first year the CIP (FY 2002-03) is called the Capital Budget year, and is appropriated in the same manner as the operating budget. Projects approved for subsequent years are approved for planning purposes only and do not receive expenditure authority until they are part of the Capital Budget. The spreadsheet indicates all CIP project requests submitted by the various city departments. Those projects highlighted in yellow are recommended to be funded within the five (5) year funding schedule (FY 2002-03 to FY 2006-07). The following projects have been recommended for approval as an exception to the committee's rating order: PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS - • S. Kimball Avenue (Crooked to Continental) project has been recommended to replace the TMB Pearson Intersection Improvements at FM 1709, since it impacts a wider profile of area population and facilitates traffic from S. Kimball to Hwy. 26. The Pearson intersection project will be resubmitted for the state/federal funding through the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) due to the current successful trend in funding several TMB . projects from the same source. The Pearson intersection project impacts a much smaller population base; however, this is a very important project to the traveling population. • The TMB SH 114 Urban Design Project has been recommended for funding in FY 2002-2003 due to.the Southlake's commitment to TxDOT and the fact that this project is already in progress at this time as a part of SH 114 widening at Carroll Avenue and White Chapel Road. ▪ FM 1938 ROW Acquisition (FM 1709 to the West Lake City limit) project has been recommended for funding due to the immediate need for a 20-foot easement.for use for the water transmission line and the Southlake Trail System approved by the City Council. The county is in the process of acquiring land for the widening at this time. COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECTS • Although the staff technical committee ranked some projects high, they may not have been funded because of the significant cost involved, compared to available funds. Rather than not do any projects at all, a high ranked project may have been bypassed in favor of a lower priority, but less costly project. An example of this in the SPDC fund is the recreation center project and Bicentennial Park improvements project. The recreation center project is estimated at $8.25 million for design, engineering, and construction. At current revenue projections, we do not foresee having those funds available within the next five-year window. For this reason, the recreation center is not shown at all in the 5-year SPDC CIP. r ; TECHNICAL COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED FY 2002- 03 TO FY 2006-07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BY PROJECT TYPE The following spreadsheet is the Technical Committee's proposed FY 2002-03 to FY 2006-07 Capital Improvements Program by project type (i.e. street, drainage, public safety). The CIP establishes a five (5) year funding schedule for the purchase, construction or replacement of physical assets of the city. The first year the CIP (FY 2002-03) is called the Capital Budget year, and is appropriated in the same manner as the operating budget. Projects approved for subsequent years are approved for planning purposes only and do not receive expenditure authority until they are part of the Capital Budget. The spreadsheet indicates all CIP project requests submitted by the various city departments. Those projects highlighted in yellow are recommended to be funded within the five (5) year funding schedule (FY 2002-03 to FY 2006-07). Those projects not highlighted in yellow are not recommended to be funded within the five (5) year funding schedule. Therefore, there are no dollar amounts associated with these projects. These projects could not be funded within the five (5) funding schedule due to fiscal constraints. 8.66: TE ( 1INICAL COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ENDED CIP EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR The following spreadsheet is the Technical Committee's recommended expenditures by fiscal year. The dollar amount available in each of the fund categories was projected for each fiscal year over a five (5) year period. Project dollar amounts were than distributed accordingly over the five (5) year period. The first year the CIP (FY 2002-03) is called the Capital Budget year, and is appropriated in the same manner as the operating budget. Projects approved for subsequent years are approved for planning purposes only and do not receive expenditure authority until they are part of the Capital Budget. 1 City of Southlake Capital Improvements Project Map FY 2002/2003 to FY 2006/2007 - .• ... • R,R Legend �L� ..... •R MIT• Street/Signal Projects ' es.IN. ��1 N Street Projects II� ; ,�■� ', l o� t Sewerline Projects :Fill I 1IIl Imo. N . 1 I.1 II II, 1 i T ' Waterline Projects •L■�o1 .ow _ Drainage Projects R*R J i NTraffic Management Bond Projects i • NW Sewer Projects i ig �l im imgDept.of Public Safety Projects ,� ��Iee �� 3 CommunityServices Projects 1 NU 1 -$/h gelt� -'a'•�• ,.., .I. a!� ==hibt. �1d� t/;��t:�_ ai.� No Scale ; , . �Ivi; mna.. doll ui iallgel Allipapli,i;',Y1Pitelni v■Jun.� .� 4 ' �l�=ar .allla 11.1 0.Fam-11. l■ '11-' �fr =•'to--. 4111 Ff.—111i 1111441rAll lishil J11113 1'7- Ill Me" • a ■��minwilt'li 1111 l �i=1'�lin 1�IIV11�� r >_,3:• r. i u-Arivo.thil,,, ,, t,is,,,..E1 .8 u ■II �I.+■■.'a1 • lilf 11111r111611 2 1111....... INIVIZONrarPtito-wonak�:-1'i�- 11O 1 .�111 V �I�C` J'' �_!'! == tin■�.' = I.�'■ i=EIK.•:W'� Na 6 . linr 1._ ��=-- .-z ''''. • 1.p. C■II kelbli,p-! -rk_=gen.digr, �_ , w� l_=■'mom., ;F mr-.-,.-t•�__�• � ►�i►•ieil.�C��..�At I 1G�'■■ IUI ■■has RIIII ,"iL.tt; �•.i.=tn..;•...; cm lill �\v .t I I I IIL1�.. ipu 'INh .. WIMP ask i♦inala� 1 � 6.' 8 , U` ". mow. 'A ,�, ats ill Nag F$� ri�i�'iir ■2��112:41, fIL ;..�s� tL.19:;• � o■. ��' l �la!u..• ■ n tin 01 �iI E1.1rn: mm III_: N•e,,II . ■ ■1. .■� �r .P•.•.d•gr:.�' tr fIIIIREIBE t �i t Iii MS -�■✓•��„ .�. �u it:•,� _ .u� .G.. ■.II�� iiraingintoppo.ip:::::::ta ��; �IIt�•�= �•.•tr�..!. i.aiC I�� 1♦� 1►�l01--'0 :.,.••=4 0-1 tall J9t=� iii\ ■■ee.E a ■ I I{I Inat,,` ii:,•��ant:`to ai ■ ■ 1 . ♦�i ..7 ��i If � _ i6• ::I ■1L � T tj u.... T I n,-: ' . VA 4•:.41 0 . i■Ift\-ram'° nn 'i—� R= ,/I ,.ii1 II_ ■ Ie■ 7.::0 •. • °- � t3 fi�/ A •. Ci 1'1 Po ■.:i-=av--C-■ �C.. ez.5�t`'"•'"'�• _:: .,. ., � p.itli .. .. � , .- ._e s�� ;,.- �-.Ire,e C , a 1 .� -1 a ...._; , :•...... 1�i��■)fOl.o 15. t .��Z'•'�IIz-�`rj� /I'i�9.�i ':iFi�i. r i _._ \II111 6>=1...w �` • ■i�f e1H9-.: ��_—:.ifigeri J• :-s 'i _e a1 l� 1 ._tvga 1 -, . .��r , - t• lib; •_::: will ee_ :rlllll■Il7 (=as mail :: it 11i'.1;ie r. 1`■.�►�• ■aille Prima r■411 1 a■,r.:T■7�t+��,R tI J�� Ilt._rnn,; Illlllmlll_ "=`�- _ II �'. ''� ' _.�x:'� ' 1111.1 1-z111 �.p>r I ll �;..zf��+•��T min ��,rr�� ♦ S Moira' jJ` TIPP �wAtaI•■•".,---�'-:•.. �-; uiiii '9i1 t/■�,IjI.• .I `�rQ •i m M •S w ■.T•■e.s . •.n1ag I �/.ris7 .iii�C ===�� .�i1 . : •t.smt,•si.• !i ■AN:r„•-..•.. t ?.; i9 ■■� ♦I ■ C ,I.M . viral iI f-isImi'.we 'M ■III .i 1 �:euit it■!It{ti, i-OW FNI i 1 �JI♦Ir 1 'r.._,........,..__.,:„.„..,,.....,„7:...: ,'�■:": MEM . e �'*Jii 11 11'• ,Y • •1::'_ :a�.��,�:��■ -�1 .ZI'1� �■_��•C'-ri lIaaj tirt,! '�...'`-_ . .1 .n ■.x LT,�i„.�n�, .i �'ifil' •"ai:11' u1 1. ■• Ui . �.•Cx � // 3:• c ___ . 1Jii♦J•- a.11:Li'�% ..ud •� 11 .■ ni-■,=l i.pi: is ' 6T"id�� . �t,: �� li'L �`; //,I •i i ' , .:■"- LI 11.e'� 3.1. Y1.. ,..Pe 1• �, x■ C 3 A r-s•.?..�•. m. 11.: . ',� x 11 11� ■■■ 1111■ . ... ..: C�GIF�•'. ii...6�r pi, n.. .: ■xr:' a...„.„2 OA:t. •,::; '..ul II il r'---1—IL In;.:• e■IP '.��I�1' •�I• ■ n ;• .r . :: ♦I.. `` : m �is =� 1n i%��tnr''r! ' -[1 vn.u. t. a-_ E t. i 1 '■ 1: Wilir 1. i C.. ��•Y h' 'r ■. f� a Q1t1 �e 1g �?. ,. lhi,:.7 �_�—_- H\fti� WA IIII 116iPEP;qt.'', pry. rn� 11• �1'1? /L �: :+�rifili III DISCLAIMER .... �1�1 ',/ir.O e r1-. raw, a '9L.1- This data has been compiled for The 17�"I ? �, m ppad • p *vim., vi m., :le :ll. ■I , ,Amin City of Southlake. Various official ��;i �J.� �'Ij■1► ® � itri -. I +d'..11 1 and unoffcial sources were used to -it0�AT 1 :11 \ II ��r��• —A...-,.. gather this information. Every effort ' was made to ensure the accuracy of this data,however,no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. 11111000. -03 TO FY 2006-07 RECOMMENDED CIP PROJECTS EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR Project Name FY02-03 FY03-04 FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 (GF)=General Fund$ (SPDC)=Southlake Parks Dev.Corp$ Capital Budget Year (UF)=Utility Fund$ (CC)=Crime Control$ Section I-DRAINAGE PROJECTS $fi47 0n0%11 1. Storm water Phase II-Drainage Master Plan(GF) •,, • - 2. Dove Creek Drainage Improvements(GF) • $Ano nnn r�i • ; . „$5.no ono r3r :.:' RSon ann'3i s5no o0or3Y3. Localized Drainage Improvements(GF) ,.. .: Section II-MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS $147'non(41,, •' sin()non(4Y. • .s5n nno(4) -ssn na0•i4).• $so non(4 . • 4. Developer Reimbursement for Oversizing ••'' Utilities(GF) Section III-TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT BOND "$f0 000(5i 5. TMB Proposition Two(SH114 Urban Design)(GF) ••; : . .••:,: ;:: .. - PROJECTS Section -STREET O IV 6. N.Carroll Avenue(Federal to SH 114)Ultimate(GF) • '$3a7'000(si•. $2 172 0nn rrn . . w andLine GF Roadway 12"Water t , ... ..,•. . . ..:.-::'::::. ::.:.:,;.....: :..:..:..:...:::::.:.-:. :.;::::.:...;;:;::::;:.,..;-:::. .:.::. ;.:..-:::..;.,-.;...:. .. . .. ... .. . .. ... 7. Traffic Signal at FM 1709 and Nolen(GF) •, .$15n onn(A1 .'• 8. Pavement Management(GF) :..•$as5 oon(9t ' Widening9. (GF)Dove Road 2 38 000 10. Union Church Road/S.Pearson Reconstruction-12" Water Line GF :'$135,000(11j`,, 11. N.White Chapel(Emerald to SH 114)(GF) • 12. FM 1938 Right-Of-Way Acquisition(GF) •, . . • n(131',. 13. S.Kimball Avenue(crooked to Continental)(Half of •:... ..::.. .:...:. Ultimate Roadway) GF ...:..:. .. SECTION V-WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS $a'03fi nnn rlai 14. Redundant Water Supply(UF) 12 Water Line Along Randol Mill Ave. OF • ..... .....::. -..:. :.:.:...: .:..,:._.,.:.::.;.:.:.;:.: :�:.,,....::.:::..,.....;....;:::.:.;;::::.:::..:.,.:...:.�..:::..:...:....:....: ). N-2 Sewer Interceptor(UF) ,.• - ��. Developer Reimbursement for Over Sizing Utilities(UF) • • 18. S.Kimball S-7 Sewer Line(UF) • • .. ,;. ... ....�:�.�:��.��-..::i��i'i"'s:�a: -i'�i�:$230,000:(19::;_l;i:;�,��Ll:',:'1;,",:;1<,`�'::'�;:��"-.:i�,::w:i?o;=?i�i' 19. Johnson Rd.Rehabilitation and Sewer(UF) ,.. • ,.. _. 20. 12"Water Line on State Hwy. 114(Kimball to :. . :;..:.:..:: Y ' ••.' ..;. aas nnn(qn). .,. . $?Oo Bn nnr d OF .. .:.:.::.:.:.:.::..::....-.: . ..............:::.:.:.. ,,.,:.. ,. ,:,,-,:..•.,:..;. 'non !?21. 12"Water Line on N.Carroll Ave. (Dove to Primrose)(UF) ,,.:::•::•:;�'...:,,•::. ; :..:...;.:�: _- '$..... ..:..(::.:�..:. ..... .......:(;..);.. 22. 12"Water Line on Shady Oaks(Highland to Dove)(UF23. }-s •:::.• . ,:..•...,._;. '.:.::�.:-:<-.:::::::<::.:;::<�.;:.:.;,::;.:.;.::.:...:;::.;:.:.:.:.:: ..::: ........ :.:. . 12"Water Line on FM 1709(Parkwood to ::....:......:.:...::. White C ael h (UF) 24. 20'Water on SH 114(T.Square to White Chapel(UF) ...:.:...:. 25. Garden Addn.,Heatherwood,Hershaw,Loma Vista, etc.Sanitry Sewer OF ,.:,;.:,.,.,,.,,,,, :•.c>:,;;;': .:': :,;::;:.:-:c : ,:; :: - -26. 12"Water Line on E. Highland(Carroll to Kimball)(UF) , 27. N.Peytonville 8"Waterline(Low Press. Plane) OF :;�''•=:::�.;,. •..,,... .::;�:;. ::... <•...,...._. •........... . .. .. .. :. :. ..:... 28. ShadyOaks Sewer(Basin Line to FM 1709) OF :.',:�: :.'�; :.:;:.�.;;.,;. .i;:>�. : - .:.•..... • ( ) 29. 8"Water Line on Highland W.C.to Shady Oaks) OF 30. Casey Court Sewer(UF) ":'� ::'�' °° ' '::. '..: .'- • $1n9 nnn('ni:: :;•:.,t,:.:�:.,;.::6.. i::: i•: i:::^'`":i:.,::::::._<!':>'ii'is.fi>2'i::s(::::_:',;.::;i; .. n!•.1'�_::> 31. 12"Waterline on E.Dove(N.Carroll to N. Kimball)(UF) ;,.;;:•...;;,:..;..-•..,.•:..: :::::::::::::..::::,:• ::.•;:::,.::::.,. • I F SECTION VI-PUBLIC SAFETY $3;000,000'32': s$300;000 321>':?:":$12'400;000 32 32. North DPS Facility CC „:,.,.,.: •..:;;::; ,,::.s snri nnn is:ii`:'` - -33. East DPS(CC) $1 34. Radio Infrastructure SECTION VII-COMMUNITY SERVICES 1 3 BobDevelopment115 957(351 - - 5 ob Jones SPDC ....::..:. ..:: 36. Girls Softball Complex(SPDC) 1 399 ann(3fil' 37. Neighborhood Park Development(SPDC 3• �:;�::':;::r::;.:.<.':.... :.;-,:;:.;;::::::.;';:-:;.;;,:,:.;..;:: $1 n Ono r381 Nature Center mp ovements(SPDC) •....... : . .. .•;. :-;.:;:,::,,.;::::::::,'.;.: <::;,�::..::;::;;:<:<;;':::::,;::: :::":..;:r.::�:,:::;::;;:r::>:::::::.:: ,::;;:.r>.:.,;>.;.;:;. 9. Land Acquisition SPDC ....,•.:.. :....:..:::..:;:.: ::,:::;': >$90o;o0o 39 > $15O - 40. Trail Improvements(SPDC) $41'nnn(aoi •-� - -- - 41. CISD Aquatics Center(SPDC) - - 42. Matching Fund Grant(SPDC • ?�; : -:$?no nno r4��:;:::. .:::.$?nn nnn fa?i_:>: 43. Joint Use SPDC $?n•oon raai :::'; :;li':";':;;:.:;;:;;:y;;;:_::::.::$?n 000(49r::: ,.,.: $?n nob rani.;':: 44. Special Projects(SPDC) • '5 n OOO,r44) " $35 000(4a1. $35 non(44)``` $5O O00 r441 $Sn:OnR l44)'' 141110: $ Breakdown byFunding Source FY 2002-03 CIP Projects $ 1 ,300,000 $4,036,000 01 $8,024,000 $3 ,209,698 -- TOTAL = $16,569,698 1 GENERAL FUND (NEW DEBT) UTILITY FUND (NEW DEBT) SPDC FUND (EXISTING FUNDING) 11111 CRIME CONTROL FUND (EXISTING FUNDING) Icifysfiouthiake<> Texas' Technical Committee's Proposed Capital Improvements Program FY 2002-03 Through FY 2006-07 ,. . 1111000 Breakdown by Project T e yp FY 2002-03 CIP Projects $ 1, 300 , 000 $ 1 947 000 $600 , 000 $ 142 , 000 pilipt, \\ Y � � 3$3 � 209 7698 �" a i e 335, 000a ' � $5, �1 .• $4 , 036 , 000 TOTAL = $16,569,698 jDrainage Projects _ ... . Miscellaneous Projects Street Projects Water and Sewer Projects Community Services LCi�yo,f Soutblake texas _ __:. • Traffic Management Bond Technical Committee's Proposed Capital Improvements Program Public Safety FY 2002-03 Through FY 2006-07