Loading...
Item 4BCity of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM January 11, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, City Manager SUBJECT: Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Note that Thomas Drake, 1212 Westmont Drive, plans to speak at the meeting in regards to concerns he has with the Shops of Southlake development (see letters attached). Ken Baker and Rick Smith are following up on Mr. Drake's concerns and will provide you with an update. 4A. Mayor's Report. 1. Presentation to Senator Jane Nelson - The Mayor will make a presentation to Senator Nelson. 2. Proclamation to the Fort Worth Star Telegram - The Mayor will present a proclamation to a representative of the Star Telegram, Kelley Pledger, in celebration of the paper's 100 anniversary. 3. Proclamation to the Carroll Senior High School Football Team - The Mayor will present a proclamation to the Carroll Senior High School football team and coaching staff in recognition of their perfect season and their recent win of the Class 5A Division II State Championship game. 4C. Local Business Report. Costco Wholesale Marketing Manager Mike Hinojos will be presenting. 4D. Financial Report. A copy of the financial report for December 2005 is included in your packet. Our next sales tax collection (November sales) is scheduled for Friday, January 13, 2006. Staff is working diligently with the State to confirm October 2005 sales tax collection to ensure the proper amount was reported /remitted. Also, Tuesday, Sharen will give FYE 2005 -06 first quarter financial report which will include the sales tax report. Staff is prepared to do a presentation upon your request. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 2 of 22 Contact Sharen Jackson with questions on this item. 5A. Approve the minutes for the January 3, 2006, regular City Council meeting. Contact Lori Farwell with questions on this item. 5B. Consider excusing members of the City Council and of the Planning and Zoning Commission for absences from meetings. Councilmember Hill was absent on January 3 and Commissioner Robert Hudson was absent from the January 5 meeting. 5C. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Information Station Specialists, Inc. for the purchase and installation of an Alert AM Radio Station. In 1999, the City Council approved funding for an all - hazard comprehensive warning system. Available funding applied each year has produced a core program for the monitoring and early detection of impending hazards. Two additional components needed to finalize this system have been identified, the first of which is the alert AM radio station and the second is the outdoor warning sirens. The alert AM radio station will be a fully functional (voice only) non - commercial radio station owned and operated by the city at 790 AM. The radio station will be used to notify residents, businesses and visitors of impending danger, school closings, severe weather, upcoming events and other valuable community inforination. This station will compliment the future outdoor warning sirens. The total cost of the alert AM station is $25,845, all of which is funded by a grant from the Hudson Foundation. Contact Rick Smith or Chief Finn with questions on this item. 5D. and 5E. Authorize the Mavor to terminate the existing contract and to negotiate a new contract for the design and construction of a DPS facility between the City of Southlake and RPGA Design Group, Inc. and 5E. Authorize the Mayor to terminate the existing contract and to negotiate a new contract for the construction management of a DPS facility project between the City of Southlake and Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. The Matrix Consulting Group completed a management study of the Department of Public Safety in 2005. As part of this evaluation, the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 3 of 22 consultant examined existing and planned facilities. The resulting evaluation by the consultants questioned the planned location of the primary police facility. Since that time, staff has re- evaluated the planned location for the primary police facility with the involvement of both the Crime Control and Prevention District Board and City Council. It was decided that the best location of a primary police facility would be near the center of town instead of the north end of town. Due to the re- evaluation of site location for a new facility and the significant changes in the project, staff is recommending terminating the current contracts with both the architectural firm and the construction management firm. Staff believes that the selection process for both of these parties is still valid and wishes to re- negotiate new contracts with each party to proceed with the re- defined project. The Crime Control Board has agreed with this approach. Contact Rick Smith or Chief Goolsby with questions on this item. 5F. Resolution No. 05 -071 (ZA05- 13 1 )Specific Use Permit to allow sales from kiosks on property located in the Grand Avenue District, Southlake Town Square; described as Lots 4 and 5, Block 13, Southlake Town Square. Current Zoning: DT Downtown District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TABLED TO THE FEBRUARY 7, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 5G. ZA05 -145, Revised Site Plan for Southlake Corners — McAlister's Deli located at 100 North Kimball Avenue, at the northwest corner of East Southlake Boulevard and North Kimball Avenue. Current Zoning: C -3 General Commercial District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TABLED TO THE FEBRUARY 7, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 4 of 22 5H. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Waters Consulting Group to conduct a Compensation and Classification Stud. As mentioned to you during the budget work sessions in September, staff planned to hire a consultant to perform a thorough review of our employee pay plan, or compensation and classification system. The current system was developed in 1997 and it is time to thoroughly review the structure and compensation methodology against best practices, internal and external equity, durability and maintenance of the plan, etc. A Request for Proposals was sent to eleven firms. Three firms responded, with Waters Consulting Group being the lowest cost proposal, although still being above the budgeted amount. Jim Blagg and Kevin Hugman met with a senior consultant from WCG and through discussion of the project scope and negotiation, were able to reduce the project cost to $46,500. Funds were budgeted for the compensation and classification study at $38,000; however, there are also funds available originally budgeted for executive recruiting. Since we have conducted the last two executive searches with in -house expertise, it is unlikely we will need the funds for that purpose. Waters Consulting Group has extensive experience in human resources services, including compensation design and performance management development. Staff recommends approval of the professional services agreement with Waters Consulting Group to conduct a compensation and classification study in the amount of $46,500. Contact Kevin Hugman with questions on this item. 5I. Consider SPDC Matching Funds request from Southlake Baseball Association (SBA) for professional services for the conceptual planning and schematic design of the undeveloped west side of Bicentennial Park. The Southlake Baseball Association is requesting SPDC Matching Funds in the amount of $25,000 for professional services for the conceptual planning of the undeveloped west side of Bicentennial Park and schematic design to include a baseball complex, with consideration of general park design, and support facilities. The conceptual Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 5 of 22 planning will also take into account existing park development and remarks from the 2005 Parks, Recreation, and Master Plan Update. If approved, the request will allow for detailed layout and design development of ballfields for the west side of the park. This is the first step toward review of future considerations of private and public funding opportunities, park design review and approval, and project implementation and phasing. The professional services proposed as part of the request for matching funds will result in a final draft schematic design, preliminary opinion of probable construction cost based on current area, volume or other unit costs, corresponding recommendations for construction phasing for the park site, and a colored rendering of the schematic design plan. As with all major park designs, final plans will be presented to the appropriate Boards as well as City Council for recommendations and approvals. It is also anticipated that a work team consisting of SBA members, staff, and two representatives from the Parks Board will be assembled to coordinate with consultants on design development of this proposed project. Funding in the amount of $191,500 is available in the FY2005 -06 SPDC Matching Funds line item and representatives from the Southlake Baseball Association will be available at the meeting. Contact Steve Polasek with questions on this item. 5J. Consider entering into a professional services agreement with Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc., for the conceptual planning and schematic design of the undeveloped west side of Bicentennial Park. Consideration of this item assumes a favorable recommendation on the previous item. With over fifty years experience in planning, landscape design, and engineering services, Schrickel, Rollins, and Associates is recommended to perform the desired work based on their knowledge of park and ballfield design. Staff and members of the SBA Board of Directors met with Schrickel, Rollins and Associates to review with them the proposed scope of work and assess their credentials. Schrickel, Rollins, and Associates is a full service firm with a solid Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 6 of 22 reputation. They have designed and provided professional services on numerous high level athletic facilities in the area including Texas Star in Euless, Wagon Wheel Park in Coppell, C.P. Waggoner Park in Grand Prairie, Hurst Community Park (Tri- Cities Baseball), Roger Williams Ballpark (Weatherford College), and the TCU baseball facility. Proposed services to be provided by Schrickel, Rollins, and Associates includes conceptual planning and schematic design resulting in a final draft schematic design, preliminary opinion of probable construction costs based on current area, volume or other unit costs, corresponding recommendations for construction phasing for the park site, and a colored rendering of the schematic design plan. The proposed agreement for planning, design and engineering services is $44,000, with a supplementary amount of $6,000 for additional and reimbursable expenses to include geo- technical and site surveying. Parks Board recommended approval (9 -0) at their January 9 meeting. SPDC will consider this item immediately prior to City Council meeting on January 17. Contact Steve Polasek with questions on this item. 5K. Consider entering into a professional services agreement with Dunkin. Sims, Stoffels, Inc., for design and engineering of parkin lot of improvements at Bob Jones Park. Included in FY2005- 06 SPDC Capital Improvements Plan is $300,000 for the design and construction of additional parking at Bob Jones Park. The additional parking is anticipated to alleviate current parking shortages resulting from activities at the softball facilities, dog park, special events, and from general park use. Staff is recommending the firm of Dunkin, Sims, Stoffels, Inc., to perform the design and engineering services for the additional parking based on their prior work on the Bob Jones Softball facility. Dunkin, Sims, Stoffels previously demonstrated good presentation and communication skills, a strong desire to work with city staff, and professional plans resulting in a well designed project. Dunkin, Sims, Stoffels, Inc., is a well known firm in the Dallas /Fort Worth area. In addition to Bob Jones Park, they have completed numerous other park design projects in cities such as Desoto, The Colony, and McKinney, to name a few. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 7 of 22 Typical services to be provided by Dunkin, Sims, Stoffels as a part of the proposed contract include conceptual design, schematic design, construction documentation and specifications, cost estimation, assistance in pre -bid and pre - construction meetings, construction administration to include pay submittal review and progress analysis, shop drawing review, and responsibility for clarification of construction issues as needed. The proposed agreement for survey, design and engineering services is $24,700 or 9 % based on a projected construction budget of $270,000, with an additional $3,750 for reimbursable expenses to include printing, ADA review, and preparation of a SWPPP Plan. Architectural /Engineering fees for a project of this size, not including reimbursable expenses, typically range between 8% and 10 % of the construction budget. The Parks Board recommended approval (9 -0) at their January 9 meeting. SPDC will consider this item immediately prior to City Council meeting on January 17. Contact Steve Polasek with questions on this item. 5L. Consider names for the three (3) new public parks in Southlake Town Square development. As part of the development of Southlake Town Square, three new parks are anticipated to open to the public in 2006. Commonly referred to as Summit Park, State Street Park, and Plaza Park, the current park "names" were chosen based on their geographic location and proximity to adjoining streets, landmark (hill), or future landmark (plaza). In an effort to move forward with placement of park signage and dedication plaques staff seeks City Council consideration on the naming of the three new parks. A news release was issued advising the public of Parks Board intent to review this item at their January 9 meeting and inviting suggestions either during the meeting or via contact with staff. No input was received. The city procedure for naming or renaming park facilities establishes the following parameters for evaluating submissions: 1) a park facility may be named for a deceased individual(s) who has served the community; 2) a park facility may be named for any deceased local, state, Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 8 of 22 national, or international figure(s); 3) a park facility may be named for any local, state or national geographic area, landmark or event; and 4) a park facility may be named for any symbol or concept associated with the City of Southlake, the State of Texas, or the United States of America. The Parks Board reviewed this item at their January 9 meeting and recommended (7 -2)* the following park names: 1) Summit Park - located across from the Brownstones; 2) The Plaza at Town Square - located on Grand Avenue ( *two Board members favored Plaza Park); and 3) McPherson Park - located behind the new hotel. McPherson was selected in order to observe the sites' previous history as the McPherson homestead and farm. Both Cooper and Stebbins and Lou Ann Heath with the Southlake Historical Society have indicated support for the park names as recommended by the Board. Contact Steve Polasek with questions on this item. 7A. Ordinance No. 803 -A, 2nd Reading, Amend Chapter 2, Section 455(b), of the Southlake City Code to increase the number of members on the Public Art Advisory Committee from seven to ten, adding three citizen -at -large places. PUBLIC HEARING. This item is on your agenda for consideration as directed by Council at the December 6 meeting. This ordinance increases the number of citizen -at -large positions on the Public Art Advisory Committee from two to five for a total of ten committee members. Council approved 1s reading at its January 6 meeting. 7B. Resolution No. 06 -004, Appoint members to the Public Art Advisory Committee. Resulting from Council's action on the previous item, this committee has openings for three citizen -at- large members. Applications were received from Jenny Tilbury, Debbie Reid and Jane Flury and are included in your packet for consideration. Contact Lori Farwell with questions on this item. 7C. Ordinance No. 662 -13, 2nd Reading, Revise the City of Southlake's Drought Contingences to adopt the City of Fort Worth's Drought Contingency /Emergency Water Management Plan. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 9 of 22 PUBLIC HEARING. This ordinance revision is necessary to revise the City's "Drought Contingency Plan." In September, 2002, the City entered into a new water contract with the City of Fort Worth. As part of that contract, the City agreed to follow the City of Fort Worth's drought contingency plan, which the City is presently doing. In October 2004, the TCEQ amended the Texas Administrative Code requiring public water suppliers to submit a revised current drought contingency plan. In 2005, the City of Fort Worth submitted a revised current drought contingency plan to the TCEQ. To be in compliance with the City's water contract with the City of Fort Worth and the state law, the staff has prepared Ordinance 662 -B which adopts the City of Fort Worth's drought contingency plan. Once the ordinance is approved by the City Council, the City staff will submit the plan to the TCEQ. (Note that our practice is to comply with Fort Worth's plan. The ordinance update formalizes our compliance.) Council approved on first reading at its January 3 meeting. Contact Charlie Thomas with questions on this item. 7D. Ordinance No. 585 -C. 2nd Reading_ Tree Preservation Ordinance and Technical Manual. PUBLIC HEARING. Staff is proposing amendments to the city's tree preservation ordinance to implement the environmental resource protection recommendations of the Southlake 2025 Plan, the city's comprehensive master plan. The main changes include: • the establishment of a tree preservation policy; • requirements for tree conservation analyses and plans in conjunction with development applications; • incorporation of a tree technical manual in conjunction with the ordinance; • an increase in penalties for violation; and • clarification of approval and administrative authority. City Council approved the first reading (6 -0). Contact Ken Baker with any questions on this item. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 10 of 22 7E. Ordinance No. 480 -471, 2nd Reading (ZA05 -108), Zoning Change and Site Plan for Lots 2 and 3, Block A, Commerce Business Park, being approximately 4.24 acres located at 275 through 325 Commerce Street. Current Zoning: I -1 Light Industrial District. Requested Zoning: S -P -1 Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #7. PUBLIC HEARING. All buildings and improvements are existing. No new improvements are proposed. The purpose of this request is to allow specific retail uses as permitted uses in addition to the existing I -1 light industrial uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7 -0) subject to site plan review summary 91, dated October 14, 2005; recognizing the applicant's willingness to institute a reciprocal parking agreement; adding permitted uses that are itemized as attachment C but striking items 1 - health and physical fitness centers and gyms, 7 - sporting goods and 12 - indoor training school, and stating that the parking would have to meet city code. The City Council approved the first reading (5 -0) subject to the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; recognizing the applicant's agreement to meet with staff before the second reading on parking ratios and specific uses; requiring the reciprocal parking agreement to run with the land; and recognizing the applicant's agreement to upgrade landscaping if necessary. For retail /showroom uses, the applicant is proposing a parking ratio of 1 space per 600 square feet of floor area. All other permitted manufacturing, warehouse, office or commercial school uses shall default to the City's parking regulations. If the two buildings are divided into retail /showroom and warehouse uses, this ratio would permit up to 43,000 square feet of retail /showroom floor area with the remaining 45,000 square feet being warehouse space. The City Council tabled the second reading with direction to propose a landscape plan to improve the appearance along the Commerce Street. A landscape plan proposing replacement of nine trees for a total of sixteen adjacent to Commerce Street is included as page 2 of Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 11 of 22 attachment `C' in the staff report. The plan proposes a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees to provide color contrast. Contact Ken Baker with questions on this item. 7F. Resolution No. 05 -062 (ZA05 -123) Specific Use Permit to allow a kennel — Dirty DawRzz Enterprises located at 2155 West Southlake Boulevard. Current Zoning: C -3 General Commercial District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. PUBLIC HEARING. This Specific Use Permit is being requested for a lease space within the far eastern retail strip building northeast of Hobby Lobby within the Southlake Market Place shopping center. The purpose of the specific use permit is to allow for a self -serve dog wash and spa. Although there are no boarding facilities proposed, the City's definition for a kennel includes the activities of grooming. Therefore, a specific use permit is required. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial (6 -1 Boutte). Because this is not a change in a zoning district boundary or regulation, a super - majority vote is not required for Council approval. A simple majority is required for approval. This item appeared before the City Council on November 1, 2005 and was tabled to allow the applicant the opportunity to bring additional photos of their other stores. Additional photographs of their facility is included as part of attachment `C in the staff report. Contact Ken Baker with questions on this item. 7G. Resolution No. 06 -005, (ZA05 -137) Specific Use Permit for telecommunications antenna and ent — XM Radio at 340 Miron Drive. Current Zoning: B -1 Business Service Park District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. PUBLIC HEARING. XM Satellite Radio, Inc. is requesting approval of a specific use permit for a communications antenna and ancillary equipment cabinet. The purpose of the request is to add: 1) an XM parabolic antenna, a KU -Band dish, and a panel antenna on the monopole tower; and 2) an equipment cabinet on the ground within the tower compound. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 12 of 22 The following variances are being requested: • Number of Buildings — No more than 3 separate equipment buildings are permitted on a single lot. The applicant is proposing to add an additional equipment cabinet making the total to be 1 equipment building and 4 cabinets at the facility. • Dish Mounted on Monopole — No microwave dish or similar device shall be mounted on the pole portion of a monopole telecommunications tower. The applicant is proposing that two (2) parabolic dishes be mounted to the pole portion of the monopole tower. • Screening & Bufferyards — Tower facilities shall be enclosed by an eight (8) foot, solid screening fence or masonry wall or a wrought iron fence with an eight (8) foot evergreen hedge, and shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the tower compound from any public roadway or any property used for a residential purpose. Where abutting public land, public streets, or land designated as low or medium density residential shall provide screening as required in an "1 bufferyard. The applicant is proposing that the existing plantings and screening be permitted along with additional plant material proposed along the street frontage of the site. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7 -0) subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated December 2, 2005; requiring a landscape plan presented to the City Council; granting variances to allow a microwave or similar dish on a monopole structure and allowing more than three equipment buildings as proposed, and allowing the screening as proposed with the addition of an evergreen plant screen facing Miron Drive. A landscape plan is included as part of attachment `C' in the staff report. The plan proposes Nellie Stevens Hollies planted at a height of 6 to 8 feet along the Miron Drive street frontage of the equipment compound. Contact Ken Baker with questions on this item. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 13 of 22 7H. Resolution No. 06 -006, (ZA05 -138) Specific Use Permit for telecommunications antenna and equipment — XM Radio at 3700 North White Chapel Boulevard. Current Zoning: CS Communily Service District. SPIN Neighborhood #1. PUBLIC HEARING. XM Satellite Radio, Inc. is requesting approval of a specific use permit for a communications antenna and equipment cabinet. The purpose of the request is to add: 1) an XM parabolic antenna and a KU -Band dish on a 20 -foot pole; 2) a panel antenna approximately 250 -feet high on the tower; and 3) an equipment cabinet on the ground within the tower compound. The following variance is being requested: • Number of Buildings — No more than 3 separate equipment buildings is permitted on a single lot. The applicant is proposing to add a 6th equipment shelter. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7 -0) on December 8, 2005 subject to Concept Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated December 2, 2005; granting the requested variance for number of equipment buildings and noting the approval is contingent to the screening described in the previous approval for case ZA03 -089, "...requiring installation of an opaque screening material on the entry gates and requiring an evergreen screening material such as a holly and not red - tipped photinias." A landscape plan improving the effectiveness of the evergreen screening required around the equipment compound is included as part of attachment `C' of the staff report. As noted on the plan, the Eleagnus shrubs currently along the N. White Chapel frontage and north boundary of the compound area are to be replaced with Nellie Stevens Hollies planted 5 feet on center at a height of 6 to 8 feet. The Eleagnus shrubs are to be relocated along the south and west compound boundaries. Contact Ken Baker with questions on this item. 7I. Ordinance No. 480 -474, 2 nd Reading, (ZA05 -091) Zoning Change and Concept Plan for Stonebridge Park, Phase II, being approximately 12.27 acres located at 2502 West Southlake Boulevard. Current Zoning: AG Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 14 of 22 Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #15. PUBLIC HEARING. This plan proposes six new office and six new retail /office buildings totaling approximately 61,650 square feet. Under the S -P -2 zoning the applicant proposes the following (see Attachment C): • C -2 local - retail commercial district uses and development regulations on lots 1 through 4, adjacent to West Southlake Boulevard, to exclude the following uses: drugstores; frozen food lockers, grocery stores and meat markets, cafeterias, fast food, and take -out food restaurants, and tires, batteries, and automobile accessory sales; • 0-1 office district uses and development regulations on lots 5 through 10; • Parking - A parking ratio of one space per 193 square feet of building area for the entire site; • Screening — A 6 foot wrought iron fence along the specified lot boundaries; • Bufferyards — Bufferyards along interior lot lines shall not be required; and • Parking — Required parking shall be permitted along the public street right -of -way. The following variances are being requested: • Public street row — minimum 60 feet required, 40 feet R.O.W. with 30 feet pavement width is proposed; • Driveway stacking — minimum 28 feet & 50 feet required, 20 feet for drives and 0 feet for parking adjacent to the street is proposed; • Driveway spacing to intersection — Minimum 500 feet required on FM 1709. 263 feet proposed; and • Street frontage — all lots must front on public street - -lot 10 fronts on common access easement. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6 -1) on December 8, 2005 subject to concept plan review summary #3, dated November 11, 2005 and allowing a cross access easement to the property on the east, extending sidewalks to the north; wrought iron fencing on the north and west sides, lighting will be as presented and granting the requested Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 15 of 22 variances. Vice - Chairman Boutte dissented feeling that this should be done as a transition zoning district in accordance with the Southlake 2025 plan T -1 optional land use designation. The City Council approved the first reading of this item noting that due to the fact this development is consistent with the development to the east and has low impervious coverage ratio and subject to the following: 1) concept plan review summary no. 3, dated November 11, 2005; 2) requiring conformance with the architectural and lighting standards as shown on attachment `G' in the staff report; 3) subject to the recommendations of the planning and zoning commission; 4) eliminating retail use on lots 3 and 4; 5) requiring that any certificate of occupancy be contingent upon review and approval by city council of the landscaping plan; 6) requiring the reorientation of the buildings on lots 1 and 2 prior to second reading; 7) requiring a cross access parking agreement; 8) acknowledging the developer's commitment that the pond shown on the plan will be a retention pond and will be an aesthetic feature of the development. A revised plan showing re- orientation of the buildings along West Southlake Boulevard is included in attachment "C" of the staff report. Due to the re- orientation of the west building fronting West Southlake Boulevard, a variance is needed to the minimum 40 foot setback required by the residential adjacency overlay regulations. Contact Ken Baker with questions on this item. 7J. Ordinance No. 480 -475, 2nd Reading, (ZA05 -139) Zoning Change for 940 North Peytonville Avenue. Current Zoning: AG Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: SF-IA Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood 912. PUBLIC HEARING. The purpose of this request is to change zoning on 2.81 acres to allow for construction of two single family residential homes. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 16 of 22 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7 -0) on December 8. The City Council approved the first reading of the zoning change (6 -0) on January 3, 2006. Contact Ken Baker with questions on this item. 7K. ZA05 -140, Plat Showing for Lots 9 and 10, A.A. Freeman No. 522 Addition located at 940 North Peytonville Avenue. Current Zoning: AG Agricultural District. Proposed Zoning: SF-IA Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood 412. This is the plat associated with the previous agenda item. The plat proposes two single family residential lots averaging 1.29 acres each. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7 -0) subject to the plat review summary. Contact Ken Baker with questions on this item. 7L. Ordinance No. 480 -476, 2 nd Reading, (ZA05 -124) Zoning Change and Revised Concept Plan for Watermark at Southlake located at 2809 West Southlake Boulevard. Current Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District, AG Agricultural District, and SF-IA Single Family Residential District. Requested Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #15. PUBLIC HEARING. This is a proposal to modify the existing zoning and concept plan for the former Remington senior living complex located on the south side of West Southlake Boulevard, west of Davis Boulevard. The proposal adds approximately 11 acres to the site and compares to the original zoning as follows: Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Gross/Net Acreage 22.56 acres 33.53 acres Total Units 314 units 337 units • Cottages (Villas) 42 units 85 units • Condos (Retirement Res.) 41 units 152 units • Personal Care 90 units 60 units Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 17 of 22 • Memory/Nursing 141 units 40 units Density 14 du /acre 10 du /acre The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7 -0) on December 8, subject to concept plan review summary #3, dated December 2, 2005 to include the following accessory uses: beauty salon, restaurant, limited sundries, bank, and chapel services. Also, understanding that this will conform to the architectural renderings as presented with the ratios of building materials as presented and suggesting to the applicant that he have streetscape renderings available for presentation to City Council and recognizing the applicant has agreed to connect sewer to the adjacent Presbyterian Church property. The City Council approved the first reading January 3, 2006 subject to the following: 1) concept plan review summary #3, dated December 2, 2005; 2) subject to recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; 3) substituting the permitted uses with the new list of permitted uses provided to Council this evening and limiting the "rental guest rooms" to a maximum of two units in the clubhouse; 4) noting that the project does not meet the land use plan, which the City Council tries to follow as closely as possible, but with the following justifications: 11 additional acres were added under an SP zoning, the serious need for and the addition of senior living in Southlake which currently does not have any, the articulation and the plan in general are of an extraordinarily high quality, the developer is undertaking to connect sewer to the church property next door and is a real public service to connect to that church, this is a much better design and a much better development than the previously approved plan at this location, it includes a unique aspect of senior living which is a fee simple ownership aspect which will add value in terms of the city's tax rolls and in terms of the seniors who will live there, and keeps in place the age restriction of 62. Contact Ken Baker with any questions on this item. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 18 of 22 7M. ZA05 -144, Preliminary Plat for proposed Lots 1 -4, Block A and Lots 1 -3, Block B, Watermark at Southlake located at 2809 West Southlake Boulevard. Current Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District, AG Agricultural District, and SF -lA Single Family Residential District. Proposed Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #15. This is the plat associated with the Watermark retirement project proposing seven lots and one public collector street. Two lots totaling approximately totaling approximately 3.8 acres are proposed for public park dedication. A recommendation for acceptance of the dedication in lieu of park dedication fees was approved by the Park Board. The far northwest lot includes an existing home on property zoned "SF-IA." The far south lot fronting Union Church is zoned "AG" and is to remain undeveloped. This lot is a remainder of the parent tract not intended for development at this time. The subdivision ordinance requires that all property being subdivided be included in the plat. Because this remainder tract does not meet the minimum lot area for an "AG" zoned lot, the plat review summary stipulates that no final platting or development can occur until an appropriate change of zoning is approved on this property Contact Ken Baker with questions on this item. 7N. Ordinance No. 892, Consider all matters incident and related to the issuance and sale of "City of Southlake, Texas, Tax and Waterworks and Sewer System Limited Pledge) Revenue Certificates of Obligation, Series 2006," including the adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of such certificates of obligation to fund streets and drainage capital improvements, including the purchase of land and rights -of -way. PUBLIC HEARING. On December 6, 2005, the Council approved Resolution No. 05 -075. This authorized the publication of a notice in the newspaper of the city's intent to issue approximately $6.0 million in certificates of obligation. The certificates are issued and approved by adoption of an ordinance. Approval of Ordinance No. 892 will set in motion the legal requirements to obtain the proceeds. After approval, the legal documents must be reviewed by the Texas Attorney General's Office. The City would receive funding in mid February. The proceeds from the bonds will be used for street and storm drainage capital improvement projects. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 19 of 22 The debt will be repaid through the City's ad valorem tax rate. The proceeds from the bonds will be used to fund the approved projects in the FY2004 -05 and FY2005 -06 capital improvement budget. This item requires only one reading with a public hearing. Contact Sharen Jackson with questions on this item. 70. Resolution No. 06 -007, Consider all matters incident and related to the issuance and sale of " Southlake Parks Development Corporation Sales Tax Subordinate Lien Revenue Bonds, Series 2006," including the adoption of a resolution authorizing the issuance of such bonds to fund park improvements including acquisition of additional park land. PUBLIC HEARING. If you recall on September 20, 2005, City Council approved the 2005 -06 Capital Improvement Plan. This agenda item is related to the funding requirements to fund the projects included in the plan. Approval of this resolution authorizes SPDC to issue $4,690,000 sales tax subordinate lien revenue bonds. The SPDC Board held a public hearing on the project on January 17, 2005 prior to the regular City Council meeting. After approval, the legal documents must be reviewed by the Texas Attorney General's Office. The City would receive funding in mid - February. The bonds will be repaid through the half -cent sales tax. Contact Sharen Jackson with questions on this item. 7P. ZA05 -156, Site Plan for The Shops at Southlake — Building A3, located at the southeast corner of East Southlake Boulevard and South Carroll Avenue. Current Zoning: S -P -2 Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. PUBLIC HEARING. The purpose of this site plan is to receive approval of the architectural building elevations for the minor anchor building directly east of Central Market. The building fagade appears to be in keeping with the previous site approval of the Shops of Southlake. A variance to articulation on the east west and south fagade is requested. Also, the applicant is proposing more than 80% use of concrete tilt wall with a stucco type textured paint finish on the south and east facades. It should be noted that exposure of the east fagade is temporary. A future building is planned to be added to the east wall which will conceal this fagade. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 20 of 22 January 5, 2006; approved (6 -0) subject to site plan review summary 41, dated December 30, 2005; 1) granting the requested variances for articulation and exterior materials; 2) limiting time period of variance to three years on east side; and 3) accepting the applicant's willingness to appropriately screen the patio area on the west side. A landscape and screening plan for the courtyard area between proposed building A -3 and the Central Market is included as part of attachment "C" and "Y' in the staff report. Contact Ken Baker with questions on this item. 10A. Consider amending the Grand Avenue Developer's Agreement. In 2000 -01, the developer constructed and installed steel casing (the "sleeve ") across SH 114 east of Carroll Avenue at a cost to the developer of $80,636. The sleeve was installed in advance of the widening of Hwy 114 to reduce potential cost related to boring underneath the highway to construct the N -4 sewer line. The N -4 currently serves the northern half of Town Square as well as other properties in the N -4 area. Ordinance No. 657 -A, section 15A states that the "City may offset the present value of any system- related facilities, pursuant to rules established in this section, which have been dedicated and received by the City, including the value of capital improvements constructed pursuant to an agreement with the City, against the value of the impact fee due for that category of capital improvement." The developer has requested a credit on sewer impact fees as a method of reimbursement in the amount of $80,636. The developer has also requested waiver of water impact fees for all public irrigation meters. Note that neither the city nor the TIF fund would be required to pay the water impact fees of $35,598. On March 1, 2005 City Council approved the Commercial Developer's Agreement for Town Square Phase IV, Grand Avenue. In summary, the developer requested the following amendments: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 21 of 22 1. Full credit for Grand Avenue wastewater impact fee of approximately $75,146 with remaining credit of $5,490 to be applied to future development utilizing the N -4 sewer system. 2. Waive all water impact fees for three public irrigation meters, a cost of $35,598. Contact Sharen Jackson with questions. 11A. Design elements and opinion of probable costs for the public park proposed within the Shops of Southlake development. Recall that we continue to work with the developer of the Shops of Southlake development toward the dedication and development of a proposed public park (tentatively known as Central Park) in the development. Further research on the proposed fountain by the landscape architect for the developer has identified issues that would warrant evaluation of alternative fountain providers. The purpose of this discussion item will be to solicit feedback from Councilmembers regarding the proposed design of Central Park, selection of an alternative fountain provider, and anticipated costs for all park improvements. Staff is planning to bring forward to you on February 7 the following items: 1) consideration of the final design for the proposed public park, 2) consideration of a Chapter 380 Agreement providing economic development incentives, 3) consideration of the final developer's agreement for the Shops of Southlake, and 4) consideration of the underground utilities placement. Contact Greg Last with questions on park and 380 agreement items or Charlie Thomas with questions on the Developer's agreement or underground utilities. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST 1. Reminders — • City offices will be closed on Monday, January 16 in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest City Council Meeting January 17, 2006 Page 22 of 22 • City Council work session will be February 13, 4:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (place to be determined). More information to follow. • The next 50 Planning Committee meeting will be Thursday, January 19, 7:00 p.m. in rooms 3A and 313. SKY Staff Direct Phone Numbers: Baker, Ken, Director of Planning, 748 -8067 Blagg, Jim, Assistant City Manager, 748 -8601 Farwell, Lori, City Secretary, 748 -8016 Finn, Robert, Fire Chief, 748 -8168 Goolsby, Wade, Police Chief, 748 -8120 Hugman, Kevin, Director of Human Resources, 748 -8193 Jackson, Sharen, Finance Director, 748 -8042 Last, Greg, Director of Economic Development, 748 -8037 Polasek, Steve, Director Community Services, 748 -8021 Smith, Rick, Director of DPS, 748 -8108 Thatcher, Ben, Assistant to the City Manager, 748 -8005 Thomas, Charlie, Interim Director Public Works, 748 -8089 Yelverton, Shana, City Manager, 748 -8001 12I2 Westmont Drive Southlake, TX 76092 (817) 251 -8614 teddrake@aot.com RECEIVED January 11, 2006 Mayor, City of Southlake, Texas JAN 1 1 All Members of the City Council All Members of Planning & Zoning OFFICE OF CITY SECRETARY New problems arise with the Shops of Southlake all the time. They are raising the grade of the land to an extremely high level. A review of their building plans indicates they are raising the Central Market building 5' on the east side and 9' on the west side above the original grade. I have been to virtually every public meeting on this (as most of you are aware) and I heard NOTHING about significantly changing the original grade of the land. Some questions are: Did any of you know about this? Did you grant permission to significantly raise the grade or is it being done without approval? Shouldn't we (City Council, P &Z, and property owners) have been notified of this? What are the remedies? Mr. Palmer apparently kept this as has "dirty little secret ". One of the problems with keeping secrets is you sometimes inadvertently keep them from people who have a "need to know ". One person Mr. Palmer apparently forgot to tell was his acoustical engineer who did the noise study dated September 12, 2005. On page 2 of the acoustic study, the engineer states that the grade level at our properties was about equal to or up to 2' higher than the pavement at the proposed facility. Mr. Palmer raised the roadway pavement 3' -5' and didn't tell him. The roadway is now 3' higher than our property line. This affects the acoustic wall. The engineer states on page 6 that the noise barrier should be "at least 14' high as measured from the driveway pavement elevation". But since our property line is now 3' below the driveway pavement elevation, the 14' fence is only 11' above it. In a memorandum dated September 13, 2005, the engineer gives examples of expected noise levels for walls or 14', 12', 10', and 8'. An 11' wall gives a noise level of 58.5 dBA for one passing tractor - trailer and 57 dBA for the refrigeration condensers. Since dBA are logarithmic, 58.5 dBA equals a noise level approximately 225% of the 55 dBA limit allowed at night and on Sunday. The 57 dBA equals a noise level approximately 160% of the 55 dBA limit. Additionally, on page 6 of the study, the engineer states that the 14' wall should extend east from Carroll Avenue to "about the plane of east face of the east -most condensing unit" before beginning the step down. The engineer drawings show the step down beginning at least 18' short (west) of the east face of the east -most condenser. The total affect of these deviations from the acoustic study are cumulative. The only way to determine how cumulative is to conduct a new acoustic study based on the raised roadway and the raised condensers. Lastly, the disagreement of where to measure the noise levels to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance seems to be raising its head again. I thought we ironed this out at the City Council meeting on October 4, 2005 but a conversation with Mr. Palmer at a recent Planning & Zoning meeting indicates his understanding of what was agree to is totally different from mine. I have prepared a letter asking the Director of DPS to issue an opinion on this matter. A copy will be sent to you for your review. In short, the devil is in the details and the details indicate there are problems with the fence, and possibly the fair enforcement of the noise ordinance. If the noise ordinance is not going to be fairly interpreted, I will withdraw my consent for a waiver to the 8' fence limits that are normally invoked. This in no way implies I would agree to a waiver to the noise ordinance. I look forward to speaking at the City Council meeting on January 17 to explain these issues in greater detail. Sincerely, RECEIVED Thomas E. Drake JAM 1 1 7006 OFFICE OF CIS SECRETARY RECEIVED SAN X05 1212 Westmont Drive Southlake, TX 76092 (817) 251 -8614 januar 11, 2oo6 OFFICE OF CITY SECRETARY teddrake @aolxorn Director, Southlake Department of Public Safety 2100 W. Southlake Blvd, Southlake, TX 76092 The purpose of this letter is to get an interpretation of where noise is measured in enforcing the Noise Ordinance. I live directly behind where the new Central Market development is now being constructed. They know they are going to produce a large amount of noise coming primarily from diesel trucks making deliveries and large refrigeration condensers. The developers plan to construct a 14' noise wall at the property line to block some of the noise and they say this will put them in compliance with the ordinance. The developers appear to understand most aspects of the noise ordinance but there is some confusion about just where the noise levels are measured in enforcing the ordinance. The Code Enforcement Department says they usually measure the noise "at the property line ". This appears to be a "technique" rather than a "required procedure" and is not required or written anywhere in the noise ordinance. The intent under normal circumstances, in my opinion, is if the noise levels of the ordinance are satisfied at the property line, then as you more back from the property line farther away from the noise source, the noise levels would be even lower due to the "distance propagation" (the farther away you are from a noise source, the less you hear it). This is a reasonable interpretation from the perspective of the owners of the property receiving the noise since it means that the noise levels required by the noise ordinance are realized within the property lines of their entire property. In our case, however, there is going to be a 14' wall "on the property line ". It will be the only one this high in the city. If the noise is only measured "on the property line" directly behind this wall, the wall could create a noise blind spot (a lengthy "sound proof booth type affect", if you will) that would limit noise directly behind the wall but not farther up into our property as the noise "rolls" over the top of the wall. This could create the affect of meeting the noise ordinance requirements directly behind the wall on the receiving property side but not meeting it anywhere else on the property. I do not believe this is the intent of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to protect the citizens as is outlined in the preamble to Ordinance No. 778, which created the Noise Ordinance as partially quoted below. "Whereas, the city council recognizes that some noises are of such volume, intensity or duration as to constitute a danger to the -physical health of persons or a breach of the peace, quiet, and solitude to which citizens are entitled" (my emphasis added); ".. � " CU�CL "Whereas, the city council declares such noises to be a nuisance and desires to prohibit such nuisances." "Now, Therefore..." the noise ordinance follows. Additionally, Noise Ordinance section 11 -60 Definitions (9) states: "Ithumediate vicinity means any distance within 100' of the noise souwe a withill property line of the parcel or lot upon which the source of noise is emanating" (my emphasis added), "whichever is the greater distance from the noise source." Section 11 -61 offenses (b): Noise Nuisance. A person shall not create, permit or continue any excessive or unnecessary noise of a volume, intensity, repetitiveness or duration that is clearly audible and disturbs, annoys, or endangers the calm, comfort, quiet, repose, health, peace or safety of persons of ordinary sensibilities beyond ft immediate vicinity (my emphasis added) "of the noise. Such noise shall be a violation of this Article." Notice this does not say "within the immediate vicinity" or "on the boundary of the immediate vicinity ", but "beyond the immediate vicinity ". Section 11 -61 Offenses © Prima Facie Violation. The following acts of noise are - prima facie evidence of a violation ofthis Article. (12) Conduction or permitting any activity that produces a dBA level ©nd the imrrrediate vic' (my emphasis added) "that exceeds the dBA levels specified in table L" Again note this does not say "within the immediate vicinity" or "on the boundary of the immediate vicinity ", but "beyond the immediate vicinity". This is important. To illustrate this point: S'u lrryc - 1 48"PeX 7-Y 491rx+ n Ne- yr . : 1rrr � � r�fcr�v.rY now can you possibly tell if noise is being received "beyond the immediate vicinity of the noise" if you don't measure for it "beyond the immediate vie of the noise"? In order to clv* where noise levels are measured to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance, I request you issue a written interpretation that states that noise measurements can and should be taken at various, multiple locations on the property receiving noise, as determined by the property owner, in order to insure that the noise levels required by the noise ordinance are met at all locations within the property lines of the property receiving noise hgend the immediate vicin of the noise. Thank you. Sincerely, Thomas E. Drake RECEIVED JAN 1 1 M OFFICE OF CITY SECRETARY