2000-04-18 Regular CC Meeting City of Southlake, Texas
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: April 18, 2000
LOCATION: 667 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake, Texas
City Council Chambers in City Hall
WORK SESSION: 5:30 to 6:00 P.M.
1. Call to order.
2. Discussion of all items on tonight's meeting agenda. No action will be taken and
each item will be considered during the Regular Session.
REGULAR SESSION: 6:00 P.M. or Immediately Following the Work Session
AGENDA
1. Call to order.
2. A. Executive Session: Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551,
Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.073, 551.074,
551.076 and 551.086. Refer to posted list attached hereto and
incorporated herein. Executive Session may be held, under these
exceptions, at the end of the Regular Session or at any time during the
meeting that a need arises for the City Council to seek advice from the
City Attorney as to the posted subject matter of this City Council
meeting.
1. Section 551.071 Consultation with Attorney
a. Seek advice from the attorney regarding Pioneer Concrete.
2. Section 551.072 Deliberation Regarding Real Property
a. Discuss acquisition of property for highway projects.
b. Discuss possible exchange of property for public works
projects.
B. Reconvene: Action necessary on items discussed in Executive Session.
3. INVOCATION: Chaplain of the Month, Father Frank Reeves, St.
Martins -in- the - Fields Episcopal Church
4. REPORTS:
A. Mayor's Report
B. City Manager's Report
C. SPIN Report
D. Park and Recreation Board Report
City of Southlake, Texas
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
April 18, 2000
Page 2
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed below are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be
enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless a
Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
general order of business and considered in its normal sequence.
5. Consent:
A. Approval of minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held April 4,
2000.
B. Approval of Financial Advisory Agreement with First Southwest
Company.
C. Authorize the City Manager to execute an Advanced Funding Agreement
with the State of Texas for the construction of the North Kimball Avenue
pavement extension.
D. Authorize the Mayor to execute a lease agreement with Sprint for the
placement of a wireless communications antenna on the Miron Addition
water tower.
E. ZA 00 -018, Preliminary Plat for Crown Ridge Addition, on property
legally described as Tracts 8, 9, 18, 19, and 20 situated in the R. D. Price
Survey, Abstract No. 992, and being approximately 65.469 acres.
Location: West side of North White Chapel Boulevard approximately 700'
south of West Bob Jones Road. Current Zoning: "SF -1A" Single Family
Residential District and "AG" Agricultural District. Applicant: Terra Land
Development Company. Owners: Southlake /Solana, Ltd. and Linnia
Johnson. SPIN Neighborhood #1.
F. Ordinance No. 480 -336, 1 Reading, (ZA 00 -021), Rezoning on property
legally described as Tracts 4 and 4B situated in the Hiram Granberry
Survey, Abstract No. 581, and being approximately 5.715 acres. Location:
591 & 611 South White Chapel Boulevard being on the east side of South
White Chapel Boulevard approximately one -half mile south of the
intersection with Pine Drive. Current Zoning: "AG" Agricultural District.
Requested Zoning: "RE" Residential Estate District. Owners and
Applicants: John and Tyler Kuelbs. SPIN Neighborhood #9w. Public
Hearing set for May 2, 2000.
REGULAR AGENDA
6. Public Forum
City of Southlake, Texas
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
April 18, 2000
Page 3
7. Ordinances, second readings, public hearings, and related items:
A. Ordinance No. 777, 2nd Reading, Abandoning a portion of Kirkwood
Boulevard.
PUBLIC HEARING.
B. Ordinance No. 776, 2 " Reading, Abandoning a portion of T.W. King
Road.
PUBLIC HEARING.
C. ZA 00 -028, Site Plan for Block 23, Southlake Town Square, on property
legally described as a portion of Tract 2A situated in the Richard Eads
Survey, Abstract No. 481, and being a revision of the previously approved
Block 18 of Southlake Town Square Addition, and being a total of
approximately 3.5 acres. Location: North side of East Southlake
Boulevard, (F. M. 1709), approximately 1900' east of North Carroll
Avenue. Current Zoning: "NR -PUD" Non - Residential Planned Unit
Development with "C -3" General Commercial District uses. Applicant:
Cooper & Stebbins, L. P. Owner: Carol Jean Peterka. SPIN
Neighborhood #8.
PUBLIC HEARING.
D. ZA 00 -029, Revised Preliminary Plat for Blocks 22 & 23, Southlake Town
Square, on property legally described as a portion of Tract 2A situated in
the Richard Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481, and being a revision of the
previously approved Block 18 of Southlake Town Square Addition, and
being a total of approximately 12.4 acres. Location: North side of East
Southlake Boulevard (F. M. 1709) approximately 1900' east of North
Carroll Avenue. Current Zoning: "NR -PUD" Non - Residential Planned
Unit Development District with "C -3" General Commercial District uses.
Applicant: Cooper & Stebbins, L. P. Owner: Carol Jean Peterka. SPIN
Neighborhood #8.
8. Ordinances, first readings, and related items: (no items this agenda)
9. Resolutions: (no items this agenda)
10. Other items for consideration:
A. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a revised developer agreement for
Walgreen's.
B. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement for Carroll
Meadows subdivision.
City of Southlake, Texas
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
April 18, 2000
Page 4
C. Authorize the Mayor to enter into an interlocal agreement with City of
Keller for Anchor Church sewer service.
D. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a reciprocal parking agreement with
EPIPD — Crossroads Square, L.P. (Tom Thumb).
11. Other items for discussion: (no item this agenda)
12. Meeting Adjourned.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at City
Hall, 667 North Carroll Avenue, and the Administrative Offices, 1725 East Southlake
Boulevard, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, email E14, 2000 at 6:00 p.m., pursuant to the
Texas Government Code, Chapter 551 a, ''<T ; --_,.::„
, .:,;`,A;'''' , :..;,..
4 kij .,..---;,:;:-.i A ims
„.,, _.; , .,...
Sandra L. LeGrand
City Secretary
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs,
please advise the City Secretary 48 hours in advance at 481 -5581, extension 704, and
reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you.
City of Southlake, Texas
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda
April 18, 2000
Page 5
EXECUTIVE SESSION
SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY
The City Council may conduct a private consultation with its attorney when the City
Council seeks the advise of its attorney concerning any item on this agenda, about
pending and contemplated litigations, or a settlement offer, or on a matter in which the
duty of the attorney to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct of the State Board of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551.
This includes the following pending and/or contemplated litigation subjects:
1. Carroll /1709 LTD. vs. The Board of Adjustments of the City of Southlake.
October 1999.
SECTION 551.072 DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY
The City Council may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate the purchase, exchange,
lease or value of real property.
SECTION 551.073 DELIBERATION REGARDING PROSPECTIVE GIFT
The City Council may conduct a closed meeting to deliberate a negotiated contract for a
prospective gift or donation to the City.
SECTION 551.074 DELIBERATION REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTERS
The City Council may deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation,
reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of public officers, including the City
Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, and city boards and commission members. A
complete list of the city boards and commissions is on file in the City Secretary's Office.
SECTION 551.076 DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES
The City Council may deliberate the deployment, or specific occasions for
implementation of security personnel or devices.
SECTION 551.086 DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS
The City Council may deliberate regarding economic development negotiations.
A FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN
A CLOSED MEETING MAY ONLY BE MADE IN OPEN SESSION.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
667 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 76092
APRIL 18, 2000
MINUTES
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Pick Stacy; Mayor Pro Tern Gary Fawks;
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Ronnie Kendall. Members: Rex Potter, Debra Edmondson and
Patsy DuPre.
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Wayne Moffat
CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Billy Campbell; Assistant City Manager Shana
Yelverton; Assistant to the City Manager Shelli Siemer; Director of Finance Sharen
Elam; Public Information Officer James Kunke; Director of Economic Development
Greg Last; Interim Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy; Senior
Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter; Director of Public Works Ron Harper; Deputy
Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas; Senior Civil Engineer Shawn Poe; Assistant to
the Public Works Director Valerie Bradley; Director of Community Services Kevin
Hugman; Director of Public Safety Garland Wilson; Deputy Director of Public Safety
Fire Services Division Ricky Black; Chief of Building Services Malcolm Jackson; City
Attorney E. Allen Taylor Jr.; and, City Secretary Sandra L. LeGrand.
WORK SESSION: The Work Session was called to order at 5:45 p.m. Councilmembers
and staff discussed items on the agenda. The work session was audio and video tape-
recorded for future reference. Copies are available by request from the City Secretary.
Council determined that Agenda Items #7-C and #7-D could be added to the consent
agenda for tabling. Agenda Items #10-A, #10-B, and #10-C, could be added to the
consent agenda.
The work session ended at 6:10 p.m.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Agenda Item #1, Call to Order
Mayor Rick Stacy called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. The City
Council meetings are video and audio tape-recorded for future reference and copies are
available upon request from the City Secretary.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 1 of 18
Agenda Item #2-A, Executive Session
Mayor Rick Stacy advised the audience that the City Council would be going into
Executive Session pursuant to the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072,
551.073, 551.074, 551.076 and 551.086 to seek legal advise from our City Attorney, to
deliberate regarding real property matters; to deliberate regarding a prospective gift; to
deliberate regarding personnel matters; to deliberate regarding security devices; and/or
to deliberate regarding economic development negotiations.
Council adjourned into executive session at 6:15 p.m.
Council returned to open session at 7:07 p.m.
Agenda Item #2-B, Action Necessary/Executive Session
Motion was made to authorize the Mayor to execute a contract of sale as discussed during
executive session if the seller is agreeable.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Kendall
DuPre
Kendall, DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, Fawks, and Stacy
None
6-0 vote
Motion was made to authorize the Mayor to execute the contract documents for the
exchange of land regarding the right-of-way along White Chapel Boulevard and Pine
Drive.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Kendall
DuPre
Kendall, DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, Fawks, and Stacy
None
6-0 vote
Agenda Item #3, Invocation
No invocation was given this evening.
Agenda Item #4-A, Mayor's Report
Mayor Stacy made the following announcements:
,/ Early Voting for the May 6, 2000 General and Special Election will begin tomorrow
morning at 8:30 a.m. Voting will be held in the Office of the City Secretary.
Metroport Cities Partnership meeting will be held on Thursday, April 20, 2000 at
7:30 a.m. at the TCU Global Center, 13600 Heritage Parkway, 1st floor, Fort Worth.
City offices will be closed on Friday, April 21, 2000 for Good Friday Holiday.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 2 of 18
"Art in the Square" sponsored by the Southlake Women's Club, Fort Worth Star
Telegram and Southlake Town Square, will be held on April 28, 29 and 30. For more
information contact the City offices.
"National Day of Prayer" Celebration in Town Square will be on Thursday, May 4 at
12 noon at Town Square in the pavilion.
Agenda Item #4-B, City Manager's Report
City Manager Billy Campbell commented on the start of Early Voting noting that the
City Secretary's Office and the Department of Public Works had placed "reserve parking
signs" in front of the administrative offices at 1725 West Southlake Boulevard. He said it
was done to make voting easier for the citizens.
City Manager Campbell stated that Councilmember Potter was the liaison for the new
Town Hall building under construction. He brought the Council and audience up-to-date.
Councilmember Potter stated, "You all have probably seen it, and it is going up." Potter
encouraged everyone to drive by and see the Town Hall. He said, "On the west side you
can see the brick going up and I would encourage you to get with Director Harper to
arrange for a tour and then you will be really excited, We have been meeting every other
week with County Commissioner Glen Whitley and we are now to the point of finishing
the selection of items." He asked Director Harper to arrange for samples of the items
selected to be presented to Council prior to the next Council meeting. Potter stated he had
nothing but kudos for the city and the county staffs. "They knew what the budget was and
they have stayed with it and are on time. The schedule was to have the building complete
by the end of October, bm we won't be facilitated until the end of the year. As we get
more information, we will set times and dates for further discussions. It is a beautiful
building and you will see that it is not a Taj Mahal, but it will be a first-class facility." He
encouraged Council and staff to arrange for a tour of the facility.
Agenda Item #4-C, SPIN Report
Mike Conrads, 108 Springbrook Court, SPIN #14 Representative. Mr. Conrads outlined
the area that encompasses SPIN #14. He stated there are two topics of interest in this
SPIN neighborhood which are: Shady Oaks Center and the improvements along
Continental Boulevard. Mr. Conrads stated SPIN #14 hosted a meeting to discuss the
improvements along Continental Boulevard. They advertised the meeting with signs
which seemed to work out very well as there was a good mm-out. Mr. Conrads said that
in general, the residents were favorable to the City plan that engineers had come up with.
The plan includes a two-lane road with turn lanes at White Chapel and Peytonville
Avenue. Residents asked that the project be completed by the beginning of the school
year and secondly, that actual shutting down of the road be minimized to seven to ten
days.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 3 of 18
A lot of SPIN activity has taken place recently with the hosting of the Candidates Forum
and a city-wide meeting concerning Gateway and CostCo. Feedback received was
favorable in that the opinions voiced for the project were favorable for the project. The
specific issues of concern that were raised were ones that could be delt with on the final
plans. The SP1N Standing Committee meeting was held last week and the group learned
about water conversation and the roll of SPIN to get the word out now. The Trail Master
Plan will be revisited and there will be three zone meetings and an opportunity for
resident feedback. Goals of SPIN were discussed at their recent meeting. Discussion
centered on visibility and education; leading edge of information and zero vacancy within
the SPIN groups.
Agenda Item #4-D, Parks and Recreation Board Report
Park Board member Dick Anderson gave the monthly report. He stated the Trail Master
Plan should be done by the end of the year. Anderson commented on the success of
Easter In The Park with a turnout of 1,200 people. He stated KISS 106 Radio Station was
present giving away prizes, etc.
Agenda Item #5, Consent Agenda
Mayor Stacy informed the audience that "Consent" agenda items are several items which
are considered by one vote. He said if anyone in the audience had a request for an item
not to go on consent agenda, that item would be deleted from that portion of the agenda
and be considered separately. Before the Mayor read the consent items into the minutes, a
citizen, Boyd Dollar, asked that Agenda Item #5-E, be removed from the consent agenda
and considered separately. The consent agenda will consist of the following:
5-A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on April 4,
2000.
5-B. Approval of Financial Advisory Agreement with First Southwest Company.
Authorize the City Manager to execute an Advanced Funding Agreement with the
State of Texas for the construction of the North Kimball Avenue pavement
extension.
5-D. Authorize the Mayor to execute a lease agreement with Sprint for the placement
of a wireless communications antenna on the Miron Addition water tower.
5-E. Removed from consent agenda.
Ordinance No. 480-336, 1st Reading, (ZA 00-021), Rezoning on property legally
described as Tracts 4 and 4B, situated in the Hiram Grandberry Survey, Abstract
No. 581.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 4 of 18
ZA 00-028, Site Plan for Block 23, Southlake Town Square, on property legally
described as a portion of Tract 2A situated in the Richard Eads Survey, Abstract
No. 481.
ZA 00-029, Revised Preliminary Plat for Blocks 22 & 23, Southlake Town
Square, on property legally described as a portion of Tract 2A situated in the
Richard Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481.
10-A. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a revised developer agreement for Walgreen's.
10-B. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement for Carroll Meadows
subdivision.
10-C. Authorize the Mayor to enter into an interlocal agreement with City of Keller for
Anchor Church sewer service.
Motion was made to approve the consent agenda including the following: Agenda Item
#5-A, #5-B, #5-C, #5-D, with the initial lease agreement in the amount of $18,000; #5-F,
#7-C, action to table to May 16, 2000 continuing the public heating at that time; #7-D,
action to table to May 16, 2000 continuing the public hearing at that time; #10-A, #10-B,
and #10-C, as presented.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Fawks
DuPre
Fawks, DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, Kendall, and Stacy
None
6-0 vote
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDNG CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on April 4, 2000.
The minutes were approved as presented.
Approval of Financial Advisory Agreement with First Southwest Company. In
1995, the City Council approved a five-year agreement with First Southwest
Company for Financial Advisory Services. During the past five years, they have
assisted the City with several debt issuances, debt restructuring, and refunding
and ratings presentations. Appendix A of the agreement sets forth the fee schedule
and expense items, which is the same fee schedule as in the previous agreement.
First Southwest Company is paid only when the City issues debt. The lee
structure is based on a per thousand dollar amount of debt issuance. There is not
an hourly fee or retainer charged for any service. The City would be responsible
for expense items associated with issuance of debt, such as printing, preparation
and distribution of the official statement and rating meetings. The agreement
outlines the services to be provided by First Southwest Company. They will
coordinate and direct all programs of financing, review the City's financial
sources to determine debt capacity, and advise of current bond market conditions.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 5 of 18
They also will recommend the method of sale of debt instruments and coordinate
all information associated with the sale. They agree to attend all meetings of the
City Council as requested at all times when the subject of financing is to be
discussed. They will also provide assistance in the development and financing of
capital improvements and long range financing plans.
Authorize the City Manager to execute an Advanced Funding Agreement with the
State of Texas for the construction of the North Kimball Avenue pavement
extension. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has begun the
reconstruction of SH 114 and F.M. 1709 to 0.5 miles west of Kimball Avenue.
This project includes constructing three travel lanes in each direction, a three-lane
frontage road (striped as two-lanes and a shoulder) on either side of the travel
lanes, and construction of a bridge on SH 114 over Kimball Avenue. TxDot plans
to build the ultimate section for Kimball (five-lanes) under the bridge for SH 114.
Typically, TxDOT will transition the pavement width from the ultimate section to
the existing section on either side of the proposed SH 114 frontage roads. There
are two-lanes of traffic on Kimball north of SH 114 and four-lanes of traffic on
Kimball south of SH 114. In order to mitigate traffic congestion on Kimball north
of SH 114, the City has requested TxDOT to continue and construct the ultimate
five-lane section from the proposed frontage road to approximately 215' north of
the proposed SH 114 frontage roads. This additional pavement extension of
Kimball north ofSH 114 will have to be funded by the City of Southlake. TxDOT
has agreed to include this pavement extension in the SH 114 reconstruction
project. In order to proceed, the City must enter into an advanced funding
agreement with TxDOT for these improvements. The estimated cost to fund the
Kimball pavement extension north of SH 114 is $14,876.70. Although there is not
a specific line item for this project allocated in the CIP budget, this mount will
be funded using available funds from the CIP budget. The CIP budgeted $265,000
for the construction of Mustang Court, which will be the primary entrance for the
petroleum companies along SH 26. This project is scheduled for bid in August
2000. The Mustang Court project is a joint venture between the City of Southlake,
the City of Grapevine, and TxDOT. The City, via an interlocal agreement with the
City of Grapevine, has committed $148,698.26 to fund a portion of Mustang
Court project. Since the City's portion of the Mustang Court project is less than
the budgeted amount, there will be funds remaining. The $14,876.70 required for
the advanced funding agreement with TxDOT for the North Kimball pavement
extension will be funded using the remaining funds from the Mustang Ct. project.
Authorize the Mayor to execute a lease agreement with Sprint for the placement
of a wireless communications antenna on the Miron Addition water tower. Sprint
PCS has requested to lease space on the Miron water tower for the placement of
wireless communication antennas. This request also includes a ground unit at the
tank site. To ensure Southlake is collecting competitive lease payments, staff
conducted a rate study and found the average annual rate for wireless
communication antenna lease to be $14,926. After the initial five-year term, the
lease allows for four additional five-year extensions. For each extension period,
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 6 of 18
10-A.
the yearly rate would increase by 15% of the previous lease period's rate.
Consequently, if Council chose an initial annual rate of $15,000, each extension
period would be $17,250, $19,838, $22,814 and $26,236. The city stands to gain
$505,690 in revenue if all four extensions are used. Beyond these extensions, the
lease can be allowed to continue one year at time for a 15% increase each year.
During the consent agenda, this item was approved with the initial lease
agreement at $18,000.
Ordinance No. 480-336, 1st Reading (ZA 00-021), Rezoning on property legally
described as Tracts 4 and 4B situated in the Hiram Granberry Survey, Abstract
No. 581, and being approximately 5.715 acres. Current zoning is "AG"
Agricultural District with a requested zoning of "RE" Residential Estate District.
Owners and Applicants: John and Tyler Kuelbs.
ZA 00-028, Site Plan for Block 23, Southlake Town Square on property legally
described as a portion of Tract 2A situated in the Richard Eads Survey, Abstract
No. 481, and being a revision of the previously approved Block 18 of Southlake
Town Square Addition, and being a total of approximately 3.5 acres. Current
zoning is "NR-PUD" Non-Residential Planned Unit Development with "C-3"
General Commemial District uses. Applicant: Cooper & Stebbins, L.P. Owner:
Carol Jean Peterka. This item was tabled to the May 16, 2000 City Council
meeting continuing the public hearing to that time.
ZA 00-029, Revised Preliminary Plat for Blocks 22 & 23, Southlake Town Square,
on property legally described as a portion of Tract 2A situated in the Richard
Eads Survey, Abstract No. 481, and being a revision of the previously approved
Block 18 of the Southlake Town Square Addition, and being a total of
approximately 12.4 acres. Current zoning is "NR-PUD" Non-Residential Planned
Unit Development District with "C-3" General Commercial District uses.
Applicant: Cooper & Stebbins, L. P. Owner: Carol Jean Peterka. This item was
tabled to the May 16, 2000 City Council meeting continuing the public
hearing to that time.
Authorize the Mayor to enter into a revised developer agreement for Ig'algreen k.
On February 1, 2000, the City Council of the City of Southlake approved a
developer agreement for the development of the Walgreen's site at the southwest
comer of Peytonville Avenue and F.M. 1709, which required the developer to
construct a deceleration lane (right turn lane) for eastbound traffic on F.M. 1709
at the intersection of Peytonville Avenue. The City of Southlake is presently
preparing construction plans for the reconstruction and widening of the
Peytonville Avenue intersection at F.M. 1709. This construction will include the
relocation of the traffic signal poles. During the review by the TxDOT for the
deceleration lane submitted by the developer and the intersection improvements
submitted by the City of Southlake, TxDOT determined that they would not
approve the construction of the deceleration lane separate from the intersection
improvements. The relocation of the traffic signal poles is included in the
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 7 of 18
widening of Peytonville Avenue and is essential to the construction of the
deceleration lane; therefore, TxDOT requires that the deceleration lane be
constructed in the same project as the widening of Peytonville Avenue. The City
can include the construction of the deceleration lane in the City's project to widen
Peytonville Avenue. Construction is planned to begin on this project in May 2000.
The developer is requesting that they be allowed to put up a letter of credit in the
amount of $65,041.50 now and then when the City receives the bids, cash in the
letter of credit and pay the City of Southlake the money.
10-B.
Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement for Carroll Meadows
subdivision. The final plat for Carroll Meadows was approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission on March 9, 2000. The development consists of a cul-de-sac
on the west side of North Carroll Avenue, 1,000 feet south of Dove Street with 10
lots. The developer agreement is the City's standard residential developer
agreement covering the construction of public infrastructure. The developer is
requesting that 20% of the lots be released for building permits after installation
of water and sanitary sewer in lieu of the 10% that is in the standard agreement.
This would allow that two lots would be released instead of one. There are two
lots adjacent to North Carroll Avenue, which gives an all weather surface to
access the lots.
10-C.
Authorize the Mayor to enter into an interlocal agreement with City of Keller for
Anchor Church sewer service. Anchor Chumh is constructing a facility at the
northwest comer of Randol Mill and Florence Road. The nearest sanitary sewer in
Keller is approximately one-half mile to the west, whereas the nearest location in
Southlake is approximately three hundred feet to the south. TRA has approved the
diversion of this flow from the Denton Creek System to the Central System
conditional of Keller and Southlake signing an interlocal agreement. The flows
from the facility are minor and will have no adverse impact on the City of
Southlake system. Anchor Church will become a Southlake sewer customer to
avoid any billing issues.
Agenda Item #5-E, ZA 00-018, Preliminary Plat for Crown Ridge Addition
ZA 00-018, Preliminary Plat for Crown Ridge Addition, on property legally described as
Tracts 8, 9, 18, 19 and 20, situated in the R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 992, and being
approximately 65.469 acres. Current zoning is "SF-1A" Single Family Residential
District and "AG" Agricultural District. Applicant: Terra Land Development Company.
Owners: Southlake/Solana, Ltd. and Linnia Johnson
Senior Comprehensive Planner Chris Carpenter made the presentation noting that twelve
(12) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and three (3)
responses were received from the following: William E. Lamoreaux, 6967 Blackwood
Drive, Dallas, in favor; Barbara Lamoreaux, 6967 Blackwood Drive, Dallas, in favor
stating, "This area of Southlake needs utilities (sewer) etc. "; and Marzell F. Evans, 9426
Braddock Road, Fairfax, Virginia, undecided.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 8 of 18
Mr. Carpenter noted that on April 6, 2000 with a 6-0 vote, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved ZA 00-018, subject to the Plat Review Summary No. 2, dated
March 31, 2000; deleting Items #2a (minimum 40' building line) and #2.c (100' width at
the minimum required front building line) and requiring the applicant to take to City
Council an exhibit showing maximum curvature to Crown Ridge Drive from North White
Chapel Boulevard to Ridgebriar Drive without disturbing the lot count.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Boyd Dollar, Bob Jones Road, Southlake. Mr. Dollar expressed that he did not have
questions at this time, but he wanted to see the plat as he had not seen it at all. He asked if
the City Council had any comments.
Mayor Stacy commented, "The item was discussed during the work session and it was
pointed out that the "long street" does in fact meet the curvilinear requirements of the
ordinance, however, it does look like a pretty straight street. In order to make the road
any more curvilinear, the developer would have to lose a lot." Mr. Dollar asked if there
were discussions regarding exiting onto White Chapel Boulevard without a third lane?
Mayor Stacy stated that issue was not discussed but that it was a good point.
Joel Yosten, DalDen Corporation, 4285 T.W. King Road, Southlake. Mr. Yosten asked if
there was going to be a problem in terms of visibility with that exit onto T.W. King?
Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy stated, "The site triangles are required to be
maintained at the intersection."
Mr. Yosten asked if they were going to close the existing T.W. King Road and re-route it
through the residential district or were they going to leave it open? Ms. Gandy stated it
was her understanding that they propose abandoning that right-of-way after they get
through the final plat process and after they go through the Public Works Department
with construction plans and build that street. She stated that was there intent at this time.
Mr. Yosten asked Council if they wanted him to nm their eighteen-wheelers through the
residential area from DalDen Corporation and if they would have sufficient right-of-way
on Bob Jones Road? He stated Bob Jones Road was not wide enough if they abandon
T.W. King Road. His concern was that they were going to loose this access. Mr. Yosten
stated they receive two to three 53' truck trailers per week and they cannot mm. He stated
he wanted to voice their opinions and to let Council know that there is heavy truck traffic
in the area and they are not interested in going through a residential area.
Councilmember Gary Fawks asked Ms. Gandy why the developer brought the
road down like that? Ms. Gandy stated she thought it was to straighten out the
roadway.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 9 of 18
Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas stated, "This configuration came from
City staff because they were trying to find a way to improve the sharp curve at the
difficult intersection. It was our opinion that making a right angle intersection at Bob
Jones was making an improvement to Bob Jones and it would improve the traffic
movement. Also, T.W. King was a collector on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. True, it
will pass some residential lots, but if they left it where it was, it would still pass some
residential lots. The street will have a lot more width than it has today."
Councilmember Edmondson asked if Council could get answers by the final plat stage,
which would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Motion was made to table this item until the end of the meeting agenda.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Fawks
DuPre
Fawks, DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, Kendall, and Stacy
None
6-0 vote (to table)
Agenda Item #6, Public Forum
Wayne Rogers, 2815 West Southlake Boulevard, Southlake. Mr. Rogers said he was
speaking at Public Forum because they were having problems with the construction of
The Remington project, which was next door to his home. He described the layout of his
property, explaining the drainage issues caused by the construction of The Remington.
He stated there were agreements made at the time the plans were approved regarding the
curb cuts and the sewer tap. They were suppose to be able to tie onto the sewer line once
the line was completed at The Remington. He stated the developers have not adhered to
the easements on the property. He asked the City Council for help in resolving some of
their issues. He thanked the City for their help regarding the flooding they were having as
the result of the highway department raising F.M. 1709.
Director of Public Works Ron Harper stated this was the first time he had heard
the issues and would address them as soon as possible.
Marvin Crenshaw, 5134 Malcolm .¥ Boulevard, Dallas. Mr. Crenshaw referenced an
article which ran on April 13, 2000 in the Dallas Observer regarding Judge and Mrs. Joe
Kendall. He went on to discuss the issues with former Dallas City Councilmember A1
Lipscomb.
City Attorney E. Allen Taylor Jr., stated he was not sure where Mr. Crenshaw was
going with his comments. Taylor said Crenshaw had referenced a Dallas Observer
article, which he believed was about the trial of former Councilmember Al
Lipscomb of the City of Dallas that was pending before Judge Kendall. Taylor
stated, "If that is the tone of his comments, I would suggest to the Mayor and
Council that this is a totally inappropriate venue. That is a criminal proceeding in
a Federal District Court and it is not closed! It is open and pending before a sitting
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 10 of 18
Federal District Judge and under our federal system, which divides us between the
United States government and the State of Texas government, our legislative
deliberations are not an appropriate forum to make comments on an open,
pending criminal case in front of a Federal District Judge. That would create a
horrible precedent that would have a lot of very negative legal implications. I
would suggest that Mr. Crenshaw could make whatever comments he wants in
other appropriate forums, in the City of Dallas or the Dallas courts, but not in
ours."
Mr. Crenshaw stated the article he was referring to was not about that trial. Crenshaw
stated, "The article I am referring to is the one that Jim Schutze wrote in the last issue of
the Dallas Observer about the Southlake City Council election in 1998." Crenshaw stated,
"I want to talk to Council about two issues. That is about the campaign contributions in
which I want to hopefully build a bridge. Because that trial was moved to Amarillo." Mr.
Taylor stated, "That trial can not be discussed here -- not on an open federal case."
Mayor Stacy addressed Mr. Crenshaw saying, "Mr. Crenshaw, if you want to talk
about Southlake business." Mr. Crenshaw said he would talk about Southlake
saying, "As I stated, I am here to build a bridge. In the City of Dallas at the
present time, there are three ways we are looking at this. There are some who
want to come to Southlake and have an open protest. There are some of us who
wish to build a bridge with Southlake because there are those of us who want to
come to Southlake to demonstrate our concern and appreciation for an incident
that happened in Dallas. That is what my primary point was going to be before
this happened. When this happens, and that will happen, and we do expect
between 25 and 30-thousand people to be here with national press, we would like
to leave that open to build some type of bridge, to coordinate that effort to make
sure that everything happens in a proper and a just manner. Thank you very
much." [Mr. Crenshaw left issues of the Dallas Observer for anyone who wished
to read it.]
Arthur Hobbs, 1404 Chimney Works Drive, Southlake. Mr. Hobbs stated, "The subject
that I have today is an ordinance. Some of you sitting on the Council praise yourselves
for rewriting the sign ordinance and advocate to Keep Southlake Beautiful. According to
the City of Southlake sign ordinance and the State of Texas Election Law, no political
signs are permitted in a right-of-way or on public property. It is a disgrace the way that
every comer of this City is littered with multiples of election signs. I have on many
occasions tired to find out why nothing is being done by code enforcement to correct this
unsightly mess. I have contacted many City staff including Malcolm Jackson, Garland
Wilson and City Manager Billy Campbell's office. On Thursday, April 6, I once again
contacted Malcolm Jackson regarding this situation and was told that the political signs
were not being removed because an individual filed a complaint with the City stating that
removal was against her freedom of speech. I was told that the complaint had to be
investigated by the City Attorney and a ruling made before any action could be taken,
thus delaying removal of any political signs. Malcolm Jackson stated the City Attorney
had just ruled that removal of signs in right-of-ways or on public property were not
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 11 of 18
against freedom of speech and that sign removal would begin on Friday. Mr. Jackson also
stated that after the ruling was made, each candidate was informed that sign removal
would begin on Friday. Malcolm commented, "I was told that the code enfomement
officer removed approximately 500 signs Friday. This has not dented the number of signs
placed illegally in fight-of-ways and on public property."
Hobbs stated, "Also, as a resident and taxpayer, I requested information on the individual
who filed the complaint and subsequently cost the taxpayers money in City Attorney fees
to make his ruling. I was told this time that there was no formal complaint but a mere
telephone call was placed and that I would have to file a formal request to secure the
name I wanted. I did so on April 13th. To date, I have had no response although I was
promised one. I have also contacted many city employees and the only answer I do get is
that they are afraid they will lose their jobs if they speak up as they have been threatened
with such action." I again called the City to seek information on sign pick-up and if the
owners recovered any signs from code enfomement, and if fees were assessed for those
signs per the city ordinance. No answer again! I was, however, told that the worst
offenders are Debra Edmondson and Keith Shankland. It is evident that not much has
been done since that April 6th effort and in fact, current candidates or their
representatives, have illegally replaced the signs where they were once removed. Even if
a representative acts on behalf of a candidate, it is still the candidate's responsibility to
obey the law." Hobbs stated, "It is starting to sound as if our City is being nm by fear and
intimidation. That those who brag about writing the law, beautifying the City, and have a
better vision for it, do not have to obey the law or even realize what a mess they are
creating. It is also becoming clear that the Open Records Law does not apply to those
seeking higher office. I feel it is my fight as a taxpayer to know how my money is spent
and who or who is not upholding the law. I want to know who filed the complaint, the
cost of the complaint and what fees for sign recovery, if any, have been assessed to date.
Our attorney had to respond to a mere telephone call. I feel I deserve the same respect
having filed a formal request. I feel every citizen has a fight to know how this City is
operating and under what conditions the city staff has to operate. I have heard and read in
newspapers that the City staff serves at the pleasure of the City Council. May I remind
the City Council that they serve at the pleasure of the residents."
Agenda Item #7-A, Ordinance No. 777, 2~a Reading, Abandoning a portion of
Kirkwood Boulevard
Director of Economic Development Greg Last presented Ordinance No. 777, 2na
Reading, abandoning a portion of Kirkwood Boulevard. On May 4, 1999, the City
Council approved Resolution No. 99-27, and associated 380 Agreement, which in section
6b committed to the abandonment of Kirkwood Boulevard within the campus boundary
of Sabre Development. On July 20, 1999, the City Council approved the Planned Unit
Development Zoning for the Sabre Corporate Campus which included section 1-D as
follows: "It is anticipated that a portion of the existing Kirkwood Boulevard [from SH
114 to the boundary lines of property] and a portion of the existing T.W. King Road [that
lies between the property and Tract 2 of the MTP-IBM Addition No. 1] will both be
abandoned and closed for public use after the first of development is ready for
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 12 of 18
occupancy. Notwithstanding the foregoing; however, continued access to such closed
streets by Trophy Club's and the City's emergency fire and ambulance vehicles will be
allowed unless and until the Texas Department of Transportation approved a two-way
access road from Kirkwood Boulevard to "old" T.W. King Road. Such emergency access
will be the same as required by the City's Fire Marshall. Public use of "old" T.W. King
Road west of said Tract 2 will continue."
Mr. Last stated meetings have been ongoing between the City of Southlake, Town of
Trophy Club and Sabre toward the development of a recommendation to TxDOT that
will provide for adequate access to all interested parties. Continued progress is being
made towards analysis of all options, preparation of an engineering report and resolution
of support for cities involved.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Fred Allen, 1022 Trophy Club Drive, Town of Trophy Club. Mr. Allen stated, "Mayor
Stacy and members of the City Council, I am a 16 year resident of Trophy Club. I serve
on the Community Improvement Association where I have held positions of Treasurer,
and President. I have been active in the development of the town and I am concerned that
the neighborhood communities of Southlake, Keller, Roanoke, Westlake, and Trophy
Club team for the challenges of the future in a respectful manner. I am here tonight at the
request of Mayor Marshall Englebeck who is, like you, attending a Town Cotmcil
meeting. The concern of the Town of Trophy Club is for a reasonable resolution of the
controversy over the closing of T.W. King and Kirkwood Boulevard. The Town of
Trophy Club's major concern is that a resolution and an alternative access be in place
before the actual closing of the two streets. This would seem appropriate considering the
expressed concerns of all the parties involved." Mr. Allen stated that he had watched as
cities and towns grow and it is much easier to grow together in a respectful and friendly
manner than an adversarial approach, only to be jointed in projects by outsiders. He
stated, "We can work together to resolve our issues," and was here tonight to express the
citizens of Trophy Club's desire to do just that.
Mayor Rick Stacy read a letter received from Cyrus H. Holley, President of Oakmont
Enterprises, Inc., into the record:
"Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Please be advised that Oakmont
Enterprises, Inc. is opposed to the above-referenced ordinances for the
abandonment and closing of portions of Kirkwood Boulevard and T.W. King
Road. As you know, Oakmont Enterprises, Inc. is the owner of approximately 23
acres of land in Trophy Club, which adjoins and abuts the roadways being
considered for abandonment. The closing of these public roadways for a purely
private use will result in a denial of access to my property that will substantially
reduce the value of the property for its planned development purposes. This action
by the City of Southlake will essentially constitute a taking of my property
without due compensation. Therefore, I request that you not approve Ordinances
Nos. 776 and 777. I further request that you read this letter into the record at the
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 13 of 18
public heating upon consideration of said ordinances at your meeting scheduled
for April 18, 2000."
Kenneth Horne, 1217 Ashmore Court, Southlake. Mr. Home stated, "I apologize to the
City Council for what has happened before this, as it was no place to be mentioned before
the Southlake City Council. I am speaking to everyone who is watching, who is listening,
and I am hoping that we do not support any type of city-wide protesting in our streets on
this matter that is of no concern to the City of Southlake. Those matters are to be
determined in a court of law or at the appropriate place. I apologize to all of you. I don't
feel I need to apologize to you because Mr. Crenshaw and I are African-American. I
don't feel I need to apologize because we both attend the same church in Dallas. I feel
that I need to apologize to every citizen here because it is time that we learn what is
appropriate in the country. There is an appropriate place to protest and there are
appropriate things to protest. This is not the venue for his particular agenda."
Joel Yosten, DalDen Corporation. Mr. Yosten stated they were okay with the closing of
the road, and asked if they were going to widen the access road? Mr. Yosten asked,
"What is the life-threatening situation that Sabre is talking about? There will be a more
life-threatening situation with people walking across to the remote parking than at the
campus."
Mayor Stacy responded, "Per our initial agreement with Sabre, they would have a
closed campus and this particular action we are taking tonight will take effect in
December, 2001. The goal is to have all the road improvements figured out prior
to the closing. We are trying to have everything in place so that we can go to the
State."
Motion was made to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 777, Abandoning a
portion of Kirkwood Boulevard.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
DuPre
Edmondson
DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, Fawks, Kendall, and Stacy
None
6-0 vote
Agenda Item #7-B, Ordinance No. 776, 2nd Reading, Abandoning a portion of T.W.
King Road.
Ordinance No. 776 was considered in second reading, abandoning a portion of T.W. King
Road.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Fred Allen, Town of Trophy Club. Mr. Allen stated his prior comments were for both
cases.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 14 of 18
Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 776, 2"d Reading, Abandoning a portion of
T.W. King Road.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
Edmondson
DuPre
Edmondson, DuPre, Potter, Fawks, Kendall, and Stacy
None
6-0 vote
Agenda Item #10-D, Authorize the Mayor to enter into a reciprocal parking
agreement with EPIPD-Crossroads Square, L.P. (Tom Thumb)
Interim Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy presented the
request to authorize the Mayor to enter into a reciprocal parking agreement with EPIPD-
Crossroads Square, L.P. (Tom Thumb), by stating, this item follows through on a
requirement set forth in the motion to approve the rezoning on EPIPD's property (the
Tom Thumb site). The City Attorney's office drafted the agreement presented based on
its understanding of the zoning approval of February 2, 1999. The agreement would nm
until July 1, 2040, or until such time EPIPD abandons the parking use. The rights cannot
be assigned without prior written notice of the assignee's name, address, and telephone
number to the City. EPIPD would be permitted to construct off-site parking west of its
site on Bicentennial Park property and north of Tom Thumb's store on city-owned
property. The parking stalls should be constructed of grasscrete. In exchange, the City
would be permitted the use of all off-site parking spaces for park-related uses. Ball fields
#4, #5, and #10, which is used by the 10 and younger age group, are in the proximity of
these parking spaces. A copy of the executive summary of the terms of the lease is hereby
attached to the minutes of the meeting.
Steve Lipscomb, Limited Partner of EPIP Crossroads Square, L.P. 2000 East Lamar
Street, Arlington. Mr. Lipscomb stated they are agreeing with the lease agreement except
for the following items:
"1. Paragraph 1 .B, we agree to construct the eight head-in paring spaces adjacent
to Crossroads Square's northern boundary line in grasscrete. However, the
parking spaces along the west boundary have already been constructed of
concrete at the direction of city staff. This was because grasscrete requires
proper drainage conditions to be effective and this location's conditions are
not optimum for grass survival and the grasscrete was never used in
calculations for non-impervious cover, which was the Council's main
concern.
2. Paragraph 1.H., our loan agreement would preclude us from accepting the
indemnification language, as it exists."
A discussion was held regarding the indemnification clause in the agreement. City
Attorney, E. Allen Taylor Jr., stated, "It isn't with the identification language we propose.
They indemnify and defend no matter what the cause, so we never reach the issues of
arguing of what was the purpose of the persons visit. Unfortunately in the real world,
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 15 of 18
there frequently and likely may be multi-purpose visits. Someone might stop at the
grocery store to pick up Cokes to carry to the ballfield to watch a game. Those arguments
become difficult. This is the kind of language that we use when any private venture wants
to place an activity on city property. The taxpayers should never feel the burden of a
dispute when one of the uses of the property is for a private venture."
A discussion was held by Councilmembers regarding the parking spaces. Mayor Stacy
stated he felt they should go to the Park Board for approval.
Motion was made to authorize the Mayor to enter into a reciprocal agreement with
EPIPD-Crossroads Square, L.P. (Tom Thumb).
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
DuPre
Edmondson
DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, Fawks, Kendall, and Stacy
None
6-0 vote
Council adjourned for recess at 8:20 p.m.
Council returned to open session at 8:45 p.m.
Agenda Item #5-E, Continued
Mayor Stacy stated this item was on the consent agenda earlier this evening and Council
had questions of the applicant, therefore, Council was continuing this item with Mr. Paul
Spain present.
Paul Spain, Developer. Mr. Spain stated he would work with DalDen to work out the
issues they have with accessibility onto their property.
Councilmember Gary Fawks stated he would like to hear about Lots 3 & 4, Block 4. Mr.
Spain responded that two residents will have a lake in their back yards or they would
need to work out an agreement with the owners so that the water would flow through
their yards.
Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas commented that the finished
floor elevation of the lots would be shown on the final plat.
Motion was made to approve the Preliminary Plat of Crown Ridge Addition, subject to
the Plat Review Summary #3, dated April 14, 2000; noting the actions of the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Motion:
Second:
Ayes:
Nays:
Approved:
DuPre
Fawks
DuPre, Fawks, Kendall, Edmondson, Potter, and Stacy
None
6-0 vote
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 16 of 18
Councilmember Fawks asked Mr. Spain to be very aware of the tum radiuses near
the DalDen facility so there will not be semi-tractors driving through people's
yards. He was also very concerned about the drainage on the lots.
Agenda Item #12, Adjournment.
Prior to adjournment, Councilmember Fawks commented on a person that spoke during
the Public Forum who made comments about staff and the sign ordinances. He stated he
would like to ask the City Manager to respond briefly on the "almost allegations" for the
record and for the staff and the people watching the video of this meeting.
City Manager Billy Campbell stated, "Mayor and Council, I appreciate the opportunity to
respond. As I listened to Art Hobbs, there were a couple of things that came to mind on
whether or not there was interference from current councilmembers or candidates with
the enforcement of this ordinance and then there was the issue of actual enforcement of
this ordinance. I will not minimize the opportunity for staff to take a vacation during the
election process, because I know we would all like to do this. That being said, no one
running for Council on any side, has threatened or made us do anything that we were not
suppose to do. No one, no current councilmember or prospective councilmember. Every
year, and I have gone through this for many, many years from an enforcement standpoint,
and this being my first year as City Manager. Every year there is an issue on both sides,
or typically there are a couple of sides, and sometimes there are three or four sides, and
there are requirements of staff, and they ask a lot of questions, and we try to respond to
those the best that we can. The Charter is very clear that I run personal day to day. I will
not have it any other way. This Council, that is currently seated, has been very good to
understand that. Typically, what happens is there are supporters -- sometimes not the
candidates themselves -- that get a little overzealous in trying to bring their candidate to
the top. We have from the enforcement standpoint -- had we done a good job of
enforcement of the ordinance -- there would be those who said we do and those who said
we don't. We picked up a lot of signs and typically we have not charged, ever. If that is
an error in management, then I have to accept that. What we try to do is run down the
middle of the road the best that we can. We develop all kinds of information on a variety
of things, but on the grand scheme of things, after the election -- it doesn't ... these are
our citizens and I think we should look forward to the opportunity for the election process
to work well, and we want to support that. We have called candidates and we have heard
from both sides, providing there are more than two sides. Will we continue to have these
issues? Yes we will. Will we continue to try to enforce the ordinances? And, yes we will.
We do not charge people for their signs and they come and get them and put them back
up again. Whether that is a process that we enjoy, it is a process that is there. I am not
going to take police officers, or whatever, to dedicate towards this, because we have an
entire city to deal with. That is what we are trying to do -- is deal with the entire city. I
know that Art will look at this and I hope that he will understand the position that we are
in. We've got other things going on in this community besides the election. The
enforcement of this ordinance will always be a question. And to be quite frankly, we will
probably bring this ordinance back up again to re-look at how we can make it better to
keep staff out of the middle of it. Staff is going to be in the middle of it and we know that
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 17 of 18
and accept that because there are a couple of sides in dealing with this. This council and
the members that have been running for Council, have not threatened and if there was an
issue they would come to me. I believe that those things are not a true statement."
Councilmember Gary Fawks stated, "I think it is unfortunate to see staff brought in to the
political process. And I do believe that you as City Manager and the members of staff
who work for you, are trying very diligently to stay out of the political process and I'm
sorry to see you put into that position. And you are right, after the election when nobody
is running, would be the appropriate time to bring that ordinance back up and let the
elected body take a position on signs for the public and let the Council take the heat one
way or another whether we are going to allow them or how diligently we are going to
enforce them and try and keep the staff out of it. I saw a memorandum on what your
position was that was given to all the candidates and I think we have more volunteers
placing signs out than we have code enforcement officers to pick them up."
Campbell stated that every candidate has said in writing or verbally to me and we should
enforce the ordinance. No one time has anybody said don't do that. There are degrees to
what degree they would like to see enforcement.
· -.....5 ~r Rick
S~dra L. LeGr~d
City Secret~
Stacy adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 18 of 18
Apr -18 -00 04:05P 329 1747-- P.O1
04/18/00 16:05 FAX 8172518717 cuurLK & SICCb124, L.r. %g we
COOPER & STEBBINS
(:doper & Stebbios.1 -P. 1255 main Short. Suite 240
Southlake. Tema 76092
Telephone 817) 3398400
Focauuile ,817) 251 -S717
April 18, 2000
Mr. Dennis Killough
Senior Planner
City of Southlake
1121 F. Southlake Blvd., Suite 100
Southlake, TX 76092
Re: ZA- 00.028
ZA -00 -029
Dear Dennis:
Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, April 17th, please advise the City Council that
we wish to table our applications ZA -00 -028 (Site Plan for Block 23) and ZA -00 -029
(Revised Preliminary Plat for Blocks 22 and 23) on tonights agenda to the May 16, 2000
meeting.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions or
require further information, please call the undersigned.
Sincerely,
i
ot 1*
Pr: 'den - Development
CD APR 18 2000
-:+ • 1701 W. Northwest Hwy.
Oakmont Enterprises, Inc. Grapevine, TX 76051
(817) 543 -9498
(817) 491 -4110
‘ sA ' 8 2000
CFF10E OF CITY SECF,!F"., ":
April 17, 2000
City of Southlake
Mayor and City Council
1721 E. Southlake Blvd.
Southlake, TX 76092
Re: Ordinances Nos. 776 and 777; Abandonment of Portions of Kirkwood Blvd. and
T.W. King Road
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Please be advised that Oakmont Enterprises, Inc. is opposed to the above - referenced
ordinances for the abandonment and closing of portions of Kirkwood Blvd. and T.W. King Road.
As you know, Oakmont Enterprises, Inc. is the owner of approximately 23 acres of land in Trophy
Club which adjoins and abuts the roadways being considered for abandonment. The closing of these
public roadways for a purely private use will result in a denial of access to my property that will
substantially reduce the value of the property for its planned development purposes. This action by
the City of Southlake will essentially constitute a taking of my property without due compensation.
Therefore, I request that you not approve Ordinances Nos. 776 and 777. I further request
that you read this letter into the record at the public hearing upon consideration of said ordinances
at your meeting scheduled for April 18, 2000.
Yours truly,
Cyrus H. Holley,
President of Oakmont Enterprises, Inc.
cc: Eddie Vassallo, Esq. (via fax #214 -559 -7209)
Larry D. Flynn, Esq. (via fax #481 -5464)
Presentation to the Southlake City Council
By C. W. (Fred) Allen, Jr. 1022 Trophy Club Drive
Trophy Club, Texas 76262
Southlake Council Meeting April 18, 2000
Mayor Stacy and members of the Council, my name is Fred Allen and I am a 16 year resident of
Trophy Club. I serve on the Community Improvement Association (known as they C. I. A.)
where I have held positions of Treasurer, and President. I have been active in the development of
the Town and I am concerned that the neighborhood communities of Southlake, Keller, Roanoke,
Westlake, and Trophy Club team for the challenges of the future in a respectful manner. I am
here tonight at the request of Mayor Marshall Englebeck who is, like you, attending to a Town
Council meeting. The concern of the Town of Trophy Club is for a reasonable resolution of the
controversy over the closing of T. W. King and Kirkwood Boulevard.
Much has been brought before this body in the way of logical, well - intended, and well - researched
information. The facts are stipulated, each of us can, with rational minds determine the issues. I
once was told by a Texas Representative while lobbing the State Legislature many years ago that
"... it doesn't make a hoot what the facts are at this stage .... the only real test is where the votes
are." I would hope that the votes of the Council and the Citizens of Southlake would be to work
in positive, proactive, and friendly way.
The Town of Trophy Club's major concern is that a resolution and an alternative access be in
place before the actual closing of the two streets. This would seem appropriate considering the
expressed concerns of all the parties involved.
You know I checked the roots of the Solana and IBM complex, and found that it was the foresight
of a Trophy Club resident Jerry Sevore who opted to put a 21 inch water line in place, where
normally a ten inch line would have sufficed. Through his vision, whether luck or plan, the
community known as Southlake was able to provide a complete facility to IBM.
We are extremely pleased that the Southlake residents will be able to take advantage of the
reported $120,000,000 in tax savings over the next twenty years, and would hope that some of
that generosity would avail itself to a request by Trophy Club to have an exit onto T. W. King
Road at the North East corner of our Town. A request, as I understand that has been made before
and, that the Council may be familiar with.
I have watched as cities and towns grow, and it is much easier to grow together in a respectful,
and friendly manner than an adversarial approach, only to be joined in projects by outsiders. We
can work together to resolve our issues and I am here tonight to express the citizens of Trophy
Club's desire to do just that.
Thank you for your attention, your empathy, and understanding in helping all of us grow in a
planned, deliberate, manner.
Southlake Sign Ordinance
To: Mayor and City Council
April 18, 2000
According to the City of Southlake sign ordinance and the State of Texas
Election Law no political signs are permitted in a right -of way or on public property.
Some of you sitting on Council praise yourselves for rewriting the sign
ordinance and advocate to Keep Southlake Beautiful. It is a disgrace the way that
every corner of this City is littered with multiples of election signs.
I have on many occasions tried to find out why nothing is being done by code
enforcement to correct this unsightly mess. I have contacted many on City staff
luding Malcolm Jackson, Garland Wilson and City manager Billy Campbell's
Office.
On Thursday, April 6` I once again contacted Malcolm Jackson regarding this
situation and was told that the political signs were not being removed because an
individual filed a complaint with the City stating that removal was against her freedom
of speech. I was told that the complaint had to be investigated by the City Attorney
and a ruling made before any action could be taken, thus delaying removal of any
political signs. Malcolm stated the City Attorney had just ruled that removal of signs
in right of ways or on public property were not against freedom of speech and that
sign removal would begin on Friday. Malcolm also stated that after the ruling was
.__ade, each candidate was informed that sign removal would begin on Friday. I was
'd that the code enforcement officer removed approximately 500 signs Friday.
This has not dented the number of signs placed illegally in right -of ways and on public
property.
Also, as a resident and a taxpayer, I, requested information on the individual
who filed the complaint and subsequently cost the taxpayers money in City Attorney
fees to make his ruling. I was told this time that there was no formal complaint but a
mere telephone call was placed and that I would have to file a formal request to secure
the name I wanted. I did so on April 13`'' (hold up paper). To date.. I have had no
response although I was promised one. I have also contacted many city employees and
the only answer I do get is that they are afraid they will lose their, jobs if they speak up
they have been threatened with such action.
I again called the City to seek information on sign pick -up and if the owners
recovered any signs from code enforcement . and if fees were assessed for those signs
per the city ordinance. No answer again! I was, however, told that the worst
offenders are Debra Edmondson and. Keith Shankland.
It is evident that not much has been done since that April 6` effort and in fact
current candidates or their representatives have illegally replaced the signs were there
were once removed. Even if a representative acts on behalf of a candidate, it is still
the candidate's responsibility to obey the law.
It is starting to sound as if our City is being run by fear and intimidation, that
those who brag about writing the law, beautifying the city, and have a better vision for
_., do not have to obey the law or even realize what a mess they are creating. It is also
becoming clear that the open records law does not apply to those seeking higher office.
I feel it is my right as a taxpayer to know how my money is spent and who or
who is not upholding the law. I want to know who filed the complaint, the cost of the
complaint and what fees for sign recovery, if any, have been assessed to date. Our
attorney had to respond to a mere telephone call. I feel I deserve the same respect
having filed a formal request. I feel every citizen has a right to know how this City is
operating and under what conditions the city staff has to operate.
I have heard and read in newspapers that the City staff serves at the pleasure of
City Council. May I remind the City Council that they serve at the pleasure of the
residents.
Arthur G. Hobbs, Jr.
1404 Chimney Works Dr.
817- 481 -6718
Examples of Political Signs in Right -a -Ways that I see everyday!
_ X09/114 NE /SW
1709 to Crooked Lane West Side
1709 to Carroll NE, SE, SW
1709 Across from Town Center
Carroll Ave and Breezeway
Across from Warwick Way
Breezeway and Continental
Brumlow and Contintal to Hwy 26
1709 at Carroll High School
White Chapel and Continental
Continental at Hwy.1938
Continental from Hwy 1938 East to Carroll Elementary
Continental & Peytonville
.� • 1701 W. Northwest Hwy.
Oakmont Enterprises, Inc. Grapevine, TX 76051
(817) 543 -9498
.t'
(817) 491 -4110
APR 8 2000
OFFICE OF CITY
April 17, 2000
City of Southlake
Mayor and City Council
1721 E. Southlake Blvd.
Southlake, TX 76092
Re: Ordinances Nos. 776 and 777; Abandonment of Portions of Kirkwood Blvd. and
T.W. King Road
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Please be advised that Oakmont Enterprises, Inc. is opposed to the above - referenced
ordinances for the abandonment and closing of portions of Kirkwood Blvd. and T.W. King Road.
As you know, Oakmont Enterprises, Inc. is the owner of approximately 23 acres of land in Trophy
Club which adjoins and abuts the roadways being considered for abandonment. The closing of these
public roadways for a purely private use will result in a denial of access to my property that will
substantially reduce the value of the property for its planned development purposes. This action by
the City of Southlake will essentially constitute a taking of my property without due compensation.
Therefore, I request that you not approve Ordinances Nos. 776 and 777. I further requ t
that you read this letter into the record at the public hearing upon consideration of said ordinances
at your meeting scheduled for April 18, 2000.
Yours truly,
'
Cyrus H. Holley,
President of Oakmont Enterprises, Inc.
cc: Eddie Vassallo, Esq. (via fax #214 -559 -7209)
Larry D. Flynn, Esq. (via fax #481 -5464)
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
April 12, 2000
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Interim Planning Director (ext. 743)
SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a Lease Agreement with EPIPD — Crossroads
Square, L.P. (Tom Thumb)
Action Requested: City Council consideration of a Lease Agreement for reciprocal parking with
EPIPD — Crossroads Square, L.P. (Tom Thumb). This agreement provides
the following:
• The Agreement shall be for forty (40) years, commencing on July 1,
2000 and terminating on the earlier of a) Tenant's abandonment of the
Parking Areas or b) July 1, 2040.
• Tenant shall pay rent to the City of Southlake in the amount of $10.00 per
year, prepaid by the commencement of the lease;
• Tenant shall construct (in grasscrete) 13 head -in and 5 parallel parking
spaces on Bicentennial Park property adjacent to the tennis courts and
west of Crossroads Square Shopping Center;
• Tenant shall construct (in grasscrete) 8 head -in parking spaces North of
Tom Thumb's building on city -owned property;
• Maintenance and use of the Parking Areas shall be in strict compliance
with the Charter, Ordinances, and Codes of the city of Southlake;
• City ( "Landlord ") shall have unlimited use of the above -noted parking
spaces for Bicentennial Park use;
• Tenant shall bear responsibility and liability for concept, design, and
computation in the preparation of construction plans and specification for
the Parking Areas. Tenant shall only bear the cost of relocating and /or
installing existing utilities affected by use and occupancy of the parking
areas;
• Tenant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City and its agents
against all claims or suits for property damage or loss and /or personal
injury, including death, in connection with construction, maintenance,
use, design or condition of the parking areas and shall maintain public
liability insurance covering all public risks related to the proposed use
and occupancy of public property in the amount of $100,000 per
1r t
Billy Campbell, City Manager
April 12, 2000
Page 2
occurrence for property damage and $500,000 per occurrence for
personal injury or death;
• Assignment of this lease does not change the material terms of the lease.
Tenant must first provide the name, address, and telephone number of the
assignee to the Landlord;
• Tenant shall be in default of lease by failing to comply with any of its
provisions within thirty (30) days of written notice or unless Tenant
demonstrates a diligent effort to comply within a longer, reasonable
period of time;
• The lease shall immediately lapse and terminate upon cessation of the use
of EPIPD property and /or the Parking Area for a period of more than 180
days or Tenant's default of any of the terms or conditions of the lease.
Landlord may request Tenant to remove the Parking Areas (at Tenant's
expense) at the termination of the lease and restore areas in accordance
with existing city specifications.
Background
Information: In the work session held prior to the February 2 City Council meeting, the
developer agreed to relocate some parking spaces from adjacent to the tennis
courts to north of the Tom Thumb, and make five (5) spaces parallel parking
instead. These spaces were adjacent to the easternmost tennis court, and staff
had concerns that the head -in parking spaces were too close to the courts.
(Refer to transcript of work session, page 9, lines 30 - 31 and page 10, lines
1 - 24 shown in bold) .
In regular session, parking was discussed with regard to the relocation
arrangement previously discussed during the work session. Staff review
summary letter #3, item 4(b) addressed the off -site parking and need for
reciprocal parking agreement. (See attached site plan review summary #3).
The City Council approved a variance to the parking requirements (from 514
to 350) as requested by the applicant. In an amendment to the approval
motion, the Council also acknowledged "the applicant's agreement to
relocate 8 parking spaces from adjacent to the tennis courts as indicated this
evening to northwest quadrant of the site and accept(ed) the commitment to
come up with an agreement with staff for some partial use of our property,"
(Refer to transcript of Case ZA98 -156 from 2/2/99 City Council meeting,
page 12, lines 16 - 20 shown in bold).
Financial
onsiderations: Rental of $10.00 per year.
Billy Campbell, City Manager
April 12, 2000
Page 3
Citizen Input/
Board Review: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny (4 -2) the rezoning and
site plan for the Crossroads Square retail center at their January 7, 1999
meeting. Commissioners Creighton, Peebles, LeVrier, and Shankland voted
to withhold a recommendation to the City Council to approve the rezoning
and site plan, citing concerns over the increased parking requirements for the
Tom Thumb addition, and the inability of the proposed development to meet
the current impervious coverage requirements.
The City Council approved (7 -0) the first reading of the rezoning and site
plan for the Crossroads Square retail center at their January 19, 1999
meeting, allowing grasscrete construction in parking spaces along the entire
west property line.
The City Council approved (6 -0) the second reading of the rezoning and site
plan for the Crossroads Square retail center at their February 2, 1999
meeting, allowing for relocation of eight (8) parking spaces from adjacent to
the tennis courts to the northwest quadrant of the site and committing to work
with staff on an agreement for some partial use of our ( "city ") property.
.,egal Review: The City Attorney's office drafted the proposed lease agreement. EPIPD
agrees to all terms of the lease agreement with the exception of the following
provisions: Paragraph 1B regarding construction of western parking spaces
in grasscrete and Paragraph 1H regarding indemnification language.
Alternatives: Not Applicable.
Supporting
Documents: Supporting documents include the following items:
• Lease Agreement for reciprocal parking with EPIPD - Crossroads
Square, L.P.
• EPIPD's response letter.
• GIS map showing off -site parking areas affected by this agreement
• Site Plan and Review Summary #3 for case ZA98 -156, dated 02/02/99
• Transcription of Southlake City Council work session, February 2, 1999
• Transcription of Case ZA98 -156, City Council meeting February 2, 1999
Staff
Recommendation: Place this item on the April 18, 2000 City Council agenda for consideration
of the Lease Agreement for reciprocal parking with EPIPD - Crossroads
Square, L.P. (Tom Thumb).
joa.3
04/13/00 16:18 FAX 817 461 1884 CLEARVIEW INVESTMENTS Z002
LDC
O ® 4
Lipscomb Development Company
REAL ESTATF. I)E VELOPMENT & LN V MMMNf •
Ms. Karen Gaudy
Interim Planning Director
City of Southlake
1725 E. Southlake Blvd.
Southlake, TX 76092
Fax: (817)488 -9370
Re: Crossroads Square Parking Space lease agreement between EP1PD Crossroads Square Ltd
and the city of Southlake.
Dear Ms Gandy,
We are in agreement with the attached lease agreement except for the following items. We
respectfully request the city to allow us these changes.
1. Paragraph 1.B, we agree to construct the eight head -in parking spaces adjacent to
Crossroads Square's northern boundary line in grassercte. However the parking
spaces along the west boundary have already been constructed of concrete at the
direction of city staff. This was because of 1) the grasscrete requires proper drainage
conditions to be effective and this location's conditions are not optimum for grass
survival, and 2) The grasscrete was never used in calculations for non - impervious
cover which was the council's main concern.
2. Paragraph 1.1 Our loan agreement would preclude us form accepting the
indemnification language as it exists.
We appreciate the city's consideration of our requests.
Sincerely,
r
e
Steve Lipscomb
Limited Partner of EP1P Crossroads Square, L.P.
2000 E:,,.t Lunar Blvd. Suer 155 • Ailing:on, Texas 7+006 • (617) 46' -(545 • Fax: (51 7) 461-1854
loo
APR -13 -2000 10 10 817 332 4741 P.02/06
LEASE BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AND
EPIPD CROSSROADS SQUARE, L.P.
I. Terms and Definitions
Data: April 18, 2000
Landlord: City of Southlake, Texas
Landlord's Address: 1725 E. South lake Boulevard
Southlake, Texas 76092
Tenant: EPIPD Crossroads Square, L.P.
Tenant's Address: 14990 Landmark Boulevard, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75240 -6729
Premises: Portions of a certain property located in Southlake, Tarrant
County, Texas as described and depicted on Exhibit "A ",
attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes (the
"South lake Property ").
rtent: $10 per year, which shall be prepaid by the commencement of
this Lease.
Original Term (years): Forty (40) years
Commencement Date: July 1, 2000
Termination Date: The earlier of (i) Tenant's abandonment of the Parking Areas
or (11) July 1, 2040.
Use: For construction and use of five (5) parallel parking spaces and
thirteen (13) head -in parking spaces on the Southlake Property
located west of a certain tract owned by Tenant, being more
particularly described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made
a part hereof for all purposes (the "EPIPD Property "), and eight
(8) head -in parking spaces on the Southlake Property located
north of the EPIPD Property, together with all necessary
appurtenances thereto (collectively the "Parking Areas ").
WASouthiakelAgreements tEPIPCCrssrdsSglse.final.wpd Page 1
iO b
APR -13 -2000 10 10 817 332 4741 P.03 /06
Its Lease Clauses and Covenants
1. Tenant Agrees to —
a. Accept the premises in their present condition "as is ", the premises being
currently suitable for Tenants intended use.
b. Construct the Parking Areas in a good and workmanlike manner, without the
attachment of any construction liens, and in accordance with plans approved
by the Landlord, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed. Tenant shall construct all parking spaces with grasscrete.
c. Maintain and use the Parking Areas in strict compliance with the Charter,
Ordinances and Codes of the City of Southlake (the "City ") and in
accordance with the directions of the Director of Public Works of the City, or
his duly authorized representative. All plans and specifications therefor shall
be subject to the prior written approval of the Director of Public Works, or
duly authorized representative, but such approval shall not relieve Tenant of
responsibility and liability for concept, design and computation in the
preparation of such plans and specifications.
d. Allow Landlord to have unlimited use of the Parking Areas at all times in
conjunction with the use of Bicentennial Park. Landlord shall bear no
responsibility or liability for damage caused to the Parking Areas by any
member of the public.
e. Repair and maintain the Parking Areas, and in a manner satisfactory to
Landlord. This shall include mowing and maintaining the premises in a good
and safe condition.
f. Repair any damage to the Parking Areas caused by Tenant.
g. At no expense to Landlord, make proper provision for the relocation and /or
installation of any existing utilities affected by the use and occupancy of the
Parking Areas, including the securing of approval and consent from the utility
companies and the appropriate agencies of the State and its political
subdivisions. In the event any installation, reinstallation, relocation or repair
of any existing utility or improvements owned or constructed by or on behalf
of the public or at the public expense is made more costly by virtue of the
construction, maintenance or existence of the Parking Areas, Tenant shall
pay to Landlord an additional amount equal to such additional cost as
determined by the Director of Public Works, or his duly authorized
representative.
W° Wouthlakel Ag.e em ®nts1EPIPOGrssrdsSglse.final.wpd Page 2
111N -1,,
APR -13 -2000 10 10 817 332 4741 P.04/06
h. Be responsible for any damage which may occur to Tenant's Parking Areas,
and Tenant hereby releases Landlord from any and all liability and
responsibility for same. TENANT FURTHER AGREES TO AND DOES
HEREBY INDEMNIFY, AND DOES HEREBY HOLD HARMLESS AND
DEFEND LANDLORD, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS,
EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, LICENSEES OR
INVITEES FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OR SUITS FOR
PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE AND /OR PERSONAL INJURY,
INCLUDING DEATH, TO ANY AND ALL PERSONS OF WHATSOEVER
KIND AND CHARACTER, WHETHER REAL. OR ASSERTED, ARISING
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, USE, DESIGN OR CONDITION OF
THE PARKING AREAS AND USES GRANTED HEREUNDER, WHETHER
OR NOT CAUSED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY THE ALLEGED
NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES,
CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, LICENSEES OR INVITEES OF
THE LANDLORD; AND TENANT ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY AND
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH CLAIMS OR SUITS. TENANT SHALL
LIKEWISE ASSUME ALL LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR AND
SHALL INDEMNIFY LANDLORD FROM ANY AND ALL INJURY OR
DAMAGE TO LANDLORD'S PROPERTY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY AND ALL ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF TENANT,
ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS,
SUBCONTRACTORS, LICENSEES, INVITEES, OR TRESPASSERS.
Bind and obligate itself to maintain public liability insurance covering all
public risks related to the proposed use and occupancy of public property as
located and described on Exhibit "B ". The amounts of such insurance shall
be not less than the following:
Property damage, per occurrence $100,000
Personal injury or death, per occurrence 5500,000
Tenant understands and agrees that such insurance amounts shall be
revised upward at Landlord's option based upon amendments to the Texas
Tort Claims Act. Tenant covenants and agrees to so revise such amounts
within thirty (30) days following notice to Tenant of such requirement. Such
insurance policy shall provide that it cannot be canceled or amended without
at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to Landlord.
j. Cease use of the premises on termination of this lease.
W:1Sr uthiakeWgreementeEPIPDCrssrd3Sgtse .flnal.wpd Page 3
APR -13 -2000 10: 11 817 332 4741 P.05/86
2. Tenant agrees not to —
a. Use the premises for any purpose other than that stated in the basic lease
terms and definitions.
b. (i) Create a nuisance, (ii) permit any waste, or (iii) use the premises in any
way that is extra hazardous.
c. Alter the premises, except as permitted by this lease.
d. Assign this lease, without delivering the name, address, and telephone
number of the assignee. The parties agree that an assignment of this Lease
will not change the material terms of the Lease.
3. Landlord and Tenant agree to the following:
a. Termination. This Lease shall continue only so long as Tenant shall use
the Parking Areas for the purposes herein described. This Lease shall
immediately lapse and terminate upon cessation of use of the EPIPD
Property and /or the Parking Areas for a period of more than one hundred
eight (180) days or Tenant's default in the performance of any of the terms
of conditions herein, as defined in Section I.3.b. Cessation of use shall not
include periods of construction, remodeling, repairs or maintenance. Upon
termination, all rights granted herein to Tenant shall end. Upon Landlord's
request, Tenant, at its own expense, shall remove the Parking Areas at the
termination of the Lease, and restore the area to a condition acceptable to
Landlord, and in accordance to then existing City specifications.
b. Default. Tenant shall be in default by failing to comply within thirty (30)
days after written notice with any provision of this Lease, or such longer
period as may be reasonably required if Tenant demonstrates a diligent effort
to comply with such written notice.
c. Default/Waiver /Mitigation. It is not a waiver of default lithe non - defaulting
party fails to declare immediately a default or delays in taking any action.
Pursuit of any remedies set forth in this lease does not preclude pursuit of
other remedies in this lease or provided by law.
d. Notices. Any notice required by this lease shall be deemed to be delivered
(whether or not actually received) when deposited with the United States
Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and
addressed to Landlord or Tenant at their addresses.
WA SouthlakeiAgreementslEPIPDCrssrdsSg lse.firtal.wpd Page 4
Ifs\
APR -13 -2000 10 11 817 332 4741 P.06%06
e. Venue. If any action, at law or in equity, arises out of the terms of this
Lease or on account of Tenant's maintenance or use of the Parking Areas,
venue for said action shall be in Tarrant County, Texas.
Landlord:
City of Southlake, Texas
By:
Rick Stacy, Mayor
Tenant:
EPIPD Crossroads Square, L.P.
By: Ewing Properties 11, L.C.,
its general partner
WASouthiake\ Agreements tEPIPDeradrdsSgtse.ltnal.wpd Page 5
TOTAL P.06
Ih11 • G
EXHIBITA
i , „,y i i
, ,,
, ›, n I 1 t-- 1 {� /�
j
I 1 (-
1 \ 1 7,_ dR-EEN OAKS ) 1_ , ` \
/ i � � I i � `2�A(>I BABA - ” ;, - �
— + \ \/
j
1
i
IT
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE _ \ ,
/
�. /
/yam E PIPD ' � \
PROPERTY
- fr h, „,,,,, ' -' //N//'''''''f.'41//i4/--/,'1,___' l'i_f*---
I I
1 �-- 1
- -- �- - -
SOUTH LAKE BL�LD
/ J
!� �� ) I
N
\/
W /� E
S
Ibb- ID
i
EXHIBIT "B"
1
Tom Thumb Off-Site Parking
1
1 f
1 .
1 . ' City of South lake Property
1 :
8 Head-In Spaces (Off-Site) 1_______ ________— --,
T'
_. . .
1 Balifield
I
, 1
't:
-.'''
a) ,
! ,
r.14
0 :::::..,,,,,,,,,,-;-..::„..-„.:„.„,,,,:,,,:--,,,,..
1
,---"---- -
1 ---- Tennis
,,
.....
o Courts 15::- 5 Parallel Spaces (Off-Site)
, 1:
,-.,
, 1
Cif) ,,-.
1 c-i- .,
i ..,
1 —
-• i---,
0
1.•"-) ;
1■••■•■■ i ''''-..,
I • •-'
C.... \
....
13 Head-In Spaces (Off-Site)
_.,
-,--"---
. -. .
.. .., ,
.,/
1 1
__
_
- -
1 ...-
1 1
1 \
I \ i
\ i /
1 ,
I 1
vv ""•"")..„, E
s 1
1 _.---
,_--
No Scale 1
Southlake Blvd.
7 ------
---\, 1
)
11
.........____ k 1 ---1
EXI "B"
o - iiiiiiHp.
1 i
i ;_______-i 1 '; i l i::,:::. 7 ,:::: f 5 9
C10 I A E c4 § d 1$ 0 z B h iiw 1 ■ 1
1 :r; , ) - 1 ig: 0. t4 e< popp , IH1g II 7
:-.,--_-.
...,==.; i ,,:, :: 1 <E < ., .e, 1.1,0 „H.4.1 ,
,,_1 ,:;;;„,:...,11 51 a-
1
: .- 0 I
te ' * "41 ! R o'
C.) — u - ! '422E1 '11m 1 0)
[ 1 t sez. I 0 w 0 t
ri
z E-• 1211111111111 °Pi tt
I
2 . • . .
cr)
'tkir4 1 a1iil 1 . 1
111
- 1- 1 ' II •' 1-1
illH g 1 I I
1 il ill 1
li 7_ 1 I ! 1 1 I I = , -ii I 1 1 '
- , I
il Hi :0 igyi ;
g; „ 1 I I i 1 1.1 r-1 v , 1 t
I I III ".".! ° I.i. ,, :
-
I ! ,'
1 iN
otS:
: I 7. - . ■
C
', S 11 ' 1 1 . y. j •r ..
; 1 i ,• '''
1 1
1 ;5 A ga ` ! i ' 1 1 , •,x px
1 i4 , 5., 1 1 i
• iv i l• ; ! ..! g , I i !! :!' '-- i•Ei ! • 4 t H"
IC 0. t
P: fto
gl tUPI:i grj I Intl i , -" i " I ' 'T !' : t% 41 ' I I T il E z i ',': 6 '1.';1:,!. '-,, 1 1' „,....4% '71___Zji I RI •,
., , i , , I 1 ..' pr;,..1 ' .5 ; e • .5 • ---= 5'.=:' 1.' e , f...146, 31 _ , T.;! - ..‘ S ..''''' .' :i
ti t ,p1 IC2E11E11 1 V ip,,,l_0 1 : , R, 2 1 L 5 t• t.t gr.I.,PE E l , 1 1 1 ,
.. . i-1- -1 ...1 S i 1 ,---■
la ,, ,z,.- g 1 1 ., -- -' i i .- L't - .'- . .- .. .,....4--....--_-4,- .. "1 --', 0 1 '---",
li 011ti6 Iii iii 11 ig i!!i! 1 1 1 1 il! -
: g ,' ,...•) '-,.i ..-,-.. .,',..:.,..%, !
i ---
'' i=i-.... n:-. I 1, ‘• + - !::--:.iiE: .,:1.;:!1;i, i;:i ,,,,/-., .: . : H.; t . k ,
,, ,...,, l2 pi c , 1 ....,...tp,.Y.,1zi, It tit ti=1 i'2! ' I:41 5 ,' 1 L : ,,,:. ,.., 1,_,,...4 x , , ;
'-' I 1.!.. fsa ,5 .,•••
, f` " ., • • ,r_z , ..' 1 1 =t„
1 .'• I.!, 1 it,8' Rzsi,41,;1-‘e ,..1.1,.a -,-, zi i 1 4 , ,j, ,,, ,,,,,J---_,L
t * II - I, I 1 ; 77:
i 1 11 I 1 g !!!- „ F: 1!Iirili _,,? '73 ', 1 .-;, i "'-' "' -- : -- . , f...' 1 i.7,-;'
i , I IH ;11 :;,b! It , , g,,i, , ,--. , --„,. 1 ! 4
i J. I; 1 i 1 .•• F , i
011iEll t
..si , : ti::i ., iw!t!r.,'Arl:i 01: Hr: if T.; j ''''' : ... ! ' ''' n ' - 1 - f I ' ilr-Cil 1
,-. ! r 1
I if . • .., ,.,,. , I 2 1 1 11 1 ! iiliyil:
i
I 11 r) 1; ig !''' 1 11 1 111 1 §11ii l'z' 1•1 :i 1 .= ; ;f'i ":' 'E,••=," , [ ,/ ;4 '7 /..,‘_:.','
t ? 7 .- '''---' ,:;''''''',' § - ''''. -r.'-h I . ' ■......‘' ' - '' .-?' - :t
''; ''' lititz,3 - 2 11 1 II , 3 ,./ .7/,.
, . , -''.i _a
g eiT ii54111111,iiiiit
. --,. '':-..,"'-'',1
iti I 3 1111 ill i ; ? `,2, ',..
',. Ez' -,,
1 ,. ' '
! .. r;.:q f
/ .., 1 . , i• -- , .' , :_t_1_,_1_1i. , ...:.„ , _ILi_.'" , z . 7.".1 i
1 !; ,,
,, r 1 ----..1 - --- [ ;.. -_;.-'1=-; i.
' ■ ._. d
' ' '.• ''t ' 1 1 ,1,1 I ; r Itn I ; 11'; .`.,:'j=,. 1 u_ t, 1 ,
ir i '
,.
j
, ti g ;"' /
i 9.! : 1,303,te i - * C. 6 ,-0.41 TE,,, ..., t ,:,..4, 'I ! - —j. g : '--
1 LI r•
I, ' GHWG11108 - 1Jd\IHO 91.IHM N Ir. .1 ";! 1 1
4 .
1 i // i'" 1 - -- ■ . '- 1 ' >---• - ---.• I ------■-----------.--------- ''' I 4 $7- -- --. '.' - ---- --- '"''''''r75 f ..1
i .f: L ---,----------,,, ,,-- --,,,,,,--, - t.- ,..,, , - ' 0
- T - - -- - -J- -- -' " - - "77.'!"' '7 . , , i ..", i ., , ,'■ t - ------,— — - ; " 'Ct 420
' rt- - '; • ;' : • ---- ,-- , --•__ ,,-:. l ,-, L ,-.-,,
. i
-- 2 ,,1 1/ 1-7 1- L , 11-1- ,,, T1 i ti s ' , ,_,..
,,.. , ; „ [7.! uj : ..i g, ,- ',,\\ p, / : ,..-&..:::-,,,, i 7 , : , , ,, ,: ir ,:•,,, ._,; ,
„... . ,,, - ,.,
i
I
I
/ 1 .1 ri- -- , i i g E ,t, ,: ..... ,,:„..,----,---./.., , 1 , :,-- •
i ii -
.•=.2,-.7•_. K ! '`',•• - V., '‘.., ” ' I
.)/ / ' • Th:0 i. •■-,,• •! -- -t2)„,f 7 , ,-;.,..,,, ; 77( „:-- -..„.
," ," . i • , ••-•:,, , '. - .,/,' ' , / ,7: t_•t , , , , •-• '.-', ., -, ! ,,,, 1 .e:. , CO - e
1 1
‘,, --- • ', ;
,\ _a . .. .,=''-- „- ii ,6 _t,351 , r t
\ . \ , --,L.;, •!.:-.\ ;7:,-, -,„ „-„, c,-,-- ,.,„,-_- ,II •••-••-••:; •.. ;•1
l'. ._! ; ! ' ! I ii 1 ra ' - L ''• 'I- •e ' ' " •••' `I' ' S'`,1* — y • , 1., ' i.-!! ..._1 ' I
• -:"., ,, t L. , tt.f. n .L.
- ,- a , , wp, 0
-•';!. ---1 , = .,..--' ',„.
s i °,,, -',---- \ , , '-' - 1 , - ,,, , , , , - .-_,,,,,,= '- -
- , , J .4, `-s'7 - :,'z'
,, / , '.' , I. , •!/ .-- '"it.4`*"//,/.-7'? -..`.----'"-- ', '.; ..' ', ;
i %
';,• 5 ii : : 1. i-?r.- , :1
i SI P ' 1 i gi 1! r 0 , ,..„,,=,1,,,,,,,,7,5„,,w,,,,. 3.,„:,,, __,•,. ,....,,,: .t. '. .i . 1 ,
$ 'iii! ' , t '7 I At f I l!t , -• ' i -('-', 4 , ‘ f, , , \ , ,',-:-. 'Li -''. ,'' - 1 IP 1 1 IV \
$ ,., ' t - T .', . : 5f li \ \ -4 ' ' ' 1 : ,'[..'..\'',.\''::'''.\' ‘ i '--- %0'-''' ' '.:01, i - .', ' g' , •I 'T.. g t .' ''' 44.__,1!.: \
$ -`E rti
?„ i L.. . , ,, \., ' • ' ''''' ' .ftt I' '7E! I i ! sr ,'■ I 1 1 • • ! I 1 '2 L.-'_-` 1: ,,---‘,7,iii
!'
...,.....,...••••=sti
`4 giI g 1 • ! ,,, L-1-1.ii•A •-•., •.1 , — • V ‘, 4
T r
--- 71 Intl T. ' 1111 - "'11 !. ' , \ •
F - 7, - 1 v 1 , ,-,......e.- - ,,,,.\ ,... . 4 •
' _
I . ,,.. , . \'‘ 1, :tf. • 4
:ti,,2 (1., : y ' „ , ,„,, -,_, 1-11i- gi- ,1 +" 1 .' 1 I I ' , :-.', - - - '', -8‘ ., '!• 6 I r ,
..„. ,
""'-?' .E ' i .--",:', • • , l'i , ' , '',,.. \ 7, IV. ',':.!.. , # ;1
■11A - 1 i ' ".• .. , t , ' ,, 'A
. 0 .-,
.1":
1 ,\,,,• \
! 1..--,. ,, -- ..... 7 -- ft “ -1 —:,•----‘ u7- ' I
...L.-.1.4-...-,-
1 :
•••1 ••• 1 ' .,...; • L, -,/ _,, _ ••-•••:• - -! - ••• . !_!:r- u r•r•4: - !- - • — , — v , ;-- -- I 71
ri ■4 I '' -...4, '' , T ,,p7,77 1 -"I' ,' i "$' : 1 5- (s, l'•
T `1, • i' •
1 - i •_:::J.12,._LI.,"1 -17 .. , .-- 1,1 I -`,-." r L - .. - 1 nfL.L., f , . ,, g ,,, , f„, A I
1= i 4 iii 1,1 l'
il \
1 "L./ ,,,, .S: ,.. I. , 1 ,,S6i' 3 .9i.r., S , ,, ,. L:■ , q t: ,
)7 I :; ' E , 4 •f•t:g!' 1 it .4
1
3 1111;1111i IIII!,1, \
i .
i ,,I■ ,;E: i,rt.,,, ii!IIIIIIIIIIFIIii!■,g;4,
1;11I1'1,111 , 1 &
$
I ' 4 . ;.,'" :=, I ! t ' I ! ■ ! ' t ' I I . ti 'i,'0 ''''if ill` 41 i .4., i. t,
''.2 E :::'.•,-' i i ll' '!"1" E l a ii ,:;'' I .-1 - 7., , .. , , , l \
i I 1 , -.. ,: 11'1'1
_ !?., r.c'_:!-i, h3 it ; 11 W H .i I.Ho' 4%0.! 1 16,I ,•
iT ri.L.F:4!N i
l it, .W13 -....-
• 1 z&11 _ _, 1
1,f 5 .,T, , 4 .* = gttf:iftf',,trttV.11§1.412. si ;)!; ,.
,5 L.
f 1,3
1 , 11111111#1111ailliii riliillIt'iii::' ----
- I i
t- . , 1 1 1 I t;$11 Cit t'
i.: I:t IiI ' t ..;I i:il:i19.!ei t• .:
411 ''''! F !
L' !
— ---;i, 14 ...PC.. 1.4
16M2
SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
No.: ZA 98 -156 Revised Review No: Three Date of Review: 02/02/99
Project Name: Zoning /Site Plan - Tom Thumb Center, being all of Lot 2 , Lot 3, and a portion of Lot 4
LGB Hall No. 686 Addition and including an additional unplatted 1.174 acre tract, in all being 7.691 acre
APPLICANT: ARCHITECT:
Ewing North American Properties Twichell Architecture
14990 Landmark Boulevard STE 300 3624 Oak Lawn Ave. STE 3200
Dallas, TX 75240 Dallas, TX 75219
Phone : (214) 521 -3066
Phone : (972) 866 -9555
Fax : (214) 599 -0583 Attn: Terry Clark
Fax : (972) 866 -9888 Attn: John Maggiore
OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN
APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED
FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT EDWARD MCROY AT (817) 481 -5581, EXT. 880.
1. The following changes are needed with regard to bufferyards and interior landscaping.
a. Provide "required" bufferyards and plantings in accordance with the attached chart. Proposed
variations from the required bufferyards and landscape areas are indicated in the rows labeled
as "provided" both on the attached chart provided with this review and the chart provided by
the applicant on the site plan. (C.C. Action 1/15/99: Allow as proposed placing required plants
elsewhere on the site or in Bicentennial Park)
b. Provide "required" interior landscape areas and plantings in accordance with the attached chart.
Proposed variations from the required landscape areas are indicated in the rows labeled as
"provided" both on the attached chart provided with this review and the chart provided by the
applicant on the site plan. Verify the area of interior landscaping.provided. Staff estimates that
approximately 25, 376 sf has been provided. The Interior Landscape Chart on the site plan
indicates - 27602 sf is provided. (C.C. Action 1/15/99: Allow as proposed placing required
plants elsewhere on the site or in Bicentennial Park)
c. graphic to clearly reflect all proposed interior landscape areas as shown on the
Landscape Exhibit presented at the 1/15/99 City Council meeting. The crosshatching on some
landscape islands does not match or is missing
d. Parking and pavements are not permitted within bufferyards. The plan shows the following
encroachments:
1) Eight existing parking spaces adjacent to FM 1709 extend 10' ± into the 20' Type 0
Bufferyard. (C.C. Action 1/5/99: Allow as shown)
IDI� -13
2) Existing Fire Lane along the west line of Lot 2R1 adjacent to Lot 1 and 2, Block 2 First
American Savings Bank Addition encroaches into the required 5' Type `A' Bufferyard.
Clarify the intent to provide the bufferyard through this area. It shown graphically and
is shown not to be provided in the chart. (C.C. Action 1/5/99: Allow as shown)
3) Proposed parking along the west property line of proposed Lot 2R1 adjacent to
Bicentennial Park encroaches into the required 10' Type `B' bufferyard. (C.C. Action
1/5/99: Allow as shown)
2. The following changes are needed with regard to driveways ingressing and egressing the site according
to the Driveway Ordinance No. 634:
a. Provide the minimum driveway spacings as required by the Driveway Ordinance No. 634.
Specifically, address the following:
1) A minimum spacing of 250' is required between a service drive and any other type
driveway along F.M. 1709. The existing service drive (Drive `F') at the southwest
corner of Lot 2R1 is approximately 123' from the next drive to the east (Drive `E').
(C.C. Action 1/5/99: Allow as shown)
2) A minimum spacing of 500' is required between full access drives along F.M. 1709.
The existing Drive `E' is approximately 382' from the full access driveway within the
First American Savings Bank site to the west and is approximately 141' from the
existing drive at the southwest corner of proposed Lot 4R (Texaco) to the east (Drive
`L'). (C.C. Action 1/5/99: Allow as shown)
3) A minimum spacing of 500' is required between a full access driveway and a right of
way intersection for drives along F.M. 1709. This distance is measured from the drive
centerline to the R.O.W. line. The existing full access drive along F.M. 1709, within
the proposed Lot 2R1 is approximately 338' from the intersection of N. White Chapel
Blvd. C. C. Action 1/15/99: Allow as shown)
4) A minimum spacing of 250' is required between drives along N. White Chapel Blvd.
The southernmost existing drive within the proposed Lot 2R1 (Drive `C') is
approximately 92' from the existing drive to the south (Drive `D') and approximately
183' from the existing drive to the north (Drive `B'). (C.C. Action 15 %99: Allow as
shown)
5) A minimum spacing of 250' is required between a service drive and any other type
driveway along N. White Chapel Blvd. The existing northernmost service drive within
the proposed Lot 2R1 (Drive `A') is approximately 203' from the next drive to the
south (Drive `B'). (C.C. Action 1/1599: Allow as shown)
6) A right - in/right -out drive is required for drives intersecting an arterial within 250' of the
intersection with F.M. 1709. The existing southernmost drive within the proposed Lot
2R1 (Drive `C') is approximately 223' from this intersection. (C.C. Action 1/15/99:
Allow as shown)
10 M
* The applicant should be aware that anticipated construction of a free right turn lane on
southbound N. White Chapel Blvd. will affect the existing driveway approaches in that
location. (Drives `C' & `D')
b. A minimum stacking depth of 100' is required for all drives within the proposed Lot 2R1. The
provided stacking depth are as follows:
Drive E F.M. 1709 East Drive 34'
Drive F F.M. 1709 West Service Drive 42'
Drive C N. White Chapel South Drive 11'
Drive B N. White Chapel Central Drive 29'
Drive A N. White Chapel North Service Drive34'
(C.C. Action P15/99: Allow as shown)
3. A minimum 10' screening wall is required to screen views of the loading docks and spaces intended for
tractor trailer delivery. No wall is shown for the loading docks at the rear of the Tom Thumb building
facing N. White Chapel Blvd. A screening wall must utilize a similar masonry material as the front
facade. (C.C. Action 1/15/99: Requiring Additional Cedars in the "No Disturbance Zone" in lieu of
10' screen wall)
4. The following changes are required with regard to parking:
a. Provide a minimum of 514 parking spaces for the proposed site. The applicant has proposed
approximately 350 on -site parking spaces. Correct the provided spaces shown in the Site Data
Summary to reflect only on -site parking. (C.C. Action 1/15/99: Allow 350 spaces instead of
514)
b. Address the following with regard to the proposed off-site parking:
1) Remove of site parking and pavements shown along the west side of the development
located between the two most southerly transformers. Contact Ben Henry (X 824),
Community Services Department, for specific guidance in coordinating any proposed
off -site construction with the City's current Tennis Center construction. (C.C. Action
1/15/99: Allow off -site Parking and pavements along the west and accepting
applicants commitment that spaces be constructed of grasscrete)
2) If relief is granted allowing off -site parking, a letter of permission from the property
owner must be provided to the City prior to any such construction and a reciprocal
parking agreement will be required to be in place. No documentation of such
agreements have been provided to the City.
3) If relief is granted allowing off -site parking, ensure that curbs, grading, wheel stops,
plant materials, and /or other physical features do not negatively impact the adjacent
Tennis Center Development. Such negative impacts would include but not be limited
to drainage, safety and any physical damage to facilities within the Tennis Center site.
4) If off -site parking is allowed, the total provided parking would be 376 spaces rather
than the 379 spaces indicated in the Site Summary Chart.
i -15
c. Provide head -in parking spaces with a minimum dimension of 9' X 18'. A number of spaces
located along N. White Chapel Blvd. and along the common line with the proposed Lot 4R are
shown as 8' X 18'. If relief is granted to allow such a reduced dimension, label the applicable
spaces -- Compact Parking 8' X 18' -- on the site plan. (C.C. Action 1.-15 99: Allow' as shown)
5. Show, label, and dimension existing and proposed easements on or adjacent to the site. The proposed
Plat Revision for this site shows a 20' drainage easement along the common lot line with the Proposed
Lot 4R.
6. Provide impervious coverage in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance Section 22.5 -L This site
exceeds the maximum permitted impervious coverage area of 75% for the "C -3" Zoning District. The
applicant proposed 46, 551 sf of open space (13.9% of lot area) and approximately 288,451sf
impervious area (86.1% impervious coverage). (C.C. Action 1/15/99: Allow as shown on Landscape
Exhibit presented at 1/15/99 C. C. meeting, )
7. The following changes are needed with regard to building elevations:
a. Masonry construction meeting the requirements of Ord. 557 and Ord. 480, Section 43.9.c. l.a
is required on proposed buildings._ Painted tilt wall_ construction as depicted on the north and
west elevations of the Tom Thumb building does not comply with these requirements. On the
Tom Thumb building, the south elevation and portions of the east elevation do not identify
exterior wall materials. The retail strip building alsodoes not identify exterior wall materials.
Previous elevations have indicated that painted tilt wall is intended at several locations on these
elevations.
b. On the east elevation of the Tom Thumb building, areas to the north and south of the existing
Eckerd's building are shown only in silhouette. Provide a detailed elevation drawing of these
areas noting the type of materials intended for walls_ columns, and other features.
c. Insure that all mechanical equipment (roof or ground mounted) is properly screened from view
with an appropriate roof system or an architectural feature which is integral to the building
design. Screening of the Tom Thumb Building Mechanical Units has not been clearly
demonstrated.
d. Provide wall length and offset dimensions on all facades vertically and horizontally.
e. Provide a plan view of the building footprint below the elevations of the retail building and
correct the retail building footprint shown on the site plan to match . No horizontal articulation
can be evaluated for this building.
f. Provide horizontal and vertical articulation meeting the requirements of Ord. 480, Section
43.9.c.1.c. and Section 43.13.d .Compliance with the articulation requirements is as shown on
the attached articulation evaluation chart. (c. C. Action 1/15/99: accepting the articulation as discussed during the
106.1(p
meeting. (Applicant agreed to meet all the vertical articulations shown to be deficient 011 the articulation chart and will meet the horizontal
articulation on the south wall ofTom Thumb Building and the north and south walls of the Strip Retail Building. Variances will be granted
Jbr the following horizontal articulations: north, west and east .sides of the Torn Thumb Building with the canopies, pilasters, and other design
features discussed during the meeting and the east and west sides of the Strip Retail Building as discussed in the meeting)
8. Clarify the floor area shown for existing Building 'D'. As depicted, the "24,740 sf' number appears
to incorrectly imply that the existing retail building is 24,740 sf. In fact, the total area for Buildings
'C', 'D' and 'E' (new and existing) is approximately 24,740 sf. Building 'D' appears to be approximately
15,155 square feet.
Additional C.C. Actions 1/15/99:
accepting the applicant's commitment to maintain the landscaping for perpetuity:
allowing the applicant's engineers and city engineers to work together on the appropriate length and width ofa right turn lane (and its transition) along
White Chapel Blvd.; and
accepting the applicant's commitment to appropriately shield exterior lighting.
• This review is based on the "C -3 "General Commercial District for the proposed Lot 2R1 and 2R2
* Coordinate with the City Parks Superintendent (Ben Henry X 824) and the Landscape Administrator
(Keith Martin X 848) for the placement of the sidewalk shown near the "No- Disturbance Area ".
No review of proposed signs is intended with this site plan. A separate building permit is required prior
to construction of any signs.
* The applicant should be aware that prior to issuance of a building permit a Plat must be processed and
filed in the County Plat Records, a fully corrected site plan, landscape plan, irrigation plan, and
building plans, must be submitted for approval and all required fees must be paid. This may include
but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Perimeter Street Fee, Water & Sewer Impact and
Tap Fees, and related Permit Fees.
* Protected trees cannot be removed outside of 6' from the proposed building without processing a Tree Removal Permit or without approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Cuts or fills within the limits of the critical root zone of protected trees are not permitted unless adequate construction
methods are approved by the Landscape Administrator.
* A letter of permission from the adjacent property owner(s) must be obtained prior to issuance of a
building permit for the construction or removal of off -site pavement.
* Denotes Informational Comment
att: Bufferyard Calculation Chart, Interior Landscape Summary Chart, Articulation Evaluation Chart
• Ewing North American Properties VIA FAX ABOVE
Twichell Architecture VIA FAX ABOVE
Bury & Pittman VIA FAX: (972) 991 -0278 Attn: Brett Blankenship
IOD-11
David McMahan VIA FAX (817) 481 -4074
MDEV\WP- FILES \REV\98 \98156SP3. WPD
tDD lg
1 t.. . - ;
010 i A !c id , ?1 A ,1114Hlia
1 :t .1,
” 1:,, 1 ! • 1 i 4, ...a
7 ..____ _ __ „ .,.., ,
v 1 4 • !Hai 7 a
. 2
i _ :;;2 1 "11 :-
-,—...—_---
<h <g il! zo
•
11.11 IIIIIIiIIIIr 1, Cl- i
, ..
i ag ' 1 C '' '`" ,IiiPPAktH
ii
1 1 e 2 1 w p
r• t liliIIIIIIMI°111
1
,..... :.,,
t , •--, , 104
1 I , , _.,53,',.:L,.•!-„:. ,
Cr)
i ?)1 It: ,I■i ,v , 1!• ; g , i '1 1
',---.• IT I .- ' 24 1 . 11 '1_,.1 —
p III F. I
i 1 .1:• ! , g ; i 1
g :, ,
,,, 1.`H
:
.3 1 ■ i 1 iii g, il , , 2
gii!d 1 id l i: ni: IT i i -, I 1
, : , , -,
i 1
i I I 1 7..-
, , ,
! - ..
a I '*1 _ "-al I ■ 'T 1 1 1'1 ! ; :! i;!::: i ia.a r; i I 1 • )27.
i Li: gf I i
I- 1 il 1 ; ,,.., L -, g !. ,. 1.. ,.. 2._,- , ,, ,, • -,.; ! '- iiI ,..„..„, , , li 4 t3
1- -!,= P ,!..ig 1 i t ,1 , .:.- ..iii2le- ---., ' i i; :il ''' EC :-.- :2. L.
0: 14,„,1 , -; rlag ell
4; 111,1,1,,iP1P1 5'i Orill
li 111
i : 1.1 ! , z i % ft...gg.kiL? .,..z,.:,, ;7 i i il ! r 9 .1
IL.IL=EDE7JE: -
1 i it=
, 2 lig '1'•' -H- ' gt I • I 1 gi:.-, '-
f-,IJ=J-1.■`1.--'1, .- ' ig ; i i -,‘ OL 1 , ...f, i ‘1■ i 1 ■ •
; e ..' ,-..•--li,
.-- ,.. , ,•,--.4i-i44.-----_,- '1 1* i i
; 1 ; !.'1, 1 ;10, 1 A ' s ;11=10 ni7. 11 iii ; l' 1=ii g k,
t ! I. i I ; I I ''' j -1 Bli 1 7..1=';rici`Vt E ;sEigT En f, 7 ,,,, ,. f• 4. 'y - , 4 - -,' ,,
1 ,.. ! -,, . •°.!,'t: ,:•• .Y4 Ra. iall ; 1 :.;::S i I
1 la 111 ji F-,„ ;,•,:;';; ; ! a i a;Y. pal ,,aa y a; '
; „, ; i i , • 4 :-.';;;:,1 I :,'
I
I.
, , , 1 , , - -, ;:,- , -,-, , ,.J . 44 ,i•.....--- , .,-, ., , p_ z
/ tillifill /111i11111111
3 i ' 4 sti A ' Ig
,..,.. , . :,/ ;;-..),..,...., i t -•:: ; ; L .' ; ' ,
; - .;/
. [;:i ;,.; , , i ; 1 ;4 a ,!!!'
5 , '7-2,
--...1' - J:._.L..1LLI , :..:E. , lL , ' ! :::,l
7 ' , ‘
//,' -.'"--71-. 1 , lkji V,'-,1:: ■ M z F :7 =
.. , .. i,' ' .-, jr■ I i i I I HI 1 , ! , i ;11 • : ---,-- 1
_L, ■ c< 1 -
II ,._ ' ...=-- , r , .•',i d,,,, 4 1, I , U J
!. 2,,,• , , - ii v.. ii
1 0
,,...... ,Il
i /' 7. 01:1VA911108 - 19c1VHO 31.11-IM N iff, ;
a ;'!. ''' ir 0
.-- -- 'i -'. ILLI u
..---1 77 ' 4 7.
/ l 1: 11 '' .. " - -." -.. . -------- -- -- 2.°L.-. -------- --"- , ___ ,,,,,I,7.:2_t_e.,-_,-,976::s.--,..-C---;:-.,__Lj;_t••._._2:',....i:- -,',- . . i 0 7:
1 '' 2•' " -- ':: ' - - -- 1 - 11, '''; .4 , ,,,, 1 , 4 '; — 1•. :, ;!
,, ' .' ------- - ' ' ' 'Ij ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'i. , .'", ' I L , j2 1
'; LT' I i 4 ' itsPi . ' 9 ",, ---- r. f.: •,, . I • , , ", li I \ , ,-',., \ \ ' :'• _ , I , • ,, ,,.. -• , • - ,...
;' ' r"'' '- • ' -- '
1 : , •ff 1 ' i 11 1 .2 ' .:1— ;; '.'3'''' ' 's. . ' 2'''. \ \ ‘—}' - 7-... ——. - 15
-c,•":5;:-..,•_• 9 -' ' - ', • I ''. ' ,:,::: ; z 7 1
--- = f ' - -2-7- - ,L-, :1,, , . , „ .- ,, , ; --L-- •., --.. "v<-. ';‘. -, , 1' !Ea \ 2
ci) t °
tiL..Y %..",,,-,':•,-._„.=-'
3 1
. ,1 •,t( ;,, ! , ,„ - - .., , ,;,„, ,, „ -, '--!----- ,_ , - - ... , ..,3, ,::.'. ,. !. I, •1 E,___
i , 1 ,,,
1, , , _ . , „ -,.- , 0.--„,,,,,- .„, -;...‘ ,
1 i: g • 1 I ; : a :i'm 1 "a
! _ \ ; ; 1 .a a -;-■‘ ';' 4 °-•\ ' ' ' s ,,.!----'' .°4. i 1*-2I--=',
'I , 1 t --7 `• : ''', = , , \ C\-L..-' ''--- • .\\ -`-' ',
i . : c. - 1 -.., ', ii:_. W s; t ,•\: . ,--: • 2 ' \ \ ,,,-t--,.:: _,- ? -- \ - -==,--• ,- -7,
i
if! , --,-;; ! % 7 ° 74 .'''// ' ' I .,; I! '7'''- 7/ .- ' --- ... ,, 7'. '''::..,4 \ ' I
! 8 ;
I Ep, 2 ''! J '•••' le i, !El:. g-g ..; ' , ( , ,•::: ; f, \ \ s
.-L7 s ' , \--__:19 •:.-- 2 ,....,....„_
i 1 I ,',1 li \ .q" 1 1 , • , i ',,: 1/ :. , 1 , ._
-:....- -- ,1 1 ., 111 1 ! 1 , ■_ 1, 1. I
1 ....° ...,,• ; i v L .7 1 ,, . ,;i
5 1 1 J . .;..; : '• `a
\ -, f 6 * , 's r --- C - '''
; • , ' "a .. ^... '" ..... "'11 -• '1 ' --; . ' \ \
- • - • - • - 1 - 1 - 1 - 7,1,111i1 i IC cl TT ,"1 . ..:-i- ''' ''.!, \ 4' \
Fl 1 LI gi-,. , ,r;'7t, . i . , ---1,\ , ,•,% L.
:i
t '2 -I t, i; ' 14; , I i id l eA t '',I ii 1 \ s'- '7'1 ,-,:,-- -- "6 i , — '-'11 1 ! \,,, -\
i .4`': ° .A 4 44 !":-4 =' ' ri, ;:,,, ''' \ , '';'..,.-- , 11
i'.° 1 , ,, • :\ ,- , '1;i;O.F!:1
'-
i 1 -",' i '7------Ai.,‘, : „ , , . ; , , , L. Crt , !Jr! i i 1 1 li?Ff;i:1 I= :iv, 1 ' , i , . : i . . ,,,,,,, 1 • i ., i2 i
L : iii • X : 713 - ;:o: - - fiT : ii7 - 1 -- .ir. -- i - i. , 3: - : - E - - t 7 --- 1, , ,3. 1 E, g , I ! 4 g .l. 4 !
, ,„:
,
IIHHH'IllIt'ii 1-. i
., _ _ it , 1 ,', ' 1 , 1 I ! .1 ! i 1 !! ilf 1! ! ,
•
,
! i ,,
lidd.,!..!,1-j-1-1-•,1-1-1-14": \ \
• ,":" 2 :.i y '':'-' ' , a a 1 ;ILI' Hi0;;;;,,,-;.il
...
,
t.2*:; V. 11. , .1..„;.-1.-H-1- - -1-,-Li 5, 3 r iri • 1 .-qi d..1,74'--
I: --.F2'---i -1 '1 .1. ! 1 ./ 1 ■ iiiI • '
z ! I P il "'15- 8Z.1 RE,' ! I 1 ! i- ! I .,ra'j a 1 is ;
S - ""e-' a I- ■!;- .;-;-;.1-.' `.' - -, ,, ,f.H.-at,,,
l l 'I'' ' 'i ti 1 !=ii ,4'
, F,,,,:i 2 -',
-..- - =
1;1 i ^ ' 1 . '' '' :' ; 11! if )i'lit:i I
i
; illillill■P
i .11 Z!
41/ L' 1` I 1 1` 1 IY H
_ - - -- --
1Db-1q
1 Transcript of Case ZA 98 -156 during City Council Work Session
2 February 2, 1999
3
4 Stacy: Is there anything new on the Tom Thumb thing since the last meeting,
Chris, you think we should discuss now?
6 Martin: Dennis, did you tell me you were going to get us another... or maybe that
7 was Keith. I didn't see mine when 1 walked in.
8 Killough: (Inaudible)
9 Legrand: (Inaudible)
10 Last: I believe, Mayor, a couple of discrepancies. We were unable to really
11 finalize the articulation review without some dimensions. That might be
12 some area worth talking through. And then I believe we had a comment
13 there on a tilt -wall component that they had previously described and I
14 think the plans showed but we do not have a comment on our review
15 letter.
'F! Killough: We also want to address the landscape area. They are in compliance with
the required area but there are just discrepancies between the plan you got
18 in your packet and (inaudible).
19 Stacy: Okay, is there anything that you know of that we should discuss at this
20 point; significant changes that might....
21 McMahan: The only changes we made were in terms of trying to meet the
22 articulations as much as we could and also in making some architectural
23 changes that we had discussed that we would make.
24 Last: They did revise their site plan to correspond to that landscape plan that
25 they showed a picture of last time.
26 Martin: Well, I'll tell you, I think that this comment, must be on 7A, about the tilt -
27 up concrete, was a big surprise. You know, we met for several hours
28 discussing this and it is an illegal material. It can not be used in the
29 corridor overlay and you must come forward and ask for a specific
30 variance. I know you may have been choking on the number of variances
you're already asking for but this is serious and I think you're going to
1 2D
1 need to rethink that material because I can tell you we're spending
z millions and millions of dollars building a park next door to you and I just
3 don't really see how all those tilt -up panels would do anything except
4 harm us as we enjoy our park and spend our millions of dollars to enhance
5 the beauty and usefulness of our park area and then ultimately to be a
6 spitting distance from tilt -up concrete panels which are not allowed. They
7 can be allowed on certain variances but I really am surprised that it wasn't
8 brought forward to our attention, and freely admit it was noted on one
9 drawing that I had...
10 McMahan: It was not only noted, Councilman, but we discussed, in fact, the question
11 was asked from the Council beforehand as well as P &Z, it's in the
12 minutes. I believe it's in the minutes, yeah, they're tilt wall, and we talked
13 about the finish, and they'll be finished, not painted, but with a stucco type
14 finish, so that you would never be able to know whether it was a tilt -wall
15 behind it or concrete block or steel. You won't know. There is no
16 difference.
Last: Council, we have had that similar surface before but I believe the plans
18 actually, maybe incorrectly say painted tilt wall.
19 Martin: Yeah, that's what it says.
20 Last: So that may be something for the future.
21 McMahan: That's wrong, that is wrong.
22 Martin: And the areas where we have allowed tilt -up painted, tilt -up textured
23 panels have been along rear service drives that abut either a forested creek
24 or backs of other buildings or a undeveloped area that would be
25 commercial.
26 (unknown): The point here is though, if it's stucco exterior it's like saying, do you like
27 the shiny stuff or jip -lap on the front of your house. You don't see it. It
28 looks like stucco. Who can object to stucco?
29 Martin: Well, we would much prefer to have real masonry than stucco.
30 McMahan: Are you sure that you would rather have concrete block painted....
IDD 21 2
1 Martin: No, we can't have concrete block either, David; that's also a material
2 that's not allowed.
3 McMahan: So, what are you saying; a brick facing? Is what you're talking about?
4 Martin: Yeah, I mean there are materials that are masonry, it can be brick or stone,
5 but the point is that it faces our park within just a matter of a few feet
6 and....
7 Stacy: It does today.
8 Martin: That's right and it's ugly as sin. It makes me want to vomit sometimes;
9 it's so bad. So again, we're over there building millions of dollars worth
10 of stuff for our citizens and we're going to look at the back side, and I
11 appreciate what y'all did on the back of the elevations of the retail strip.
12 McMahan: We've been over those elevations several times with as many members as
13 we can talk about. I don't know what else to tell you other than it's always
14 been there. This is nothing new. It was there last time.
15 Martin: Yeah, but somehow the staff didn't catch it, (someone starts to interrupt) I
understand, I understand, but we all must go through the process with our
eyes open.
18 Stacy: What's the back of the existing building today? Not the (inaudible) part
19 but the other part that stays.
20 McMahan: It's all concrete block today.
21 Stacy: The existing strip part is concrete block. It's painted.
22 McMahan: Um -hmm, and it will be re- painted with added features which we added to
23 handle the articulation.
24 Martin: And that's very good, David. I wanted to compliment you on the new
25 elevation. It looked very good.
26 McMahan: Thank you. I think here, the point is, quite frankly, is when we all looked
27 at the elevation the last time at the last meeting and we discussed that back
28 elevation in depth, it was the look, not what it was made out of and we
29 made the changes and added the things on the look. I, frankly, have a
30 problem understanding what the sub - material has to do with what the look
is.
3
166 -22
1 Stacy: I remember we talked about the canopy and so forth.
_ McMahan: Yes, and the point is we showed that as stucco on the back and are you
3 really saying that stucco covering brick looks better than a concrete wall
4 covered with stucco? It's the same thing. It's a look your after and I think
5 we've given you that.
6 Martin: Well, 1 think part of it comes down, to if you comply on those facades,
7 with all the articulation requirements, both vertical and horizontal, on
8 those tilt -up panel walls then I think we'd have a cat of a different color;
9 but what we have today is not, as far as I understand, compliance on those
10 walls with the ordinance and part of it, I'm sure, is due to the fact that
11 making those small bump out and tilt -up becomes quite expensive, but it's
12 not near as bad as when you're using some other kind of masonry material
13 and thusly you end up with a...
14 McMahan: That's not the reason at all, Councilman. That's not correct. The reason
15 was, and we went through this ad nauseum, is the depth of the thing. We
couldn't get the trucks in. We can't get the car parks. None of that had
anything to do with what material is there. Not one little bit.
18 Stacy: Do you have the elevation of the west side?
19 McMahan: That it's going to be?
20 Stacy: Yeah, the new proposed one that's going to be
21 Martin: Yeah, the new west, the new north, and the new east are all going to be
22 tilt -up, right?
23 McMahan: Yeah. Well, the whole thing is, is this it? This is the west property. That's
24 the west. The back, and these are the ones to the park. Mike, where am I
25 here, bub. My contention is simply this; I appreciate what you're saying
26 but we didn't run any surprises on you here. This has been the same way
27 the whole time. And number two, and all that's been submitted, but the
28 look, all I'm saying is, I have a difficult time understanding what
29 difference it makes as to what the underlying material is as far as the look
30 is concerned. What difference does it make? What you're telling me is
4
161)13
1 that you wouldn't say anything if that were all brick under there. So,
what's the difference?
3 Martin: Well, I mean I think that what appears to be your effort to adjust this
4 West; I'm sorry, that's the back.
5 McMahan: This is the North.
6 Martin: Right, that's the North. And I don't, we've know been provided any
7 elevations of the east - facing sections of the Tom Thumb.
8 unknown: I think we have.
9 McMahan: That's basically the back of the existing Eckerd's.
10 Martin: No, it sticks out past the Eckerd's, right?
11 McMahan: That's right, but that's all been presented before.
12 Martin: Have y' all seen that elevation? It's not in our packet.
13 Last: I believe it is, isn't it? (inaudible)
14 Martin: Whether there's a shaded box of anything behind the first, closest facade,
15 then the rest are merely shaded boxes.
Last: It may be, it may not be...
Stacy: It would look just like the west I assume.
18 Martin: We don't know.
19 Stacy: Is it a plain wall or a...
20 Stacy: There it is.
21 McMahan: I don't know the answer to that question. Mr. Twitchell, can you?
22 Twitchell: It's going to follow the same concept as the north elevation. It'll just wrap
23 around.
24 Martin: So you're going to put the multi -color and some awnings and stuff on that
25 to break it up visually?
26 Twitchell: There's no awnings in back, but there's arches and the same amount of
27 multi -color wrapped around.
28 unknown: You can do that around here?
29 Twitchell: Yeah.
30 Stacy: They've gone to a lot of trouble to get the visual articulations.
5
IDD��
1 Martin: Well, I understand it and I appreciate their commitment to meet those
vertical articulations; I just, your know, sort of buying a pig in a poke as
3 they say. If we don't see the elevations, then how do we know exactly
4 what they have committed to do?
5 McMahan: You're actually right as it relates to this, but the other elevations, we've
6 been added and that should have shown as well what we are committing to
7 you to do the same treatments and wrap it around.
8 Martin: Okay. David, on this rear truck loading dock that's on the west, I'm sorry,
9 the left side of that building, I see a single door from here, I don't have my
10 glasses on.
11 Twitchell: Oh, that's the back. That's the existing...
12 McMahan: That's a door that exists in the back of Eckerd's today. That dock is more,
13 somewhere. .. I' m sorry.
14 Martin: Can I get you to put the one that's right, or take that one down, David, and
15 show us the one you have up there a minute ago that shows that west
facade.
McMahan: That's the West, right here. One thing that this doesn't show that we
18 agreed to do and they redrew it, when they redrew it they did it
19 incorrectly, is that instead of that flat canopies on the west side we agreed
20 to put the bubble canopy which we're still agreeing to do. It's a .. .
21 Martin: I mean, that's why I asked that about the canopies because we have the
22 articulation...on that side
23 McMahan: On this side, we agreed to put those bubble canopies on that side.
24 Stacy: Which is facing the park?
25 Martin: Right.
26 Stacy: On the other side actually is, I think, hidden by that grove of trees.
27 Martin: It will be somewhat hidden, that's right.
28 McMahan: We can't on the other side because there's a dumpster, if you remember,
29 right where the canopy would be. But we can do the visual exactly like
30 that.
6
1 t 23
1 Martin: Right. I mean again it does face White's Chapel. As you look down the
service drive, you're going to see that portion of the wall. I guess, then,
3 David, I need to find out the .. .
4 McMahan: Well, we also agreed to plant some trees if you remember on that island
5 which would further hide not only the cars and the dumpster, but that
6 facade as well.
7 Martin: I understand. On the left end of that building there, the plan show a
8 secondary loading dock or a loading area, do you have doors in there?
9 McMahan: I don't see any of them. How does that set up, Mike? I think he's talking
10 about the one, the dock here on the west side.
11 Mike: We haven't figured out if there's going to be an overhead door there or
12 not.
13 Martin: I guess then we have the problem of how do you ultimately end up
14 screening those doors from the view to the park? If you're screening on
15 two sides then you've got no open side.
McMahan: This wall actually does.
Martin: It sure does.
18 McMahan: Okay, so you're talking about directly from the west, which you've got
19 your building, your own screening. You've got the windscreens on those
20 tennis courts and you can't see through the tennis courts to see the center
21 anyway.
22 Martin: We do have a number of small t -ball fields and stuff just adjacent to that
23 area that would look right at that. Now it may partially be screened and
24 again I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm merely saying that it didn't show in
25 the elevations.
26 McMahan: What we can do there and we'll be happy to do that, if we have a site
27 plan? We have a site plan board... There is some area out there, that if
28 there's an area to plant, we'll be happy to do that again, the same thing we
29 volunteered to do over there, that if we were to add some cedars or
30 something that will do that, that's not a problem.
7
1 Martin: And again, it just comes down to, we analyze this very complex problem,
David, with multiple variances that this stuff gets skipped, we're all not
3 perfect. We sometimes need to rely on second thoughts and that's why we
4 have two readings.
5 McMahan: That's fine.
6 Martin: And that was all my questions.
7 Stacy: My question is, looking at the variances requested, do you need relief on
8 everything that's on this list in order for someone to make a motion?
9 McMahan: We would like to get it approved exactly the way we got it approved last
10 time. Now, that means that, yes, we need the same variances. I believe
11 the Staff has come up with a couple of other comments, some of which I
12 think we can answer, some are not, but I know we can, glance...I just got
13 them, but a cursory glance at these tells me that we were going to be able
14 to work those out. I didn't see anything in there of any need.
15 Stacy: Things like correct the graphics and stuff, we don't need relief for that.
'r McMahan: No, that's correct. That actually, in reality, Mike, did you bring a .. .
Mike: I got a cardboard I can bring .. .
18 McMahan: That actually, it's just simply a question that the landscape plan had a
19 certain kind of hatching that the site plan didn't. We didn't evidently use
20 the same computer.
21 Stacy: I guess what I'm trying to clarify is, in the essence of time during the
22 public, the real meeting, if you and Mr. Last can get together and agree on
23 what you really do need.
24 McMahan: We'll do that during the executive session, yes.
25 Stacy: Is that okay with you, Mr. Last?
26 McMahan: We'll be happy to do that.
27 Stacy: Is that all right, Scott (Martin)?
28 Martin: Oh, yeah. That's fine. I mean I think there's only a few points we need to
29 clarify; otherwise, I think we've been through this for a while.
30 Stacy: Do any of the rest of you have questions about the Tom Thumb thing that
they might want to work on during the executive session?
8
i0D -Z7
1 Kendall: Well, I have a question. In this chart that talks about required interior
landscaping versus what's provided and if there's some reason for the big
3 difference?
4 McMahan: In the chart ..
5 Kendall: Yes.
6 McMahan: I don't know. We just got that. And what I'll tell you is, and see how
7 that's shaded, that's new to us. What I would tell you, my guess is that the
8 very two areas that they are questioning whether or not it's landscaping, is,
9 and that's how we have a larger number and they have a smaller number.
10 But I can't answer that because I don't know how they calculated it.
11 We'll get together and work that out.
12 Kendall: Okay.
13 Last: Our calculations actually show that they are providing more than what's
14 required.
15 Kendall: On the landscaping, the trees? I know that the green space is more, but on
the trees and shrubs, are they providing what's required?
McMahan: Well, we can't, but what we agreed to do there is anything we can't put on
18 site, we'll put in the park. That's what we agreed to do last time.
19 Kendall: That's what I'm asking, there's an agreement to do that?
20 McMahan: Yes.
21 Last: Plant materials are part of the motion from first reading's approval was
22 that any required plant needed in interior or in the bufferyard that couldn't
23 be planted on site would be relocated to the park.
24 Kendall: So that's why that chart looks so off because it's going to be replanted.
25 McMahan: Right.
26 Stacy: Any questions about the plat revision? Do you have anything on that,
27 Greg, that needs to be pointed out?
28 Last: I don't believe there's any issues on the plat.
29 Stacy: Okay.
30 Martin: That new strip of parking with the two dumpsters directly adjacent to
the tennis courts, is that in this criteria?
9
1 Last: Yes, it's in one of our review comments on the site plan. There's a
2 comment from Parks to prohibit the parking that's adjacent to the
3 tennis courts and I believe David met with Parks and came to a
4 mutual conclusion that those stalls could be relocated to the north
5 parking lot.
6 Martin: Do we need to address that in the motion?
7 McMahan: Yes, because, in fact, please forgive me, it's my understanding that
8 will require Council's approval because it does have to go into the
9 park to do that. That's my understanding.
10 Last: And the bufferyard, they'll be a north bufferyard so...
11 McMahan: We're willing to do that. We don't have a problem doing that; that's
12 totally up to y'all.
13 Martin: Do you guys have any kind of scale drawing for that estimate of where
14 and how far it's going to be into the park property?
15 McMahan: We have a l0 -foot buffer as you assume, a 20 -foot park, we're going
in another 10 feet and I think we've agreed to seven stalls moved
around there. We've turned the ones we're moving parallel. We have
18 five (5) parallel and we've moved seven (7) around to the back, and
19 that gives them more room for their drainage and greenery between
20 the courts and those particular stalls.
21 Martin: So we'll have to note that in our motion. We can't approve the site
22 plan when we know we're going to be moving some of them. Okay, I
23 appreciate you working on that too because it was way too close to
24 those fences.
25 Stacy: For the moment, let's skip down to the second readings in "f," "g," and
26 < h."..
27
28
IDS let 10
Transcript of Case ZA98 -156 from the 2/2/99 City Council Meeting.
4 Mayor Stacy: The next item on our agenda is 7A, Ordinance No. 480 -297, second
5 reading, rezoning and site plan for the Tom Thumb center.
6
7 KPG: Do you want the presentation?
8
9 Mayor Stacy: I think you should put it on the wall, yes ma'am. We discussed this quite a
10 bit during the work session this evening but we'll have a little refresher
11 here for the public's information and if there's anyone on the Council who
12 has a question about it.
13
14 KPG: ZA98 -156 is a rezoning of Lot 3 and a portion of Lots 2 and 4 of the
15 L.B.G. Hall No. 686 Addition and adding 1.174 acres out of the L.B.G.
16 Hall Survey as well, making a total 7.691 acres. You'll also be reviewing
17 the site plan for the Tom Thumb center. The property is located on the
18 northwest corner of the intersection of North White Chapel with F.M.
19 1709. The EPIPD- Southlake No. 1, limited partnership is the owner. The
20 applicant is Bury Pittman DFW, Inc. The property is currently zoned
21 "CS ", "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District with "C -3" uses, excluding
22 those that are noted in the staff memorandum. The request was for, was
23 originally for "S -P -2" with "C -3" uses. They amended that request
excluding all of the "C -3" uses previously approved and then also
2� excluding a movie theater. We sent out ten responses, or ten letters to
26 everyone within 200 feet and received one written response from Don
27 Mullman, 803 Pearl Drive in favor of the request. Also included were
28 persons living outside the 200 foot area, and in total there were a thousand
29 fifty -six responses in favor of the request. The Planning and Zoning
30 Commission at their January 7 meeting recommended to deny with a 4 -2
31 vote. Council during the first reading on January 19 did recommend
32 approval subject to staffs review comments dated January the 15 with
33 certain modifications. You allowed the bufferyards as shown, provided the
34 applicant work with staff to relocate any plantings to the park area to the
35 north of the site. Also you allowed the existing parking that was in the
36 bufferyard areas, that they could remain. You also allowed the driveway
37 spacing and stacking depths as shown. You provided that there, in this no
38 disturbance zone, that there should be additional cedars planted there in
39 lieu of the 10' screening wall that would be placed in that area. You
40 allowed the 350 parking spaces as shown, accepting the applicant's
41 commitment to make some of the compact car sites here and then gain
42 some additional landscape in these islands and throughout the parking
43 lot as well. You allowed the impervious coverage as shown, given the
44 applicant's commitment on the additional landscaping. I think they now
45 have approximately 86% impervious coverage. On item 7B, on the
16 articulation, you accepted the applicant's commitment to meet all vertical
1
106.3()
' articulation and then on the horizontal articulations on the south side of the
Tom Thumb building, and also the north and the south of the retail building
as well. All others would be per the plan as shown previously. The
4 applicant was to take a look at providing additional parking on the
5 west side of the building. Also to shield any lighting from the
6 surrounding property owners over on the east side of White Chapel, and
7 also allow the grasscrete in the parking stalls along the entire west side.
8 And then, in response to Councilperson Edmondson's requirement to
9 maintain the landscaping in perpetuity. Due to the supermajority vote, and
10 due to the P &Z's denial, a supermajority is required, 6 of the 7 would have
11 to approve the plan. Now staff has provided you a revised review letter
12 No. 3, dated 2/2/99. You'll note in there, there was a comment about the
13 interior landscaping, there was some discrepancy, and I believe the
14 applicant has agreed to correcting that on the plan. We also discussed
15 during work session a painted tilt wall, on the north and west walls of Tom
16 Thumb, and I believe that issue has been resolved in work session. And
17 then there was also the need for additional information on the north and
18 south walls of Eckerd's on their, the articulation of the elevation plan. Are
19 there any other comments or questions we can address for you?
20
21 Edmondson: Karen, what did you say where the discrepancies on this part, that you
22 resolved in the work session?
23
- (PG: The landscaping number, the 25,000 square feet versus the 27 they had
2i5 shown, and I believe the applicant has agreed to correct that.
26
27 Edmondson: Okay.
28
29 Mayor Stacy: And we also, we discussed the west wall elevation in work session, and
30 they implied that the north wall that extends beyond the present Eckerd's
31 would be done a similar way, with the two - toning and so forth. I'm sure
32 we'll see the elevation here again in a minute, but that's what I understood
33 at the work session.
34
35 Edmondson: All right.
36
37 Mayor Stacy: So that it's the same on all the way around there. Any other questions for
38 Karen? Thank you, Ms. Gandy. Is the applicant here?
39
40 David McMahan: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, ladies and gentlemen of the staff and
41 audience, my name is David McMahan, 1335 Hidden Glen, Southlake. I'm
42 here to represent the applicants and the owners in this zoning request. I'd
43 be happy to answer any questions you have. There were some changes that
44 we probably need to visit slightly about. The, in your review letter dated
45 2/2/99, well first let me say we are requesting approval as approved in the
16 prior meeting but then the staff added some new comments that I need to
2
ib6 -31
' address at this time. One would be, and I want a clarification of this, if you
don't mind, item 3 where it talks about requiring additional cedars. It's my
recollection that in reality what we agreed to do and what you all wanted us
4 to do was work with staff because we don't know for sure that there's even
5 room for any additional cedars in there. But it was my recollection that we
6 agreed that we would work with the landscape architect, if there's room
7 and he wants them there we'll put them in, otherwise we would not because
8 we didn't want to overplant that area, so...
9
10 Mayor Stacy: I must apologize to you on that particular item because I've been instructed
11 by my wife to never vote for cedars `cause all of our kids are allergic to
12 them. I mean we don't want them in the back so...
13
14 McMahan: Well, we meant to say were firs...
15
16 Mayor Stacy: Some other kind of tree would be... I cannot vote for that.
17
18 McMahan: I understand.
19
20 Mayor Stacy: My mesquites...
21
22 Debra Edmondson: I won't vote for anything but cedars. I'm just kidding, Mayor, I'm just
23 kidding.
2) Mayor Stacy: I might also add...
26
27 McMahan: This is good because there's a new strain called a cedar fir that we're going
28 to put in.
29
30 Mayor Stacy: I might also add we are one person short tonight so if you feel at any time
31 you might want to wait for a full Council, you have that right.
32
33 McMahan: I appreciate that, very much. I really just wanted that more as a point of
34 clarification and make sure we understood what it is we're supposed to do
35 on that. And then item 7A, is the only, all the other comments that they've
36 added we'll be happy to comply with, there's no problem there, except 7A
37 and where we're talking about the tilt but we went through that. That was a
38 mislabeling, it is not painted, it is stucco finish like all the rest like we
39 discussed it. And that's mislabeling on that part. With that, I'll be happy
40 to answer any questions. I believe I'm right on that. Greg was there, isn't
41 that correct?
42
43 Greg Last: I believe that's it. The articulation would be in accordance with the fairly
44 detailed review that we went through on the first reading. They have made
45 dramatic attempts toward complying with that and are out a couple of
16 places, but the motion would be the same as previously discussed.
ID 32 3
McMahan: And we can meet those.
s
4 Edmondson: Yeah, and that's what I'd like to discuss and I called David earlier in the
5 day. When I reviewed the elevations that were submitted with this plan, I
6 found that they were quite different from the pretty pictures brought in the
7 last time, at least on certain sides. So, my question to you is, which one is
8 correct?
9
10 McMahan: Well, what we are proposing is the latest renderings that we have shown
11 you. If the differences exist, and there are some differences, it was our
12 understanding, this was our interpretation of what we all agreed that we
13 would do, along with another meeting we had in depth with staff to work
14 out some articulation problems that we had, and let's get into it. This, I
15 believe, was one of your concerns, Councilmember Edmondson, was the
16 west side.
17
18 Edmondson: Yes.
19
20 McMahan: So let's talk about that one, and let's look at. This was the original, here.
21 Let me just hold that. Now what we didn't, what the architect failed to do,
22 and he's been chastised for this, is that we let these flat canopies which we
23 agreed to replace with the bubble canopy. We will replace those with the
bubble canopy as we agreed to do. They're simply not shown there, but
25 other than that, I don't know that, I think it's pretty close to what we had
26 before. In fact...
27
28 Edmondson: All right, what about the issue of the relief in the concrete?
29
30 Scott Martin: On the color drawing, David, it shows some splayed lines that go out from
31 the center of this little arc, and yet they don't appear on the bluelines that
32 we received in this packet.
34 McMahan: Okay, I couldn't, I can't respond to that because I didn't see the blueline, I
35 apologize. But these will be reveals.
36
37 Martin: Okay, and inside those I think you still show this radial line, two or three
38 radial lines, right David? And...
39
40 Edmondson: You will do that on the building?
41
42 McMahan: It will look like this. Mr. Twitchell? I'm getting that confirmed there, but
43 will look like this, what we're showing you right here. So, I really don't
44 think it's that different, Ms. Edmondson, other than the canopy's not on it.
45
46 'mondson: Well, I think it was quite different.
IUb-33 4
McMahan: Really?
4 Edmondson: Yes.
5
6 Mayor Stacy: Do you like it better?
7
8 Edmondson: Oh, yeah, I like what I agreed to last week.
9
10 Twitchell: She didn't see what you held up, David. Here's...
11
12 McMahan: I'm having some real trouble seeing the difference.
13
14 Edmondson: No, look at your blueline.
15
16 Mayor Stacy: No, well the bluelines doesn't have the reveals on it, yeah.
17
18 Edmondson: Right, the blueline didn't have any of that.
19
20 McMahan: But this is what we presented in the pretty pictures you referred to.
21
22 Mayor Stacy: So...right.
23
vlcMahan: Now those that you have...
25
26 Edmondson: All right, now the northern elevation on the Tom Thumb building.
27
28 McMahan: Which elevation, I'm sorry?
29
30 Edmondson: Northern.
31
32 Mayor Stacy: The north.
33
34 Edmondson: All right, that one also was quite different in the submittal from what I
35 believed I was voting for last week based on this drawing, colored drawing.
36
37 Mayor Stacy: Did you vote on the pretty picture?
38
39 Edmondson: Right. This is...
40
41 Mayor Stacy: The pretty picture. In the work session this evening they explained to us
42 that the pretty picture is what's before us. The bluelines...
43
44 McMahan: The bluelines have been resubmitted.
45
16 tyor Stacy: I know.
5
IGD3<I
McMahan: But this is what, what we're presenting to you that we're going to do. This
is our intention right here.
4
5 Martin: Did our staff have copies of this?
6
7 GL: I'd like to as part of the motion hold those hostage until we get a set of
8 plans that complies with them.
9
10 Martin: Okay.
11
12 Edmondson: Oh, absolutely, because the elevations in here, particularly on the north and
13 west...
14
15 Ronnie Kendall: But can't we make our motion according to those drawing if we label the
16 drawings?
17
18 Mayor Stacy: Yes, ma'am. Certainly.
19
20 Martin: Yeah, but we just need them to be in Greg's possession.
21
22 GL: Yeah, they'll bring us a set of prints that match that...
23
McMahan: That's correct.
25
26 GL: ...in the next day or two, but I'd like to hold those until we get a set that
27 matches them.
28
29 Martin: Then they can have them back.
30
31 Mayor Stacy: We can actually number those drawings with this...
32
33 Kendall: Yeah, let's label them.
34
35 Edmondson: Rather than go over it point by point, let's just agree that the pretty pictures
36 will be part of the submission.
37
38 McMahan: That's fine. We have no problem with that. You bet.
39
40 Edmondson: Okay. All right, fine.
41
42 Mayor Stacy: Would you get her an extra copy of the pretty pictures?
43
44 Edmondson: I've got one.
45
46 yor Stacy: Okay.
6
ADD 35
Edmondson: That's how I noticed there was a difference.
j
4 Mayor Stacy: Then throw the blueline away.
5
6 Edmondson: All right, now, I know, I thought in our discussion, you had told me that
7 you were going, the 35' drive you said it was going to be reduced to a 30'?
8
9 McMahan: That one section? Yes.
10
11 Edmondson. Yeah, in front of the Tom Thumb. Right, you show it as a 35.
12
13 McMahan: I can't respond to that.
14
15 Mayor Stacy: Can you show me which one she's talking about on the wall here?
16
17 Twitchell ?: Yes. This is mislabeled, it does say 35, once again...well, actually it's 25'
18 fireline, lane. There, it could very well be, but that's got to be 30 then.
19
20 McMahan ?: That's just mislabeled.
21
22 Edmondson: That's what, okay, I wanted to check because you said you had dropped it
23 down to pick up...
25 Twitchell ?: We did that because we picked up more...
26
27 Edmondson: Right, greenery.
28
29 McMahan: ...area here, that allowed us to change the radius on the curb and you notice
30 that we put that in. In fact, this is a colored rendering of it. It gives you a
31 little more idea. And the area I will point out that staff was talking about,
32 the crosshatching, this is crosshatched differently in a different type of
33 crosshatching, than is over here, but that is planting material in there.
34 That's that comment.
35
36 GL: Councilmember, can I make sure I understand fully on the 35' issue. He
37 had committed on that drive that's in front of the building to go to 30, but it
38 was not your intent for the drive that intersects White Chapel to also be
39 reduced, is that correct, because the way they've got it set up allows for
40 three lanes, one in...
41
42 Edmondson: Right, right, he had just re...
43
44 GL: Okay.
45
7
Edmondson: And the only reason I bring it up is because it was the narrowing in that one
area that allows them to pick up some more green space.
4 McMahan: That's right, which we did, which we did. It was added to the islands,
5 essentially down here. Everything moved up and those were enlarged.
6
7 Edmondson: All right.
8
9 Kendall: But David, at our last meeting we talked about how this development was
10 going to increase traffic flow along White Chapel, and we talked about you
11 adding a third lane. Greg, is that something we should add to the motion?
12
13 GL: I'm sorry could you repeat it?
14
15 McMahan: Talking about, that we agreed to work with staff in widening this area
16 through here as a third lane, and that probably should be put in the motion.
17 I would agree with that.
18
19 Mayor Stacy: `Cause you've already donated the right -of -way for that.
20
21 McMahan: Yes.
22
23 GL: For the right -of -way, there won't be a right -of -way dedication, an
additional right -of -way dedication there. There is on the next item, on the
25 plat on the south corner. We did say that the additional pavement width
26 would be part of the future negotiation on the developer's agreement, and
27 he had committed to do that.
28
29 Kendall: Okay, so that's just going to be covering the developers agreement? Okay.
30
31 Martin: Greg, was that included... t
32
33 KPG: In the previous motion, yes.
34
35 Martin: ...that motion last was so complicated that was included in the previous
36 motion?
37
38 GL: I think we did include that in the motion where we just stated that...
39
40 Kendall: `Cause when I read it again I didn't see it.
41
42 GL: I think it was in there.
43
44 KPG: Yeah.
45
8
10b
GL: It needs to state something to the effect that negotiations related to
additional drive lanes will be done during the developers agreement.
4 Kendall: Okay. That's in there somewhere?
5
6 KPG: Yeah, it was working with city staff to...
7
8 GL: Yeah, their engineers were going to meet with our engineers to resolve to
9 the extent and length, but the actual fiscal obligation would be resolved
10 during the developers agreement. But I think that would be good to add to
11 the motion.
12
13 Edmondson: And then you also had agreed to provide shields to keep the lighting on
14 site.
15
16 McMahan: That's right.
17
18 Edmondson: Correct? Okay.
19
20 McMahan: We will comply with the ordinances, with your new ordinances you have
21 on lighting, and provide the shields.
22
23 Edmondson: The new ordinances in lighting, is that what you said?
25 McMahan: Um hmm.
26
27 Martin: We hadn't heard the new one.
28
29 McMahan: From this point in time.
30
31 Edmondson: Okay, because there is a new one coming, if you'd like to comply to that
32 one I'd be more than happy to accept that offer of compliance.
33
34 McMahan: I appreciate it, I think not, though, thank you. I do appreciate the
35 opportunity though.
36
37 Edmondson: All right, one other thing. What progress, if any, has been made regarding
38 the shutting down of the southernmost driveway along White Chapel?
39
40 Mayor Stacy: That I can confirm that through the city manager's efforts, the present
41 occupant has agreed to close that, I mean for us to close it, but he doesn't
42 want a median there.
43
44 Kendall: But he'd rather not have a median?
45
4u lyor Stacy: Right.
9
Job -38
Edmondson: He means right across the driveway there.
4 Mayor Stacy: We can close the southernmost driveway and it goes into Magic Mike's, as
5 a part of this road widening and so forth, and he can enter from the next
6 driveway if that's acceptable to the Tom Thumb people and everybody
7 else.
8
9 Martin: That's tremendous.
10
11 Edmondson: Great, wonderful.
12
13 McMahan: That is acceptable.
14
15 Kendall: Yes, that's wonderful. That's very good, `cause that was the driveway I
16 was the most concerned about in this whole property.
17
18 Edmondson: Now will that be a private thing, I mean a separate thing or will it into this
19 somehow?
20
21 Curtis Hawk: I think we need to just get their acquiesce to that.
22
23 McMahan: We've agreed, we have no problem with that. Once again, I have, we have
no authority...
25
26 Mayor Stacy: Correct.
27
28 McMahan: ...to say you can do it, we're saying we don't have a problem with it.
29
30 Edmondson: Okay.
31
32 Mayor Stacy: Mr. Farhat does not have a problem with it either as of today. Make it all
33 safer.
34
35 Edmondson: Wonderful. Good.
36
37 Mayor Stacy: All right, any other questions for Mr. McMahan? Thank you, sir. This is a
38 public hearing and I would like to open the public hearing at this time and
39 ask if there's anyone in the audience who would like to address the
40 Council? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.
41
42 Martin: David, I apologize, I'm making notes on this complicated motion. I forgot
43 to ask a question.
44
45 ''itcMahan: Sure.
46
10
10b fi
' Martin: I would it appreciate it if when you guys detail that west portion of the
Tom, I'm sorry, the east portion of the Tom Thumb that is north of, right,
the one that doesn't have an elevation, and you've agreed to duplicate the
4 detailing work that's around the west and the north side, right? Look at
5 that and see if you can come up with a canopy like the bubbles you're
6 going to do on the other side, break up that surface some so. There's such
7 a huge blank surface, and I think that will add enough emphasis to keep
8 people from looking behind the building as they drive by.
9
10 McMahan: I think I can commit to that. I will point out to you too, Councilmember
11 Martin, in the last meeting we had agreed and we added this and then
12 they'll be the trees planted and taller shrubs. These come out close to here.
13 So got a really thin sight corridor anyway, but yes we'll be happy to do it,
14 that's not a problem.
15
16 Martin: Thanks, that was all. You guys don't have any problem with the screening
17 of the mechanicals on top of the buildings, do you? It was just a general
18 note on the drawings, you all didn't ask for any relief from that.
19
20 McMahan: No.
21
22 Martin: Mr. Mayor, let me get all my numbers here. Mr. Mayor, I move we
?3 approve case ZA98 -156, pursuant to staff review letter No. 3 dated
2/2/99, the motion shall include all items in the previous motion, as well
2� as accepting the agreement on item 1B; on item 7A allow as shown,
26 accept the applicant's commitment that all tilt -wall will have an
27 applied stucco finish; 7B, accepting the applicant's commitment to
28 provide an elevation on the east facade of Tom Thumb, north of the
29 Eckerd's, typical of the west elevation of Tom Thumb; accepting the
30 applicant's commitment to revise the west side canopies to a domed
31 style; accepting the developers' agreement to construct the reveal,
32 painted accent areas, and domed canopies on that northeast section of
33 wall again, northeast of the Tom Thumb wall; revising item No. 3, let
34 me make sure I get this one right, requiring that the landscape
35 administrator agree to any placement of additional plant materials in
36 the no- disturbance zone in lieu of the 10' screening wall; and accepting
37 the applicant's commitment to comply completely with the vertical
38 articulation as at the last meeting; accepting the applicant's agreement
39 to leave with the staff the color renderings of the specific detailed
40 elevations for the design, detailing and materials used until subsequent
41 construction drawings are resubmitted; agreeing that the applicant
42 shall bring forward at the time of the developers agreement the plans
43 to extend the full middle turn lane to beyond the main entrance in
44 front of the existing Eckerd's store today with the transition lane going
45 further north from there.
4C
11
i n-1-I6
' Edmondson: Second.
McMahan: Mr. Mayor?
4
5 Mayor Stacy: Go ahead.
6
7 McMahan: `Cause we're missing something you guys want. Excuse me. And it
8 occurs to me, and we discussed this in work session, that Ben Henry
9 with the Park Department talked with us about relocating 8 of these
10 car parks, I said 7 in work session, I'm sorry it's wrong. We'd turn
11 these, we'd have 5 parallel here, the demsey dumpter moves down a
12 little bit, and then we would put those 8 here. I'm sorry, we did talk
13 about that, but, we agreed to do that so I think you might want to add
14 that.
15
16 Martin: I forgot, I forgot. Okay, I will amend my motion, acknowledging the
17 applicant's agreement to relocate 8 parking spaces from adjacent to
18 the tennis courts as indicated this evening to northwest quadrant of the
19 site and accepting the commitment to come up with an agreement with
20 staff for some partial use of our property.
21
22 Edmondson: Amended second.
23
7L: If I could offer one addition...
25
26 Martin: Okay.
27
28 GL: ...would be the verification that that drive along the front goes to 30' even
29 though the plan shows 35.
30
31 Martin: Yeah, and I so amend my motion that the drive will in fact be 30 and not 35
32 as shown on the drawing.
33
34 GL: Just for clarification so there's no confusion, on the parking that will
35 go to the north, that property, although being used for some park
36 improvements is not technically park property, but it's still okay to put
37 that use there.
38
39 Martin: Right, it is not technically park property. You're absolutely correct.
40
41 Mayor Stacy: Can I have one....
42
43 Martin: And also acknowledging, I'm sorry Mr. Mayor, that the triple lane entrance
44 shall not be affected by the reduction of the driveway. We'll still have the
45 three lanes off the middle of White Chapel. And further adding that the
4C applicant has agreed to work with the property owner to the south in the
12
JOD LII
corner to eliminate the south most driveway on White Chapel Road to the
west.
3
4 Edmondson: Amended second.
5
6 Mayor Stacy: I have one question. And it may be that I was listening too fast. On that
7 northeast corner that's north of the Eckerd's, did you include canopies?
8
9 Martin: I really asked them to consider that, Mayor.
10
11 Mayor Stacy: I heard them say they weren't going to put canopies over there because of
12 the dumpster or something.
13
14 McMahan: Excuse me, where?
15
16 Martin: On that side just north of Eckerd's. On that wall.
17
18 Mayor Stacy: The part that extends... right.
19
20 McMahan: Here, we said we would look at it. I do have a question. On working on
21 the driveway you were referring to this driveway?
22
7 Martin: I said the south -most driveway.
25 McMahan: You said going off to the west or coming to the west `cause I heard west at
26 the last, I want to make sure...
27
28 Mayor Stacy: The southernmost entrance then.
29
30 Martin: It accesses White Chapel west, onto that subject property.
31
32 McMahan: Okay.
33
34 Mayor Stacy: Okay, any other questions or suggestions to that complex...
35
36 GL: On the canopy north of the old Eckerd's building, is that at their option? Is
37 that something they're going to look at?
38
39 McMahan: We'll do it.
40
41 GL: Okay.
42
43 Mayor Stacy: Are you going to look at it or do it? Any other questions? Call for the
44 vote.
45
ndy Legrand: Councilmember Edmondson?
13
i0b -L12
Edmondson: Yes.
J
4 SL: Councilmember Evans?
5
6 Ralph Evans: Yes, ma'am.
7
8 SL: Councilmember Kendall?
9
10 Kendall: Yes.
11
12 SL: Councilmember Moffat?
13
14 Wayne Moffat: Yes, ma'am.
15
16 SL: Councilmember Martin?
17
18 Martin: Yes, ma'am.
19
20 SL: Mayor Stacy?
21
22 Mayor Stacy: Yes, ma'am. Approved 6 -0. Thank you. The next item is 7B, ZA98 -135,
Plat Revision for the same subject property...
14