1999-08-03REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
667 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
AUGUST 3, 1999
MINUTES
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rick Stacy; Mayor Pro Tem Gary Fawks;
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Ronnie Kendall. Members: Patsy DuPre and Rex Potter.
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Debra Edmondson and Wayne Moffat.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Billy Campbell; Assistant City Manager Shana
Yelverton; Assistant to the City Manager Shelli Siemer; Director of Public Safety
Garland Wilson; Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman; Director of Economic
Development Greg Last; Director of Public Works Ron Harper; Deputy Director of
Public Works Charlie Thomas; Capital Projects Coordinator Shawn Poe; Interim Director
of Planning and Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy; Public Works Manager Michael
Patterson; City Attorney E. Allen Taylor Jr; and, City Secretary Sandra L. LeGrand.
WORK SESSION: The work session was called to order by Mayor Rick Stacy at 5:40
p.m. Councilmembers and staff discussed items on the agenda. The work session was
video taped and recorded for future reference. The following items were discussed:
Senior Planner Chris Carpenter commented on the SH 114 Enhancements. Mr.
Carpenter stated, "We have a reasonable time to get the materials for the
enhancements." He stated he has ordered sample materials and they should be
delivered shortly.
Agenda Item #5-C, NETS Scope of Services Agreement. Mayor Stacy asked Kevin
Hugman about the dates of the agreement. Mr. Hugman said the City has had the
service all fiscal year, however, the agreement has not been approved by the City
Council. He stated the service has been provided by NETS and is not provided by
anyone else. He said, "We have told NETS that we would pay for the service for this
fiscal year." Council agreed they would study this issue prior to approval in the FY
1999-2000 Budget.
10-A. Commercial Developer Agreement with the developer of Gateway Plaza.
Developer of Woodland Properties, Terry Wilkinson, presented the developer
agreement for Gateway Plaza. Wilkinson stated there are additional issues he would
like for Council to consider. In the roadway impact fees, they have had some
significant costs in relation to that road. One item is the cost of redesigning and
building Dr. Tate's parking lot for a cost of just over $100,000 in order to bring this
back into compliance with the current ordinances. For doing that, all the developer is
getting is the right-of-way. The developer has also requested that the city pay the
"oversizing" cost in the amount of $61,408 for the construction of Gateway Drive.
RegularCityCouncilMeetingMinutesofAugust3,1999 Pagel of 20
The street will be constructed to 48 feet width as required by the City rather than the
36 feet width. The developer has also requested City participation in the sewer main
extension. He would like to be reimbursed for the F.M. 1709 bore in the amount of
$33,250. The developer will pay for one-half of the cost of the traffic signal now
being installed at Commerce Street and F.M. 1709, in the amount of $48,404.
Councilmember Rex Potter asked what the normal procedure is for reimbursement to the
developer. Mayor Stacy replied that it is normal for the city to be asked to participate in
things that are oversized or needed to take care of other properties.
Director of Public Works Ron Harper stated, "Our position regarding crediting the
oversizing for the actual construct costs against roadway impact fees, which are fairly
substantial for this project, is that that is probably not a bad deal and we told the
developer earlier today that we would support him on that. Regarding the extra land and
the things he has to do for Dr. Tate, he is on his own on that one and staff is not going to
take a position on that issue. Staff does not have an opinion on that because it is
something staff has not mn across in the past." Harper stated, "In so far as the oversizing
and the other request to pay for the bore on F.M. 1709, as the city is asking him to do that
in order to get a lift station off-line, we think that is legitimate and staff supports that."
Councilmember Patsy DuPre stated, "I made the same phone call and I feel the difference
between the 36-ft. and 48-ft. roadway was not an unreasonable request because the city
asked for it. Regarding the issue with boring under F.M. 1709, I'm not so sure about it
because it is not something we typically do. Grant it, it is to help the city with the lift
station, but didn't we also accelerate our program in order to allow Gateway to start their
developing?" Harper stated, "It is almost like they are related, but not related." Harper
said, "By boring underneath F.M. 1709, we would be doing it at some point in time
anyway."
Terry Wilkinson stated the City fees in this project will be somewhere around $900,000
and anything the Council can give credit toward would be appreciated. He stated he is
asking for total impact fees of $163,800; off-site sewer as contained in the Developer
Agreement; the cost of the bore is $33,250; the traffic signal he has agreed to pay is
$48,404.52 and the only other item is the water impact fees for the 16 living units in the
amount of $14,400. The total request is for $210,650.
Councilmember Rex Potter asked about the portals on SH 114 and F.M. 1709. Wilkinson
stated they would provide water and electricity to the portal.
Agenda Item #10-B, Commercial Developer Agreement for The Remington Addition.
Assistant Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas reviewed this item with the
Council. It was determined that it would be discussed during the regular agenda.
Councilmembers decided that Items #9-A, #9-B, #10-A, and #10C, would be added to the
consent agenda.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 2 of 20
The work session ended at 6:50 p.m.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Agenda Item #l-A, Call to Order
Mayor Rick Stacy called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. The
City Council meeting will be video taped and tape recorded for future reference and are
hereby made a part of the record.
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 Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas
Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.073, 551.074, 551.075, 551.076, to
seek consultation with the City Attorney regarding pending and contemplated litigations,
to deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease or sale of real property, a negotiated contract
for a prospective gift or donation to the City, to deliberate the appointments and
evaluation of public officials, to confer with one or more employees to receive
information from or to question the employees, and to deliberate the deployment of
specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devices.
Council adjourned into executive session at 6:53 p.m.
Council returned to open session at 7:45 p.m.
Agenda Item #2-B, Action Necessary/Executive Session
Motion was made to authorize staffto proceed with negotiations to purchase property as
discussed during the executive session and that it be in accordance with Council
discussion.
Motion: Kendall
Second: Potter
Ayes: Kendall, Potter, Fawks, DuPre, and Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0 vote
Agenda Item #3, Invocation
The invocation was given by Father Frank Reeves, St. Martin-In-The-Fields Episcopal
Church. Father Reeves is serving as chaplain for the month of August in the City of
Southlake. Father Reeves stated the church is blessed to be a part of the City of
Southlake. He stated there are about 750 members and are in a building that will hold
about 200 people. They are scheduled to build a new building in 2002 that will hold
about 550 people. It will have an 85' bell tower and will look very English and in
reflection with their English heritage.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 3 of 20
Agenda Item #4-A, Mayor's Report
Mayor Stacy made the following announcements:
August 4, 1999 at the Pavilion at Town Square there will be a Pep Rally honoring the
Southlake Dragons Baseball team. This is a boys baseball team of 9 and 10 year olds
who are in the Mustange League World Series. This is the first time that a Southlake
team out of the Pony Baseball League has made it to the World Series. It so happens
that this year the series will be played in Irving, Texas.
,/ August 10, 1999, at City Hall will be a budget work session for Fiscal Year 1999-
2000 budget.
August 12, 1999, will be the annual Metroplex Teen Court Banquet. It will be held at
the Trophy Club Country Club fi.om 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. If Councilmembers are
interested in attending please let the City Secretary know to make arrangements.
August 12, 1999 at the Senior Activity Center will be a Joint City Council and SPIN
meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmember Patsy DuPre reported that she attended a conference last week for
Municipal Government and staff regarding ways staff and councils can work together.
She stated there were Councils and City Managers present from as far away as Oregon
and Maine and as close as Houston. While the conference was for small cities, there
were some larger cities represented. She stated she came back with some ideas and asked
the Assistant City Manager to help her do a retreat after the budget process is over and
the schedule is not as busy as it is right now.
Councilmember Du Pre informed Councilmembers of the reception to be held on
September 2, 1999, at the Harvey Hotel, whereby the North Texas Commission is
presenting Johnny Johnson, who was appointed to the Texas Transportation Commission,
by Governor Bush. DuPre stated she feels it is important that the City of Southlake be
represented at meetings such as this because of the issues we have going in Southlake
with the Transportation Commission.
Agenda Item #4-B, City Manager's Report
City Manager Billy Campbell pointed out some other dates that Council may want to note
regarding the meetings with the school district and the TIF issue: Tuesday, prior to the
budget work session, a TIF meeting will be held with consideration of the TIF Finance
Plan and projects, and on Thursday, August 17, there will be a regular City Council
meeting and the second reading of the TIF ordinance to approve the Plan and Financing
Plan and participation agreements with the CISD.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 4 of 20
Mr. Campbell congratulated Charlie Thomas on the work that he did on the sewer
system, in Agenda Item #10-B, stating that he did the project in a timely fashion and did
a good job. Campbell stated he appreciated it.
Capital Projects Coordinator Shawn Poe gave an update on traffic improvements for FM
1709 and SH 114. Mr. Poe stated he met with Roy Parikh and Abed Abukar of the
TxDOT Fort Worth District Traffic Division on July 9, 1999. The purpose of the
meeting was to evaluate the traffic during the morning peak time at North Kimball and
SH 114 and to discuss several potential improvements along F.M. 1709 as specified in
Resolution No. 99-33, which was approved by the City Council on May 18, 1999. These
potential improvements include dual right-turn lanes for northbound traffic on North
Kimball turning eastbound on SH 114, dual left-turn lanes for eastbound traffic on F.M.
1709 turning northbound onto North Kimball Avenue and permissive left turns at
signalized F.M. 1709 intersections. He stated they were very receptive to allowing the
City to install the improvements for the dual right-tm lanes for northbound traffic on
North Kimball turning eastbound on SH 114. However, the dual right-turn lanes will only
be available during the morning peak hours. The City would be responsible for the cost
and installation of a neon sign on the mast arm that indicates dual right turning
movements during the morning peak hours. The cost of the neon sign and installation is
estimated to be between $10,000 and $12,000. Poe stated staff recommends the concept
of the dual right-mm lanes in the morning peak hours since traffic counts indicate minor
right turning movements compared to through and left turning movements at the
intersection during the afternoon and evening peak times.
Shawn Poe stated, "As for the dual left turning lanes for eastbound traffic on F.M. 1709
taming northbound onto North Kimball Avenue, TxDOT would be willing to allow these
improvements as they are warranted. Signal timing improvements were made to the
traffic light at F.M. 1709 and Kimball. The protected left turn arrow for traffic eastbound
on F.M. 1709 turning left onto Kimball operates twice during each phase rather than
once. This allows more left turning movements onto Kimball during each phase. Field
observations indicate that the signal timing changes to the traffic might adequately handle
the morning peak traffic turning left onto Kimball from eastbound F.M. 1709. TxDOT
indicated that as traffic turning left onto Kimball from eastbound F.M. 1709 increases
because more emphasis is placed on this route to SH 114 rather than continuing to the
Wall Street bridge, the dual left mm lanes on F.M. 1709 will be a evaluated further."
Staff has concerns with TxDOT's rationale since the capacity is being met now with the
recent signal timing changes. Mr. Poe stated he discussed the possibility of TxDOT
allowing the permissive left-tm movement at the signalized intersections along F.M.
1709. TxDOT will be performing field observations within the next few weeks during
various times of the day to evaluate the need for the permissive left-turn movement. Poe
stated he suggested that the only intersection that should remain as a protected left-turn
intersection is Davis Blvd. and F.M. 1709 due to the skewed intersection and high rate of
accidents that have occurred in the past at the intersection. It was mentioned that there
may be need to conduct a travel speed study along F.M. 1709 to determine the average
speed of 85% of the vehicles that travel along F.M. 1709. It was also suggested that if
TxDOT allows the permissive left turns, the City would be required to submit to TxDOT
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 5 of 20
a monthly report documenting the amount of accidents that have occurred at the
signalized intersections following the signal change. These reports will be compared
with the existing data that the City has on past accidents at the intersections. If the
accident rate increases substantially and can be attributed to the permissive left-turning
movement, TxDOT would then change the left-tm signal to protected. They informed
Mr. Poe that TxDOT plans to respond in writing to the letter that was sent by the City
addressing these issues within the next few weeks.
Shawn Poe reported on the easements for the Cross Timber Hills neighborhood sewer
project stating that of the 64 easements, there were still 16 to acquire. He noted that
after the easements are acquired, the start date would take eight months. The sewer
hook-up at the property line will be at the homeowner's schedule.
Agenda Item #4-C, SPIN Report
Wayne Haney, SPIN #15, 400 Brock Drive, Southlake. Mr. Haney reported that the level
of activity in his SPIN area has risen with the construction projects that are currently
going on. He referenced The Remington Retirement Center, Chesapeake Subdivision,
Primrose School on Davis Boulevard, Net Church, and the Southlake Church of Christ.
Haney noted the construction on Union Church and Pearson roads, the Jellico Estates
sewer project, the second water storage tank on F.M. 1709 and Pearson. He stated he
feels there is a place for SPIN in the community and mentioned how it has help to resolve
"little" issues before they go to the Council.
Mayor Stacy asked Mr. Haney about the Royal and Annie Smith Park and if there had
been issues about that? Mr. Haney stated the lighted tennis court was an issue, but not
now. Haney asked about the progress on Michael Drive, and asked if anything is going
on there. He added, "Improving Michael Drive will improve the quality of life."
Agenda Item #5, Consent Agenda
Mayor Stacy stated this is the time of the evening when Council votes on several items at
one time. He informed citizens present of the procedure Council follows in voting on the
"Consent Agenda" and asked if anyone had any comments or opposition to express
regarding any items listed in this section of the agenda. Mayor Stacy read the consent
agenda items into the record, stating Councilmembers will be adding Items #9-A, #9-B,
#10-A, and #10-C.
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the July 20, 1999 City Council meeting.
5-B. Authorize the Mayor to execute the second amendment of the TRA of Texas, City
of Southlake Interim Diversionary Agreement.
5-C. Authorize the Mayor to execute a NETS Scope of Services Agreement.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 6 of 20
~-' 5-D. Request for approval to purchase software and radio equipment for the upgrade of
the SCADA System.
5-E. Award of bid for elevators for Town Hall.
5-F. Award of bid for structural steel for Town Hall.
5-G. Authorize staff to negotiate a consultant contract for the Traffic Management
Bond Program with HNTB.
Award of bid to Pate Brothers Construction, Inc. for the construction of a sanitary
sewer force main along Dove Street from Lonesome Dove Avenue to Kirkwood
Boulevard.
Award of bid to Sunmount Corporation for the reconstruction of Dove Street from
SH 114 to North White Chapel Boulevard and the reconstruction of Highland
Street fi'om Shady Oaks Drive to North White Chapel Boulevard.
Resolution No. 99-60, Urging the Texas Transportation Commission to fund local
transportation improvements (SH 114 and US 377); to direct staff to continue to
work with Metroport Transportation Partnership to ensure the timely development
of these improvements.
9-B. Resolution No. 99-61, In support of widening and improvements to SH 26 at the
request of City of Colleyville.
10-A. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a commercial developer agreement with the
developer of Gateway Plaza.
10-C. Sanitary sewer service and sewer mains for Countryside Bible Church, Barton
House and Christian Men's Network.
Motion was made to approve the consent agenda including Items #5-A through #5-1, Item
#9-A, #9-B, #10-A, as presented by staff in work session, changing the amotmt for the
street oversizing to $61,804; adding the amotmt of 75% of the cost of acquiring and
improvement right-of-way on Dr. Tate's property up to a maximum of $77,000, and
$14,400 for water impact credit for the sixteen meters, and $33,250 for the bore and to
not forget the developer's contribution in the traffic signal and including the developer's
commitment to bring the space, water and electricity to the portals; and, approving Item
#10-C.
Motion: Fawks
Second: Potter
Ayes: Fawks, Potter, Kendall, DuPre, and Staey
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0 vote
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 7 of 20
Mayor Stacy thanked the staff for working with the developer in providing sewer
to that part of town.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of July 20, 1999.
The minutes were approved as presented.
Authorization for the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment of the Trinity
River Authority of Texas, City of Southlake Interim Diversionary Agreement. The
major changes in the second amendment of the TRA, City of Southlake Interim
Diversionary Agreement are: 1) Article 1, Section 1 & 2 Change the date for
completion from November 30, 1998 to November 30, 2003; and 2) Article III,
section F, the addition of maximum flow rates for the following years:
Daily Average Flow (MGD)
FY 99 0.93
FY 00 0.98
FY 01 1.03
FY 02 1.08
FY 03 1.13
FY 04 0.00
A copy of the memorandum from Director of Public Works Ron Harper, dated
July 30, 1999, is hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting.
Authorize the Mayor to enter into a scope of services agreement with the YMCA
of Metropolitan Fort Worth to provide on-call transportation through the
Northeast Transportation Service (NETS). The YMCA of Metropolitan Fort
Worth, through the Northeast Transportation Services (NETS), provides on-call
transportation service for Southlake residents who are disabled, are senior
citizens, or otherwise qualify for the service as defined by the Americans with
Disabilities Act and/or Section 9 of the Federal and State funding guidelines.
NETS will provide service, in priority order, to and from health care providers,
human service agencies, recreational centers and work in addition to limited home
and personal need transportation to the grocery store, bank, drug store etc.
Transportation services beyond medical needs are limited due to a finite operating
budget. The cost of service as proposed by NETS is $8,425 ($.50 per capita per
resident based on population figures provided by NETS) for service beginning
October 1, 1998 and ending September 39, 1999. Funding in the amount of
$8,425 is allocated in the fiscal year 1998-99 Community Services Department
General Fund operating budget.
Approval to purchase software and radio equipment for the upgrade of the
SCADA system. During the budget process of fiscal year 98-99 staff requested to
upgrade this computer monitoring and control equipment to provide efficient and
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 8 of 20
effective control of this vital operation. The request was approved in that process.
Through research of this project it was determined that for the cost effectiveness
and functionality of the system, it would be best to integrate this system with the
water monitoring system. This equipment is proprietary in nature and is sole
source from our present vendor. Cost of implementation is $55,000. Funds were
included in the FY 98-99 budget.
Award of bid for structural steel for Town Hall. The low bidder for the structural
steel is Irwin Steel in the total amount of $933,845.98. The estimate prepared by
our Construction Management consultant (the Beck Company) was
$1,063,313.28.
Authorize staff to negotiate a consultant contract for the Traffic Management
Bond program with HNTB. On May 1, 1999 the voters of the City approved a
$24.17 million bond program for traffic, intersections, SH 114 enhancement and
trail projects. Staff sent out requests for proposals to twelve consulting engineers.
The purpose of the RFP was to seek the most qualified consultants to perform the
engineering services for the 1709 intersection improvements and the trail
construction. The City received nine proposals. Staff short-listed the responses
on June 25. Presentations were made to a selection committee on July 22, 1999.
The committee consisted of Councilmembers Kendall and DuPre, and Deputy
Director Thomas and Director Harper. The committee met after the presentations
and selected HNTB as the most qualified firm based on specific experience in this
type of program.
Award of bid to Pate Brothers Construction, Inc., for the construction of a
sanitary sewer force main along Dove Street, from Lonesome Dove Avenue to
KirkwoodBoulevard. The installation of a lift station on Lonesome Dove Avenue
and the construction of a sanitary sewer force main from the lift station to
Kirkwood Boulevard is included in the City's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. The
lift station and force main is required to pump the sanitary sewer, which is
generated from the northeast region of the city, to Kirkwood Boulevard. The
sanitary sewer then flows in a gravity sewer line along Kirkwood Boulevard, to
the TRA lift station on North White Chapel Boulevard. Currently the estimated
engineering and construction cost shown in the CIP budget is $1,747,500 of
which $617,700 plans to be allocated in the FY 99-00 budget. The estimated
$1,747,500 included the cost to engineer and construct the lift station at
Lonesome Dove, the force main along Dove Street, and the gravity sewer line
along Kirkwood Boulevard. The construction cost for the lift station at Lonesome
Dove and the gravity sewer line along Kirkwood Boulevard totals a $782,278.
The engineering for all three projects totals $160,576.21. Low bid was from Pate
Brothers Construction, Inc., Fort Worth, in the amount of $1,100,278.30. In
negotiating with the property owners along Dove Street, the City purchased
several easements. The total cost of the easements were $27,185. Therefore the
entire engineering, fight-of-way, and construction cost for all three projects totals
$2,080,317.51, which is $332,817.51 over the budgeted amount. The additional
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 9 of 20
5-I.
costs required to construct the force main along Dove Street can be funded by
either adding the amount to the FY 99-00 budget or using available flmds that
exist from projects that were below budget.
Award of bM to Sunmount Corporation for the Reconstruction of West Dove
Street, from SH 114 to North White Chapel Boulevard, and the reconstruction of
West Highland Street from Shady Oaks to North White Chapel Boulevard. These
projects were originally estimated in the FY 1996-97 budget, however, during the
budget in subsequent years, the estimated construction of the project was adjusted
to reflect the anticipated increase in cost due to inflation and the construction
market. Currently, the estimated engineering and construction cost shown in the
CIP budget is $611,480. The estimated costs included the cost to engineer and
reconstruct West Dove, from SH 114 to North White Chapel, and West Highland
from Shady Oaks to North White Chapel. The engineering for both projects totals
$43,278. The low bid was from Sunmount Corporation of Roanoke in the amount
of $539,137. The City paid $196,118 for the required right-of-way. The entire
engineering, right-of-way, and construction cost for both projects totals $778,533,
which is $167,053 over the budgeted amount.
Resolution No. 99~60, A Resolution of the City of Southlake, urging the Texas
Transportation Commission to fund local transportation improvements to direct
staff to continue to work with Metroport Transportation Partnership to ensure the
timely development of these improvements and providing an effective date. (SH
114 and US 377). On September 24, 1999, the Metroport Cities Partnership led a
delegation to appear before the Texas Transportation Commission to advocate
improvements to the following sections of roadway:
· State Highway 114; Dove Road to Carroll Avenue
· State Highway 114; SH 170 to Precinct Line Road
· U.S. 377; F.M. 1709 to SH 170.
The commission did identify Priority 1 Level of Authority for the segment of SH
114, between Dove Road and Carroll Avenue, but did not act on the remainder
segments. The purpose of this resolution is to continue to urge advanced levels of
authority for the remaining segment ofSH 114 as well as U.S. 377 from Keller to
SH 170. Several cities of the Metroport Cities Partnership, as well as Chambers
of Commerce and business entities, are passing similar resolutions.
Resolution No. 99-61, In support of widening and improvements to SH 26 at the
request of the City of Colleyville. Brumlow Avenue is the only major feeder
road to SH 26 for Southlake citizens. In recent months, Brumlow has become
heavily used by motorists traveling to SH 26 from Continental Boulevard. It is
anticipated that traffic will double over the next several years with the completion
of Timarron's Warwick Green at Continental and Bmmlow and the CISD's plans
for additional schools and a stadium in the area. The City of Colleyville has
supported every request we have made to TxDOT regarding our projects, the most
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 10 of 20
recent one our petition to the Texas Transportation Commission September 24,
1999 concerning SH 114.
10-A.
Authorize the Mayor to enter into a commercial developer agreement with the
developer of Gateway Plaza. The terms of this developer agreement were
discussed in detail during the work session at tonight's meeting.
10-C.
Sanitary Sewer Service and Sewer Mains for Countryside Bible Church, Barton
House and Christian Men's Network. For the past few weeks the City staff has
been meeting with property owners along Countryside Court off North White
· Chapel Boulevard regarding the construction of a lift station and force mains
along North White Chapel Boulevard, to serve the property owned by
Countryside Bible Church, Barton House, Christian Men's Network and Wayne
Lee. The project was initiated as staff was searching for alternatives to
development in that area utilizing septic systems. An agreement has been worked
out with the property owners mentioned above to accomplish the installation of
the lift station, force main and gravity mains. The estimated cost of the
engineering and construction is $169,000. The property owners have agreed to
participate in the following percentages based upon need:
Uncommon Care (Barton House) 29.6% $50,000
Countryside Bible Church 20.7% $35,000
Christian Men's Network 20.7% $35,000
Wayne Lee 14.8% $25,000
City of Southlake 14.2% $24,000
The City's participation of $24,000 is equal to thirty percent (30%) of $80,000,
which is the estimated cost of the lift station and force mains and 14.2% of the
total construction cost including engineering. The City will serve as the escrow
agent and contract for the engineering, but the property owners will contract with
a contractor for the construction. These commitments are predicated upon the
principal that the actual cost does not exceed 10% of the estimated cost of
$169,000 and the construction can be completed within the next five months.
Agenda Item #6-A, Public Forum
Carolyn Morris, 403 St. Charles Court, Southlake, President of Dominion Homeowners
Association. Ms. Morris thanked Shawn Poe for working through the drainage issues
with the homeowners of Dominion Estates.
Agenda Item #6-B, Report from Freese and Nichols on South Kirkwood Branch
Drainage
A representative from Freese and Nichols made a report on the South Fork Kirkwood
Branch Drainage Plan. Three plans have been developed to modify the South Fork
Kirkwood Branch channel to allow it to safely pass the increased discharges with
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 11 of 20
minimal impact on the stream habitat. Plan 1 represents the least amount of structural
improvements and it does not prevent continued erosion of the stream, which has indirect
negative impact to the environment. On the other hand, the channelization of Plan 3
would be more appropriate for a highly urban environment. At this time, Freese and
Nichols recommends proceeding with Stream Management Plan 2, which consists of a
balance of structural and non-structural approaches. Recommendations based upon a
ranking of need are given in the next section of this report for Stream Management Place
2. This approach will allow the City of Southlake to prioritize improvements throughout
the City as other drainage basins are studied and rankings established.
A copy of the report entitled South Fork Kirkwood Branch Phase 2 Master Drainage Plan
dated August, 1999, is hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting.
Director of Public Works Ron Harper stated staff will be bringing forward some of the
recommendations as they continue with the Drainage Master Plan as has been done over
the last couple of years.
Agenda Item #8-A, Ordinance No. 480-316, 1st Reading, (ZA 99-036)
Ordinance No. 480-316, 1st Reading, (ZA 99-036), Rezoning and Site Plan for a proposed
office building on Miron Drive, on property legally described as Lot 3R3, Block 1, Miron
Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the
plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 3901 Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being
approximately 0.96134 acres. Current zoning is "B-I" Business Service Park District,
with a requested zoning of "S-P-I" Detailed Site Plan District with "O-1" Office District
uses. Applicant: Dwayne Young & Company. Owner: Government Capital
Corporation.
Senior Planner Chris Carpenter presented case ZA 99-036, stating twelve (12) notices
were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and four (4) responses
were received from the following: Pat Morgan, 210 Westwood Drive, Southake,
undecided; Scott Stalets, 1316 Westmont Circle, Southlake, opposed; Richard Edington,
general partner, Santa Fe Properties, 365 Miron Drive, Suite A, Southlake, undecide&
and Jerry Adcock, 204 Westwood Drive, Southlake, opposed.
Councilmember Gary Fawks asked whether the existing zoning, which is "B-l," or the
proposed zoning, was more restrictive in nature? Karen Gandy replied, "In terms of uses,
the more restrictive would be the in "B-I." We do have some requirements because we
do have potential to have some light manufacturing and that type of thing. The zoning
that the applicant is proposing is strictly a general office, so staff felt that we were better
served with going with office, which tends to be much more compatible to the residential
adjacency."
Fawks asked how far it encroaches into the 4:1 slope. Ms. Gandy stated if they were to
comply with the 4:1 slope, they would be in the neighborhood of a 75' setback from the
property line. In response to the neighborhood's concerns about the two-story structure,
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 12 of 20
it is a single story structure and there will be no windows to the residences to the east.
Ms. Gandy stated the applicant has tried to comply with the concerns of the residences.
Fawks asked, if this were "SF-1A" and they were building a big house on it, how close to
the property line would they be able to build the house? Gandy replied, "It would be the
rear yard so it would be a minimum of 40 feet."
Dewayne Young, applicant, North Richland Hills. Mr. Young stated they want to put the
building where it is because it is the best use of the land. When we began the design
process, we tried to match it with the other things that were there. The other issue of why
we wanted to put the building back there was because of the trees. He stated if the
building was put in another location, they would be clear-cutting the trees. He said it was
designed as far back as it could, to try and go around the trees. We redesigned the
parking area around the trees. Mr. Young stated the tree survey is overlayed on the
plans.
Councilmember Rex Potter asked, "How is crushed rock saving the trees? I'm not
understanding." Mr. Young stated, "The Landscape Architect is studying this and trying
to put the best thing around the trees so as not to kill the roots."
Councilmember Ronnie Kendall stated she understands the justification for all the
variances they are asking for but one, and that is the articulation, which she asked Mr.
Young to explain.
Mr. Young stated in his opinion the articulation ordinance was designed to create more
attractive strip shopping centers and it is great for that, but when it applies to a single
building, it is really convoluted. "We have gone over the articulation alot." He said they
had met the spirit of the articulation ordinance by having an attractive building with alot
of articulation. He stated if Council wants to require them to put a dormer (three
dormers) on the building, they will be glad to, but they do not think they need to as it is
just a technicality.
It was noted that on July 22, 1999 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved (6-0)
this item subject to the Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated July 16, 1999, deleting
Items #1 (required rear yard setback), #2 (building articulation), #3.a (parking
requirements), 3A.c (not requiring an all-surface materials but giving applicant leeway to
study appropriate materials--possibly Haydite blocks--before going to the City Council)
and #4 (dumpster location); requiring that the garage be for personal auto use only (cars,
small trucks, SUVs); requiring back porch to be made of wood as depicted; requiring an
8' fence with the pretty side (the side with no rails or posts) towards the homeowners;
requiring applicant to save trees as shown on the new plan; maintaining the landscaping
in perpetuity; restricting the deck size to be no larger than what is depicted giving the
applicant leeway to shift the actual layout of the deck but not increasing the size;
restricting the washing or repairing of vehicles in the driveway; giving the applicant
leeway in placement of irrigation systems and requiring the applicant to only maintain
plants they are putting in place, keeping in mind preservation issues.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 13 of 20
Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-316, 1st reading, (ZA 99-036), subject
to the Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 4, dated July 30, 1999, subject to the
action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their July 22, 1999, meeting.
Motion: DuPre
Second: Kendall
Ayes: DuPre, Kendall, Potter, Fawks, and Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0 vote
Agenda Item gl0-B, Commercial Developer Agreement for The Remington
Addition
Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas presented the commercial Developer
Agreement for The Remington Addition, stating, the developer is requesting
reimbursement from the City for the sewer impact fees collected for properties which
contribute sewage to this line installed by Remington and reimbursement for oversizing
in accordance with City policy. He stated, the developer is also requesting the City
provide alternative credits and reimburse him the inspection fee for street construction in
the amount of $72,815 as City participation, since the development is having to build the
entire street; although the adjacent property owner will abut the fight-of-way on the west
side and have full access to the new roadway. The developer is also requesting
reimbursement by the City for the cost of the deceleration lane on F.M. 1709 that is
required by the City. Mr. Thomas noted that if the City Council chooses to approve this
participation in the street construction, the participation can be accomplished with no
cash money by the City. It was noted that on July 12, 1999 the Park Board voted to
credit the developer the required park fees as noted:
· Natural and unmaintained open space totaling 1.5 acres. This land is contiguous to
the south side of West Southlake. Using the private value multiplier, the requested
credit amounts to $45,000.
· Three (3) courtyard areas in the development. Using the private value multiplier, the
requested credit amounts to $12,000.
· 2,300 feet of trail with four foot (4') width along the south side of West Southlake
Boulevard. Using the private value multiplier, the requested credit amounts to
$10,000.
· Two (2) gazebos, $3,000 requested credit using the private value multiplier.
· Eight (8) benches, $400 requested credit using the private value multiplier.
Diana Hansen, Lifestyles Incorporated, 800 West Southlake Boulevard, Southlake. Ms.
Hansen stated she is disappointed that the City Council would not credit them for the
impact fees, since they have always considered this project more residential than
commercial and without this credit there would be no way for them to recoup their
investment from the surrounding property owners without redesigning the entire project.
She stated this is unfortunate but they did understand the decision and regret it and need
for Council to consider them commercial. "We ask that Council approve the Developer
Agreement with the request for the $72,815 reimbursement removed."
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 14 of 20
Councilmember Fawks asked if Ms. Hansen understood that Council was not anxious to
participate in the cost of the deceleration lane and asked if that was included in the
$72,815. Ms. Hansen said what they asked for originally was $53,600 and $9,100 in City
inspection fees and $35,000 for the deceleration lane. After negotiations with staff, they
were told to not even ask for the $35,000, so they just asked for the $72,815.
Mayor Stacy asked Ms. Hansen to explain to Council why they feel they should get the
$72,815. Ms. Hansen stated, "We feel we are more residential than commercial, because
we had a special zoning, and in the zoning book, we have already zoned assisted living
and nursing as commercial. But independent living is residential, since we have more
multi-family (independent living) which is multi-family than assisted living and we felt
we had an option to ask for residential. We were told originally that the street would be a
minor collector and with all of that we felt it would be on the Thoroughfare Plan, we felt
we should ask. Had we known that this would not be a minor collector street, we would
have asked for a 50' right-of-way and requested that Council let them build a 31'
residential street." The difference is ten additional feet of right-of-way of approximately
14,009 linear feet and another six feet of roadway which they are going to have to build
and the impact fees. "We are essentially providing all the land and absorbing all the costs
and it's for the publics' benefit. That is the reason you get impact fees is because we are
going to build this road and stub it to the end of our property and whoever buys this other
piece of property is going to get to stub onto our road and driving on our road and we are
paying all the costs. By asking to be reimbursed on impact fees we can recoup some of
our costs. We are asking for 35 or 40 percent of the costs and credit on city inspection
fees. We were going to provide the deceleration lane ourselves."
Councilmember Patsy DuPre asked for comments from staffon this issue for the record.
Director of Public Works Ron Harper responded, "As discussed earlier, the request here
is that the City provide out-of-pocket expenses to absorb some of their costs, and as you
know from the time you have been on Council and the other developer agreements that
we have done, Council has often been willing to provide credits toward impact fees,
however, we have been reluctant to write checks or pay for certain improvements. They
have requested that the impact fees be credited, and that is part of this agreement. In the
past we have been very reluctant to write checks to assist in development; however,
previous councils have been willing to credit impact fees, whereas this request is asking
the City to contribute dollars."
Ms. Hansen stated if Council is reluctant to write a check, they would be more than
willing to accept credits.
Councilmember Fawks stated with the roadway improvements they are making and with
the deceleration lane, that is common. Development around this community pay the bill
for these type improvements, and the City does not participate in the type project that she
is asking Council to do. He stated he has no problem that they came forward and asked,
but he wanted to make the point clear that this is not the way the city typically does this,
and if we would, we would be setting a course of action.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 15 of 20
Mayor Stacy commented that the real difference is that our staff believes in their hearts
that roadway is the appropriate width, whether or not it goes through, just to service this
development. They believe that the category of development that they have, should have
the 36-ft. width.
Councilmember Ronnie Kendall stated in her mind, that they are a "for profit"
organization and she considers them commercial.
Motion was made to approve the Commercial Developer Agreement removing the
requested $72,815 reimbursement.
Motion: Potter
Second: DuPre
Ayes: Potter, Fawks, Kendall, DuPre, and Stacy
Nays: None
Approved: 5-0 vote
Councilmember Gary Fawks stepped down for Agenda Item #10-D, citing conflict of
interest with this item.
Agenda Item #10-D, Accepting the Planning and Zoning Commissions'
recommendation to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision of substantial
conformance to the Board of Adjustments
Mayor Rick Stacy said it has been recommended to the Council by the Planning and
Zoning Commission that Council discuss or attempt to appeal to the Zoning Board of
Adjustments a decision made by the Zoning Administrator on this particular case. The
Mayor stated this is a very unusual situation and nothing like this has ever been requested
before. This item was discussed earlier and our City Attorney wishes to make comments
regarding this issue.
City Attorney E. Allen Taylor, Jr., stated, "A prior Council approved a development plan
in an S-P type zoning in 1996 on this particular property. That development plan fell
through and a new development plan has been presented to the City staff. One iteration
of it, that was presented, did not meet the concept plan approved in the original zoning
and therefore, the staff rejected it. A revised concept plan was submitted to the staff in
May and Ms. Gandy, Zoning Administrator, reviewed it in conformance with the text of
the ordinance, and the concept plan approved in 1996 at the original approval stage and
she has made a determination that the revised plan is in substantial conformance to the
concept plan approved in the original zoning case. That is the requirement to allow the
case to proceed for further processing. The case was presented to the Planning and
Zoning Commission at their last meeting and apparently a number of citizens addressed
the commission expressing concerns that the changes that were made altered the
character of the project quite significantly. After some discussion, the Planning and
Zoning Commission made a motion to recommend that the City Council appeal the
decision of the Zoning Administrator, that the revised plan was in substantial
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 16 of 20
conformance to the original zoning approval. The matter has now been placed on the
Council agenda as it came from a board or commission of the City. I am looking at the
matter at the staff level, the concern that staff has that this might create far more
difficulty than it could possibly solve from the City, and I want to outline two specific
concerns from the City Attorney's office. 1) This is not a matter that is presently before
the City Council, but it is a matter that will ultimately have to come to the City Council,
whatever the ultimate resolution is, if any further use of this property is to be made the
development plans will have to be submitted to you, and you will have to meet your
federal and state constitutional requirements to give a fair, objective hearing to the
applicant for that review. For this Council to take the position that they, as a body, would
go forward and appeal the Zoning Administrator's determination of compliance at this
stage, before you have seen it or had any evidence presented, would leave the impression,
intentionally or unintentionally, that you have prejudged the project or the concept and
would raise questions about the objective even-handed review of the project or any
subsequent provisions to the projects. It could raise questions about the possibility of
tainting any future decisions, which would be a risk that does not need to be run. 2) As
you are all aware, the City Council appoints the Zoning Board of Adjustments. And if
you appeal a staff decision to the Board of Adjustment, it does not take a terribly
enlightened member of the Board of Adjustment member to understand, if you agreed
with the decision you would not have appealed that decision. And, if you appeal it, you
must not agree with it and you appoint them. There is the strong possibility that would
leave the message, intentionally or unintentionally, that you had a specific result you
wanted them to reach. Both of those create issues that you may not want or intend to
have created, but would naturally be a presumption people would tend to follow."
"If the Zoning Board of Adjustment could consider this case based only on the appeal,
there might be some justification to do that simply to create a forum for discussion on this
issue. But as you are aware, that is not the case. Our zoning ordinance and state law
provide that any citizen of the city, any taxpayer has a right to file an appeal of Ms.
Gandy's decision. It does not require that the City Council does it, and it does not require
that the Planning and Zoning Commission do it. Based on the information available to us
now, the principle reason that the Planning and Zoning Commission made the
recommendation to do this was on the protest of so many adjoining property owners.
There isn't a requirement that an adjoining property owner even file the appeal. Anyone
can appeal. And if a private citizen or neighbor or neighborhood group appeals it can still
go forward for the heating but it doesn't raise the prejudice issues that are created if the
City Council chooses, before it is ever presented with this item to launch an appeal to the
Zoning Administrator's decision to the Board of Adjustment. My office would
recommend to the Council that you take no action on this item and simply advise the
Planning and Zoning Commission to proceed with the normal processing of this request
and leave a decision as to whether or not an appeal is filed to the citizens or property
owners who feel that they are personally unhappy with the decision and they could bring
the appeal forward. It is safest for the City and it is safest for the property owners and it is
actually safest for the neighbors to have a clean record and not to create issues that do not
need to be in this matter.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 17 of 20
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Ted Cook, 1318 Forest Hills Court, Southlake. Mr. Cook stated he thinks we should wait
and let the case run its course.
Jerry Gibson, 1312 Kings Brook Court, Southlake. Mr. Gibson stated he attended the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and feels the traffic on South Carroll Avenue
and F.M. 1709 is an issue. He stated he feels the City Council should take no action and
allow the homeowners to appeal.
Councilmember Rex Potter asked, does an individual that appeals, have to have
legal counsel and what is the forum? Mr. Taylor replied, "It is a Zoning Board of
Adjustments, which is a quasi-judicial citizen board, that hears testimony of
citizens. It is not required that you be represented by a lawyer, it does not follow
the rules of court. They just listen to everyone's position and make a decision.
Mr. Taylor reviewed the actual process for someone to appeal. Mr. Taylor stated
someone would go to the development department and secure an application form
to appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Fill it out and file it and it
will be set on the August 12, 1999, meeting of the Board of Adjustments. An
appeal of that type must be filed before August 9, 1999.
Susan Johnson. 308 Lakeside Court, Southlake. Ms. Johnson stated she is one of the
adjacent property owners and one of a hand full of property owners in Southlake who is
being asked to live next to a high intense commercial development. I do share a concern
that the development, as it is being planned, differs substantially from the original plan
presented a few years ago. She stated she has prepared statements but will hold those
until the appeal which the property owners do plan to file.
Chuck Blucher, 1218 Westmont Drive, Southlake. He stated he does not wish to speak
but is in support of an appeal to the Zoning Administrator's decision and accepts the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
David Palmer, 3102 Maple Avenue, Dallas. Mr. Palmer does not wish to speak but is in
opposition to the appeal.
Kirk Williams, 5400 Renaissance Tower, 1201 Ector Street, Dallas. Mr. Williams stated
he is an attorney representing the owner of the property, Cencor Realty Services. He
stated the property referred to as the Southlake Commons, is what they refer to as The
Shops of Southlake. He stated he finds himself in an awkward position as he finds
himself supporting the decision of the City Council. He stated he has represented cases
for more than twenty years and this is one of the more unusual cases. He stated he feels
the things we must recognize is that the zoning, and as Mr. Taylor stated, there is a site
plan that is pending and must ultimately go before the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the City Council. In this situation, the site plan is a modification or an amendment to
a concept plan that we approved several years ago. It is not a zoning case. It is difficult
for neighborhoods to understand and it is difficult for Councils' to understand the
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 18 of 20
distinction between a ministerial function and a legislative function and what is being
asked here is for Council to refer this to a quasi-judicial body. The Board of Adjustment
does not set in a legislative capacity and Council does, and it does not set in an
administrative capacity as the zoning administrator does. It sets in a quasi-judicial
capacity and there are rules that prohibit exparte discussions. They are the final
determinators and if either party does not like the decision of the Board of Adjustment,
then the appeal is to District Court. He stated they are opposed to this case being referred
to the Board of Adjustments by the Council for the reasons Mr. Taylor stated. He stated,
"We purchased the property knowing it was zoned for retail uses, knowing that we could
build within the framework of that dashed line, and that is the plan that Council sees."
"We don't believe that the Zoning Administrator abused her discretion. The Zoning
Administrator has certain rights and obligation and certain duties to perform. It is not
whether or not you or I would agree with her decision; it is whether or not she abused her
discretion. For the record, I respectively request that you not appeal this decision to the
Board of Adjustment." He stated he would be out of town on August 12 and asked that if
anyone appeals, that it be put on the August 26, Board of Adjustment agenda. Mr.
Williams stated for the record, "I find myself in support of the Zoning Administrator and
the position that has been made by the City Attorney."
Mayor Stacy stated, "It is a crying shame that a developer of the stature that you
represent had to come to the City with his boxing gloves on instead of coming here to try
and develop something in this commtmity. He had to sneak around and fight this thing
through, and I don't like it."
No action was taken on this issue tonight.
Agenda Item #1 l-A, "All American City" Award
Councilmember Rex Potter stated, "I put this item on the agenda about the "All American
City" award and from what Councilmember DuPre has told me, there is a committee,
Brad Bradley and some people, who are going to ask that this item be placed on an
agenda to go forward with the project. The point I wanted to make by putting this item
on the agenda is, remember our projects, and the rating on the projects. It is an issue I
will continue to have; although it will never rate as high as drainage, sewer or some other
things. This award is something that we should pursue. There are some other people in
the commtmity who want to work on this application and I feel that maybe someone from
staff and a couple of Councilmembers and some citizens can work together on this "All
American City" award.
Councilmember Patsy DuPre stated it is prestigious to live in an "All American City" and
thinks we should work together to get this done.
Agenda Item #12, Adjournment
Mayor Rick Stacy adjourned the Regular City Council meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 19 of 20
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES---NOT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
~r Rick Stacy ~
ATTEST:
fiandra L.
CiW Secret~
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of August 3, 1999 Page 20 of 20
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AFFIDAVIT
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
, L.OUNTY OF §
I, -411 1 kS as a member of the CI ( LGv c c I , make this affidavit
and hereby on oath state the following: I have a substantial interest in a business entity or real property as defined in
Chapter 171, Texas Local Government Code, and a vote is to be taken or a decision is to be made that will have a
special economic effect on this business entity or real property.
The agenda item affecting this business entity or real property is: / V
COMPLETE (A) or (B): (A) The business entity is we Z 6-0 p ( geo ame) or
(B) The real property is located at:
I have a substantial interest for the following reasons: (check all which are applicable)
Ownership of 10% or more of the voting stock or shares of the business entity.
Ownership of 10% or more or $15,000 or more of the fair market value of the business entity.
Funds received from the business entity exceed 10% of gross income for the previous year.
Real property is involved and I have an equitable or legal ownership of the property with a fair
market value of at least $2,500.
A relative of mine in the business entity that would
be affected by a decision of the public body of which I am a member.
Upon filing of this affidavit with the City Secretary, I affirm that I will abstain from voting on any decision
involving this business entity or real property and from any further participation on this matter by discussion or debate.
Signed this S day of k- , 19 9 �
"<r
" re . • fficial
The State of " §
County of §
B gore rr w may& <, Fr , 41,1iA Y1 4this day personally appeared
,L Qr <T(LtA , 'La./ known to me (or proved to me on the oath of or
through (description of identity card or other document) to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and
consideration therein expressed.
Given under my hand and seal of office this day of y
, A.D. / 7 ! ) .
(SEAL) Rv
o� ° e <, SANDRA L. LeG't r`,N[) 41/P/A /� / 5 STATE OF 1 �,�'r�,S `
'tF O F1 My coma Exk >; % o�� Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
1 LIB RARY\Municipal\MERG E\ConflictofInterestAffdavit. wpd
....M w
Cross Timber HMIs yN
_ _
I Duthl
. 00 t �' .. g
11111111
wt.
KID' ;.,44,
r r
4 ,,,
��
...x.
0 ,
u t.
i y `
' r1. 1111111EMI
:� �: •�' •
4 .1 , ' ' „ i i i ,i. .
` Tr Z
li IP't S vT . I .Kk. kt k 1327 a I—
__ �"� W
„ &V .,. ....„‘ 110
v
� -e `:1./.1 c � ^ :: ' 7i D: 1365 •.6 Q
•
■ r ,,.. NE
.4
K. Legend
V v.
!,
Easement Not Required . 1 1 . srlii■ z 1 1 Easement Required, but
. -mil Not Obtained ,....
J
, V
�� 0 1 1 Easement Obtained
Alio kt 133g r
J
Number of Easements Required = 54
w
Easements Currently Obtained = 38
V
0 0
Ipp. l ‘ it
y Last Revision - 8/3/99
J. •• V
J' N
W \ E
1
City of Southlake No Scale
Geographic Information Systems
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
July 29, 1999
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Interim Planning Director
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 10D, Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Decision regarding
The Shops of Southlake (ZA 99 -023)
Action Requested: On July 22, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the
City Council appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding substantial
conformance of a revised concept plan proposed by Cencor Realty Services.
The Commission tabled review of the revised concept plan until their September
9, 1999 meeting pending any action necessitated by their recommendation.
Background
Information: Cencor Realty Services presented a revised concept plan to the city on 2/29/99.
The Zoning Administrator determined that the plan was not in conformance with
the previously approved concept plan due to development occurring outside the
building envelope established at the time of zoning. The applicant was given
three (3) options: rezone the property and bring forth the submitted plan, revise
the plan by placing all development within the building envelope and resubmit
for review of substantial conformance; or appeal the Zoning Administrator's
decision to the Board of Adjustment.
On 5/17/99, Cencor resubmitted a revised plan and the Zoning Administrator
deemed the plan to be in substantial conformance for the following reasons: all
development was proposed within the building envelope; the intensity of the
development decreased in the following manner: overall square footage was
reduced from 315,000 s.f. to 277,900 s.f. (per 5/17/99 plan); major tenant
floor areas were reduced (from 70K, 50K, 44K to 45K, 40.1K 40K); the
number of parking spaces decreased and therefore reducing impervious coverage
originally approved with the zoning; and the southernmost drive on South
Carroll (most adjacent to Oak Tree Estates) was eliminated. This opinion
conferred no development rights other than to allow the plan to move forward in
the process.
Financial
Considerations: Fees associated with legal representation at the Board hearing.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Oak Tree Estates residents expressed opposition to the plan because they felt
that it does not represent a village concept proposed at the 1996 rezoning and
instead envision "a strip mall that will attract low - ring/high volume retailers."
They mentioned several changes that occurred since 1996: Town Square
development across F.M. 1709 plus additional retail along the corridor;
IAN _I
increased traffic and insufficient roads to carry the volumes; taxpayers' vested
interest in the TIF area (Town Square); Land Use Plan revisions recommending
that this property be developed as Office Commercial. They further offered
concerns about inadequate transition from a more intense commercial retail
zoning (Town Square) to the residential zoning (Oak Tree Estates); health issues
due to restaurant and grocery store uses; safety concerns due to competing
traffic movements between Town Square and The Shops of Southlake; and the
diminution of property values.
Legal Review: City Attorney Wayne K. Olson reviewed Zoning Administrator's letters
regarding substantial conformance prior to being sent to Cencor Realty Services.
Alternatives: Review plan for compliance with city ordinances and codes. The following
variances have been requested by the Applicant: driveway spacing (Drives `B'
& `C') and stacking (Drives `A,' `D,' & `E'); parking islands along the southern
row of parking; and impervious coverage (81 % approved on Southlake
Commons plan, The Shops' plan proposes 78 %; C -3 district requires 75 %
unless bufferyard widths are increased).
Supporting
Documents: Southlake Commons' Concept Plan (approved 2/29/96)
Revised Concept Plan and Zoning Administrator's opinion letter dated 3/9/99
Revised Concept Plan and Zoning Administrator's opinion letter dated 6/8/99
Revised Concept Plan and Staff Review Summary dated 7/19/99
Staff
Recommendation: Please place this item on the August 3, 1999 City Council Agenda for
cons ideration.
Action Plan: Should the Council accept the Commission's recommendation and refer the
matter to the Board of Adjustment, Staff will advertise the hearing date of
August 12, 1999 in the official newspaper and post the Board's agenda at least
72 hours before the hearing date. Courtesy notices will be sent to the adjacent
property owners; however, only the property owner and the aggrieved party are
required to receive certified notice.
In order to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision, the Council (or other
aggrieved party) would need to complete an application that clearly states the
facts and reasons that the requested action should be taken. Due to the quasi -
judicial nature of the Board's duties, only evidence presented at the Board's
hearing should be considered in making their final determination on this matter.
Should the Council choose not to pursue this action, it is my understanding (upon
further research) that the Commission or any other aggrieved party may appeal
the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Board.
Following Council's action, the Commission will be notified.
101).2
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
ity anager's Office
tt t'3
—T
L v, - -
i�i• • bi 3 3 .! S • 9 ii
§ LEi j i � D r x, A d b B �;, a�_ '' ! Y _ ,:- .r a s s -g :W 1 bt g'�gy Idd k y! i? - a p t }
1 t
1 3A ,• •. i i 9 p i ® 7a3 .� 1 # x i} g 1 1 [ 1
I. i j 1 fl ' ;;; ; ;; ;j i • 6 8 s�� Sys 1 ,i. `,R a# i Vi o gl 1. ( rr ( / 1 'Il sa >� - � fisi''1. t' 1p f tl 1. i, g a� i le i t$,d �
rnr.n �w��.v asr �u®�m,i�n
y t h unman i . Anil y A ZOV RAMO 3LU AM W v anw
O .I I' I
1 ! d MU A �101_7lvuLl•
1I ,;,.....
Ir. ' ^ I ' e i • •' a :�:.: _ - -- • 191 •
T v p � 1 E I *y� €i d 1 • 3ae
i I I d V t i .s ix'�r. 5 Y j
UJ
0 O . • f a • g o
I 1 q 1M • t ' ,� .:v p IY r �
' • w Q :'/ b. 8e3
:i i ;;. 3 i • ap l d e W
1 ila :.' 111
T. o a o ° •
1 • w F . o� I . ;II4i. o
0. Q 1 1 j
6 • 9 r • -1- W
< -h): €g
I 0 • 8 Lill ,~.1, " � � . r i ds @& Q.
Y '',/ I11
p, 8 J tlg � $ `s
• 0 . .! , -.. s_ ,, ig
I _ ''''' U.
10. 112 po 1
I is i. = q..6 I - b.!
— _ - - - - I• . r - .�.•ww 3f1NjI1Y Tt I WC* - - - - - _ _ _ l
.. II IIMIN y 7 M at i I ti c
Pt 0
E
16D-4
•
MI etr CityofSouthlake
March 9, 1999
Duthla
Cencor Realty Services
Attn: Mr. David C. Palmer
Senior Vice President
3102 Maple Avenue, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75201
Mayor:
Rick Stacy
VIA FACSIMILE NO. (214) 953 -0860 and REGULAR U.S. MAIL
Mayor Pro Tem:
W. Ralph Evans Re: The Shops of Southlake Concept Plan Submittal, legally described as approximately
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem: 29.516 acres in the J. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, Tract 7A, being the SEC of S.
Scott F. Martin Carroll Avenue and East Southlake Blvd.
Councilmembers: •
Wayne Moffat •
Ronnie Kendall Dear Mr. Palmer:
Debra Edmondson
Gary Fawks
This letter addresses whether the above - referenced concept plan substantially conforms with
City Manager, the previous concept plan approved at the time of zoning. As you are aware, the property was
Curtis E. Hawk g Y P Peri3'
zoned "S -P -2" with limited "C -3, General Commercial District" uses on March 5, 1996 by
Assistant City Manager: Ordinance No. 480 -190. This approval was subject to Plan Review Summary No. 4 dated
Shana K. Yelverton March 1, 1996 and was also subject to the list of deleted uses
J (given to you at our 2 -1 -99
City Secretary: meeting) and subject to the placement of 10' trees within the 25' bufferyard along the south
Sandra L. LeGrand property line (instead of the 12' - 14' trees originally proposed by the applicant) as shown on
the approved plan dated February 29, 1996.
Historically. the Site Plan Districts ( "S -P -1" and "S -P -2 ") have been treated as what
is districts. When properties are zoned in this manner, their development is
subject to the underlying district regulations or to special development standards approved
at the time of the zoning.
Following a review of the 2/29/96 plan, I found that the approved plan established a building
envelope to ensure the village concept. This was established both graphically (by dashes
shown on the plan) and in the Notes Section which reads:
" #2 This approval permits building size arrangement, parking layout and distribution
within the dash lines to be modified to suit site conditions and detail design
considerations all within the gross floor area and total parking number noted
above."
It would be my opinion that the approved concept plan (dated 2/29/96) set forth the
requirement that no building could be constructed outside of that envelope. The Concept Plan
for The Shops of Southlake exceeds the limits of the denoted envelope. I have attached
reduced copies of both the approved 2/29/96 plan and the revised plan dated 3/1/99. You will
note that I sketched the approximate limits of the building envelope on the new plan (scaled
from the original plan).
667 N. Carroll Ave. • Southlake. Texas 76092
Cencor Realty Services
David C. Palmer, Sr. V.P.
March 9, 1999
Page Two
•
Based on this information, I find that the 3/1/99 concept plan cannot be accepted for processing as a revised
concept plan. The plan should either be modified to fit within the established envelope approved with the zoning
or the application should be modified to include a request for rezoning.
Due to the anticipated impact of the building envelope, I did not attempt to address other issues of conformance,
but would do so upon subsequent submittals. Please be aware that any subsequent plans submitted for processing
will be subject to the test of substantial conformance.
As is the case in all zoning - related interpretations / opinions, the applicant or any aggrieved party may appeal
the decision to the Board of Adjustment. Should you have questions regarding any of the above, please call me
at (817) 481 -5581, ext. 743.
Sincerely,
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
ttme,t1) e ityx
Karen P. Gandy
Zoning Administrator
cc Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
Greg Last, Community and Economic Development Director
Wayne K. Olson, City Attorney
enc Approved Concept Plan (2/29/96)
Revised Concept Plan (3/1/99)
•
•
- -1
I i
im I
; = ! ` 7 cs :s a l U
,\ i ii r `y_. i t • i4N i !• i 11 0! z ? �� „ g yi _' ° ' y L�� :1 • se
, v+nn• • ;II. ( 1 C -,s� ,�� I �-` C g �< cn . � � os = b
• :a • 1 } , ;'t i 3 {j �C' f/�i ' � S ^: W -
■ h- - -. _ 1 . li 1 S� " 3� �iL -11 .! ■
-i - 2 I� :;:s.... ., I i l l , 1 3 , t° ( ;Ili l i 1 . U�7 ; i as 1 E co O . . g: V S ; 3 ?Q
`1 0.'-'F:: 1 , 3 ! pp EI : ' ac 0_ U ,. ^ s7: 3 1 ■
y .`. _ � ' � iiLtd t Pk !> r , i'� ( 2 � 4 LL Y ° .i 0142' a- 10 u+ ; ; I
gg 1 ..WC
- - -- -- - ----- 3 Iil tl I : ' ; ( (I 1 I 1 g 11 SP I .O 3 if 3 :.'i 1
h - - --t , ; i , e n. 0 I s : ," y 4 3 0 ,$ c!): 5 3 /gt 3 , I P l i '8
i I. ; 1 1 1' ;. 1 � 111'.1...�1.. L_ fm'i Y 21 >< ao W s2:l � f I `._
gaa
C l ii
'. ( i Jun o° Slddt/F I I +I — _ uS = ' i
1.: 7 i i "� j .o('6S6 N 9:.flcS I ._ 1 j i •
, f i , F — J I \ , ...... 4. i - I s t d
1 i • I _ —� �� , I • ^
t E / • I� • ; :(- •-) : 1• ( . _
V I e, - �3 I J - r _
is I CJ I
■ , 'I I g. l: i : d ' :::" •:•.:.:.
i :I - - --- ..� __R i ce —_- t - . _ `z
_._ —.. — i I f Wi' e i � I
Y., _ _ 'i_._C IL.' o f
a /... 1 J O
(1 ' L - ' ` ' 4 Y: ✓Z S 1 i , I d I , a •: . t • i s
w i 1 I i 3 '6 17 : a I i :':;: 1
e I. fi r, t
OL i + 1S Q ; I :I m • - i I •• . - IIj •
1 • X. �' - '. 7TH - J L. J` ' .' I ...•.•. ' �
r
111 i .= -:;11,- .i ( �-+ is .a 1'I • 111 L �t i �� I_a- r�."..� _ ' , _ l� ' '''' • __ - .— • - . f i - I I W t •
J •■,.. 1 ..Z■, e.. ;•'t, '.V\t .t. ` `‘\ !'�:i"'...u`r• .e ( 4•.... ... Ijr
coil/ :: ss ' sk:S)1111r/ : 1 1 1 1 ... ; :.: : .: •. .....i. ' ''.. .-- 114
« _ 1
kzi
1lOF�lII, N _ _ ' a' � .►rtst w•oc.Onoly 3 • k•
• i I 3f 1 F L J1OS '
•
CityofSouthlake
U I I I Q June 8, 1999
Cencor Realty Services
Attn: Mr. David C. Palmer
Senior Vice President
Rick Stacy 3102 Maple Avenue, Suite 500
Dallas, TX. 75201
Mayor Pro Tem:
Gary Fawks VIA FACSIMILE NO. (214) 953 -0860 and REGULAR U.S. MAIL
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem:
Ronnie Kendall Re: The Shops of Southlake Revised Concept Plan Submittal, legally described as
Councilmembers: approximately 29.516 acres in the J. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, Tract 7A,
Wayne Moffat being the SEC of S. Carroll Avenue and East Southlake Blvd.
Rex Potter
Debra Edmondson
Patsy DuPre Dear Mr. Palmer:
City Manager: The city is in receipt of your application for revised concept plan approval for The Shops
Billy Campbell
of Southlake submitted on 5/17/99. I have reviewed the revised concept plan and find that
Assistant City Manager: it substantially conforms to the concept plan approved with the rezoning application on
Shana K. Yelverton March 5, 1996.
City Secretary:
Sandra L. LeGrand This opinion is based on the following: 1) all development is proposed within the building
envelope established at the time of zoning; 2) overall square footage has decreased from
that originally approved (i.e., 277,900 s.f. versus 315,000 s.f.); 3) floor areas have been
reduced in all three major tenant spaces (from 70k, 50k, 44k to 45k, 40.1k, 40k); 4) fewer
parking spaces are being proposed due to decreased total square footage; and 5) the
southernmost driveway along South Carroll Avenue (adjacent to the Oak Tree Estates
neighborhood) has been eliminated.
Please be aware that this opinion confers no development rights on the 5/17/99 revised
concept plan application other than allowing the plan to move forward and enter the pre -
submittal review process. The permitted uses for the property were established on March
5, 1996 with the adoption of the "S -P -2, Generalized Site Plan District" with limited "C -3,
General Commercial District" uses per Ordinance No. 480 -190. The revised concept plan
must meet all the provisions of the currently adopted ordinances of the city or obtain
waivers of same before proceeding to the next step in the development process.
As of this date, the revised plan has been reviewed by the planning staff and the
Development Review Committee ( "DRC ") and you should have received the first plan
review summary.
As is the case in all zoning - related interpretations / opinions, the applicant or any
aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment. Should you have
questions regarding any of the above, please call me at (817) 481 -5581, ext. 743.
1721 East Southlake Blvd., Suite 100 • Southlake, Texas 76092
Cencor Realty Services
David C. Palmer. Sr. V.P.
June 8, 1999
Page Two
Sincerely,
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
A
Karen P. Gandy
Zoning Administrator
cc Billy Campbell, City Manager
Wayne K Olson, City Attorney
inn_4
__
,J ^
t--
r , iJ it -- - -- - -. - - - - - - - -- - - -_ . - - -- _ _ _
I wI I 17 l
0 `11 ; I Ii' 11 i 1 § II 11 g / a
. . 111 „ � 9 ; .' i ►i I ; J g E u•
n 4 1 : ! ! 1 i c x L ' !i � 1il 5 8 1 j r • 1 1r. i ll ` 1 i ° 81 11 7 P!' 1 ee cn "3 ; c jr t . _ � F J J J fl ; J � w a -.�
B 13381S !h N I
E 18(100 SPAIVH h i j 1,
! �. - - - A\ - ; .0/ M -R1 r,.nS - . . . r I - - t i. I — �!
.4%__ .a.- rak. I 1
1 '1) 1 III l; (IIIIIIIIii) (MIIIIIi1IIIII },I g
il, ? =i = ;I`Illlllllll w j , IT
1l; 2 p
' '; : �LIITIIIFAt_u IIL = 1 II
, r I ,I
• ( G "'_' 11tH .111.1Iii11!i1i(1n11i1111111 ' ---- °� •- s , ' " "
! 1 rr11 1 rrnl I n rl i nn i nrrn ri n n l l i .1-.,
i ,
- -1 g ! ` ! f •
ii i � : , _ - 1 C € IIIAf IIIII IIIII1 1ffl11itlllllllll l i = - 1 . .......:' ui}
I , • (1 - 1 \ 1 , , . r- 1 ' : - • . • .' ! ..' . 1,11111.ti I11.111 ,a r .•.•... . ,11.. a \� �.
1 - t* lil l � ``0__./r11 it +r "Mil(f *IIIIIM , ` ,-- : : : 1:i i11
.--2- p l II I t ,, i
I N h N ,, 1 � �'
J o ,' �..rv19I 1 111 I I 1 . I : i hI
cn
I I -- rilllll L'
11
I --1 �S 11 11111[111 N f_) :•: I_ , r
a 133F1 s , I— 1 111 Il nrl l 1lII[ I�J�1 I I I I M � :::•..
- : h
I o I - z��il - TI II 11[11111lll(Il11[1111111i111 1 " 1 I - - : ; II
III I 1 a.11C ° III IIIIII111111111111llllll11"2 -_ l'
I ? i1Er ; ;
I 1 0.'111 11111111I1I111(I11 E j I;
I I 4 I V.11111: I I.II I I I I I I I.11 l L. ./` I bl
I I • - I 1 -1. . '0111[11 1111l1ff1 7 f -
r'
� I ;. k= _ L :: III
61 I _ 2I - - 1 ' -
v.
ZI 1= �- - -; - - 1 ti I
1 f I , ` I_ _ _I 11� ^ hi
I �.` r 1.111TfIf 1 ,lad11 I FI I IITT1 L1.11TV :
� � 1 ) ( f 111111 ;' �, 6� [ 111111 - x r n l lr – f / ;
-fi - I
'' 1 :: 111/1111 119 n r/PITl�`11 U11 LI'111 -- - 111111111_11L1,1111— _ — — f - - � II:
311N3AV( } \ � '......... , \\ \ \ \ \V \ s1 , .. "N \ \\ \ . '' ' 1 \ \ : 7 . ' —J .,I
.w,nc,nrtnrr
'MI 11 X111II
1 1 111
I Bnh3AV - 11O�Il:1VO 1 -Ilnos i i '
r.
9 /11/9/1.1
IAN iN
City of Southlake, Texas
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY
Case No: ZA 99 -023 Review No: Three Date of Review: 7/16/99
Project Name: Concept Plan - The Shops of Southlake, John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529
APPLICANT: ARCHITECT:
Cencor Realty Hodges & Associates
3102 Maple, Suite 500 13642 Omega
Dallas, Texas 75201 Dallas, Texas 75244 -4514
Phone: (214) 720 -6681 Phone: (972) 387 -1000
Fax: (214) 953 -0860 Attn. David Palmer Fax: (972) 960 -1129 Attn. G. Devleer
CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 7/06/99 AND WE
OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF CONCEPT
PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT LISA SUDBURY AT (817) 481 -5581, EXT. 862.
General Development Standards Applies Comments
Corridor Overlay Regulations Yes See Informational Comments for Site Plan Preparation
Residential Adjacency Yes See Informational Comments for Site Plan Preparation
Building Articulation Yes See Informational Comments for Site Plan Preparation
Masonry Standards Yes See Informational Comments for Site Plan Preparation
Impervious Coverage Yes See Comment No. 3
Bufferyards Yes See Comment No. 2
Interior Landscape Yes See Comment No. 2
Driveways Yes See Comment No. 1
This is a revised Concept Plan, previously approved as Southlake Commons, for SP2 with C -3 (limited) uses.
1. The following changes are required regarding driveways:
a. Proposed connections to public rights -of -way must comply with the minimum spacing
requirements, as follows:
Driveway Centerline Req'd Existing Deficiency
Spacing Spacing
Variance Drive "C" to Prop. Harris Court 500' 483' 17'
Variance Drive "B" to Drive "C" 500' 284' 216'
1
N1n -ll
City of Southlake, Texas
b. Connections to public rights -of -way must be in compliance with the minimum stacking depths,
as follows:
Driveway Req'd Proposed Deficiency
Stacking Stacking
Variance Driveway "A" 150' 95' 55'
Variance Driveway "D" 150' 114' 36'
Variance Driveway "E" 150' 30' 120'
* Driveway "B" and "C" are shown as right - in/right - out/left-in limited access driveways. The
design should be approved by the City Engineer.
c. Staff recommends shifting driveways B & C to the east to avoid left turn conflicts with State
Street and Grand Avenue.
NOTE: The previously approved Concept Plan included 2 driveways on S. Carroll, 2
driveways on F. M. 1709 and 1 common access easement from the Smock & Hussein
Property. This plan proposes the same number of driveways, different locations, varying
stacking depths, and has added some turning restrictions, not included on the previously
approved concept plan.
2. The following changes are needed regarding landscaping, bufferyards and screening:
Variance a. Provide parking islands to break up the continuous parking provided behind the buildings.
Eighteen square feet per parking stall is required in each row or tier of stalls and must meet
minimum size criteria of the Landscape Ordinance No. 544 and the overlay district, Zoning
Ordinance No 480, Section 43.9.3.h.
b. Relocate the 8' masonry wall to the southern property line adjacent to the residential
properties. NOTE: Ordinance 480, § 39.4. b - Where a nonresidential use abuts a
residential lot or dwelling, a screening device shall be erected along the side and rear
property lines abutting said residential lot or dwelling to a height of eight feet. Staff feels
there is a potential maintenance and security problems for the property between the
residential fencing and non - residential wall. (The wall is shown on the top of an 8' berm in
response to comments from the adjacent residential property owners, the applicant does not
indicate they are seeking a variance to this requirement.)
c. Remove the bufferyard and interior landscape calculation charts from the plan. These will
be evaluated at the time of site plan review (based on floor areas). No acceptance or
approval of these charts is made with the approval of this concept plan. The proposed
charts are not an exact duplicate of the charts from the previously approved concept plan
and do not appear to be correct. NOTE: In this regard, the previous concept plan was
approved with the following comment, "Although no review of required interior landscape
is provided at the Concept Plan level, staff strongly recommends that each lot be evaluated
for compliance with the interior landscape area requirements per the Landscape Ordinance
No. 544, prior to preparation of any site plans for the individual lots. Landscape and
irrigation plans meeting the requirements of Ordinance No. 544, will be required prior to
the issuance of a building permit."
2
inn. i9
City of Southlake, Texas
Variance
3. The site cannot exceed the maximum 75% impervious coverage permitted within the "C -3" underlying
zoning district. This plan proposes 78% impervious coverage. The previously approved Concept Plan
proposed 19% Open Space (or 81% Impervious Coverage). The applicant is proposing an combination
of increased bufferyard widths and larger interior landscape areas adjacent to the rights -of -way in lieu
of a straight increase in bufferyard widths permitted under Ord. 480 -Sect. 22.51. Based on the square
footage shown on this concept plan and assuming each of the buildings over 20,000 square feet are
for anchor tenants, the required interior landscape area is approximately 114,275 square feet, this plan
proposes 218,605 square feet. Please be aware that required interior landscape areas shall be
determined at the time of site plan, when more specific building footprints /areas are provided. See the
attached Impervious Area Increase Calculations provided by the applicant.
NOTE: Zoning Ordinance No. 480 -BB, Section 22.5.1- The maximum impervious coverage for the
AC -3" district shall not exceed 75% of the total lot area. However, if the following criteria is met, up
to, but not exceeding, an additional 5% of impervious coverage shall be permitted: for each additional
1% of impervious coverage provided, an additional two feet of width of the required bufferyards
adjacent to any street and an additional 1 foot of width to the required side and rear bufferyards shall
be added to the site. This requirement may also be satisfied by providing an equivalent amount of land
area in the front or sides of the site (exclusive of the bufferyard areas) either by increasing the number
and/or size of parking islands, by preserving natural groves of trees, by enhancing natural drainage
area, etc. Any alternative means shall be required to have the approval of the Landscape Administrator
to ensure that the proposal is practical and will enhance the survivability of existing trees on the site.
4. Any further subdivision of this property will require a revised Concept Plan so that the appropriate
bufferyard requirements and any other resulting issues may be addressed.
* Right -of -way dedications for proposed deceleration lanes are required at the time of platting. These
should be designed to provide a minimum 12' X 150' of stacking space and 150' of transition area.
* A plat of the adjoining property (Gorbutt Addition) has been approved, but not filed of record with
Tarrant County, at this time. Depending on the timing of construction, if the right -of -way has not been
dedicated, a common access easement and letter of permission for off -site pavement construction must
be obtained from the adjoining property owner, prior to issuance of a building permit.
* Although not required by ordinance, staff would appreciate placing the City case number AZA99 -023"
in the lower right corner for ease of reference.
* A permit from TxDOT must be obtained prior to any curb cut along State Highways or Farm to
Market Roads.
* 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 site plan must be approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council, and a fully corrected site plan submitted to the Building Department
along with landscape plan, irrigation plan, building plans, and all required fees. Required fees may
include but not be limited to the following fees: Park Fee, Impact Fees, Tap Fees, and related Permit
Fees.
3
City of Southlake, Texas
* This review is based on the "C3" Zoning District Regulations.
* This site falls within the applicability of the the Corridor Overlay Zone Regulations of as amended
by Ordinance 480 -S, Section 43 Part II and the Residential Adjacency Standards as amended by
Ordinance 480 -CC, Section 43, Part III. Although no review of the following issues is provided with
this concept plan, the applicant must evaluate the site for compliance prior to submittal of the site plan.
A Site Plan must be submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council prior to issuance of a building permit. Note that these issues are only the major areas of
site plan review and that the applicant is responsible for compliance with all site plan
requirements:
• Masonry requirements per 343.13a, Ordinance 480, as amended and Masonry Ordinance No. 557, as
amended.
• Roof design standards per 3 43.13b, Ordinance 480, as amended
• Mechanical Equipment Screening per 3 43.13c, Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Vertical and horizontal building articulation (required on all building facades) per343.13d, Ordinance
480, as amended.
• Loading and service areas per 3 43.13f, Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Trash Receptacles & Recycling Receptacles per 3 43.13g, Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Building setback standards as per 3 43.13h and as shown in exhibit 43 -E, Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Spill -over lighting and noise per 343.13i and 343.13j, Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Off - street parking requirements per 335, Ordinance 480, as amended. All areas intended for vehicular
use must be of an all weather surface material in accordance with the Ordinance No. 480, as amended.
• Off - street loading requirements per 336, Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Screening as per §39.4, Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Interior landscaping per Landscape Ordinance No. 544 and 343.9C3 and Exhibits 43 -B and 43 -C on
Pages 43 -12 and 43 -13, Ordinance 480, as amended; and Parking Lot Impacts on interior landscaping
in 343.9C3h and Exhibit 43 -D on Page 43 -14, Ordinance 480, as amended.
• Fire lanes must be approved by the City Fire Department.
* Denotes Informational Comment
cc: S. Carroll Ave. / 1709, Ltd. Owner c/o David Palmer VIA FAX
Hodges & Associates, Gary VIA FAX
\\SLKSV4001 \ LOCAL \COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ WP-FILES \REV\99 \99023CP3SHOPS.DOC
4
Inn.ltl
City of Southlake, Texas
Case No. 99-023 Review No. Four Resubmittal Dated: 7 - 12 - 99 Number of Pages: 2
Project Name: John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, Tract 7A, The Shops at Southlake (Concept
Plan)
Contact: Keith Martin, Landscape Administrator Phone: (817) 481 -5581, x 848 Fax: (817) 421 -2175
The following comments are based on the review of plans received on 07 - 06 - 99 . Comments
designated with a (4) symbol may be incorporated into the formal review to be considered by either the
Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. Other items will not be addressed by either the P &Z
or City Council. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact the department representative shown above
and make modifications as required by the comment.
SITE PLAN COMMENTS:
1. Maximum Impervious Coverage: To comply with Section 22.5L, of the General Commercial
District portion of the Zoning Ordinance; the applicant has provided additional pervious area along
the North, East and West bufferyards to an extent. Although the applicant has provided additional
pervious area the areas are not consistent with the entire length of the required bufferyards. The
applicant has also provided enhanced natural drainage area in the Southwest corner of the property
as well as an enlarged area to preserve existing trees in the Northeast corner of the property. Please
see the attached Tree Preservation Analysis for further details on existing tree preservation.
LANDSCAPE COMMENTS:
1. Please correct the required bufferyard linear distances of the North, East and South bufferyard
portions of the Bufferyard Summary Chart.
2. Parking lot landscape area requirements shall comply with Section 3.4 of the Landscape Ordinance
No. 544.
3. Five (5) parking lot landscape islands should be placed within the parking spaces along the south
of the property.
* The parking lot landscape islands may need some redesigning. Please make sure all islands meet
the minimum width requirement set fourth in Section 3.4 of the Landscape Ordinance. Please
make sure that space requirements meet the requirements of Section 43.9.3h of the Corridor
Overlay Standards of Development.
4. The applicant is proposing to place an 8' masonry wall approximately 38' inside the property from
the south property line. Please confirm the maintenance of the area between the wall and the
adjacent residential property.
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
L: \Trces\DRC99\99 -023
1A 1�
City of Southlake, Texas
• All bufferyards are labeled correctly.
• The required interior landscape area is correct.
TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS:
* See attached Tree Preservation Analysis.
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
L:\Trees\DRC99 \99 -023
IA, .i
City of Southlake, Texas
TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS
(NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)
Case: 99 -023 Date of Review: 6 - 24 - 99 Number of Pages: 1
Project Name: The Shops of Southlake (Concept Plan)
OWNER: PREPARED BY:
Cencor Realty Services Hodges & Associates
3102 Maple, Suite 500 13642 Omega
Dallas, TX 75201 Dallas, TX 75244
Phone: Phone: (972) 387 -1000
Fax: Fax: (972) 960 -1129
THIS ANALYSIS IS PREPARED AT THE TIME OF REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT AND IS TO
PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN OR SURVEY AND THE IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION ON ANY
PROTECTED TREES ON THE SITE. FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION CONTACT KEITH MARTIN,
LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR AT (817)481 -5581 EXT. 848.
TREE PRESERVATION COMMENTS:
1. The applicant has submitted a Tree Survey that meets the requirements of Schedule B of the Tree
Preservation Ordinance 585 -A. Trees within the area of the northeast access drive were not shown
on the survey and some of the trees shown to be preserved are dead.
2. The Concept Plans reflects that approximately eighteen (18 existing trees are proposed to be
preserved in the northeast corner of the development. No other trees are shown to be preserved on
the entire site.
3. All area within public R.O.W., public utility or drainage easements as shown on an approved Final
Plat, and the fire lanes, required parking areas and area within (6') of the building foundation as
shown on an approved Site Plan shall be exempt from the tree protection and replacement
specified in the Tree Preservation Ordinance. If the intent of the applicant is to remove the existing
trees within the northeast landscape area next to the northeast building (40,000 sq.ft building), the
trees will be required to be replaced in accordance with Section 5.0 of the Tree Preservation
Ordinance 585 -A.
* The existing trees (protected Post Oaks and Eastern Red Cedar) in the northeast corner of the
property should be physically tagged with a number for easier identification.
* All requirements and regulations of the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585 -A, apply to the entirety
of this lot. Please be aware of the penalties of not applying the tree preservation protection
methods required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance 585 -A.
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
L: \Trees \DRC99 \99 -023
100.11
li
51 ' fil d _
I�
7
N 1
. 1� ! II t � �� l o CL
II! � �+ g g a A Y 9 0
\ \ /111" " y 1 7 �W 'a il ill 1 R I 1 it l f 0 d 3 1111 ( g � i j �y s z
��..- _�. - U I jI' � � O J � ! I „ H r 1 J . i1 - a i! 4 ;II- ea 1-U LL � a e8
i! 111. I I,
ii
antenv ivauu-30/; 4 1 -1..
`I” fit , ii i i
I: � +� —���� ,OL 636 M 111.11.0.5: j— 1ri j
I e ` 1 S i .; ( .•1 �;, _ r _ _al_ , ttLT — y i f Q
r , • i i ; , ' ' »� � TTiI fT11�� Wv 1 Ifl 141i
f
' N r, v i s ii 411 411 Ir ;(, , 1 I I hi!
_ = -1 - I 7 J f Pl I I l i l I I I J I� : yy _ (
e 1 w 4 J � 1 ~ f11
1.
I S w i i `
b � 1
I l � ��;zt:. :41�I1II1I11a 1
1' 1 _ l I 1 i1 =
1 _ _ _ I I ! mil II II I II1 $ - I at,
1 - 1' I i I . N 1 ! I- ' :p III Wa . ! .'
u 5 J I
I 1 A1s �r
_ - •
') x : 11 I mo _ „ II • Fi n : 1 LIII......:.•.::...:.. i
_ . p Di ONVMJ .� '� cam; i .r .� =m 1 ,._••••.4...•. hi
+ I I p \ �, + n
1 I m
� ;,, -- i s 4,1 N +
J I I
; 11 ' c. -I., .1 t +!9 m ;� U a Fj p .' e 1 k1 I h 1,!
,+.,; 1 I
+� it _ �,': I I i -- •
• t FIE_C '' t ; II •
iaatus aivis C _ ^ 1 1 1,1
I
LI �� 1 �®. Sri / M h D i i y - : I_ 4 1:
T I a PCB .----
V, 1 :0. 1 IL-:.'
-- I! — I 11 O ro _ 11 1 6 _ r 1 f!
I^ _ f _ 1 1 f
I,. _- L I h a 1_ J L § _ Ill `•,‘ . 1 wv+nu Y
a
j J - - ' r n -- r_ .! Ig 1 " 11
„ o _ 1
Y 1
m ` m N i m 0 ( 1 ill
3
W m , 1- �_ Q 1 I_ p 1
J I W 1•i! I i N III
- -J B A 1
I I n - - i t '�:i y I W I ! j I '' :1 I. •
r, J i 3 <i 1 I 1 ■ i 1 F� `s! " ;" M1 1,1
- sl TI 1 _ - - 1 1F a
cn • i , mum 11 14 1 1 I P - w� � � I I I 0 1� 1$ ' 1
� _ -
,
a »_1 i _ iPidg
1 ' s l - - 11111
� n i i ��OtiBv H1f1 �.. r. ` i !
1 � w K �
• iii
100 I
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
July 30, 1999
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Ron Harper, Director of Engineering
SUBJECT: Authorization for the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment of the
Trinity River Authority of Texas, City of Southlake Interim Diversionary
Agreement.
Action Requested: Authorize the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment of the Trinity
River Authority of Texas, City of Southlake Interim Diversionary
Agreement, allowing Southlake to divert wastewater from the Denton
Creek Regional Wastewater System service area to the Central Regional
Wastewater service are.
Background
Information:
• Trinity River Authority of Texas (TRA) provides wastewater
treatment service for the City of Southlake.
• Southlake is in two drainage basins, with each basin being served by
separate wastewater treatment facilities. They are:
➢ Central Treatment Plant in Grand prairie serves the Big Bear
Creek drainage basin, which encompasses the south one -third
of Southlake
➢ Denton Creek Treatment Plant north of Roanoke serves the
Denton Creek basin, which encompasses the north two- thirds
of Southlake
• In the late 1980's, the Southlake City Council decided to contract
with TRA to utilize the two TRA treatment plants.
• Southlake contracted with TRA for the construction of the Big Bear
Interceptor, which was built in 1989/1990, resulting in subdivision
developments with gravity sewers from the Big Bear Interceptor.
• Because the Denton Creek System (northern portion of Southlake)
requires a series of lift stations and force mains, the construction of
the system was delayed until the last couple of years.
5B -1
Billy Campbell, City Manager
July 30, 1999
Page 2 of 3
• In the interim, Carroll schools in the Denton Creek Basin, i.e.,
Carroll Middle School, Johnston Elementary, and Carroll
Intermediate School, experienced septic system problems. The City
and TRA entered into the Interim Diversionary Agreement to allow
specifically the city to divert the wastewater from the schools from
the Denton Creek Basin to Big Bear.
• The original agreement called for the City to be off the diversion by
November 30, 1996. By working with TRA, they did not construct
the Denton Creek Wastewater Interceptor System (lift stations and
force mains) until fall of 1996; therefore, the first amendment to the
interim agreement was approved extending the agreement to
November 30, 1998.
• Due to a number of conditions, its change of alignment of the force
main along Dove Street, funding and acquisition of easements,
Southlake was unable to complete the Denton Creek Basin System
before November 30, 1998.
• Currently, easements have been obtained to construct the force main
along Dove Street. The force main has been bid out and the two lift
stations are under construction. However, easements are currently
being obtained for the force main that extends from the Shady Lane
area to the Lonesome Dove lift station. Easements are also being
acquired for a gravity line that will extend from the existing Dove
Creek lift station to the N -3 gravity line. This gravity line is
necessary to eliminate the Dove Creek lift station. The Denton
Creek Basin trunkline system should be complete by the end of 2000.
The major changes in the second amendment of the Trinity River
Authority, City of Southlake Interim Diversionary Agreement are:
1. Article I, Section 1 &2 Change date for completion form
November 30, 1998 to November 30, 2003.
2. Article III, Section f The addition of maximum flow rates for the
following years:
Daily Average Flow (MGD)
FY 99 0.93
FY 00 0.98
FY 01 1.03
FY 02 1.08
FY 03 1.13
FY 04 0.00
5B -2
Billy Campbell, City Manager
July 30, 1999
Page 3 of 3
3. Article IV The addition of the requirement that after
November 30, 2000, if Southlake is still diverting wastewater to
the Central Regional Wastewater System to the Denton Creek
Wastewater System, Southlake shall pay as if the sewage is being
treated at both facilities.
Financial
Considerations: The financial considerations of this amendment are:
1) If the City of Southlake continues diverting wastewater per
the amended agreement, Southlake shall pay each facility as if
they were both treating the diverted waste.
2) If the City of Southlake exceeds as daily average flow as
outlined in the amendment, Southlake shall pay TRA excess
flow surcharges.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Contingent upon approval of this agreement by the Central Regional
Wastewater System Advisory Committee, TRA staff will then submit it
to the TRA Board of Directors for approval on August 25, 1999. TRA
requests that the City of Southlake approve the agreement prior to the
TRA Board meeting.
Legal Review: The agreement has been sent to the city attorney for review.
Alternatives: None.
Supporting
Documents: Letter from TRA dated June 28, 1999
Agreement
Map
Staff
Recommendation: Place the aforementioned agreement on the August 3, 1999 City Council
Agenda for Council review and authorize the Mayor to execute the
agreement.
VB /vb
Approved for Submittal to City Council:
,tit anager's Office
5B-3
Trinity River Authority of Texas
Northern Region Office
3110.620.054/3828.935
June 28, 1999
Mr. Robert Whitehead
Director of Public Works
City of Southlake
667 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake, Texas 76092
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
Subject: Central Regional Wastewater System
Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System
Interim Diversion Agreement Amendment
Based upon action taken on April 1, 1999 by the Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System
Advisory Committee, the Authority has prepared the Second Amendment to the Interim Diversion
Agreement between the Authority and the City of Southlake. Enclosed you will find a draft of this
Agreement which is tentatively planned to be submitted to the Central Regional Wastewater
System (CRWS) Advisory Committee the second week of August, 1999. Contingent upon
approval of this Agreement by the Authority's CRWS Advisory Committee, the Authority will then
submit it to the Board of Directors for approval. The next scheduled meeting of the Authority's
Board of Directors is August 25, 1999. The Authority requests that the City of Southlake be
prepared to approve this Agreement prior to the Authority's Board meeting.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sin 4 1A.AiL,
BILL R. SMITH
Manager, Development, Northern Region
/spb
Enclosures
cc: Patricia M. Cleveland, Manager, Operations, Northern Region
Mike Millegan, Manager, Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System
Bill Cyrus, Manager, Technical Services, Central Regional Wastewater System
P.O. Box 240
Arlington, Texas 76004 -0240 �s
(817) 493-5100 t a l Recycled Pape
5B-4
DRAFT
SECOND AMENDMENT
TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
INTERIM DIVERSION AGREEMENT
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF TARRANT §
WHEREAS, the TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS (hereinafter called
"AUTHORITY ") has duly executed and entered into an AGREEMENT dated the 6 day of
December 1989, as amended by FIRST AMENDMENT dated October 23, 1996, with the CITY
OF SOUTHLAKE (hereinafter called "City ") providing for City's temporary diversion of City's
wastewater from the AUTHORITY'S Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System service area
to the AUTHORITY'S Central Regional Wastewater System service area to which
AGREEMENT reference is hereby made for all purposes; and
WHEREAS, the FIRST AMENDMENT was executed, in part, to allow the City's
temporary diversion to continue through November 30, 1998; and
WHEREAS, City has diligently pursued financing, design, and construction of
improvements necessary to eliminate the temporary diversion but lack additional time in its plan
to cease diverting wastewater flows; and
WHEREAS, AUTHORITY has considered City's request for an extension of the term of
the diversion; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained
herein, the AUTHORITY and City agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
That Section 3.02, TEMPORARY DISCHARGE, 1s paragraph, which reads as follows:
(43 •• - - = - - _ - - - -
be OMITTED and DELETED in it entirety, and the following be substituted in its place:
5B-5
. , . .
. .
woloittiotiteotoewootookiifii$MMOtialiatiiiAfii 1 1 1 16iiiiti'ilig * ,11.,6,,ii.
6$440401iitdithfeAyAte*apdgA500101imgeefOcrpmptoottogimempprottRolnitok.,:.....::,,..J...4
:06.0iiiiiiiaiiiiii66.:11).f4Witaiiiti. itsioettaNitatti44006)
(I) 04#44644141N110001410440
W40Avititi.41440*:::040.(144#0140144.02409P1440
(2) thelikiii4hiraffeigaiOlontilfiedibeti01000
- ,*muo..p:mmv:,,..n:v.,;:A:::,t:.:::::::m.::.::::v,,::.:::::,:]::::,.:::::,:::,:::::::::::.:.,::::::,:.,:,:::,.,::.n.!.,"--.."--"--- • • fibitegifittattitti antttke 0**entetottOliadefifildeittbitAtitierfient •
- ,
ARTICLE II
That Section 3.04, QUANTITY AT TEMPORARY POINT OF ENTRY, paragraph (a)
which reads as follows:
(a)
be OMITTED and DELETED in its entirety, and the following be substituted in its place:
(4) 114011044114 liki4g1.401004011444114t01),1441#41401:470
rate
,,,,_„:,.:.:::k.„...g. ,.,064::4Ufgaggego.16::.:IiLIEWW-kteltiiii.... .....-...
Witrinveir _ imoOltpusufpwwWW4PlikegifflANIKORIAMI:AFMMIWpwANOtmt*
wwwwiiiiii.41.:4.onovtiloirtiiil maximum amount
ororairmatiort
, 041 t 7 A rrii i ii ,...„- ..0.1 ,47it itif& t ovet i #0:400
szx
„....-lkEwogym oitgiti 0feaWhiliiir
o Of It* Aller****W . ...; A LleariNA14,.,ii.:i1
x4000iiiiit 7 100)9.: t :.00tHpilic..L - .. , :o.-. 0.ili.ilf 0,:*
iiiii06610titiiiitilliiatiffijiiiii*Otiliii06. lii*FiiiiiiiSuch 0000*
figniiiiotiggp,„ Aitogaiiiiw eelitaistweireit th ir itriii,se the it„ 661
,.,ps.::2L.,,„_.,o.izg_
MfVMP!*liNfqnfWtVgtqWIRRYArfgMtTiFXfMlfMeq.TN:pfg:91RYtMfN;NHxrm
tglith
2
5B-6
>: tt.: t. �, tr::.;,... t <�.r..:tt:. <: ; <.,'tt.... <.. ;.:: �: t».:. �».:::...:.»...:.».:.:::::.,.::.;.»., o.::::..... t .................. t...,;;:.<.>,.:......,...: .:::.,:
. ......:.....
"¢ """ n:.. ». ,.uf �t000: 2 rH�:�k: lo>:...v. {c:: <� »».» .,I' " uo: ! :.:Yi: tSiick::k>I:.vl'O'16:'Y:' :tkQSy:iY.'.'.J?I r : {:
::. .:..,f•. »..: .�.::.:::e: :.:.K,..� . �i,.¢+..:....: �: :.,;.r;::::. :. „„ ::;•: :..: ::d;::: :: <:.XC. >:: .::co:? ,.:8.,.. ?:A. :,fk7x .` '.�
t . e ,
:::: �.:: ::.t:,,,::a.:k „:..¢,s>,»:.,,,:. �.. >. �.9.3..�:L..:;; >;;: <a¢,: .... .i,.�;..,to.S <ir.;. >r::�"�. ...er3�,. .:.tee.:
_ .�`
.. x. i Qoy,.a3l, icb;' » .. _ .�. :...: � < ,: .. a :::.:::..;; <F.�� �, r 5,t,�Y.:� r�C4 ,
?>..:a»:.@»t't ; e ::::::. .::::... .[ 7 ., rf,,.:: AJ ,. t7...2.;£.0�3'^�6�.�:.>
P' >Y::t
. �: w o. ¢ ;f .;' o.t ” c. :l. .L (. <c";rto. �:.:;✓¢..::.:6 t;: .. ¢u. ... ': e:?�: . :t ;: <: %>��
i <,
t .: ::. w. . a... :F �.: , . '1Cr.:` «« X�h. +:+:'::..;.Y.: ,. � } e y ..: F .;5;.. "'>:G' ;
: :Y ., ffiv L 4 9F
k'
. o'r..0: ,.Y . . $� " ...,fi,. � .f:L?f.p�>: S:' 6A , W,x , ,,, ��, ,,�3i:�k£YSe4'b::k:.0�.':;::k�:
.;:. ... j>.Yl '' :.;F'E: .:�». .. /.:. 0.14::. . <::, .
{ Ott: :i.S :kr:.::;:;;r ,... .:....
.::: ` < y < 3t<tt ' : : :; tabl .
ARTICLE III
That Section 5.03, PAYMENTS by CITY, Paragraph (f), 1 paragraph, which reads as
follows:
table:
FY 1990 0.07
FY 1991 0.12
FY 1992 0.17
FY 1993 0.22
FY 1994 0.28
FY 1995 0.33
FY 1996 0.38
FY 1997 0.61
FY 1998 0.61
FY 1999 0.00
be OMITTED and DELETED in its entirety, and the following be substituted in its place:
...: ..............:. .<mr, <v.'<.:co::::: < : L<. rw ,.ycu¢k53iyi,.p�..,i;.
,:' . . ... ! .':k :. :. . ..' :Y. �:' ' :FIB': "3 � � t ":.t' �.
� ::. �A:... n. n .n,::..:...:::::..:....:.:: ::. n. : . n.. .g:, .na. n ...:m..n.. ..... :... v .. .. .. .. ... ...
.. 1 ..o.( ....kt»:kkow » >.: Y ::.:5. .o. . ,¢ e:»:::.::nw:, ?..:;:�. i.; :: :«5,.,.. . t:;:Y.. ?; k: 4:Ct:S!i"
..:....... Y :.:.4 ? i.,».,.:.2..:..:2 .. .......t .vt.,. vo.:� �::G,.q,;» :t:.n�. {».» .,i¢Yrfi :o..�3`.... yet,. ?:T, ""C".:n'�:. ''"::¢Yi.':;:::�.'S':�»
<x +� � t � y .<kftt: y r'
::
� , k ;S i ' �.,�:. k ;>.:. x .
:. :...:....:... .v:.F... ... . >:;< . : . .,... : ': .;`.rrr::. ^ :.4_: k�S:k �: ..:>'Y' ; +W.<: ... .;f ko;. ::
:..: ><::a>:::..Co .:::L$ . A . �( ..� . 3. h � (p,i � �''�.: y '£: : � ekk`F? • :�>t!e zk:l ov: j .,: f °o.
�Q , �
tab
«: fix.:% fF.::..
:: 8..
;>> %fin >' < >:'
i.:! `: #;:.,Ni.¢bY:Eiw.::: ;.o°:r;^A S;<:> <o '.<
:� 33r
y ...
yg 8 ?v.-
4i �!�.
kfizi.5.tk,..
3
. 5B -7
......:...:.......::.
:.. "'" .: � x > s: ». >�`<`�:; ; »;�s:. < ,:
..........::::::.:::.
t :: '� :t �3::<`� <4' ":: %��` �:ifR;.aa:oou x.�',r,;i}�.�,.':'.:)n::'
yg
'i3r' x' C?:'::»'><` �e` �,' � �1ia;. '::E1�??R:4ai;::yv`: %'eA.�" :.uk: >::cr;:::R
ARTICLE IV
That ARTICLE V, Section 5.03 ANNUAL REQUIREMENT be supplemented with the
addition of item (k), which reads as follows:
(k) If CITY'S diversion is continued beyond November 30, 2000, CITY shall make
additional payment to the AUTHORITY for the volume of wastewater being
diverted to the Central Regional Wastewater System as if it were being
discharged into the Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System. Payments
must be made to the Central Regional Wastewater System for flow being
diverted based on Annual Payment requirements to the Central Regional
Wastewater System and also to the Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System
based on Annual Payment requirements for wastewater as if it were discharged
into the Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System.
ARTICLE V
That Section 6.06, FORCE MAJEURE, which reads as follows:
4
5B-8
be OMITTED and DELETED in its entirety, and the following be substituted in its place:
;. K;:::.: F;. �: :F.�::::Fr.:i��aK.<:areFk::rak: Uzi ac;;<:: k: ua� [<:,.»,.:.:. »..�k�;::?a;:.,: >x :::: »,.>;�;;::^.;:f .zo,.: � ..:.:. �c':.
. ...s... a ;. y�, �,yr�
. >..::: »....:.:. >. :., < . ..:......... ^ ,><... ..:.: . > ^ ^ ,. . ; . w.:.: .. ;: ... �,: ..x<� ^��i�.R�" � s j: >;�t� >:"'� �i;,,a?� ?' .f.�» .. # ;.
;,,�[ :4P �; .'
:.... ; ;. :... ... a.... R:< .. ,..K;.... > , . w. .....< ..: ,.�•�J k : x k f .. :.:'Q',. � i . . F : ... S 1r. tt > #s� : ,> . `fti ` �:�: . \», t;,, > .. :
. : ::c . : . : ::::: »:.,, ✓w,t.:: a. . :ya. : . : > "i,. !. x CF .�a�.:�. .��.. :.> >..,C�;��.:f: ^f:: ..7?� .'L, f, :°.` '::a.,r
,, . :. :.: ::.::. : ^. too .... .. t.a .. ,;;.. <. �`�?. .,..: : :t. - ,::# of sf : * � k. > ':.� %`a+ �:tey •� :ta:
yy ;: :: •
:.» .::....:............,. ... >....:.......... g � .:: > >::.. Ott?.::; k: aa�, t. »:.,s..:�: ?;:;F <;;::: � . >:.��. >:ns,
Y•,
�j}� }� },� t f� ��1` Z lam' :' �.'S>,. :� � �' ' W ': . ... � + ^ *. . v�
w „
_
<: « <.:..> ..a.::::e: <::..., t.... .f, >x ,.�.wc.F ... ..> ,: A : �. . .%^>•�aW .'a::.....:i[..o..s:.';' �.. \.: »>.. .'�.:. *:�'�., ?f*
.. ...l " >k .fig �: `. ;.�.,. ',�j
ta : . ar ::: > ; :
: i�s tt <I .. st#tc <4:' :: ": ' `..::.' °:' :., <.' `
.... ... t ..... . .. .w . . :. ... ...... ...:.r ... ..... .n ,.. St .. .. :.. . ..... . .. .. . ... .. .. " ::" ':iit \ :F,:i �� v: .f(:!.::.> • : :. n ..:: . ::. :::: . » . . . .> :. n ... ...
k.> F
tilt �r�rt rs�...:.. ,kk���t.'>t��f....: .� ;> �` .............. .:. ...................... . ......... .... . . . .... . . . . . .. ........r r�
:..............
!p Eitml:910140410y4000vartj.....:::
e s .. ...... -: tw.wia*,,
: ............... .. ,. : gam.!
,.:. : ,....._ :.:. ::.:: ; >.::...>sx;: a. a�: »r.:. >;: .. . � ::k �t , .l. : : 4:.'.. .::�sr �:: . .:. \ "v'� *;r:�: .. ,�:f,,. .:'ks
:::... , .>..: .s: k:: >:: .:
�.. _� ar t::.:.. ��' � . . ... .... ..... �a
[,
.>:< n» s » »x. >:. >:. >:;.;:. >:.:_:: ,,._::k:orGi. ,.. ,... s. i";:::; a '::'f.L'. ?::. »,::: >`»:.'L>. " :� ;::: .. ::: ,: `o:.` .. . :::kry,.. a::�3.:: »: ?.6>3;'
........... .............. ::. .. ..>?...... ... ....F.:.�. .. ?g;. xY'i. .�</.',I�,b+f ?:: ::2?r:> .: A:::: - &: <'xf:':: :.'a x
/K.� o >: �..�.y .:.::. /► ... :,:.> ., . . [:.; :.k::::..k,::.::a,: s:ar' "'v >`!ia:.:. :....: �[.t::::.a. :k. :k:. a.. G7siFo:::3�f;a,.a.:
��
:.........:. .... ........... : ...:. ,. ><. »ks:
�} .> . tF. .> :. .> . .> :. ...•.
��I.' :. xxEE
.1����� "k��� .. ;!� >:L [[ ..a.. . ! .; ��[[ Fes' ¢
» {.: u,' k 3r.: S + f: r. �_:k >` 4U�, : °f:W`':::3^: #'::tC+: �: \a ::.Kn > x .«erf <e. M:`.Jit
.» » » »:..... _F� .U+ >: o>:•. '.:ao + >. » ....:. .... : : .:.:?mrn ^. r .. , ..... > » . .. :. /.... G. .59:... ...UF.<:C:.. ,A...
. .. .. .: ..:' ': ..:: . . r .. t .. ....: i:: .. . : .: ' !, .: ' : :: ,: �;..` <: :>':"::>' : >'.<`I >...:� :( >:.., >. t. :...:.: : ;.✓..__ . ,� . ... >:...:r'. " :.:iv. .:. ::..:'..: n:: , i '..i'.a.: : :,v'. . >' ?> ' ;' >:
:
x
..._ ....:..:. ...... . »......... a .. :...::. .:::. < » ».a:>ro4v':x£5�� � >� : ,:::f8: b , :. n.. sf . f , ,.., ;... %?
:
®.
A. ,
` . a >: / .!*; .. ? : << as
_v
..w«.:,,,,. ,.F::.,,.. � r ».:6.,. ..».. v..w: , ;.r.rc, . ... ..� ,.;.. x?>,:: .,n ✓...,:_: ;vkk6�:. �.: �� i:kkae;e.'.xn..
;Chh: Fr.:.,: .. �a <tv. 3... ,.. 3::: .k f" >. ti'tr <G;i>7 .??{�.. .�5�.'+ �
� ',,. .`� C 3.
.. ..:...o.::: :..;,.. :. . : ,a:^ ...'� ?s'�°:.s�. ,.s. ... mss:: v. ,. �.`.s'r . :K2:.: $j .>...F: t,.x,.:: K.,.,. ..r �?}
r
..... :.. . ..y. .220.'. :. ., . ... ...... .. :.. .: .. .. .,n.�. ... :...,.»:s, >.::.ns .:ss >;:: »:..,
<2: L» . � .ro[
&. 6 �}
,
y� j j
.......... ..: .. ........ . . ,. ..., .. ...:... .:...:.:.:.:.:..: .: .:em \»:.>...,. >..».. .:...... ..:....�'3».`G9»: .. :: >:
.. : <k . ::: * . : :; :
p.�i� ......fix �::... ;:.. } Y:.:.::: ::, . ;.:
ARTICLE VI
That Section 8.02, TERMINATION OF SERVICE, 2n which reads as follows:
(a} • - - ,
Section -3.04.
5
. 5B -9
be OMITTED and DELETED in its entirety, and the following be substituted in its place:
it sRO;100 use fo 4.0.g kl att � s prided
to <5w tjiL<A+ W.:O'.... k <A. ;6; �'��� {'ypy�g�} k } ojo »»; ; oift ^.`,N.yc; mm _.
SittliOt
y1y, No y >; ov .. .... ` f
<v
♦r
y
< q:<.., �.. »:.�' <.:�::cr ..............:... : : •... C :: [ <t:...;:.n.; .. , ::c;:' <:. :i <nv;:;.V .� if <�� ts::.i,... �:.vt...v
... :.�:. :.t :.v v ... , .. .:. •ta ::.•4 , � i . � 5 ` � .. : .!yaF,. \:�<< , <ya
::::.�:: xR:: >:.:... : / :.:: ,:�' .: �... : •::' :S,>.c.:: , <: .;y;... � > �'t
ter; a : :
f
_.. ....cif...,...... ............. �...... ............ �'��I���.....,.....,.
f:
ARTICLE VII
That Section 8.03, INDEMNITY, which reads as follows:
Section 8.03. INDEMNITY
• — — - -- — — —
be OMITTED and DELETED in its entirety, and the following be substituted in its place:
.. of <$ � - .✓ US #.... A <af.: :•,¢3:: Ya. <' ....
From an �r r. ` , I�i .. r d� ...si one' e!
� �
�j ��jj**��a � a k �c w ri . . #S. aa� � uua. � fv�. ��� 7 �a or: ,k r A4+:✓
Ba .iE'J`<Yt:::> :' :Z.sha gig. . :: . A f;' .:: '` t6 Y.3� ;8f >'.� 's g;�i "€ . }_...�
a:
:..�s*..(<.a^;.:<2::$tof9:: :.:.ua. <,a.?➢.: X_<'n_7 A s.,.»a. <<z; > «o a: t .zao;xcwa .. :. .�'��
.tii.
� .. :.a. ., ., > . .
a.
. * .......
m
ARTICLE VIII
This SECOND AMENDMENT, to the extent of any conflict with the original
AGREEMENT shall supersede the terms and provisions of the original AGREEMENT and
FIRST AMENDMENT. However, it is the express intention of AUTHORITY and City that this
SECOND AMENDMENT and the original AGREEMENT shall be completely integrated and be
construed in harmony and congruity as a single instrument.
6
5B -10
•
EXECUTED on the day of , 1999, which shall be the effective date
of the FIRST AMENDMENT to the AGREEMENT.
TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS
DANNY F. VANCE, General Manager
ATTEST:
JAMES L. MURPHY, Secretary
Board of Directors
(SEAL)
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
THE HONORABLE RICK STACY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
7
5B -11
C it y �� Interim Diversion
1
of �u ■
_
r- L After 2 lift stations are built
r 2 in Basins N -3 and N -4, wastewater
11 Southlake p-- N f 1 6 l e - " t I nuBasen N.6the TRA lift
i
,_r
I
II
Legend Force Main
� mom= < I I N-3 & N -4 Basin
Basin Division Lines + i � E
II
North /South Basin Division Line k ....1 54 ° 1 44 ( � S-6 Basin 1
Sanitary Sewer Lines `Cavity Line � 1 n
Parcel Lines 4 74`e` J t � s- as .-.;.=- __.: ll
- - N -2 ,i .. ,ta —
— Gravity Lines - a Ni ,, 11� ' �"
� �i. - _ �� a f r
- Fo rce Main dq ■ra'r�a
� .�■ I Existing authIc
{ ii Force Main Agra Gravit
® Existing TRA Lift Station n l ae • s , f ■ ■ a lNl g p ga l . titlRifiti� Line F
■
■ Proposed Lift Stations it ■ ■ N, 7" r _ Existing lift Stations W , . R" e '� � ■E�
v ne to be Removed 1 �g�a E ■
El Sewer Plant �� 5 ¢ 6,06,,,,,„44,101,10,,s, e� � 1r -a vosed
r r ■ ! rte Hy
■. i{arV: a « «.. SS.i .. • \� II , ig aw.. � w a E� r
III
Lift Stations igEl_ a� d Rik, t ® � � � � .� � i
I i an d -+ ,4 '" ..
w wu > 9
s�...a .p 44 - r"i W riter glii Force Main
« _ �r�a , � A � �' � s e¢ w -mil ��� �:aaatmr.11't ii
i .a s gT l} T i .1 N -a ,.. a r � , " tj s 0t
9iia i i
iii G» , t I 4e .La as t 4 sa e . .
■
No Scale I G. 6� ' � 1
I -4 a `S ar _r .. �
� nrn. •ice - -SfE aata a . � ■ u ' N "'1' r •'i future
is le � ��y ' a,s r� l`''�-�..— ss IIIats'P��wvarea, .. V eteasl �' f 1 y
1, 8 _ Bf ■M ° ■i�_ a � �� ssa• RfiP raeR ■ . m 4 ., �' g ne4 a . line ! "E - sfa ■ v'S • a. . 'Su a qs •a>R ■sa IIII 1 � MR�V� =�,48 r n�t xgE -- 9Ekss,0Ta�m a x" ■eE �.,,.«,,,,r .\ ist' gLiftStations II
s N RM . �i ■ � nur l ad; x b 3- 1 �3 - - -- 'Walfi gis Raf�g AY to be Removed
�' : a v _ i i �8 \ H 1 :�3. ti _ � `^ar g , r awr '` - : - °°,, • a.
II „ 1 41.1 _ i' ; sit; wil � -+ ,g _ L c � - _
7' L� iri er; it
i i
■ *a �.g I y '% -- ',I .t i_ l "ti a 1 " � ` � �i b a �` ' M �r ontrxxigniOna
� � 1 iin '
ra
Mil- >� 't ` _ ia. .. ` ' -rs 9 O r ;IT i x3s.ne tee � � �„". ■� ■E. -- � • .rdr" •
,, , i ,
, _Li , ,__,
-elm W - Y 4, ' _,Ilim � r� s l ' i 91i 7Nlii' II of 'fa _ r� 4. o' '` i t, a 1� 1-
1 r■ ■� .rv `., ■d =. " :.,,. - ' et a. y r �s _ l -- - °
'ice ,y, ��z"3' ( r
.'^ ?s .19 ►` - ' RI► 44 � sa 1{ 44 sa4 a s }¢ 4e ya M A l _ ;�� :. j j . , ,.�,, . i �
i , '' � i .s,3 ��, �� j
eta �,�o. i - .�...._. yi
This data has been compiled for the City of Southlake. Various official and ---,,,,_----..„,„,\
unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was '
made to ensure the accuracy of this data however, no guarantee is given or
Public
implied as to the accuracy of said data. c Works - G I S
V
.
1
1 0
1 •., .___
Cit P! Interim Diversion
Of w %I .,, After 2 lift stations are built
111 lkik =` _ an "ate in Basins N -3 and N -4, wastewater
- �:�
bl
South lake fpm 11 lam, be pumped to the TRA lift station in Basin N -6.
ti
IMP Legend ,1 '�: . - -+ r
),'- _;, 1- , N -3 & N -4 Basin
Basin Division Lines - � � �! `h id ; R � � , 1 , , I ii .1 _ '
North /South Basin Division Line .1 Ian■ s i 5 t i S -6 Basin
I San itary Sew Lines \ o1°° t1 A° j t R
L ..* ■ Y m .. E.:49,40 . 41 _
■n r`' -r ;
Parcel Lines " : ., � a n _ -
Gravity Lines
m N -2 6�I/1 .
�� 'LVI ■ 1 i
• �i ■ � ■ rte ! �IJ .III. _l .
- - - - - -- Force Main .�i� ■ TO" t '�i■ •. �OYICv".$�."3 E.isting JUtt IIQ�
Ie ■ fi t am Gravity
II Existing TRA Lift Station I t.r . NI p i r g �' ` I. II •awl 1
8 _ ��11� A �� r'rt +tni I l er 1 _1 --
Proposed Lift Stations = �sllil� fir• ill Existing lift Stations � � . tl
I
.■ 1 me 1■ il. to be Removed _
ga, a U ar Y ■ � > � i Proposed
■ ■�V1 all10� n. G
❑ Sewer Plant , I.r .1.:� iti � lllllllllll'� � � �-, Line rsv1 b
i 1111111/4
� 1•r 1al I 'lla :.a.7•.16\MF ? a•�-
•
Lift Stations = �.. r = = ► � �IN i "411. *^
( ...„ . S.
.P�i�y� orce am
.. , . 111111 %01, 64 . *P •� 17, � 11 N " ,, 1 t
TIP , III ; � i�, � 42 , 1 , f 1
IIi11i1 IA� �I� ► 4elinearM EM 1 a ::::14: - 2 f! � _ 0,67., NO Scale ,I I �,, � t■� ® ��- .S l l "" -� \ t i. Future
_ —_ •• , 4. ; �L / /O� mmr �.� sff �( N K_. 11:-.4 . --s, ... - - - Gravity
7 1�I 'II i „ . 'ui:
IIIIIII � 1 :, _ r c .n -!!'�\ a= / 141 s.„ -I'•y fi i i Existing L ine
NI 1 I„,= (�. �S n r� fan t =.. .. a . 1S ■ 1, a R
iis ` - . • .. II t Nui _i „ f x . . :.l.: i t d 11.E �;• I * ,> - u La - to be Removed
bons
III m I 11 v I r �:� �. � ' f 41%.1 , t l _ .0*, „, i� J '� 1 e 1F,�
'1 -.. - III ; ' � 1 1) :0 . r a � k lr 'I 1 S rim 1 �= .... ; 1 j .■ l - rn_ r ' �`-.. ,R� I aiiik. ' -. •„._
241111 ��jj II a rr lk4:4q4 II Lt � t 'l l m J !: 4 -
• - .
0. Ma � ff m as se ICY t ■. . . a
it ■tti■ Id �i 1 � r ■ �jl J f ' a . = •u li l = : Il'
..111 ■'1 �� �' �� E , �o^� °hr'gl�Ill /.. .1. :.. :1 0
�u Mil Il — sii..� , 1 s'v1 1 a. 4 i � r,-.: a 1 -. ■
S -1 ■ ■■oJ lets z'S .
a■nr� _■ /�! ,t '�� . 1� Af' 1ppr •; y ra S! 111
' iferml■lab 7r■ 1 1. , 4 . may 4 1 � 4' T R1 1 � _:
3 l t 5 ` 11 i �1. . , �� t *II. i' ! a . �v g i L � J �n1r y i3 r .a1 y� /II :s �a s �- , ` r .. 6: tell-
at G=
Ill
This data has been compiled for the City of Southlake, various official and
O
unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was
made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or 'I
iii
implied as to the accuracy of said data. Public Works -GIS
illi
Poll
ON
PO
IMO