2001-12-10
1 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
2 PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING
3
4 December 10, 2001
5
6 MINUTES
7
8 Board Members Present: Chris Miltenberger, Chairman; Cara White, Vice-Chair; Mary
9 Georgia, Secretary; Frank Cornish, Tim O'Connor, Bobby Rawls, and Lisa Stokdyk
10
11 Board Members Absent: None
12
13 Staff Members Present: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services and Chris
14 Carpenter, Senior Park Planner
15
16 Guests: Karen Mangum, Interlocal Trails Task Force Project
17
18 Regular Session:
19
20 Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order
21
22 Chair Chris Miltenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
23
24 Agenda Item No. 2, Administrative Comments
25
26 Community Services Director Kevin Hugman provided the following administrative
27 comment:
28
29 SPIN #1 and SPIN #6 Meeting December 5, 2001 - Staff met with SPIN #1 and
30 SPIN #6 regarding the proposed sports lighting and variance requests for Bob
31 Jones Park and Carroll Intermediate School (CIS) playing fields. Staff made a
32 presentation on the lighting proposal, the variances requested and the reasons for
33 the variances, and answered questions. The lighting request at Bob Jones Park is
34 to light the southern most soccer fields, which has been in the project plan for
35 quite a while and has been shown on the Bob Jones Park Master Plan since 1997.
36 The CIS lighting project is more recent and is proposed to light the field to make
37 it more available to the Southlake-Carroll Lacrosse Association. Mr. Hugman
38 explained the reason for the requested variances to the Lighting Ordinance. He
39 said there were two issues involved - the type of lighting required by the
40 Ordinance is the high-pressured sodium light, which is gold tone, and cannot be
41 used on sports fields. The second issue with the Ordinance is the light intensity is
42 a maximum of 20-foot candles, which is based on commercial parking lots, but
43 the illuminating engineer's standards recommends a minimum of 30-foot candle
44 for soccer and lacrosse play.
45
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 1 of 11
1 Mr. Hugman said a lot of questions were asked about how late the lights would be
2 on at the Bob Jones Park facility. The lighting issue is governed by the Facilities
3 Utilization Agreement (FUA), which states that Sunday through Thursday the
4 lights are off by 10:30 p.m. On Friday and Saturday lights are out by 11:30 p.m.
5 Regarding the times stipulated in the FUA, Mr. Hugman said Tony DeBruno,
6 Grapevine-Southlake Soccer Association president, offered that the language in
7 the Agreement could be modified when it is presented to the City Council at their
8 December 18, 2001 meeting to show fewer days of play. Mr. Hugman asked the
9 Park Board for their opinions about changing the hours of play in the FUA to be
10 more restrictive and if they wanted to officially revisit the Agreement prior to it
11 being considered by the City Council? The Board had concerns with the
12 flexibility and future limitations that more restrictive hours could create. Mr.
13 Miltenberger said he had concerns about the reduced hours and said he did not
14 think that the Park Board "should do anything that gives the impression to
15 anybody that lives there now or may in the future buy a house near there that the
16 facility is not going to be open for use like any other lighted facility that we
17 have." He was not be in favor of putting more restrictions in the FUA, even if
18 GSSA does not need the lighted fields during all of the hours. There may be other
19 groups that may want to use the park.
20
21 Mr. O'Connor and Ms. Georgia agreed with Mr. Miltenberger. Ms. Georgia added
22 she "would be willing to support wording that was clearly giving [the City] the
23 flexibility to turn off the lights using the Internet access if there were no activities
24 scheduled or requested during those hours." Ms. Georgia said that would be the
25 limit she would be willing to accept in terms of reducing the amount of lighting.
26
27 Some Board members and staff agreed that it was a matter of practicality that the
28 City and the associations would take steps to reduce the number of hours that the
29 lights are on when the fields are not being used, and it was not necessary to add
30 additional language to the FUA. It was noted that if the City Council has concerns
31 with the Agreement on December 18, the Park Board could formally address
32 those at the next Park Board meeting. The Park Board members made comments
33 about the future needs of the park and agreed to leave the FUA as written with the
34 exception of Park Board member Lisa Stokdyk, who "abstained" from that
35 decision.
36
37 Ms. White arrived at 7:30 p.m.
38
39 CONSENT AGENDA
40
41 Agenda Item 3-A, Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board meeting
42 minutes of November 12, 2001.
43
44 A motion was made to approve the minutes from the November 12, 2001 Park
45 Board meeting.
46 Motion: Georgia
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 2 of 11
I Second: Cornish
2 Ayes: Cornish, Georgia, Miltenberger, O'Connor, Rawls, Stokdyk, White
3 Nays: None
4 Vote: 7-0
5
6 Motion carried.
7
8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSENT ITEMS
9
10 Agenda Item No 3-A Approval of the Southlake Parks and Recreation Board meeting
11 minutes of November 12, 2001. Approved as presented with no corrections noted.
12
13 REGULAR AGENDA:
14
15 Agenda Item No. 4, Public Forum
16
17 Chairman Miltenberger explained the purpose of Public Forum and the options of the
18 Board during this section of the meeting. He asked if anyone present would like to speak
19 during Public Forum.
20
21 Karen Mangum, representative, Interlocal Trail Task Force, addressed the Board.
22 Ms. Mangum is a member of the Texas Master Naturalist Program, which is co-
23 founded by the Texas Parks & Wildlife and the Texas Agricultural Extension
24 Service. Ms. Mangum has been involved with the Town of Copper Canyon in the
25 development of trails around Lake Lewisville on the Corps of Engineer property.
26 Currently she is involved in the development of equestrian trails in Walnut Grove
27 Park on Corp property. Ms. Mangum explained she has found that
28 paved/hike/bike trails are getting a lot of attention and are developing more
29 rapidly because funding is more readily available to cities for these types of trails;
30 funding such as ISTEA grants, whereas the nature/equestrian trails type of
31 facilities were "falling by the wayside." The Texas Master Naturalist program
32 began looking countywide at the existing different type of trails and started to
33 work in a non-political, informal way to get neighboring communities to start
34 master planning together instead of isolated. This was the impetus for the
35 formation of the Interlocal Trails Task Force (ITTF), which was established in
36 February 2001 to coordinate the planning, establishment and stewardship of
37 recreational trails and nature areas in Denton County. The ITTF is comprised of
38 representatives from communities and government agencies in Denton County,
39 various recreational trail user groups and other interested parties. The goal is to
40 inter-connect existing trails and expand those trail systems; creating unbroken
41 corridors of habitat for plants and wildlife, to protect and preserve the watershed
42 and open spaces, to provide visitors and residents ecotourism, recreational and
43 educational opportunities while preserving the ecosystem of Denton County.
44
45 Ms. Mangum explained the current Texas Master Naturalist's project and how
46 Southlake could be involved. She said the big picture is to have a master trail that
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 3 of 11
I extends from the Oklahoma border to Fort Worth. Walnut Grove Park will
2 ultimately become attached on the western link of the trail on the Corp property to
3 interconnect with all the trails around Lake Grapevine and go towards Northlake.
4 When that occurs, ITTF is hoping that the trails will continue north through
5 Argyle, over to Lake Lewisville, link Lake Lewisville north to the city of Denton,
6 link Denton to the Ray Roberts corridor, hook up from the Ray Roberts corridor
7 and go to Lake Tacoma. Ms. Mangum invited the City of Southlake to take part in
8 the mapping process and to provide data about the Walnut Grove trails. The
9 Denton County Maps and Plats office is assisting. Mapping of all the trails
10 involved in this project is the first step toward this project.
11
12 Park Board requested that Senior Park Planner Chris Carpenter work with Ms.
13 Mangum to provide the information requested on the City's trail plan in a format
14 that can be used by Denton County.
15
16 Ms. Mangum presented numerous benefits of having a trail system as she
17 presented a preliminary map of the countywide trail system as it is currently
18 drawn and explained the routes and cooperative efforts to date on the master trail.
19
20 Some cities, such as Highland Village, Flower Mound, and developers are seeing
21 the bike routes as an opportunity for alternative transportation to work areas and
22 are aggressively pursuing parallel planning of different type use of trails.
23
24 Ms. Mangum referenced statistics for the Lantana Project, which showed that
25 property values were actually higher when the properties were along nature trails,
26 wooded areas and that a lot of the stereotypes of what people consider to be "not
27 safe" actually turned out to be the opposite.
28
29 Mr. Miltenberger thanked Ms. Mangum for her presentation and invited her to stay.
30
31 Later in the meeting, after consideration of Item 5-A, Ms. Maria Chase addressed the
32 Park Board. See the notes following Item 5-A regarding Ms. Chase's comments.
33
34 Public Forum was closed.
35
36 Agenda Item No. 5-A, Recommendation of park dedication requirements for Aventerra
37 Southlake, Tract II, a 281.41 acre proposed mixed-use addition in the A-300, L. Chivers
38 Survey and the A-299 A. Chivers Survey.
39
40 Senior Park Planner Chris Carpenter presented this item. Although the overall
41 development plan for Aventerra Southlake (Tracts I, II and III) is still in its early stages, a
42 small portion (approximately 7 acres near the White Chapel Boulevard section) of Tract
43 II is being sought as a potential site by an Aventerra client, which is the driving force
44 behind the current development request. The Park Board is being asked to provide input
45 on park dedication requirements. Staff has informed the developer that land dedication
46 should be the first priority for satisfying park dedication requirements as the project
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 4 of 11
I progresses. Attached to the minutes are the letter from the consultant and the expense
2 credit worksheet. The worksheet is filled out based on no credits for dedications or
3 amenities; a new worksheet will be submitted in the future when those dedication and
4 credits are sought.
5
6 The park dedication requirements for Tract II would be 5.62 acres of public park land (1
7 acre per 50 gross acres) or $225,128 in fees ($800 per acre).
8
9 Since the development of this tract is still fairly conceptual, other than a specific portion
10 that is ready to be developed and has a user already identified, Aventerra is unable to
11 define a specific parcel or parcels that would be proposed for dedication. The preliminary
12 plat is scheduled for City Council consideration on December 18 agenda in order that
13 Aventerra may proceed with development of the smaller parcel.
14
15 Staff recommends that the Park Board approve a recommendation that the developer
16 dedicate a total of 5.62 acres of usable park land, as one or more sites, to be determined at
17 a later date in coordination with Community Services Department staff. This would allow
18 the City to seek a commitment from Aventerra for land dedication, while ensuring that
19 the staff and Aventerra developers have the time to propose a public park or parks, that
20 fits in with the desired development and provides an amenity to the development as well
21 as to the City. There will be future submittals from Aventerra to develop this tract and the
22 Board will have the opportunity at a future date to review and comment on a more
23 detailed proposed park dedication.
24
25 Discussion:
26
27 Mr. Miltenberger commented that he believed that the Board was in favor of the proposal
28 for the acreage at the rate it is supposed to be, at a site to be determined in the future
29 when it is worked out.
30
31 Ms. Stokdyk raised a question about the apparent difference in the letter from the
32 consultant and the cover memo from staff. The consultant's letter favored the payment of
33 $225,128 in park dedication fees, whereas, the staff memo recommends parkland
34 dedication. Mr. Miltenberger said the developer had changed their request and now
35 preferred to make the land dedication.
36
37 Jim Baker, vice president and general manager, Terrabrook, presented an overview of
38 the proposed project and some concepts about each of the three phases. He talked about
39 their company's history, mission, master plan, and opportunities of the development.
40 Aventerra has developed other properties in the area such as Timarron and Southridge
41 Lakes (Mobil Land).
42
43 Mr. Miltenberger told the developers that he has heard many complaints that when
44 Timarron was developed, there was not enough of the land set aside for the children to
45 practice soccer, tee-ball, etc. He said each time a Timarron tract was developed;
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 5 of 11
I Timarron's position with the city was that the golf course was the dedicated land and that
2 more land was not needed.
3
4 Jim Manskey, Southlake resident and principal of TBG Partners, talked extensively about
5 the characteristics of the property and how they want to incorporate these natural features
6 into the corporate environment planned.
7
8 Ms. Georgia thanked the representatives for their presentation and said the project looked
9 very good. She added that it makes good business sense to plan to incorporate landscape
10 into what is being built from a corporate prospective. People are looking for ways that
11 they can integrate their home with their work. Health centers are being incorporated into
12 corporate facilities and said she was sure that the different pieces that they propose will
13 have that concept also.
14
15 A motion was made to accept the 5.62 acres as the satisfaction of their park
16 dedication requirement for Tract II at a location to be determined.
17 Motion: Miltenberger
18
19 There was no "second" or vote on this motion.
20
21 Discussion:
22
23 Ms. White asked if that was for the whole project or just Tract II? She commented on the
24 need for park land to be dedicated.
25
26 Mr. Hugman said that staff's thought process was that with this large of project, if we
27 could get the land dedication without picking where or what type of land at this time,
28 depending upon what their future plans would be, but having a commitment of land
29 instead of fees. The City would like to work with them to develop something that would
30 be beneficial to them as well as to the City, such as a corporate type of park. Mr. Hugman
31 said our thought was to make the request flexible to get them through this step in order to
32 move forward with the development, but looking at the total tract, not just a piece of it, at
33 this time, and the land dedication allows for a more flexible option.
34
35 Ms. Georgia clarified the Park Board's position by saying that the Board was asking if
36 the developer would dedicate 5.62 acres, with exact location to be identified at a future
37 date after working with Southlake Park and Recreation staff and Park Board. She said:
38 "The dedication on the City's part is because the City is getting an agreement from the
39 developer that in the future, what is developed, will not be developed only for corporate
40 use or only limited to corporate facilities on the property alone. We would expect that
41 what is developed would be able to be shared with the public in Southlake, if it was a
42 hike and bike trail and things like that. So that is what we gain by getting that agreement
43 up front. We don't need it platted right now, is really what Park staff is recommending."
44
45 Mr. Manskey responded to Ms. Georgia and said: "The only question I have is
46 that to say 5.62 acres; because a hike and bike trail, for instance, is a corporate
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 6 of 11
1 amenity we will always discuss - it is just that at this stage of the planning, and
2 not knowing how many users, we can't quantify an exact number - it's just too
3 early and that equates to certain credits against the acreage at a 50% level. So it's
4 just hard to say specifically this acreage or this hike and bike trail credit on this
5 much acreage, and this open space and this contiguous sports linear or it's flood
6 plain related or it's at the entry. It's just hard to quantify that now and that's the
7 only difficulty and that is why we had said at the preliminary plat stage for 7 acres
8 at 281; we wanted to make a presentation to talk about the corporate incentives
9 and come back at the final plat stages and talk about the specific
10 recommendations. In concept, we are in agreement with the dedication - there is
11 no doubt about that, it's just we can't quantify it."
12
13 Mr. Carpenter suggested that the motion could state something to the effect that
14 "we recommend that the immediate platting of the first lot be credited as fees
15 towards the developer's agreement for that particular development of the seven
16 (7) acres; remaining acreage will be subsequently reviewed by the Park Board for
17 fee credits, be it land or facilities improvements, at a future date."
18
19 The first tract is seven acres, which equates to $5,600 ($800 per gross acre x 7) in
20 park dedication fees.
21
22 A motion was made "to accept $5,600 as the park dedication fee (whatever the
23 required fees are for Tract 6 - 7+ acres) and then that the future park dedication
24 requirements for the remaining (however many acres out of the 281 acres) will be
25 discussed at a later time."
26 Motion: Miltenberger
27 Second: White
28
29 Discussion:
30
31 Ms. White asked if that was clear enough; was this what was discussed?
32
33 Mr. Carpenter said that the developer received the Park Board's direction as far as what
34 they will be looking at - facilities or land.
35
36 Ms. Stokdyk voiced her confusion on what exactly the developer was proposing and
37 asked the developer to clarify whether they were still looking on coming forward with all
38 three tracts (500+ acres) and perhaps dedicating land predicated on that type of acreage or
39 if they were still focusing on just developing this tract (280 acres)? She wanted to know
40 how many times the developer would come before the Park Board with this development
41 in piece-meal form? Ms. Stokdyk was strongly against piece-mealing the project.
42
43 Mr. Manskey provided an explanation for timing of the entire project and when they
44 anticipate completion. It could take up to eight years to complete all the tracts depending
45 upon the market.
46
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 7 of 11
1 The developer said they did not anticipate continuing to come before the Park Board with
2 every final plat for the life of the project, but they are not to the point yet to know just
3 where a park dedication area would be on any of the tracts. He said they expect to be at
4 that point soon as they need to know that as well as the City needs to know. Decisions
5 will be made but they cannot state for certainty if the park land will be on Tract I, Tract II
6 and Tract III individually or if it will be on Tract I only probably not. But as far as
7 Tract II, on 280 acres, the developer thinks they will be able to come back to the Park
8 Board at some point within the next six months, before things start happening on other
9 sites, with a clearer plan.
10
11 Mr. Miltenberger responded that given the developer's statement and that this is
12 just seven acres, the developer could come in the next time with an overall plan
13 for the entire 274 acres. If they do not, the staff and Park Board could admonish
14 them to not piece-meal the project and to bring their entire plan forward.
15
16 Ms. White felt there could be a problem with this action in that by the next time the
17 developer comes forward, there could be several new Park Board members who would
18 not be aware the current discussions that the Board is having with the developer. She felt
19 that just as the developer had earlier stated that he was taking all kinds of flack from his
20 predecessor's planning mistakes, their jobs could change as well. Part of her concern was
21 that there are not always consistent personnel.
22
23 Mr. Hugman noted Ms. White's concerns and said that staff agrees with the Park Board,
24 and that they do not want to see it piece-mealed either. Staff would like to see something
25 that is done in the Master Plan to get the most benefit out of it. He said he believed the
26 motion on the table was a fair compromise and would allow the project to move forward,
27 but still maintain the flexibility and gives the developer the Park Board's clear direction
28 that it be master planned and that the dedication be considered as a total package and not
29 as a piece-meal.
30
31 Ms. Stokdyk mentioned how pleased she was to hear about the corporate campus setting
32 which is proposed along SH 114. She questioned staff if open space, trails, etc. could eat
33 up the 5.62 acre park land dedication requirement? Mr. Hugman said that it is up to the
34 Park Board's discretion, and if it is private, then there are requirements in the ordinance
35 that do not allow more than 50% credit on the total requirement for private amenity.
36 There are some trails within the development already required by the ordinance. The Park
37 Board can look at the totality of the package and decide what is in the developer's best
38 interest and also what the City's best interest. The ordinance requires 35% open space,
39 which is an addition to what is required by park dedication.
40
41 There was no further discussion.
42
43 Ms. Georgia re-read the motion by Mr. Miltenberger as, "The Park Board would
44 accept the required fee dedication for Tract II, Lot 6, with future land/fee
45 dedication to be considered with future plat considerations."
46 The motion continued with the vote.
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 8 of 11
1
2 Ayes: Cornish, Georgia, Miltenberger, O'Connor, Rawls, Stokdyk, White
3 Nays: None
4 Vote: 7-0
5 Motion carried.
6
7 A citizen in the audience asked to address the Park Board at this time.
8
9 Maria Chase, 600 Cherry Lane, Southlake, addressed the Park Board about her thoughts
10 about construction and development along SH 114. Ms. Chase said as she drives west on
11 SH 114, from Kimball Avenue to Carroll Avenue, she sees that the City of Southlake and
12 developers do not recognize wildlife as equal citizens of this community, with the same
13 rights as humans. She stated that she feels that the City of Southlake as a beneficiary
14 should pay periodic royalties into a wildlife habitat preservation fund. Ms. Chase
15 continued her comments by saying, "Any developer should contribute land and funds to
16 show their commitment to those citizens who cannot speak for themselves." Ms. Chase
17 stressed the need for protection of the wildlife and preservation of land and said she
18 hoped to see the wetlands and waterways from SH 114 to Carroll Avenue protected as
19 entirely off-limits to humans as wildlife sanctuaries. Ms. Chase asked the Park Board and
20 the citizens of Southlake to recognize the wildlife as citizens of Southlake also and
21 suggested that the Park Board consider the 5.62 acres required to be given by Aventerra
22 be utilized as 5.62 acres of wildlife habitat - no humans.
23
24 Mr. Miltenberger thanked Ms. Chase for her comments and said he was sure that at the
25 appropriate time her thoughts would be taken into account.
26
27 Ms. Stokdyk asked Mr. Manskey about landscape considerations for the open space,
28 watershed and how he would incorporate the open space against the campus and client
29 needs. Ms. Manskey provided a response about how they would accommodate necessary
30 drainage, etc. Mr. Miltenberger recommended that further discussions along these issues
31 be addressed at another time.
32
33 Agenda Item No. 5-B, Appointing members to the Nature Center Development
34 Committee in accordance with Park Board Resolution No. 01-01.
35
36 Mr. Miltenberger recommended increasing the size of the committee to accommodate
37 everyone that submitted and application. The Park Board appointees would be increased
38 from one to two members.
39
40 A motion was made to revise the resolution to include two members of the Park and
41 Recreation Board and a total of six members from the general public, that would
42 allow for everyone that applied to be appointed to the committee with Dr.
43 Chancellor being the person with environmental background and Suzanne Tuttle
44 being the science teacher.
45 Motion: Miltenberger
46 Second: Stokdyk
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 9 of II
I Discussion:
2
3 Ms. Georgia asked what happens with the two Park Board positions if those Park Board
4 members are not reappointed? At that time, those positions will be reassigned to existing
5 Park Board members.
6
7 Mr. Miltenberger said that should Ms. White and Ms. Stokdyk not be reappointed to the
8 Park Board, whoever is on the Park Board could expand the Nature Center Committee to
9 twelve members and appoint them as citizens at large members.
10
11 After brief discussion, Mr. Miltenberger said he was revising his motion to increase the
12 membership by four at large spots to accommodate everybody.
13
14 Ms. Georgia restated Mr. Miltenberger's motion to say, "To increase from one to two
15 Park Board members, keep two KSB or citizens at large, increase general public
16 members from three to seven members and Ms. Tuttle as the science teacher."
17
18 Ayes: Cornish, Georgia, Miltenberger, O'Connor, Rawls, Stokdyk, White
19 Nays: None
20 Vote: 7-0
21
22 Motion carried.
23
24 Agenda Item No. 6, Discussion There were no items to consider.
25
26 Agenda Item No. 7, Liaison reports
27
28 Board members reviewed the following:
29
30 (a) Recreation/Special Events - No report
31 (b) Youth Sports Associations - (Miltenberger/Cornish) No report this month.
32 (c) Community Groups - No report
33 (d) SPIN - (White) - No report
34 (e) SPDC - (O'Connor/Rawls) - No report
35 (f) JUC - (Rawls) - No report this meeting.
36 (g) City Council Monthly Report - No report
37 (h) Equestrians - (White) - No report
38 (i) Traffic Management Bond/Portal Committee - A handout was included in
39 Board member packets.
40
41 Mr. Hugman reported that three bids had been received and will be reviewed for the
42 management of the Tennis Center.
43
44 Agenda Item No. 7, Adjournment
45
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 10 of I1
I A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
2 Motion: Stokdyk
3 Second: Cornish
4 Ayes: Cornish, Georgia, O'Connor, Rawls, Stokdyk and White
5 Nays: None
6 Abstention: None
7 Vote: 6-0
8 Motion carried.
10 GZ
11 Chris Miltenberg
12 Parks &Recreatn Bo rd Chair
13
14~
15 Mary Georgia (J
16 Secretary
17
18 Attachments: Item 5-A, Park Dedication for Aventerra Southlake, letter from applicant and expense credit worksheet
19
20
December 10, 2001 Parks & Recreation Board Regular Meeting Page 11 of 11
DEC-OT-2001 02:19PM FROM-TWARTNERS +2147446785 T-987 P 002/003 F-224
P A R T N E R S
302 Nurch Market Street
December 6, 2001
Suite 450
v.111.1%, TcxaS 75202 Southlake Parks and Recreation Board
C/o Mr, Chris Carpenter
Tel 214.744.0757 400 N. White Chapel Blvd.
Southlake, Texas 76092
Fax 214.744.6785
Re. Aventerra Tract II (The Corporate Center)
www.tbg-inL.COM Southlake, Texas
Dear Members of the Board:
On behalf of Westerra Southlake, L.P., I•am pleaied to request consideration of
the A-venlerra Tract 11 development by members of the Park and Recreation
Hoard. Aventerra Tract 11 is being submitted for Preliminary Plat approval (Plat
#2A01-033) to the City of Southlake. Tract 11 is a 281.41-acre tract bounded by
SRI 14 on the south, North Whitc Chapel on the west, Carroll on the east and
Primrose on a portion of the northern property line.
Given the preliminary stage of planning and marketing and the extended time
frame anticipated for development of this property, it is the desire of Westerra to
commit the total acreage to fee dedication at this time. For the 281.41 acres, this
is a commitment of $225,128. Considerations are and will be made throughout
the planning process for other dedication credits in lieu of fee, including possible
land and/or recreational improvements. As specific tracts are considered for
final plat approval, any other considerations that arc deemed appropriate will be
presented to the Board for review and consideration.
We appreciate your consideration of our submittal, and look forward to
providing you with an overview of our planned development at the December 10,
2001 scheduled meeting. '
Sincerely,
Jim Manskey
Principal
Cc: Jim Baker, Termbrook
Don Allen, Carter and Burgess
AUSTIN
DALLAS
HOUSTON
N
~ ~•3nV 11088v0 7 I ~ v Z ~ 5
11
i 5{ cJ~~x zl u f~ E-- IZN
I1J
- I, 1 H s w z~ °a~~ ~t~ a l l I§ ~Ltltl Jp, d
I~p U7 ,;ydr iV c) ~2 cis-
ai ' d
j
y]nl9l3dN~-IO "~,1!fiM N jl I I { ! I I I r,f~~ ~qi~ q s §~"z
~aI wt ~y
I 1 ry 1 ( L.~ Y s sIq - 6~ ~
J ~ 41 ' I l l
ri L >>II as
c
ON _-OU }
t- r- r - - a n F HE UTI
I I i O O p L sI_ ~
tc7 4 N ~ c7 a Q rr E"F9 ~ 0.: F. n ~ I ~ " I , )
I
1 d
I E
Q~ G
1 Y) c7q _ ~ 11 I 7~
N t
N
~ LI Q
~ W ~ q F ~ ~ e < u ` ~ w ~ I, ~ n _ HIT ~ N ~ ~
~.4 ~ ~ - D IL)HVJ ) I_Z ~ OdC~I._
~ .L' ..i •i ~ ~ ) li.)NVI JLl1~lZ 4~,45>a(1~~ ~ ~ -
r
I I f I N. ~ I 1 I ~ tF/] ~ N~ I~ •
[1- 7,-
s~ r.~l ~.11 fA II j Yti y q 1~f~
0
v,
I , 1 j I ~ I I
14
-1 0
222 r'
I h~
_ - - ~ : I I ~ O t~ ! xl m !I v •.tal , a ' • W r>~~ / i~ / ~ c~
f! e.l h N~ I I I:~I. .J Z~ 1 fa Z`* / ¢ I
F, v y a a
I
Z 25
Iyt---_ _ I I cn ~.U4 Q N
L) W
- - 7 F ,
7.
I I
W I r ;I r /I/
_ 4 d mQ~ I . its o r o a ~d
~ I%: 1= I tl a / a , / as e
DEC-07-2001 02 AN FROM-TWARTNERS +2147446785 T-987 P 003/003 F-224
varK ueaication Worksheet
Project Information
A Project Name; Avanterra Tract U (Plat 92A014133)
B. Pr e?t Park service ea Type (see Plate 2, 20p1,Park Master Plan),
O Existing Proposed (ii) ,;S= Neighborhood Park Community Park City Park
C. Pre is R i ential (go to line D) or X lifon-residential (go to line X)-
D. Residential: Number of new dwelling units
E. Non-residential. Number of gross project acres: 2$1.26.
F. Credit for land dedication, physical improvement, or amenities requested?
Yes (fill out both line G (i) or (11) and worksheet below} No (see line G (i) or (ii) only)
G. DedicationiFae Calculation:
(i) Residential; 1 acre per 40 dwelling unn = acres OR
-dwelling units x $1,500 per dwelling unit = $ project fees due
(ti) Non-residential: 1 acre per 50 gross acres = acres OR
281.41 acres at $800 per gross acre = $225.128.oo project fees due
Expense Credit Worksheet A 8 C D E F G w
Current Joint Curren[ Proposed Proposed Private? TOTAL
Item Units Inventory use' Deficiency Units Value (50% max.) CREDIT
Land Dedication
1. Neighborhood Park Land Dedication acres 52.3 19.7
Z. Community Park Land Dedication' acres 0 144
3. Linear Parks acres 10.2 25 8
4. 0 en Space'
acres 396 t32
'Deaoenry standwds do not inaudc Joint use irbentones its Ivy are not Aoolcate0 to the city. Joni Use anowo ior+Norn+atronal purpaees
~Tne eerooge enwn 4 needed o56uming r.0 'cofM\:nlty pond fac"Ides ;yen toe Deed spore cowtokao. ccncossionm,seooms. etz- are constructed on 'metro pant property
'NUTadf can toe mcWStw ar acreage erno'm'town In aims move
FacilR/as✓Amen/ties -
S. A uatics center facli 0 1
6. -Batting cage a stall stall 6 3
7. Baseball diamond (practice)" diamond 7 9 9
8. Baseball diamond game ° diamond 0 10
9. Baseball diamond (gam - lighted} diamond 7 3
10. Basketball court outdoor court 3 3 4
11.Bonch each 44 28
12. Recreation center facdit 0 1
13. Fishin lerldock leddock 2 2
14. Horseshoe it each 1 3
15. Inilne hockey rink (li_ hted) rink 1 0.3
16. Lacrosse Geld field 0 4
17. Pavilion each 9 5
18. Picnic shelter each 10 2
19. Picnic table each 47 25
20. -Playground each 41 1
5
21. Soccer field (ractico rleld B 11 8
22. Soccer field game' field 13 it
23. Soccer field (game - lighted)_ field 0 13
24. Softball diamond ( ractiee)° diamond 5 3
25. Softball diamond (game)' diamond 0 4
26. Softball diamontl ame - li hted diamond 3 1
27. Tennis courts court 15 9
28. Trail (hiking. equestrian) mile 1 2.6
29. Trailhead each 2 1
30. Trait nature. soft of inter retive mile 0 5 3.1
31. Trail aved muki-use mile 3.4 3.8
32. Sand volleyball court court 0 2
33. Others ci : value
34. TOTAL CREDIT REQUESTED` (Sum of right column above)
35. REQUIRED FEE (tine G(i) or (ii)) (See "Project Information" section)
38• BALANCE (Excess only credited to other projects at Board and Council discretion)
'standardo, are baeea on ,ame end prdctc0 fields toting n&aN etclusi- or sour over. naida wnrcrt may 0e nentad andUr I.see as practice end go" (ebs wal IO.wr duets' numapra
'stondaro is 1.25.000 pooAaon, Voirnete popAeon Of 30.000 W «safa s e.raen. Need most Mare mot «n yovm tacnity to Bioenrenntri Paris per Mover Plan.
1, did)Carloee tCOtuasn "6"j eannel treenail SOLI or -RenJrcd G...° tno 35t
~+~-~IA-
LEGEND
PDeuc PARK'
UNDEVELOPED PUOUC PARK m'
L WEAR PARKS AND TRAALS
US ARMY CORP OF E^K"ERS PROPERTY
5D PROPERTIES
OW IONT USE PROPERTY. T"".} t {
CTSp PROPERTY
tlNDEVEIOPED C15D PROPERTY IS o ~ 7 {
m KEELER ISO JOINT USE PROPERTY ...t.. _ _
177- Kauk ISO PROPERTY (LINE-ELOPED) i
PARK
SERVICE ZONES 3E
ImIA4C IlwCH OKHOOD PARK. DEWOPFD ;
A UNDEVELOPED i .
rw
~ PROPOSED NEIOE80RHOOD PARK
~ FX75TiNC SCHOOL QJE}CHOORHOfJO PARK FAglFflESt ~ t \
t
PRpf'OSED SCE1601 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK EAL'RPEFES: '
y- 7
PROPOSm COMMUPKTY
PARK
q
EXKTINC FACRITIFS DEVELOPED
COMFAUt4ITY PARK 7. J ~Z
a
I T
aid 41 I ~I~ ` 1 r I y4
T'
ti
O
,g' 5 by
J Y_ f
~A f CL __j ❑
f r t i. t :j V,
.E ~ ~ nl ~ _I I t
J~
011; ' 7"A
J-t
i t I + w,}l ///r/ tty' t~ M
UNION CHURCH RO L 5, f ~7- _ a 4
a ~ 4 ,FF.
PUBLIC PARK LAND SCHOOLS
'1 600 JONES PARK - a CARROEL MIME
L LONESOME DOVE PARK h JOHNSON ELEMENTARY
3 BK>NTENNIAL PARK c t;ARROLL NTERMEMIE .y
4: RUSTNAAMRY PARK & rXYRHAM EL€MENTAkYANTERMMIATE
4. CHESAPEAKE PARK . COAKOLL JUNIOR HIGH
6, SHELTONWOOD PARK f. RORENCE ELEMENTARY
x. COKER PROPERTY R- CARROLL HIC4
& ROYAL MW ANNIE SMITH PARK h KOOfENSAUCH ELEMENTARY
9. KOALATY PARK i MLDDLE4NTERMEOIATP City of Southlake
10L NOBLE OAKS PARK 1 SHADY GROVE ELEMENTARY.
V. KRLKWOWSA/RE LINEAR PARK k CAkROM ELEMENTARY
145EMOR CENTER L ELEMENTARY fS
m EL MENTARY 0
2001 Parks, Recreation and
NORTH Open Space
Master Plan
0 1500 3000 6000
. a...._ PLATE 2
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET EXISTING & PROPOSED PARKS
~
PUBLIC FORUM Sign-In
for
Park Board Meeting
Monday, December 10, 2001
Name lease print Address Phone or Email Topic
M:\WP-FILES\FORMS\Sign In Sheet.doc