The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-03-19 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 667 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 19, 1996 MINUTES COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tern Andy Wambsganss; Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Pamela Muller. Members: Michael Richarme, Sally Hall, W, Ralph Evans. COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mayor Gary Fickes. CITY STAFF PRESENT: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager; Shana Yelverton, Assistant City Manager; Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance; Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works; Greg Last, Director of Community Development; Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator; Kim McAdams, Director of Parks and Recreation; Kevin Hugman, Assistant to the City Manager; E. Alien Taylor Jr., City Attorney; and, Sandra L. LeGrand, City Secretary. INVOCATION: Councilmember W. Ralph Evans. WORK SESSION: The work session was held where agenda items for tonight's meeting were discussed by Council and staff. The Regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Mayor Pro Tem Andy Wambsganss. Agenda Item #2-A, Executive Session Mayor Pro Tern Wambsganss advised the audience that Council would be going into executive session pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.074, 551.076 of the Open Meetings Act, to seek the advice of the City Attorney with respect to pending and contemplated litigations, and to discuss the purchase, exchange, lease or sale of real property and to consider the appointment and evaluation of public officials, and regarding the deployment of specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or devises. Council adjourned for executive session at 7:03 p.m. Council returned to open session at 7:50 p.m. Agenda Item #2-B. Action Necessary/Executive Session No action was necessary as the result of the executive session. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 1996 page two Agenda Item #3. Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 1996, City Council Meetine The Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on March 5, 1996 were approved as presented. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Muller, Wambsganss Nays: None Abstention: Muller Approved: 4-0-1 vote Agenda Item #4-A. Mayor's Renort Mayor Pro Tem Wambsganss announced a meeting will be held on Monday evening, March 25, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the Municipal Complex Project. He encouraged those who wish to become involved in the project to fill out a "green interest card" and present to either the Assistant City Manager or the City Secretary. Wambsganss also informed the audience that the filing deadline for the General Election will be March 20, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. Council Places 1 and 6 are open for three (3) year terms. The filing deadline for the Special Election is April 3, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. On the ballot will be the unexpired terms of Mayor (one year term), Place 2 (one year term), Place 4 (two year term), and Place 5 (two year term). The Mayor Pro Tern also announced that the City Council Midyear review will be held in the Education Center at Solana on March 26, from 8:30 to 6:30 p.m. This review will be open to the public and Council candidates are encouraged to attend. Agenda Item #4-B, City Manaeer's Report Curtis Hawk, City Manager, reported that the monthly financial reports are in the packets. Questions should be directed to Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance. Agenda Item #4-C. SPIN Rel~ort Martin Schelling, 2665 North White Chapel Blvd., Southlake. Mr. Schelling is SPIN g2 Representative. He stated their last meeting was held on March 7, with five (5) people in attendance, whereby the main topic for discussion was the Maguire Thomas final plat and the Master Thoroughfare Plan. He noted neighborhood topics included the right-of-way on North White Chapel Blvd. when the park is developed. He indicated questions were directed to staff regarding other issues. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 1996 page three Aeenda Item #S-A, Consent: Award of Bid for Paving Improvements on Dove Road from White Chapel to Kimball Avenue. Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, led the discussion with regards to awarding the bid for paving improvements on Dove Road, from White Chapel Blvd. to Kimball Avenue, stating the project was bid in five parts to determine the construction costs with realignment considered and with no realignment. This was done in order to give staff an idea of the cost associated with realignment. Staff and the consultants for this project, Rady and Associates, recommend awarding the project to the low bidder, Reynolds Asphalt and Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $579,339.70 for the Base Bid ($506,248.15) and Alternate "A" ($9,821.75) and Alternate "C" ($63,269.80). Alternatives "A" and "C" were for basic reconstruction and paving with no realignment of the intersections. Funds for this project will be provided by the 1993 Road Bonds. Motion was made to approve awarding the bid for paving improvements on Dove Road from White Chapel to Kimball Avenue to include the Base Bid and Alternate "C". Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Hall, Wambsganss, Muller Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Agenda Item 5-B. Consent: Contract with Mesa Designs for Professional Services for West Beach and Bicentennial Park Master Plan. The contract with Mesa Designs for Professional Services for West Beach and Bicentennial Park Master Plan was presented for approval to the City Council. Kim McAdams, Director of Park and Recreation Department, stated a consultant selection committee made up of Sally Hall, Janet Murphy, Martin Schelling, Greg Last and Kim McAdams reviewed the RFPs and interviewed the top three proposals. The committee recommends that MESA Design Associates of Dallas be awarded the contract of $20,000 to master plan the two parks. The project is to begin in the latter part of March and be completed in about five (5) months. Motion was made to award the contract to Mesa Designs for West Beach and Bicentennial Park Master Plan. Motion: Richarme Second: Hall Ayes: Richarme, Hall, Evans, Muller, Wambsganss Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 1996 page four Agenda Item #6. Public Forum Gary Hargett, 1111 South White Chapel Blvd., Southlake. Passed. Agenda Item g7-A, Ordinance No. 480-191.2nd reading ZA 95-116 Ordinance No. 480-191, 2nd reading (ZA 95-116), Rezoning and Concept Plan for Commerce Square, being approximately 7.22 acres of land situated in the Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No. 474, Tract 3A. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District with a request for "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "O-1" (Office), "Iq" (Light Industrial), and "B-l" (Business Service Park) uses. Owners: Steve and Sue Pritchett; Applicant: PIMA Properties, Inc. SPIN Neighborhood #7. Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, commented that ten (10) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and two (2) written responses have been received from: Carl and Madge Smith, 13212 Glad Acres Drive, Dallas, in favor; and, Catherine A. Jurgensen, 4138 Willow Grove Road, Dallas, undecided. Her comment was, "My property adjoins the property in question, and I don't have enough information to make a decision." The applicant has met all the review comments of the Plan Review Summary No. 5 dated February 16, 1996, with the exception of the items addressed in the Plan Review Summary No. 6 dated March 1, 1996. In the "I-1" District, only 15% of the floor area of the building may be utilized as retail uses and that these retail uses must be reasonably related to the principal uses within the structure. With an approved specific use permit, the 15% of the net square footage may be exceeded under certain circumstances. David McMahan, 1335 Hidden Glen, Southlake. Mr. McMahan stated he is here representing PIMA Properties to answer questions of Council. The public hearing resulted with no comments from the audience. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-191, 2nd reading, subject to the Plat Review Summary No. 6, dated March 1, 1996; modifying item #2, to accept the driveway entrance location as shown on the plan, as well as the turning patterns as shown on the plan; deleting item #3 for the southern portion only of the bufferyard as shown on the plan. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Mayor Pro Tern Wambsganss read the caption of the ordinance. Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Hall, Muller, Wambsganss Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Regular City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 1996 page five Aeenda Item #7-B. Ordinance No. 480-192, 2nd reading (ZA 96-03). Ordinance No. 480-192, 2nd reading (ZA 96-03), being legally described as Tract 5-R-l, The Glory Place Addition shown on the Plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1626, situated in the Hiram Grandberry Survey, Abstract No. 581, and being approximately an 11.17 acre tract of land. Current zoning is "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. Requested zoning is "RE" Residential Estate. Owner/Applicant: Gary Hargett. SPIN Neighborhood #10. The Zoning Administrator, Karen Gandy, stated seventeen (17) written notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and two (2) written responses have been received from: Wallace Ryne, 809 Boston Drive, Southlake, in favor; and, Thomas A. Wilson, 100 Stonewood Court, Southlake, in favor. The requested rezoning is to accommodate the current uses and the size of lot in question. Although the applicant's lot exceeds the ten acre minimum required for "AG" Agricultural zoning, the "AG" District is not considered a residential classification when calculating bufferyards, etc., and, therefore, does not afford the applicant the adjacency protection that he desires. Gary Hargett, 1111 South White Chapel Blvd., Southlake, was present for the meeting to answer questions of Council. The public hearing resulted with no comments from the audience. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-192, 2nd reading. Motion: Richarme Second: Hall Mayor Pro Tern Wambsganss read the caption of the ordinance. Ayes: Richarme, Hall, Evans, Muller, Wambsganss Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Agenda Item #7-C, ZA 96-19, Revised Concept Plan for Countryside Bible Church ZA 96-19, Revised Concept Plan for Countryside Bible Church, being Lot 2, Block A, Ravenaux Village and being 8.924 acres situated in the Thomas Hood Survey, Abstract No. 706. Current zoning is "CS" Community Service District. Owner: Countryside Bible Church; Applicant: Terry Mitchell. SPIN Neighborhood #11. Karen Gandy, Zoning Administrator, commented that twelve (12) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and three (3) written responses have been received from: Charles M. and Mary Le Keen, 2116 Sagebrush Trail, Grapevine, no longer owns the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 1996 page six Agenda Item #7-C, Continued property; John H. Larson, 335 Ravenaux, Southlake, in favor; and W. H. Crumbaker, P.O. Box 92836, Southlake, in favor. Terry Mitchell, 1610 Pheasant, Southlake. Mr. Mitchell stated he is present to answer questions representing the Countryside Bible Church. He requested the east and north bufferyards be taken off and commented there are 1,000 trees between SH 114 and the church. PUBLIC HEARING: Gary Fawks, 330 Ravenaux Drive, Southlake. Mr. Fawks stated he is in favor of the revised concept plan, of the three (3) plans previously submitted, this is the most compatible to the residences in the area. He stated he is concerned with lighting in the basketball court and on the parking lot. He asked if the lights could be placed on timers and directed away from the neighborhood. Fawks reminded Council that the other property owners and the neighborhood wish to proceed with abandonment of the fight-of-way for the Ravenaux Drive extension. Councilmember Muller asked Mr. Mitchell if the lighting request could be accommodated. Mr. Mitchell stated he would comply with the request. Councilmember Wambsganss stated it is the consensus of Council to abandon the fight-of-way on Ravenuax Drive. Anything that staff can do to expedite this would be appreciated. Motion was made to approve ZA 96-19, Plan Review Summary No. 2 dated March 15, 1996, modifying the bufferyard requirement for the north and east and to accept plan presented tonight. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Hall, Muller, Wambsganss Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Agenda Item #7-D, ZA 96-14, Site Plan for Primrose School ZA 96-14, Site Plan for Primrose School, being 1.7892 acres situated in the G.W. Main Survey, Abstract No. 1098, Tract 2E. Current zoning is "C-2" Local Retail Commercial District. Owner: Frank Cangelosi: Applicant: Patrick Saucedo. SPIN Neighborhood #7. Motion was made to table ZA 96-14, at the request of the applicant, time certain April 2, 1996. Motion: Richarme Second: Muller Regular City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 1996 page seven Agenda item g7-D. Continued Ayes: Richarme, Muller, Hall, Evans, Wambsganss Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Agenda Item #7-E, PUBLIC HEARING: Impact Fee Study Curtis Hawk, City Manager, stated the purpose of the public hearing is to provide an opportunity for the public to provide input into the process prior to Council's vote on first reading of the ordinance. The public hearing has been advertised per statutory requirements of Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, as well as through our normal public notification process. A copy of the information presented by the Capital Advisory Committee is hereby attached to the minutes of the meeting. Mr. Hawk stated the purpose of the impact fees is to cover the cost of infrastructure. Lewis F. McLain was present to answer questions of Council and the audience and to present an overview of where we are and how we got here. The public hearing resulted with no comments from the audience. Agenda Item #8-A, Ordinance No. 657, 1st reading Impact Fees Curtis Hawk, City Manager, stated it has been suggested this item be tabled until April 2, 1996, in order for Council to have the opportunity to review the ordinance which has not been completed by the City Attorney. Mr. Hawk stated a work session will be held between the first reading and the second reading of this ordinance in order for Council to better review and understand this ordinance and the process. Motion was made to table Ordinance No. 657, 1st reading, and Council will have a work session on April 9, 1996, prior to the second reading. Motion: Richarme Second: Muller Ayes: Richarme, Muller, Hall, Evans, Wambsgnass Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote (to table) Regular City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 1996 page eight Agenda Item #8-B. Ordinance No. 658.1st readine. Abandonment of a Portion of Miron Drive ROW in Miron Subdivision Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, informed Council that the Miron Subdivision is located just west of Woodland Heights on the south side of Southlake Blvd. When the subdivision was built, approximately one-third of the platted street, Miron Drive, was constructed. The remaining two-thirds of the street had not been constructed, used, nor accepted as a public street and "constitute a public charge without a corresponding public benefit." Council is requested to declare this street right-of-way as excess ROW and abandon the southern two-thirds of Miron Drive. The ordinance also authorizes the Mayor to execute one or more quitclaim deeds on behalf of the City. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 658, 1st reading, as presented. Motion: Richarme Second: Evans Mayor Pro Tern Wambsganss read the caption of the ordinance. Ayes: Richarme, Evans, Hall, Muller, Wambsganss Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Agenda Item #10-A. Commercial Develooer Agreement for Villaee Center, Phase I. East. Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works, led the discussion regarding the Commercial Developer Agreement for Village Center, Phase I. He noted this agreement includes the proposed Kroger. The usual requirements for performance bonds, letter of credit or cash escrow are incorporated in the agreement. The changes are as follows: The Developer requested additional language to insure that the City will not unreasonably withhold or delay the construction plans. This is usual practice for the City not to delay construction plan review, therefore, Public Works staff has no problem with this additional language. The section regarding amenities is struck out because there are none. There is no off-site and/or sewer pro rata nor is there any off-site water. OFF-SITE DRAINAGE: will be required in the amount of $7,655.99 ($623.30 per acre X 12.283 acres). The critical drainage structures are located within North Kimball Avenue Regular City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 1996 page nine A~,enda Item #10-A. Continued approximately 800 feet north of SH 114 and on Shady Lane. * PARK FEES: requires a park fee of $6,141.50 (12.283 acres X $500 per acre). * Because Village Center will abut SH 114 and FM 1709, there will not be a perimeter street fee. Motion was made to approve the Commercial Developer Agreement for Village Center, Phase I, East, as presented. Motion: Richarme S~cond: Hall Ayes: Richarme, Hall, Evans, Muller, Wambsganss Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Agenda Item #Il-A, Discussion: Regnlatlng Maximum Imoervious Coveraee in Commercial Districts. As discussed in work session, Councilmember Pamela Muller stated in order to meet the objective proposed, some things should be addressed in the Landscape Ordinance. Ms. Muller reference the draft ordinance which was presented by Bill Kemp. After discussion, it was suggested that Ms. Muller meet with Mr. Kemp and Greg Last to determine the possibility of putting this impervious coverage in commercial districts in the Landscape Ordinance. Agenda Item #11-B, Discussion: Mid Year Review Agenda Curtis Hawk, City Manager, stated the Mid Year Review will be held on Tuesday, March 26, 1996, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in the Education Center at Solana, Westlake. A brief discussion was held regarding the agenda for the session. Agenda Item #2-A, Executive Session. Continued Mayor Pro Tern Wambsganss stated that Council would be returning to executive session in order to discuss personal matters related to the City Manager and City Secretary. Council adjourned for executive session at 9:15 p.m. Council returned to open session at 9:45 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes March 19, 1996 page ten Agenda Item #2-B. Action Necessary/Continued No action was taken as the result of the return to executive session. Agenda Item #12. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Pro Tern Wambgansss at 9:45 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem"7~ndy W/~bsganss City Secretary City of Southlake, Texas CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SIGN UP IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK DURING THE MEETING DATE: 42.1b i )J NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE AGENDA ITEM / / j`� ��, City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM March 14, 1996 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Impact Fee Study -- Public Hearing As you know, the public hearing to discuss updating the water and sewer impact fees, and adopting roadway impact fees for the City of Southlake is scheduled for March 19, 1996. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide an opportunity for the public (interested residents, developers, builders, etc.) to provide input into the process prior to Council's vote on first reading of the ordinance. The public hearing has been advertised per statutory requirements of Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, as well as through our normal public notification process. The following will be discussed during the public hearing: ✓Brief Introductory Remarks - Study Team members will provide introductory information regarding the purpose of the study, the requirements of Chapter 395, the methodologies used, and the recommended fees. If necessary, Study Team members will also be prepared to answer any questions the Council or audience may have regarding the capital improvement plans. ✓Committee Comments - The advisory committee is required to file written comments with the City five business days before the public hearing. Southlake's advisory committee has filed their comments, and members will be available during the public hearing to answer any questions you may have about the process or the written comments. ✓Public Input - It is difficult to ascertain the level of interest in the project. Although the reports have been made available to the public, we have had limited interest expressed. To my knowledge, we have handed out only two packets. Still, impact fees are often the subject of intense interest and we may well have more interest that we anticipate. Please place the public hearing on the agenda for the March 19 City Council meeting. The first reading of the ordinance will be placed on the agenda to immediately follow the public hearing. SKY February 29, 1996 To: Mayor and Councilmembers, City of Southlake From: Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) Subject: 1995 -1996 Roads, Water, and Wastewater Impact Project After diligent and extensive work with the staff - consultant team, the 1995- 1996 Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) asserts that all impact studies, reports, and recommendations are consistent with the requirements of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. In addition, the CIAC offers these general opinions and assurances: • Growth assumptions are middle -of- the -road and are based on local data and trends or on regional or national standards. • Capital plans are right -sized and manageable. • Cost projections are reasonable. • Proposed impact fees are adequate, competitive, and, at the beginning, comparable to current exactions. (For water and wastewater, the proposed fees support continuation of flat utility rates.) Specific committee comments, observations, and points of emphasis (grouped by type) follow. Roads • Although it has a reputation in the professional planning community as implementing "best practices" for regional computer models, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) model used to make traffic projections is based on back -level data and is said to require substantial functional enhancement, especially for accuracy at the local level. A new version of the model is expected in 1997. • Barton - Aschman Associates, the transportation consultants on the study team, were not especially responsive, expansive, or articulate in addressing the committee's methodology concerns (for example, the role of the NCTCOG model), which caused considerable frustration and delay. • With the goal of having a common road impact fee across the city, the CIAC took care to include meaningful capital projects in each service Page 1 area — with only token projects, a service area would qualify for only an artificially low impact fee. • Original construction cost estimates (from the study team) were trimmed somewhat at the committee's urging — these lower estimates (in the report) can be compared against actuals in the next impact -fee review cycle. • Right -of -way (ROW) acquisition is an eligible cost, and the committee guessed that about half of the ROW would have to be purchased, which is reflected in the project estimates. • If today's practice for impact fees is followed, adoption of road impact fees will change the source and timing of road exactions: today, developers pay perimeter road fees at final platting; tomorrow, contractors would pay impact fees as building permits are issued. • Today's "critical drainage structures" assessments are embedded in the proposed road impact fees. Water • CIAC consideration of the water - system capital projects was in the context of the city's intention to join the regional water system and, thus, to accept the City of Ft. Worth as its sole supplier of water. • Having multiple sources (major pipelines) for water is a critical requirement that has been highlighted by previous committees. With the regional water system, this should be accomplished within the next two years. • A proposal for an updated reimbursement policy for developer- funded water projects is being pursued separately and in parallel with this impact study. • Proposed ground- storage facilities will help lessen peak- demand rate surcharges, and these savings are reflected in the project cost estimates. • Proposed elevated- storage facilities will assure better pressure for routine uses and provide better reserves for fire - fighting. Wastewater • Tie -in to the Denton Creek drainage basin trunk line to the Trinity River Authority plant near Roanoke is near — the Solana site and the Higgins Branch basin (part of the N -1 line) will be online by year -end 1996. Page 2 • Because it does not represent new development, the city program to bring sewer service to existing subdivisions is outside the scope of impact fees. • A proposal for an updated reimbursement policy for developer- funded wastewater projects is being pursued separately and in parallel with this impact study. The CIAC members appreciate the opportunity to have served the city on this project during the past year. (c) r- )> Joe L. Wright, Chairman 11�� '' to 1/I ► 4 1 1 ��, ► Ernest P. Johnson Paul W. McCallum Bruce McCombs 11 du./ David C. McMahan Robert O'Neal Lanny Tate Page 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM • Reviewed Thoroughfare Plan to determine potential projects • Assumed that projects would be constructed to ultimate section as shown on Thoroughfare Plan • Determined cost based upon: • Cheatham & Associates Perimeter Road Fees • Modifications requested by CIAC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM • Criteria for Final Project Selection • No interim work done within the last 2 years, this year or next year • At least one project in each service area • Intuitive analysis of probable projects within 10 years based upon known developements • Elimination of projects based on intuitive thoughts on would would NOT be done within 10 years _ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM • Projects eliminated if there was an indication that work would be done by Developers CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM • Costs Included in Analysis • Construction • Right of Way • Critical Drainage Structures • Traffic Signals • Engineering & Surveying CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM • Construction Costs for Sections • C2U - $125/If • A4U - $170/If • A5U - $220/If CITY OF ,..... SOUTHLAKE . 1 : 1 11 . . , -. : . , _ .., taw ......„w= ... _ i s i If l lilt I '-i ,,:: l $737),--- ‘. .-pl . 1 " i 4 ,,,,.r7 ,. .,,, ,., -... ___Olki"1 X T 0 a , 0 , -4.#14,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 4..ityi It • 1!\, l Grimm .?.*:,', ' - 11 Mat ifi ram' r �` 11^ �- / II illMit - m r ...,_ ._ ,...,11 s ..,„, --- - --- irk lik : i•ii i*I ll . ' k mirj gy p °� �® U .....:•: IN SZEMMEIMMS 0,A . 14 . I. OX : I -I- EN 0,......abillitili. : H 1 f i ii . WII I i J. . Ettlii.111 I= ( a " Tillir-l2..... 1 ' Til i tal. 1 l el ' r I • . NI -M Milralgi. ... I I "s mil . ,... „...„ 1411177 rz"""�� w®cv�m�•,®� ms: rn sasxv xe r wzmm� , ill —.1-1 110 ill 1;f :* ° P h.. j-/ Railroad Crossing Signal I'D Traffic Signal Recoupment • Traffic Signal Improvement CD Roadway Improvement Project O Recoupment Project imp Projects Not Eligible for FIGURE 2 Impact Fee Recovery POTENTIAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATIONS 1 7 CITY OF y� SOUTHLAKE - - ,� F 7 ` f gut k ;Midi J J t Mill .. i•, s J ..... ihiiift la • . ' i ' Milt1161r"' / I \ 1 i ..... allIBT 16 .i ataL" i ii . 1 . • _ . r_ 4,,,,.. , idtt , I MI 1 MI ilic'IM2: ' gali MIZ k vio Si I pm S HMI 1111•0 AIM mr• • .., 1 .ZigWriV.r . I l it , 4 . 11111 ,E1W11 ! I MO ... mi la A •• I ,4,,,;', v'',. It i 0 ':.. 1 71A; trimr i MN Mil 0 as c E y , _ 4/N1 . 1 • . i I . , J4 . 1 • • WI wi i - . (- 161Wrib . i A . 9)(111 A m i, =was ill mow vi, , obi i or 1,41 VFW 111 ,,' _ le it A 17, 111._____.----71iminum. III j ' it M Re t LI B • .. ` , gin,. -No, \\,,,,x __ ,, - h . /A ........ ,,,,, ; :, ____,..,- _____] Roadway Improvement Project Q Recoupment Project Q Traffic Signal Recoupment Railroad Crossing Signal • Traffic Signal FIGURE 3 K RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATIONS 18 ∎. j. 1 i U 1 \s S 0 U T H LA h L; - A = Pending - 1996 Budget Funds 7 1------j B = Complete Funded in 1993-94 and 1994 -95 Budget C = Pending - 1996 Budget Funds I 1 ' , D = Completed 1995 t E = Pending - 1996 Budget Funds F= Complete - Funded in 1993 -94 Budget t . t ,11 . G = Complete Funded in 1993-94 and 1994-95 Budgets , ' ` Sa ' H = Pending - Scheduled for 1997 ___ - 4 , - ;�� 1 = Pending - 1996 Budget Funds it\ ais J = Pendine - 1996 Budget Funds l kwA, Pal % i ,_, \ AV i a % 1 . i ts 1t 1 r ■ ,,,,„,,,,,,,,3,3 !rthaPAIhdrib,...-.2_,,,..n.- I.. , 111140....- no ,i- Alta , IlipMlan Val•IIIPIRWitruarmilvwif r 11174F: 1 NIE VIII .0112 .., ,. ■ d ', 1 II liii,,.. t '''1 . • ___ o rdiEll pr re /NO :bra• B4 I t'a� . r La i . mil 1 ,- ,g ipm anz t ,1 11 7 4 W. 10 N i ii r ,m. W , .......=,......u.:, ...., owls " eiji II 11 1 F Milt . \ II o r i ....e. eat 1:13 4:11=123211 NX0X1401.464.0,, te. t _ Kir _ in n �� EWA yam - �_ 1 1 •1\ II � • d .2, . Dt 8 9a ®f EY !4 . \ ax �OOO 000p l •-• ' m . illi y� :.�t $� q / .4�i26QJID378w�®�dy� OeeoOOeut�mm. ��53�'%i'/- `•. � y•d f r ` • , �. � � YsS,Y` O8� �J° Fid8��il4a°tSB 2i5�6 � ...- 7 1 I 114 d ;0 1 1 77 I i t . % if Railroad Crossing Signal ID Traffic Signal Recoupment 0 Traffic Signal Improvement Q Roadway Improvement Project Q Recoupment Project • GB Projects Not Eligible for FIGURE 4 Impact Fee Recovery '` "1"'j Bond Project FUNDING FOR ROADWAY PROJECTS IN SOUTHLAKE Impact Fee Projects 22 . . 1 I 1 0 CI 1 13 1 I-- 10 2 ■ 11 2J j 1 1 CD o 13) 0 0 1 , S 0 o = c C - *.‘ <(0 _ CO cT, CT 0_ 1 I D ..... -0 CD IL. , Q., 0 !, 0 .. ! ET 1 C) o El _- W ._ 2 0 x- 3 co co o K . o 5 a) co M D m 5■-- 0 ET c, .. , 1 0< 2 a 0 'ET ri; , ! — 0 , .., _I. ...„ i -4 c 6 o al (.(.3 0 (.0 0 tv 1 ' ! c.n -. to ; ! c. - _I ,_ .p.. -. 0 0) T 73 Ci - IT. )> 13 15 I — . , ! • 0 N.) crl a) (D c c C c =3. =3. -2, 3 cccCa 3 o 0) , 0 , a , cn _. -. '-' --. 1 --' -, -• (...) ..... . co 0) -4 (.3 01 - -4 - A 14 V A 01 - A - --.1 71 J J g 9) .. 2) . 0- 01 0) a) a) CA 0) CO - 1 0' A.3 -. A -A 0 a) a) a! 0) tn cn cn A. OD AD CO -4 AD CD CO 1-4 AD DD -.4 (�• 7 Sirtir -- 6 --.- "" -•--.-.-- FIII - (11 iii ili r 1- 1- r- r- 1- r- r- i r- r- 1- I r" CD CD 0 (1) 0 0 a, 71 71 m - n - n m m m - n -n -n -n 'TI -n cb 0 000 i r • • 0 00 CD (D (D 0 a> 03 > > 0> 0 000 00> > » il (1) (1) (3 01 0) 6 A Iv A AD Ka 1 Ka K3 na un cn 0) 6 (D CD (D CD 03 0 C C CC C CCC CCC C CC 0 • 0000 ,n O 000 co 7 7 7 7 0 I 0 : a) r- CL 0 1 I c CD g. i . , . , - m -• (A (3) 42. •-• I -.• 0 IV 0 . . .' ' _J V T 4 : — . 0 ro -, b i co -A _, 9 4" 40 : 0 _4 C (. 7 10 - IN CO - TI 0 ■ ..,,, 0 A.) *-4 cri _ c) AD I - CO -A 03 a) a) m CL - -4 0) -4 0 cn 4 (0 AD CD CD 03 01 I -4 - -4 NJ CD CO -• AD --4 cn 6 0 0) CD CD CD. CA 01 00 6 6 6a 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 b b b p c) c) ca - .4 0 0 0 CD CD 0 0 CD . 1 CD, C) CD TT k 13 4, , (1 2. T I , 1 1 :.- ... 4 i , ,..., i - t. iI 0 ...,. 4. 0, to 3 (.71 co 0:1 P (Li Cu -. 0 CD -4 5)) CA 4.) CA I o p ..... .0. G., 0 -A 0j CO a5 ...? o 0 co .-.) CO 03 A 1 A 0 34 3 Et 7 03 -A 1■3 (.31 (.3 CO , -. CA . .... ky, b ...)) T i. 1 :::i a ff, o co (0 CO 41IA % 2 °- m cp 1 , (D 13 co I 1 1 , 1 1 - r IQ I I 73. Cu 0 (A i 03 03 03 1 r..) , 1 I -;) , 1 NI 01 (A j -• -4 n...) 0 Cr) I _Co , A cri 0 A —• - tro ..('. ' -. i - A 0) CD g 0) - .4 -4 0 --• CP 1 CO CO CD 0) -4 0) -4 0 cr, ! r....) N.) 6 Z b al 6 in b in ar co o o o o o " al CD CD .... (0 -3. 3 .., > a 4 = (D 0) A CO AD CA A (7) CO -• 2:1 A --• 0 03 CO 0 7..1 (.0 0 ,... 43 A CO _. ,,,, - 1 1 .3 -0) CO 1 : 3 C.) ND AD CD CD T .-. C3 (31 O. 6 NJ cn NJ ( 71 CD -4 ■4 . 0 QI . 0 0) b 1).. b in al CD 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 o a) cr) C,1 ;..-.. co co 3 c° _, iv CD 0 CO 0) 0) 7') 43 -.4 03-' -. 0) 0 — 03 0) -• Co IQ 03 03 CD ■1 4IA 0) CA - r s.) -(,) In a) - 7'-) 0. 7 E; (.11) 0 • IQ 0) 0 .... co IN) N.) pl o cp a) 01 co co o 00 -.3 .C. b) CL 7 03 CO -A p 11 1,it . ,,, ..,, 1 1 ..., ,,, - '1"t° o ...-.• A CO A _... "..... al 0 0 (D 03 6 1.. (o a , (0 0 03 (0 A. 52 0) ."4 (.3 01 KD CD CO -v 0 11 6 a 6 03 -0 ..-..• 0 CO g C O 7.4 0 .4. ,. C) ..., ••1?, 01,, __. v, 0 0 C w O 7 w O N ZI V 0 ° 3 N m a v a c cn 0 T 8 Oo W g m 0o W N O1 n -0 3 0 0 a -n 8 d a N b ID V � I m 'n > y C rn cn ,a m 2 to O ✓ 7 CO to 0) — —3G -. m CAA Tw N A 0 O T N cn 3 N O m d N m 51; vm m m 3 w m a 2 T O O { . N A T y � m 0 ED CD o N O m •m O 9 A: 0C O- O 3 a 3 !' o o m ° T1 m V o ° N � O '+ 10 O tai Z w o 0 v 3 D m m 0 0 n.3 N G U T O O V w C -T1 co 3 ° qq O ma O p� m O rn o. 0 A T m N w U � j ! C m Final Report Development of Transportation Impact Fees for The City of Southlake Submitted to The City of Southlake, Texas Submitted By Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. November 2, 1995 1 - 1 II 1 1 J Od)fi . jv G - 1oda)E ijJG - ioda) iinia 1 3 4) c a) CCS ''' al CO CZ 41 4) 0 cd I-- 1 —`12 .. PT-I 4 as Cd �� w �� ilmii ,C111 I-Z I ".:4_ A S E ca , 4) C) a • cs) ds 0 1 ci) ca) , E 0 , 0 )--1 pc, E rc, Its ,3 i- C ' ) , 0 ? E c w 0 rn CD P ra4 2 ti • Pi , Ti ,-0 i-. 6 . 5.4 w 1 CZ 0 a) 1 cd 'We) al 1 a) 4 1 ...-. 1 11 I hi ( 1 City of Southlake,Texas • MEMORANDUM March 14, 1996 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Award of Bid for Paving Improvements on Dove Road GENERAL INFORMATION Advertisements were published on February 18 and 25, 1996. Bids were publicly opened and read aloud on March 7, 1996 at 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers. BID TABULATION There were four bids received for this project. See attached bid tabulations prepared by Rady • Associates. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The project, which extends from North White Chapel to North Kimball Avenue, was bid in five parts, the Base Bid and Additive Alternates for the work to be done at the White Chapel and Carroll intersections. Alternates A and C were for basic reconstruction and paving with no realignment of the respective intersections; Alternates B and D were for complete realignments of the two intersections. Based upon direction from City Council we did not consider the realignments for these bids. FUNDING/FISCAL IMPACT Funds for the Dove Road Reconstruction Project will be provided by the 1993 Road Bonds. Available funds for this project are $859,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract to Reynolds Asphalt and Construction Co., Inc. for the Base Bid plus Alternates A and C in the amount of$579,339.70. J_A'/ Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager • ove Road Reconstruction - Bid Award March 14, 1996 Page 2. Please place this on the March 19, 1996 agenda for Council consent. C31 BW Attachments: Bid Tabulation Base Map • • • ❑ Rady&Associates A division of Kiniley-Horn and Associates,Inc. 41110 Engineering Planning and Environmental Consultants 910 Collier Street Fort Worth,Texas 76102-3542 March 11, 1996 Via Mail and Facsimile #817-488-5097 Mr. Ronald J. Harper, P.E. City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake, TX 76092 Re: Dove Road Reconstruction R&A No. 06942800 (94018) Dear Ron: On March 7, 1996, we received four bids for the Dove Road Reconstruction • project. As a matter of information, the project was bid in five parts, the Base Bid and Additive Alternates A through D. Alternates A and B are for improvements at the White Chapel intersection, and Alternates C and D are for improvements at the Carroll Rd. intersection. Based on conversations with City Staff, we are recommending award of the Base Bid, plus Alternates A and C. The Alternates A and C are the alternates that do not realign their respective intersections. A total of four bids were received as follows: Contractor Base Bid + Alt. A + Alt. C Reynolds Asphalt and Construction Co., Inc. $579,339.70 Sunmount Corporation 586,778.90 JRJ Paving, Inc. 664,493.37 APAC Texas, Inc. 785,703.00 Rady & Associates recommends that the City award the bid to Reynolds Asphalt and Construction Co., Inc. for the Total Bid (Base Bid, Alternate"A", and Alternate "C") of$579,339.70. Having worked with the firm and finding their bid complete and acceptable, we would support this award. • TEL 817 335 6511 MET 817 654 4266 FAX 817 335 5070 5A-.3 Mr. Ronald J.Harper,P.E.,March 11, 1996, Page 2 41) Please find the attached bid tabulation for your reference. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the City of Southlake. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to the successful completion of this project. Very truly yours, RADY & ASSOCIATES A division of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Brad Tribble, P.E. GBT/DEB:hc Attachment P:\94018.00194018LTR\AWARD.W P • • 5A-11 ABID�ULATION BIDS EXTENDED C CK BY: R ASSOCIATES 0DATE: March 8,19 A division of Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. BIDDERS OWNER: City of So hlake Reynolds Asphalt and Constr. Sunmount Corporation JRJ Paving,Inc. APAC Texas,Inc. JOB NO: 06942800 P.O.Box 370 P.O.Box 1770 P.O.Box 59934 P.O.Box 1807 PROJECT:Dove Road Reconstruction Euless,TX 76039 Roanoke,TX 76262 Dallas,TX 75229 Fort Worth,TX 76101 PROJECT TYPE:Paving&Drainage Item Unit Plan Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Quantity Base Bid 1 Mobilization LS 1 $49,365.00 $49,365.00 $57,000.00 $57,000.00 $51,000.00 $51,000.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 2 Unclassified Street Excavation CY 2,240 $10.00 $22,400.00 $10.00 $22,400.00 $4.30 $9,632.00 $11.00 $24,640.00 3 Hydromulching SY 12,964 $0.55 $7,130.20 $0.50 $6,482.00 $0.60 $7,778.40 $0.60 $7,778.40_ 4 Temporary Erosion,Sedimentation,and Water Pollution Prevention and Control LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 5 6"Cement Stabilized Base SY 18,022 $2.00 $36,044.00 $1.50 $27,033.00 $1.64 $29,556.08 $3.00 $54,066.00 6 8"Cement Stabilized Base SY 9,005 $2.80 $25,214.00 $1.60 $14,408.00 $1.64 $14,768.20 $3.00 $27,015.00 7 Cement Ton 469 $98.00 $45,962.00 .$80.00 $37,520.00 $101.00 $47,369.00 $100.00 $46,900.00 8 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Type"B" Ton 1,591 $25.00 $39,775.00 $31.00 $49,321.00 $31.90 $50,752.90 $35.00 $55,685.00 9 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Type"D" Ton 3,365 $30.00 $100,950.00 $33.00 $111,045.00 $34.55 $116,260.75 $35.00 $117,775.00 10 Remove and Replace existing Pipe Culvert with 15"Class III Reinforced Concrete P LF 286 $65.00 $18,590.00 $34.00 $9,724.00 $68.00, $19,448.00 $39.00 $11,154.00 11 Remove and Replace existing Pipe Culvert with 15"Class III Reinforced Concrete P LF 46 $67.00 $3,082.00 $40.00 $1,840.00 $70.00 $3,220.00 $57.00 $2,622.00 12 18"Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert LF 33 $58.00 $1,914.00 $31.00 $1,023.00 $57.00 $1,881.00 $58.00 $1,914.00 13 24"Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert LF 20 $64.00 $1,280.00 $35.00 $700.00 $65.00 $1,300.00 $71.00 $1,420.00 14 48"Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert LF 68 $115.00 $7,820.00 $80.00 $5,440.00 $140.00 $9,520.00 $150.00 $10,200.00 15 Concrete Structures-CH11 Headwalls for Pipe Culverts CY 41' $550.00 $22,550.00 $600.00 $24,600.00 $1,030.00 $42,230.00 $1,200.00 $49,200.00 16 Concrete Structures-Cast In Place Multiple Box Culverts CY 53 $500.00 $26,500.00 $600.00 $31,800.00 $730.00 $38,690.00 $600.00 $31,800.00 17 Concrete Structures-Cast In Place Single Box Culverts CY 3 $761.00 $2,283,00 $1,100.00 $3,300.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,300.00 $3,900,00 ( 18 Concrete Structures-Parallel Wingwails for Multiple Box Culverts CY 22 $600.00 $13,200.00 $600.00 $13,200.00 $520.00 $11,440.00 $600.00 $13,200,00 vi 19 Concrete Structures-Flared Wingwalls for Single Box Culvert CY 4 $620.00 $2,480.00 $1,100.00 $4,400,00 $690.00 $2,760.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 20 Concrete Driveway Approaches SF 1,934 $3.80 $7,349.20 $5.00 $9,670.00 $4.30 $8,316.20 $5.00 $9,670.00 21 Asphalt Driveway Approaches SF 2,069 $0.75 $1,551,75 $1.50 $3,103.50 $1.05 $2,172.45 $2.00 $4,138.00 22 Gravel Driveway Approaches SF 3,307 $1.00 $3,307,00 $2.00 $6,614,00 $0.85 $2,810.95 $4.00 $13,228,00 23 Metal Beam Guard Rall LF 1,990 $11.00 $21,890.00 $15.00 $29,850.00 $12.50. $24,875.00 $26.00 $51,740.00 24 Combination Rail(Type C301) LF 115 $45.00 $5,175.00 $50.00 $5,750.00 $110.00 $12,650.00_ $90.00 $10,350.00 25 5"Concrete RIprap SY 200 $40.00 $8,000.00 $35.00, $7,000.00 $32.00 $6,400.00 $47.00 $9,400.00 26 Gabion Mattress(Including Toe basket) SY 350 $48.00 $16,800,00 $50.00 $17,500.00 $48.00 $16,800.00 $48.00 $16,800.00 27 Storm Drain Trench Safety LF 411 $1.00 $411.00 $1.00 $411,00 $2.10 $863.10 • $2.00 $822.00 28 15"Precast Concrete Safety End Treatment for RCP Culverts EA 26 $350.00 $9,100,00 $350.00 $9,100.00 $850.00 $22,100.00 $525.00 $13,650.00 29 18"Precast Concrete Safety End Treatment for RCP Culverts EA 7 $350.00 $2,450.00 $400.00 $2,800.00 $950.00 $6,650.00 $630.00 $4,410.00 30 48"Concrete Safety End Treatment for RCP Culverts EA 1 $875.00 $875.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,100.00 $4,100.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 31 Protect Designation Sign EA , 4 $450.00 $1,600.00 $250.00 $1,000,00 $600.00 $2,400.00 $290.00 $1,160.00 Total Base Bid for All Items $506,248.15 $517,134.50 $584,744.03 $678,437.40 Total Bid for Materials and Equipment $198,367.00 $203,000,00 $409,000.00 $174,866.00 Alternate"A" - 32 Unclassified Street Excavation CY 6 $10.00 $60.00 $10.00 $60,00 $40.00 $240.00 $440.00 $2,640.00 33 Hydromulching SY 266 $0.55 $146.30 $0.50 $133.00 $0.60 $159.60 $0.60 $159.60 34 Temporary Erosion,Sedimentation,and Water Pollution Prevention and Control LS 1 $50.00 $50.00 $100.00 $100.00 $300.00 $300.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 35 8"Cement Stabilized Base SY 1,105 $2.30 $2,541.50 $1.60 $1,768.00 $1.64 $1,812.20 $5.00 $5,525.00 36 Cement Ton 22 $98.00 $2,156.00 $80.00 $1,760.00 $101.00 $2,222.00 $100.00 $2,200.00 37 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Type"D" Ton 168, $27.65 $4,645.20, $33.00 $5,544.00 $34.55 $5,804.40 $40.00 $6,720.00 38 Asphalt Driveway Approaches SF 297 $0.75 $222.75 $1.50 $445.50 $1.05 $311.85 $3.00 $891.00 Alternate"A"Total for All items $9,821.75 $9,810.50 $10,850.05 $20,035.60 Alternate"A"Total Bid for Materials and Equipment , $5,229.00 $4,000.00 $7,850.00 $7,054.00 • PAGE 1 BID fULATION ID E D & E ASSOCIATES DATE: March 8, 996 A di Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. BIDDERS OWN ;City of Southiake Reynolds Asphalt and Constr. Sunmount Corporation JRJ Paving,Inc. APAC Texas,Inc. JOB NO: 06942800 P.O.Box 370 P.O.Box 1770 P.O.Box 59934 P.O.Box 1807 PROJECT:Dove Road Reconstruction Euless,TX 76039 Roanoke,TX 76262 Dallas,TX 75229 Fort Worth,TX 76101 PROJECT TYPE:Paving&Drainage_ Item Unit Plan Unit Price Cost Unit Price ' Cost Unit Price Cost T Unit Price Cost ' Quantity , Alternate"B" 39 Preparing Right-of-Way LS 1 $12,160.00 $12,160,00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $9,900.00 $9,900.00' 40 Unclassified Street Excavation CY 3,107 $10.00 $31,070.00 $8.00 $24,856.00 $4.30 $13,360.10 $8.00 $24,856.00 41 Hydromulching SY 2,087 $0.55 $1,147.85 $0.50 $1,043.50 $0.60 $1,252,20 $0.60 $1,252.20 42 Temporary Erosion,Sedimentation,and Water Pollution Prevention and Control LS 1 $400.00 $400.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 43 8"Cement Stabilized Base SY 3,152 $2.80 $8,825.60 $1.60 $5,043.20 $1.64 $5,169.28 $3.00 $9,456.00 44 Cement Ton 63 $98.00 $6,174.00 $80.00 $5,040.00 $101.00 $6,363,00 $100.00 $6,300.00 45 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Type"D" Ton 474 $30.00 $14,220.00_ ,. $33.00 $15,642.00 $34.55 $16,376.70 $31.00 $14,694.00 46 8"AWWA C-900 PVC Water Pipe LF 396 $28.65 $11,345.40 $19.00 $7,524.00 $28.00 $11,088.00 $45.00 $17,820.00 47 6"Ductile iron Water Pipe • LF 5 $35.00 $175.00 $20.00 $100.00 $29.00 $145.00 $160.00 $800.00 48 8"Gate Valves with Box,Complete EA 1 $550.00 $550.00 $700.00 $700.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 49 6"Gate Valves with Box,Complete EA 1 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $900.00 $900.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 50 Standard Fire Hydrant BA 1 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 $3,100.00 $3,100,00 51 Ductile Iron Fittings for Water Pipe Ton 0.24 $3,300.00 $792.00 $2,500.00 $600.00 $3,600.00 $864.00 $2,100.00 $504.00 52 Reconnect Water Services EA 2 $350.00 $700.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,600.00 $3,200.00 53 8"Plugs for Water Pipe EA 2 $450.00 $900.00 $250.00 $500.00 $420.00 $840.00 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 _ 54 18"Class III RCP Culvert LF 59 $58.00 $3,422.00 $31.00 $1,829.00 $57.00 $3,363.00 $61.00 $3,599.00 c tl 55 18"Precast Concrete Safety End Treatment for RCP Culverts EA 4 $350.00 $1,400.00 $400.00 $1,600.00 $950.00 $3,800.00 $700.00 $2,800.00 , 56 Concrete Driveway Approaches SF 428 $3.80 $1,626.40_ $5.00 $2,140.00 $4.30 $1,840.40 $5.00 $2,140.00 1 57 Remove and Replace Chain Link Fence LF 170 $14.00 $2,380.00 $6.00 $1,020.00 $12.50 $2,125.00 $21.00 $3,570.00 l3- 58 Remove and Replace Wire Fence LF 149 $4.50 $670.50 $6.00 $894.00 $7.00 $1,043.00 $11.00 $1,639.00 59 Water Main Trench Safety LF 491 $1.00 $491.00 $1.00 $491.00 $2.10 $1,031.10 $2.00 $982.00 60 Storm Drain Trench Safety LF 59 $1.00 $59.00 $1.00, $59.00 $2.10 $123.90 $2.00 $118.00 Alternate"B"Total for All Items $100,108.75 $81,781.70 $76,584.68 $117,930.20 Alternate"B"Total Bid for Materials and Equipment $27,321.00 $25,000.00 $53,600.00 $20,636.00 Alternate"C" _ 61 Unclassified Street Excavation CY 499 $11.15 $5,563.85 $10.00 $4,990.00 $4.30 $2,145.70 $11.00 $5,489.00 _ 62 Hydromulching SY 4,440 $0.55 $2,442.00 $0.50 $2,220.00 $0.60 $2,664.00 $0.60 $2,664.00 63 Temporary Erosion,Sedimentation,and Water Pollution Prevention and Control LS 1 $400.00 $400.00 $500.00 $500.00 $800.00 $800.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 64 6"Cement Stabilized Base SY 2,572 $2.00 $5,144.00 $1.50 $3,858.00 $1.64 $4,218.08 $4.00 $10,288.00 65 8"Cement Stabilized Base SY 1,819 $2.80 $5,093.20 $1.60 $2,910.40 $1.64 $2,983.16 $4.00 $7,276.00 66 Cement Ton 75 $98.00 $7,350.00 $80.00 $6,000.00 $101.00 $7,575.00 $100.00 $7,500.00 67 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Type"B" Ton 260 $25.00 $6,500.00 $31.00 $8,060.00 $31.90 $8,294.00 $31.00 $8,060.00 68 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Type"D" Ton 535 $30.00 $16,050.00 $33.00 $17,655.00 $34.55 $18,484.25 $31.00 $16,585.00 1_ 69 18"Class ill Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert LF 38 $58.00 $2,204.00 $31.00 $1,178.00 $57.00 $2,166.00 $52.00 $1,976.00 70 Remove and Replace existing Pipe Culvert with 15"Class III Reinforced Concrete P LF 54 $65.00 $3,510.00 $34.00 $1,836.00 $68.00_ $3,672.00 $39.00 $2,106.00 71 Remove and Replace existing Pipe Culvert with 24"Class III Reinforced Concrete P LF 36 $73.00 $2,628.00 $50.00 $1,800.00 $76.00 $2,736.00 $78.00 $2,808.00 • 72 Asphalt Driveway Approaches SF 865 $0.75, $648.75 $1.50 $1,297.50 $1.05 $908.25 $3.00 $2,595.00 73 Gravel Driveway Approaches SF 733 $1.00 $733.00 $2.00 $1,466.00 $0.85 $623.05 $4.00 $2,932.00 74 Storm Drain Trench Safety LF 38 $1.00 $38.00 $1.00 $38.00 $2.10 $79.80 $2.00 $76.00 75 15"Precast Concrete Safety End Treatment for RCP Culverts EA 4 $350.00 $1,400.00 $350.00 $1,400.00 $900.00 $3,600.00 $700.00_ $2,800.00 76 24"Precast Concrete Safety End Treatment for RCP Culverts EA 4 $410.00 $1,640.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 $775.00 $3,100.00 77 Metal Beam Guard Rail EA 175 $11.00, $1,925.00 $15.00 $2,625.00 $18.00 $3,150.00 $37.00 $6,475.00 Alternate"C"Total for All Items $63,269.80 $59,833.90 $68,899.29 $87,230.00 Alternate"C"Total Bid for Materials and Equipment _ $26,815.00 $24,000.00 $48,200.00 $31,629.00 PAGE 2 BID OULATION - BIDS EXTEN • BY: RA SSOC DATE: March 8, sss A ds mley-Horn and Associates,Inc. BIDDERS OWNER: City of Southlake Reynolds Asphalt and Constr. Sunmount Corporation JRJ Paving,Inc. APAC Texas,Inc. JOB NO: 06942800 P.O.Box 370 P.O.Box 1770 P.O.Box 59934 P.O.Box 1807 PROJECT:Dove Road Reconstruction Euless,TX 76039 Roanoke,TX 76262 Dallas,TX 75229 Fort Worth,TX 76101 PROJECT TYPE:Paving&Drainage • Item Unit Plan Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Quantity Alternate"D" 78 Preparing Right-of-Way LS 1 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 79 Borrow CY 800 $6.00 $4,800.00_ $3.00 $2,400.00 $6.00 $4,800.00 $11.00 $8,800.00 80 Unclassified Street Excavation CY 1,289 $7.00 $9,023.00 $12.00 $15,468.00 $4.30 $5,542.70 $16.00 $20,624.00 81 Hydromuiching SY 5,056 $0.55 $2,780.80 $0.50 $2,528.00 $0.60 $3,033.60 $0.60 $3,033.60 82 Temporary Erosion,Sedimentation and Water Pollution Prevention and Control LS 1 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 83 6"Cement Stabilized Base SY 6,434 $2.00 $12,868.00 $1.50 $9,651.00 $1.64 $10,551.76 $3.00 $19,302.00 84 8"Cement Stabilized Base SY 2,878 $2.80 $8,058.40 _ $1.60 $4,604.80 $1.64 $4,719.92 $3.00 $8,634.00 85 Cement Ton 154 $98.00 $15,092.00 $80.00 $12,320.00 $101.00 $15,554.00 $100.00 $15,400.00 86 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Type"B" Ton 666 $25.00 $16,650.00 $31.00 $20,646.00 $31.90 $21,245.40 $30.00 $19,980.00 87 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Type"D" Ton 1,115 $30.00 $33,450.00 $33.00 $36,795.00 $34.55 $38,523.25 $31.00 $34,565.00 88 Remove and Replace Existing Pipe Culvert with 15"Class III Reinforced Concrete LF 22 $65.00 $1,430.00 $34.00 $748.00 $57.00 $1,254.00 $62.00 $1,364.00 89 Remove and Replace Existing Pipe Culvert with 24"Class III Reinforced Concrete LF 19 $73.00 $1,387.00 $50.00 $950.00 $76.00 $1,444.00 $80.00 $1,520.00 90 18"Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert LF 38 $58.00 $2,204.00 $31.00 $1,178.00 $68.00 $2,584.00 $52.00 $1,976.00 91 24"Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert LF 268 $67.00 $17,956.00 $35.00 $9,380.00 $65.00 $17,420.00 $55.00 $14,740.00 92 Concrete Structures-CH11 Headwalls for Pipe Culverts CY 9 $678.00 $6,102.00 $700.00 $6,300.00 $1,030.00 $9,270.00 $700.00 $6,300.00 93 Concrete Structures-Precast 4'x2'Box Culvert LF 116 $122.00 $14,152.00 $67.00 $7,772.00 $130.00 $15,080.00 $550.00 $63,800.00 94 Concrete Structures-Flared Wingwalis for Precast Box Culvert CY 5 $640.00 $3,200.00 $1,300.00 $6,500.00 $690.00 $3,450.00 $1,400.00 $7,000.00 95 Asphalt Driveway Approaches SF 888 $0.75 $666.00 $1.50 $1,332.00 $1.05 $932.40 $3.00 $2,664.00 96 Gravel Driveway Approaches SF 429 $1.00 $429.00 $2.00 $858.00 $0.85 $364.65 $4.00 $1,716.00 v 97 Metal Beam Guard Rail LF 135 $12.00 $1,620.00 $16.00 $2,160.00 $18.00 $2,430.00 $37.00 $4,995.00 98 Remove and Replace Wire Fence LF 950 $4.50 $4,275.00 $6.00 $5,700.00 $6.00 $5,700.00 $6.00 $5,700.00 99 Storm Drain Trench Safety LF 306 $1.00 $306.00 $1.00 $306.00 $2.10 $642.60 $2.00 $612.00 100 18"Precast Concrete Safety End Treatment for RCP Culverts EA 2 $350.00 $700.00 $400.00 $800.00 $950.00 $1,900.00 $780.00 $1,560.00 101 24"Precast Concrete Safety End Treatment for RCP Culverts EA 2 $410.00 $820.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 Alternate"D"Total forAll Items $163,269.20 $160,896.80 $170,842.28 $262,285.60 Alternate"0"Total Bid for Materials and Equipment $64,203.00 $65,000.00 $120,000.00 $61,019.00 BID SUMMARY Base Bid $506,248.15 $517,134.50 $584,744.03 $678,437.40 Alternate"A" $9,821.75 $9,810.50 $10,850.05 $20,035.60 Alternate"B" $100,108.75 $81,781.70 $76,584.68 $117,930.20 Alternate"C" $63,269.80 $59,833.90 $68,899.29 $87,230.00 Alternate"D" $163,269.20 $160,896.80 $170,842.28 $262,285.60 PAGE 3 !!• :'iiLL:y — ua I 1, DAVID DOI�DTHIY• r, :� 1 ^ I , ,.�rr.-.�.�i�,, i DENTON _" r vitc n_ I ' "'• „- , { B�ILLa I ■I TARRANT �* -. _1—_ 1 DAVID.oOQIY491• �_ rIE\ J `71---1124. a ::767 P wiS- yr -v']�-"...I -Y --- ^ ,,,y.�\ \ `I 1\ .� I a �i. F \ o�Al:)151ON I 4. ` l , OF�Pd lfldA6�ES��+1 =1/ 11I K j1 a 1P' Mrsa ,�. . A•) r. 3111 I )♦ ), • BJ.&I MARTIN ty p11�0_/ ••• -• E •/� ;• rri J x_ � . r •I • DWI(3H' AD i \ I^ I J � •), •I BA ur aAPfNM arr �3�1`` D.' 1^4'..t 1 lI.I r II r I I I• r •• -•, - I I- R+""' ■i.. + 'G''i• , uu VNMCLVt•p4ATF° W U J Y, E ,,.,sr �,?E I■�;�• , r I 9 A lf,� t-�i f J. � J uu r Ilq r r y� t �� nnr ?pNE pR ; • I Yi Y- I-.�_._-... u 9 NIA 7E I IN ■ 4.434 —...L.�... •° I __ , , >c ,nc K 1 • 4K'I1 -. -' ,fi,R....• �k!III t�jJJ,r'`� .7' .. _ti K, ' • }._.. O ■r • ll• r p xtlr 1 ,, _!Of: L.-- _� rl .+�. ••,••11,� MAW". I ` •1 fDMai rJ ■ ■r 9fR g°� r •-'.� , i ,__" -�-`:•^.,,• wee xh�Ka ■ _ � m. R•flAl R 00 II T1�+/. Da v; ,.rr.- ,. ,SPN� f' ' , JAmi $ I HIV; 03� + , r 'I; t,.r...ON 11111 ©I�� la, �,,� Cal! II - \ i r �1 1A?:DN 1-: ' 'i1r N •-- IUY.I.Iu.u, Y 5 /1111E ilnr \V u- SLIT g a ,•,�i - ,•.• • _1_ _ _ :� xlrr ISO II au' ' '- I N WWI 3 I n.a ,/£97A - tl x..:..,.. , r.,�' ` _j • ■ v H°°L • M ... Ct' Uf - r..., -+••� xr- _a. �� aria," , r , , , , r , , ■ ----NNCQQPQ4A lL0 I '1 f�" CD ��Nw.., /J J ll` pN a rs r yr. m m �l -- r u - u r- I � At�Y, Ad 11rr Iv. �• �o RP. II 4�'ylyy..,_°i r G v G 1'F, y Y f 1� 1� 12� _ m n., Orr'; ,'ARD ` ° • , 91,0 • ; J 11. IN 1r u'� 11 .wu 7 1 ,' `�1� ■�• -. F o�D !RY Ey1A ■ I u y4 UplKg 11r �� •` YA �.,,%� •` 11�' - ■. I riAc u,l s ,':J x+�r F••, iY lf,„‘Fs• T�- p : II _ 1Yfr lIr L 111/I f'} a •• -_ II , pit I Y REED J. WEST ` I 1 jtI�w If r z ff I ` A! , _• g m.�� fIn ,,.Kr A-eve • .'9H • '\.• 4 Q• c HU 4, 'f i-- ,7s �� #-?'K �( 1rP DV\.Y'- p� •• aJ4 2 X. per= �•��,��. \��►` © - _ /lC7 R w G41 \ r r r (ter -q. r I ((1 • `�l��j p 47C�ti.K ] w --too( > wu �e,�� 0 • "" �+ Am�ALORA H.�CHINECdffi -Z an r ® ' , Dlm n l r Uf i• is y Y n, ]m1 r © ." i R "' „ L RKIN H. CHIVEIRS + i�'a�( "M1/21®N Ey{� comxv r PER• 1.1112 • 0RNE ••l A• I., [S7:I Te r'r•-• .44 • Y+0 = PIA 1E112 s y I1. � J"0 >d a n I rr • boil , rlr �Wi�5 nlERg r''Ty in r Y 1 01 ,AI �- " VILLA I r n i GN r N• isrST $nr JACK ur 70F11a50N ■ - 1n4 1.wr ADI -BURi } J( p0• � �d r k� Ia. o . z, K •ER_ CtsYIXTARY N >." aP O ��.': ct 1 1, 14 _- ' ' ECJ ST 1 Y• 11 Y 1"Y ,r I\/ 9 Yr/ saw au •P -l�f '( m �R£9 n� I o■ „LI f-. N ar zY BILL I — r N C] j.4�- ICI f�� ' ' ■r IQ P_-�l I I C1 A9P BRIG° 10N RIB m11: + 1 LY 111y THO[GIA.t Wq HO50 AR t t? .., +•� 4 a ' ADO «a ,cl PA urr 1.">.Iu 111 Gq • 1' s r 11,•, Y .1 UN 1Y'� 111 ■ ■ , - uc Ii y ' w—+ m 1;' . I. RRp1 O lin 1 _"` ._. .K�� 1c 11r---�� ♦. ' I ■)I� 'S`�BGY+ 14 ••i GE,. •,.•NtR a 11 II , 1 y, •i50A E 0 1 H••L ) j 4� City of Southlake,Texas 4110 MEMORANDUM March 14, 1996 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Kim McAdams, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Professional Services Contract for Master Planning West Beach Project and Bicentennial Park As you know, our plan of work for this year included master planning the new"West Beach"park site and Bicentennial Park. In January staff prepared and distributed to Landscape Architecture and Urban Design Planning Firms eight"requests for proposals." We received five proposals and two letters respectfully declining to submit a proposal (sighting that the budget was too small for the project outlined). Staff reviewed the proposals and "short listed" three firms with strong creative design credentials to interview. A committee of representatives from the Parks Board, SPIN, City Council and staff was formed. Janet Murphy, Martin Schelling, Sally Hall, Greg Last and I interviewed the three short listed firms. IIIMESA Design Associates from Dallas was unanimously selected by the committee. MESA impressed the committee with their preliminary ideas and sketches of the park,their enthusiasm and creativity. We received good references on MESA from recent clients who described how cooperative and willing MESA is to do what it takes to get the job right. In Southlake, MESA did the landscape architecture for the CHS and Southridge Lakes. Work on our projects will begin immediately. We are now reviewing the calendar of public meetings scheduled to gain community involvement and support in the designs for these parks. Both plans should take approximately five months to complete. Attached is the contract as reviewed, corrected, and approved by the city attorney. The West Beach project was approved in the FY 95-96 budget. SPDC and the Parks and Recreation Board recommended that the Bicentennial Park Master Plan be funded by the savings from the FY 93-94 design contract for phase II of the expansion which are now encumbered funds. The total contract for both parks is not to exceed $20,000 including reimbursables. Please put on the City Council agenda for March 19, consideration of this MESA Design Associates contract for master planning the West Beach project and Bicentennial Park. You may contact me at 481-5581, extension 757, if you have any questions. d1141k— • KM 51 -I PROJECT NO. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered by and between the CITY OF SOUTHLAK E, TEXAS, a Home-Rule Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as"City", and MESA Design Associates,a Texas Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Landscape Architect", to be effective from and after the date as provided herein. W ITNESSETH: WH EREAS,the City desires to engage the services of the Landscape Architect CO prepare master plans and to perform other related Landscape Architectural services in connection with the City Park and Bicentennial Park located in the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Landscape Architect desires to render such Landscape Architectural services for the City upon the terms and conditions provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That for and in consideration of the covenants contained herein, and for the mutual benefits to be obtained hereby, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. Employment of the Landscape Architect • The City hereby agrees to retain the Landscape Architect to perform professional Landscape Architectural services in connection with the Project; Landscape Architect agrees to perform such services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. II. Scope of Services The parties agree that Landscape Architect shall perform such services as are set forth and described in Exhibit "A-1" and "A-2", which is attached hereto and thereby made a part of this Agreement. The parties understand and agree that deviations or modifications in the form of written change orders may be authorized from time to time by the City. III. Schedule of Work The Landscape Architect agrees to commence work immediately upon execution of this Agreement,and to proceed diligently with said work to completion as described in the Completion Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and thereby made a part of this Agreement. 1V. Compensation and Method of Payment The parties agree that Landscape Architect shall be compensated for all services provided pursuant to this Agreement in the amount and manner described and set forth in the Payment Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit"C."and thereby made a part of this Agreement. Landscape Architect further agrees that it will prepare and present such monthly progress reports and itemized statements as are described in said • Exhibit"C"- The City may withhold up to 25%of fee until completion of all services to be performed under this Agreement. Landscape Architect agrees that in the event St3- acid L05 I I t8t t 2 'ON W3 ONI df103O NO I S3Q VS3W £S: I I I N3 96-9 I-d1 W • Landscape Architect Services Agreements Page 2 services are not satisfactorily performed, Landscape Architect shall perform the services at no cost to the City. The Landscape Architect shall perform the services in a professional manner, consistent with the standards for landscape architects in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. V. information to be Provided by the City The City agrees to furnish, prior to commencement of work, all that information set forth and described on Exhibit "D", which is attached hereto and thereby made a part of this Agreement. VI. Progress Meetings In addition to providing the monthly progress reports us required under Paragraph IV hereinabove,Landscape Architect agrees to attend all monthly progress meetings scheduled by City,and at such meetings to outline work accomplished and special problems or delays encountered in connection with the Project during the previous report period, as well as planned work activities and special problems and delays anticipated for the next report period. VII. Insurance Landscape Architect agrees to meet all insurance requirements as set forth on Exhibit"E", which is attached hereto and thereby made a part of this Agreement. 111 ViII. Indemnity The Landscape Architect agrees to Indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees of and from any and all damages, Injuries, including death, claims, property damages, Including loss of use, losses, demands, suits, judgments and costs,including reasonable attorneys'fees and expenses,in any way arising out of or occasioned by Landscape Architect's breach of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, or by any negligent act, error or omission of Landscape Architect, its agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, licensees or invitees. The terms of this indemnification extend to the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the City, its officers, agents and employees, and Landscape Architect shall indemnify the City,its officers,agents and employees from any claims resulting from such an allegation. IX. independent Contractor In the performance of work or services hereunder, the Landscape Architect shall be deemed an independent contractor and shall not, with respect to its acts or Omissions, be deemed an agent or employee of the City. • X. Assignment and Subletting The Landscape Architect agrees that neither this Agreement nor the work to be performed hereunder will be assigned or sublet without the prior written consent of the City. The Landscape Architect further agrees that the assignment of subletting of any portion of feature of the work or materials required in the performance of this • Agreement shall not relieve the Landscape Architect from its full obligations to the City as provided by this Agreement 6-'/C3 -3 CO 'd L09I IL8!IE '0N Xl.f ONI df10NO NOIS3Q USN 17S:11 Idd 96-SI-NdW Landscape Architect Services Agreements Page 3 XI. Audits and Records/Prohibited Interest The Landscape Architect agrees that at any time during normal business hours and as often as City may deem necessary. Landscape Architect shall make available to representatives of the City for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement, and will permit such representatives of the City to audit, examine, copy and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel. conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement, all for a period of one (1) year from the date of final settlement of this Agreement or for such other or longer period, if any, as may be required by applicable statute or other lawful requirement. The Landscape Architect agrees that it is aware of the prohibited interest requirements of the City Charter and Code of Conduct and will abide by the same. Further, a lawful representative of Landscape Architect shall execute the affidavit shown in Exhibit F. Landscape Architect understands and agrees that the existence of a prohibited interest during the term of this contract will render the contract voidable. XII. Contract Termination The parties agree that City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice to Landscape Architect. In the event of such termination without cause, Landscape Architect shall deliver to City all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, reports photographs or other items prepared by Landscape Architect in connection with this Agreement. Landscape Architect shall be entitled to compensation for any and all work completed to the satisfaction of City in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement prior to termination. XIII. Cost Estimates The parties recognize and agree that any and all cost estimates prepared by Landscape Architect in connection with the Project represent the best judgment of Landscape Architect as a design professional familiar with the construction industry, but that the Landscape Architect does not guarantee that any bids solicited or received in connection with the Project will not vary from estimates prepared by Landscape Architect. XIV. Ownership of Documents Original drawings and specifications are the property of the Landscape Architect; however, the Project is the property of the City, and Landscape Architect may not use the drawings and specifications therefor for any purpose not related to the Project without City's written consent. City shall be furnished with such reproductions of drawings and specifications as City may reasonably require. Upon completion of the work or any earlier termination of this Agreement under Article XII, Landscape Architect will revise drawings to reflect changes made during construction and he will promptly furnish the City with one (1) complete set of reproducible record prints. Prints shall be furnished, as an additional service, at any other time requested by City. All such reproductions shall be the property or the City • who may use them without Landscape Architect's permission for any proper purpose related to the Project, including, but not limited to, additions to or completion of the Project. I70 'd LOS I I LD I e '0N ad ONI d(IONO NO I SK VS3W 55: I I I N3 96-5 I-HVW • Landscape Architect Services Agreements Page 4 XV. Complete Contract This Agreement, including the exhibits hereto numbered "A" through "F", constitute the entire agreement by and between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior written or oral understandings. This Agreement may only be amended,supplemented,modified or canceled by a duly executed written instrument. XVI. Mailing of Notices Unless instructed otherwise in writing, Landscape Architect agrees that all notices or communications to City permitted or required under this Agreement shall be addressed to City at the following address: City of Southlake Attn: Kim McAdams 667 North Carol Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-5581 City agrees that all notices or communications to Landscape Architect permitted or required under this Agreement shall be addressed to Landscape Architect at the following address: MESA Design Group Attn: Tary Arterburn 2612 Thomas Avenue Dallas, Texas 75204 (214) 871-0568 All notices or communications required to be given in writing by one party or the other shall be considered as having been given to the addressee on the date such notice or communications is posted by the sending party. XVII, Miscellaneous A. Paragraph Headings: The paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision in this Agreement. B. Interpret Contract Fairly: Although this Agreement is drafted by the City,should any part be in dispute, the parties agree that the Agreement shall not be construed more favorably for either party. C. Venue/Governing Law: The parties agree that the laws of the State of Texas shall govern this Agreement, and that it is performable in Tarrant County, Texas. S 5�s • SO 'd LOS11LS le 'ON Xd.J ONI df1OdO NO1Sal USN SS: 11 INA 98-SI-d3W Landscape Architect Services Agreements Page S D. Parties Bound: City and Landscape Architect, and their partners, successors,subcontractors, executors,legal representatives,and administrators are hereby bound to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. E. Severability: In the event a term, condition, or provision of this Agreement is determined to be void, unenforceable,or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction,then that term, condition, or provision, shall be deleted and the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. F. Effective Date: This agreement shall be effective from and after execution by both parties hereto. WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS on the date indicated below: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS DATE: By: • APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF SOUTHILAKE . CITY ATTORNEY MESA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE: By: William T. Arterburn Consulting Landscape Architect 111 90 'd L091 IL8tIZ '0N V.d ONI df1O3O NOIS3Q US3W 99:ll 1N.d 96-51-NSW • Landscape Architect Services Agreements Page 6 CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF § BEFORE ME,the undersigned authority,on this date appeared in person the within named WILLIAM T. ARTERBURN who stated that he is the Vice President of MESA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, a Texas Corporation, and is duly authorized in his/her capacity to execute the annexed and foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said Corporation,and further stated and acknowledged that he/she had so signed,executed and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration,uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. GIVEN under my hand and seal of office this the_day of , 1996. Notary Public in and for the State of Texas ACKNOWLEDGMENT • STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared WILLIAM T.ARTERBURN,known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged to me that s/he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN under my hand and seal of office this the day of , 1996. Notary Public in and for the State of Texas • V,Q- 7 LO 'd L0911L9172 '0N WE ONI dfO3O NOIS3O US3W 99:11 18E 96-91-1lW • Landscape Architect Services Agreements Page 7 ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared_ , of the CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, a Home- Rule Municipal Corporation,known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that s/he executed the same as the act and deed of the CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN under my hand and seal of office this the day of , 1996. Notary Public in and for the State of Texas L.5;6-8 • 80 'd LOS I I L8 i '0N RI ONI EOM NO I S3G USN LS:1 11N] 96-S I-NlW • EXHIBIT 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES - SOUTIILAKE CITY PARK The consultant will provide the following planning and professional services for Southlake City Park, Southlake, Texas. This scope of services shall apply to Phase I and Phase It (Reference Fee Schedule - Exhibit 3). DESIGN SERVICES A. Data Collection/Site Reconnaissance/Site Analysis 1. Acquire a topographic map of the property and perform on-the- ground field check for accuracy; locate significant trees. 2. Visit the sites and coordinate pre-design meeting with City of Southlake to review scope and program. 3. Perform environmental review/analysis. 4. Perform native plant identification and analysis. 5. Collect flood plain information. 6. Prepare site analysis considering all of the following in a graphic format for presentation purposes: Natural Features Cultural Features Topography/slope Surrounding land uses Native vegetation/plant communities Utilities Animal Habitat Existing structures/roads Water character/drainage • Prevailing winds Sun/Shade B. Conceptual Design/Master Plan 1. Involve Southlake Park staff, "SPIN' Committee and design team members in a conceptual 'brainstorming" session. The Landscape Architect will provide a program bubble diagram with land use and alternative site program placement for this work session. 2. Flesh out program; define specific facilities desired; provide alternatives and options to staff for input. 3. Coordinate public input/review meetings during master plan phase and provide support graphics as needed, 4. Prepare conceptual design alternatives in freehand manner to include the locations of at least all of the following elements: Parking Lot Pedestrian bridges Park pavilion Lake or water features Restrooms/storage Fishing or other water use Playground Concrete trails Basketball Court(s) Off-Road bike trails Sand volleyball courts Pedestrian trails Picnic facilities Day camp Tree/plant massing Equestrian Trails Soccer Fields Sand Beach Softball Fields 41) 5,6 -9 60 'd L05 I 1 L8ti I Z '0N Xd.1 ONI d(1030 Oaf S3Q VS3W 85:11 I33 96-5 i-8VW 5. Review alternative plans with Park staff and committee for input. 6. Refine one conceptual Master Plan;prepare preliminary cost estimate. 7. Review with staff and committee for comment and approval. C. Meetings The Landscape Architect will prepare for attend the following meetings as determined by the Park and Recreation Department: 1. Two (2) public meetings/workshops. 2. Five (5) Committee review meetings. 3. One (1) Park and Recreation Board Meeting. 4. One (1) City Council Meeting. 5. Bi-weekly park staff progress meeting as appropriate. D. Reltnbursables The Landscape Architect will provide the following non-labor expense items to be reimbursed by the City: 1_ Soil Borings Acquire ten(10)soil borings to a depth of approximately twenty feet. 2. Other Reinibursables The Landscape Architect will utilize certain non-labor costs which will be billed to the client as follows. a. Photostats or photocopying b.® Binding c. d. Printing - 13 sets of construction documents for construction. Photography e. Mylars f. Delivery Fees g. Mailing h. Drawings not described in the Scope of Services i_ Blue printing other than two sets of development design documents for the Owner j. Long distance telephone calls k. Mileage @ .31 1. Travel expenses m. Other products and services requested by the Client and not specifically described herein. n. Facsimile o. CADD plotting E. Services Not Included 1. Engineering,Hydrology and Permitting for a water feature with a dam greater than six foot in height within the stream flow line on site. 2. Civil Engineering 3. Construction Documents END OF EXHIBIT 1 —/® Ord L05 i t L8b 1 Z 'ON VA ONI dflONO NO I S3O dS3W 99:11 I N3 96-9 -NUW • EXHIBIT 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES - BICENTENNIAL PARK The consultant will provide the following planning and professional services for Bicentennial Park, Southlake, Texas. This scope of services shall apply to Phase I and Phase II (Reference Fee Schedule - Exhibit C). DESIGN SERVICES A_ Data Collection/Site Reconnaissance/Site Analysis 1. Acquire a topographic map and perform on-the-ground field check for accuracy;locate significant trees. 2. Visit the sites and coordinate pre-design meeting with City of Southlake to review scope and program. 3. Perform environmental review/analysis, 4. Prepare site analysis considering all of the following in a graphic format for presentation purposes: Natural Features Cultural Features Topography/slope Surrounding land uses Vegetation Existing and Proposed Utilities Existing roads and circulation Drainage Prevailing winds Existing Park Facilities Sun/Shade ® B. Conceptual Design/Master Plan 1. Involve Southlake Park staff, and consultant team members in a conceptual "brainstorming" session. The Landscape Architect will provide a program bubble diagram with land use and alternative site program placement for this work session. 2. Flesh out program; define specific facilities desired; provide alternatives and options to staff for input. 3. Coordinate public input/review meetings during master plan phase and provide support graphics as needed. 4. Prepare conceptual design alternatives in freehand manner to include the locations of at least all of the following elements: Park pavilion Restrooms/storage Parking and Drives Community Playground Concrete trails Basketball Court(s) Sand volleyball courts Picnic facilities Tree/plant massing Sport Fields 5. Review alternative plans with Park staff for input. 6. Refine one conceptual design; prepare preliminary cost estimate. 7. Review with staff for comment and approval. 8. Review with Park Board for approval. • I I 'd L0511 L9b 1 Z '0N Xl3 ON I df O 13 NO I S3a VS3W 69:11 I N3 96-5 I-3UW C. Meetings The Landscape Architect will prepare for attend the following meetings as determined by the Park and Recreation Department: 1. Two (2) public meetings. 2. Five (5) Committee review meetings. 3. One(1) Park and Recreation Board Meeting. 4. One (1) City Council Meeting. 5. Bi-weekly park staff progress meeting as appropriate. D. Reimbursables The Landscape Architect will provide the following non-labor expense items to be reimbursed by the City: 1. Soil Borings Acquire ten (10)soil borings to a depth of approximately twenty feet. 2. Other Reimbursablcs The Landscape Architect will utilize certain non-labor costs which will be billed to the client as follows. a. Photostats or photocopying b. Binding c. Printing - plans and reports. d. Photography e. Mylars f. Delivery Fees g. M$iling h. Drawings not described in the Scope of Services 1. Blue printing other than two sets of development design documents for the Owner i. Long distance telephone calls k. Mileage @ ,31 1. Travel expenses m. Other products and services requested by the Client and not specifically described herein. n. Facsimile o. CADD plotting p. Surveying E. Services Not Included 1. Surveying 2. Civil Engineering 3. Construction Documents END OF EXHIBIT 2 S ZI 'd LO9IIL962 'ON XU. ONI df10NO NOIS30 VS3W 6S: II 1N1 96-91-NdW • EXHIBIT 3 COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT PIIASE I - BOND FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS (S2,500,000.00) • pesign Services A. Schematic Design/Master Plan Lump Sum Basis $10,000.00 B. Design Development/Master Plan - Bicentennial Park Lump Sum Basis $10,000,00 TOTAL DESIGN SERVICES $20,000.00 C. Reimbursables Are included in the Lump Sum Fee TOTAL FEES - PHASE I $20,000.00 Additional Services Hourly Basis: Principal $90.00 • Associate Principal $75.00 Associate $60.00 Landscape Architect $45.00 Landscape Technician $35.00 Clerical $35.00 • 2 3- -i3 £I 'd L05iiL8bIZ '0N Xd.i ONI dflONO NOIS30 US3W 00:ZI IN3 96-51-W W • CONDITIONS A. MESA Design Group, Inc. may subcontract consultants in the performance of any services described in this agreement. B. The above described compensation for MESA Design Group,includes the following non-labor reimbursable cost defined as follows: 1. Photostats or photocopying 2. Binding 3. Printing - Thirteen sets of documents for construction 4. Photography 5. Mylars 6. Delivery Fees 7. Mailing 8. Drawings not described in the Scope of Services 9. Blue printing, printing or binding for bidding purposes 10. Long distance telephone calls 11. Mileage @ $0.31 12. Travel expenses 13. Other products and services requested by the Client and not specifically described herein. 14. Surveying as required There will be no Administrative Fee for all reimbursable expenses to compensate for bookkeeping. C. Payment Schedule: Billing will be on a design progress basis at the end of each month. • END OF EXHIBIT C • 3 bI 'd L0511L9Dle 'ON Ri ONI dfIONO NOIS3a VS3W OO: l 96-51-NUW • EXHIBIT_p A. The client, The City of Southlake, will provide the following: 1. TPWD Grant Application. 2. Budgeting Considerations. 3. Organize Public Meetings. 4. Maps and plans pertinent to the design and master planning of the two parks. END OF EXHIBIT D • • 9I 'd LOSIILDIE '0N Ri ONI dfONO NOISM USdW IO,ZI I&1 96-9I-NUN 111110 EXHIBIT E Service work, supplies requiring installation, janitorial services, architects, engineers, welding, surveyors,plumbing,contractors,maintenance agreements,consultants,concessionaires,tire repairs, tow services, painting, electrical, movers, etc. The Landscape Architect shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the vendor, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. ISO Form Number GL 0002(Ed 1/72)covering Comprehensive General Liability and ISO Form Number GL 0404 covering Board Form Comprehensive General Liability; or ISO Commercial General Liability coverage("occurrence"Form CG 0001). "Claims made"form is unacceptable except for professional liability. 2. Automobile liability shall include all owned, hired and non-owned vehicles. 3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of Texas, including Employers' Liability Insurance. Non-standard workers' compensation programs are acceptable for some service contracts if approved by the Risk Manager in advance. 4. Professional Liability (when applicable)$500,000- fl. Minimum Limits of Insurance The Landscape Architect shall maintain limits not less than: I. Commercial General Liability: $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. $1,000,000 Aggregate Policy will include coverage for a) Premises - Operations; b) Broad Form Contractual Liability; c) Products and Completed Operations; d)Use of Contractors and Subcontractors;e)Personal injury; f) Broad Form Property Damage; g) Explosion Collapse and Underground (XCU) Coverage (when applicable), Fire Damage, Medical Expense. NO'i'E: The aggregate loss limit applies to each project. 2. Automobile Liability: $500,000 combined single limit per accident,for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of Texas and Statutory Employer's Liability Limits. • 4. Professional Liability. • 91 'd L0511 LRD i e 'ON Xd.i ON I dflONO NO I S3a VS3W 10:e 1 1 N3 96-91-dU11 C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductible or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. D. Other Insurance Provisions The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: 1. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages a. The City, its officers, officials, employees, Boards and Commissions and volunteers are to be added as"Additional Insureds"as respects liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the vendor, products and completed operations of the vendor, premises owned,occupied or used by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City,its officers,officials,employees or volunteers. It is understood that the business auto policy under "Who is an Insured" automatically provides Iiability coverage in favor of the City. b. The vendor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers,officials,employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the City, its officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the vendor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, Boards and Commissions or volunteers. d. The vendor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against who claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insured's liability. 2. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Coverage The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City,its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the vendor for the City. 3. All Coverages Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after ten (10) days prior to written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. E. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with an A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VI, or A or better by Standard & Poors. This requirement will be waived for workers' compensation coverage only for those vendors whose workers'compensation is placed with companies who participate in the State of Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool. Professional Liability carriers will need to be approved by the Risk Manager. F. Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance effecting coverage required. The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City • reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 2 LI 'd L05 I I L8b I Z 'ON Xdd ON I Eon NO I S30 'JS3W ZO:e l I&d 96-91-NW Major Construction Projects For work performed on City streets, demolition of property, construction of buildings, contracts over 525,000.00 Minimum Limits of Insurance Commercial General Liability- S1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury and property damage, with a 52,000,000 aggregate. An umbrella policy over the minimum requirements is acceptable. END,OF EXHIBIT E • II) 3 36/1 . 81 'd LOS I I L 8b I e 'ON XUd ON I d1lOND NS I S3O US3W £0:21 lad 96-S I-NUW City of Southlake,Texas MEMORANDUM March 15, 1996 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 480-191, Second Reading ZA 95-116, Rezoning and Concept Plan/Commerce Square REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning and Concept Plan for Commerce Square, being approximately a 7.22 acre tract of land situated in the Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No. 474, Tract 3A LOCATION: South of E. Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709) and immediately east of Crooked Lane OWNER: Steve and Sue Pritchett •APPLICANT: Pima Properties, Inc. CURRENT ZONING: "AG" Agricultural District REQUESTED ZONING: "I-1" Light Industrial District AMENDED REQUEST: "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "0-1," "I-1," and B-1" uses as follows: Building'A': "B-1" and "0-1" uses Buildings 'B' and 'C': "B-1," "0-1," and the following "I-1" uses: wholesale baker, candle.manufacturing, candy plant or production facility, carpet cleaning operations, clothing manufacturing,cold storage warehouse, commercial school and trade school, compounding of cosmetics&toiletries,electronic components manufacturing&assembly, glass blowing, insulation application business, irrigation sales & services, including pumps & equipment,janitorial or cleaning services, laboratory, chemical analysis, general analysis, physical testing, linen and towel, service, manufacturing of medical and dental equipment,pest control business, plumbing, heating, refrigeration or air conditioning shops, public utility facilities, pump sales and service, sign manufacturing, and warehouses. ® Buildings 'DI,"D2,' and 'D3': "I-1" uses as listed: wholesale baker, cabinet or carpentry shop, candle manufacturing, candy plant or production facility, carpet cleaning operations, clothing manufacturing, 7A-1 • MEMORANDUM CURTIS E. HAWK RDINANCE NO. 480-191, SECOND READING ARCH 15, 1996 PAGE 2 cold storage warehouse without size limitation, commercial school and trade school, compounding of cosmetics and toiletries, electronic components manufacturing and assembly, glass blowing, ice cream manufacturing, insulation application business, irrigation sales and service, including pumps and equipment,janitorial or cleaning services, laboratory chemical analysis, general analysis,physical testing, linen and towel service manufacturing of medical and dental equipment, mini- warehouses,pest control businesses,plumbing,hearing, refrigeration or air conditioning shop, public utility facilities, pump sales and service, sash and door manufacturing, sign manufacturing, and warehouses. LAND USE CATEGORY: Mixed Use/65Ldn Contour in the Airport Overlay Zone CORRIDOR DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial(Same as in CS, 0-1, C-1, C-2, C-3 and B-1 districts) NO.NOTICES SENT: Ten(10) Two (2) written responses received within the 200' notification area: otESPONSES: • Carl and Madge Smith, 13212 Glad Acres Dr., Dallas, TX 75234- 5201, in favor, "good for the area". • Catherine A. Jurgensen, 4138 Willow Grove Rd., Dallas, TX 75220, undecided about, "My property adjoins the property in question (2 and 2C). I don't have enough information to make a decision. I will try to attend the meeting." P &Z ACTION: December 7, 1995; Approved to Table (7-0) to Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on December 21, 1995, and continue the public hearing per the Applicant's request. December 21, 1995; Approved to Table (6-0) to Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on January 4, 1996,and continue the public hearing per the Applicant's request to allow him an opportunity to evaluate limiting some uses on the site. January 4, 1996; Approved to Table (6-0) to Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on February 8, 1996, and continue the public hearing to allow for readvertisement of the requested uses. February 8, 1996; Approved to Table ; (7-0) to the Planning and Zoning • Commission,Meeting on February 22, 1996, and continue the public hearing. Due to Resolution 95-24(case limitations),the Commission was unable to take action on this item. 7A-2 MEMORANDUM CURTIS E. HAWK ORDINANCE NO. 480-191, SECOND READING ARCH 15, 1996 PAGE 3 February 22, 1996; Approved(5-0) subject to Plan Review Summary No. 5 dated February 16, 1996, amended as follows: 1) amending item#3 (provide a 5'Bufferyard'A' along the full extent of the east property line) to state "approved as submitted on plan, dated February 7, 1996 2) deleting item#2(provide driveway entrance locations in accordance with Driveway Ordinance No. 634). COUNCIL ACTION: March 5, 1996; Approved (5-0) First Reading of Ordinance No. 480-191, subject to Plan Review Summary No. 6 dated March 1, 1996, amended as follows: 1) deleting item#3 (provide a 5' Bufferyard 'A' along the full extent of the east property line) 2) modifying #2 (provide driveway locations in accordance with the Driveway Ordinance No. 634) as submitted. STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicant has met all the review comments of the Plan Review Summary No. 5 dated February 16, 1996 with the exception of the items • addressed in the Plan Review Summary No. 6 dated March 1, 1996. Note that in the "I-1" district, only 15% of the floor area of the building may be utilized as retail uses and that these retail uses must be reasonably related to the principal uses within the structure. With an approved specific use permit, the 15% of the net square footage may be exceeded under certain circumstances. KPG/ls G:\WPF\MEMO\95CASES\95-116ZC.WPD III 7A-3 ft-- 2132I 28 283 209 285 2810 284 fa t• y r iirAG;.� - I T 5 20 2G. x 2L 2N 2F 12J I 2P F { , y Q 11 NS - ,t, .�-1-/-1-1 • 0 P ' .,„1 _ Hid I INL ll] AH! ♦ "•1�n4I�� •IAA •GO Pp 2K © O 2E 20 ' 2R zu im • . 1(A r 11111111#1GR�6 Y plA (r. p0 r -- 5B2 5828. - ( P . -- ..0:1W1 -, _CD_ 2A2 INp1N ® A sex 6 55— __J iii GR - 5828 582A _A - T♦r,,•,,•nn{� LS Q TER 2A,B 1 ' IINIMIiil 183 18 182 1 111 .1•FY A-456 .....maim 8 .IDR NORTHWEST PKWY 1 IA zEx i tir 6 ST 2E3 2EI4 2£13 >< r i,: I ZE r.8N, I 7E12 7}.7 Y K�M:. E J Lp , 2E3A -� M� I ,...;RA, '7• 1 yFIE I ' AHs,n rtAcc '1' G" 1 3B3 0- I E. 1 _ Y!.. ¢.000 we �� JTNLAKE BLVD. '� 3 '' - --� , y.. C 2 � „,.. Z J `` I I ' M[NWAY , • 28 182A IB2 1B ' 1E2 i,,f'----�' -1 - i I I 1 1 I ,.... , �;''"• I 1 .I' teze Lp, EK i.__ _ ' 1 I 11. 0 1-1 2C U I At Sap 1TN RR� ''.'�L'" 3 3E 3C x Iea 1,... r. .. 1 'PR 2A2 4r,. Sou „ l• 2A 2A3 2A2A 1hr!Ir y 3 At 2a• ®ii bh, : __,..3_ ,_ .. .. i 1 , %O 5Y IC 2A3A iAlt4 _ LSD 12.08 Ac O .�9 1 .s. � 11A 118 ,s, n __ 0 11Eii„ L 3A to - "H O M A 3 , ...,riga 1 BA - eB �Y -^ yaG. 51JR1£ A-171 1 , _OAF' -__1 11111116. - ___ ,13.6 At - �- ^A�vCJ_- S SA -__ I • 1r - � N VY - / • - r-( - GRAP9 s .ry' Ito -- — : ...-col , 1 3 38 • gt/ D ® 6 —— I,D3 _ K J IN 6G 4A1 -�Y' + pAR ; 68 {A{ I : �p� I1D1 -- ' i -f, RK , 8 6K� G 6A1 rKrLI�; . I 1 A �o h --- - • I I - 11DSA __ 1104 , , , 1 r, 1 .383 3 I GRAPEVINE CITY LIMIT J 6 - ill 3Ac 6.15 Ac / I y INDUSTRIAL :•w GR�FN / 1N555 681 1 EN RK rF`N PARK \, dY� 61 Ac L d---- ARK--6- ' `l`\ M5D IND�57RIA —r--r--- �r.2,T. l r 6F IAi18, , I I I `�\` 4A . II , SUPVEY A-2o,s CR�AGE . elao IBIA I }IE I% viz IBIOG ,Bllr MU I5.6 Ac �� Pro:"P / -- � 1012 IB6E �. R ' _ B12A sQg�186E I I 3B2 - i -- 'I . 213 — 1 I12 (...„...1a �,I_�, F►��IoN 1 '8A 1BBA BO App A 893 MX IB683 • :. B6B2 BSC ,WB, :. 1A1 :1 1A e>A • ' 616AI IBIL "I {A A I 1f7�.,:..A 2 I .16 3 1, I 1818 {A2 ROAD 1 il A DC K�� IS k NG TRACT MAP 1 j %� I 'U5 l'"- - \ n 1 . JIr LSL 1 S7 •-4 1�TA�NG SVRVFr A-1t5J L __ � 'I �a,L. i �K181 W1Ai ✓ . ---1 - - -r _ I_ _ I I L _ _ _____� I Spin #7 Representative 13 E 3C Vacant o i /:, ) 1"."1 0 S. McCarty y 6 A 2 1 „ ,. "SF-1 A" "AG" 'l KE .1.i 5 Al A : AG Smith .* C. Yates 4 . iTh A 1 3 "SF-1 A" State of Texas "AG„ State of Texas J. Demlow n A "AG" J. Gregory "I-1 L C. Jurgensen F- 11 � 1 w �� A 113 U �v cy -'. K. Smith J. Stacy W "AG" "1-1 " 0 U — - /.a I 1 Q h fir, . .NI Ft- ,- J SUR VE Y n 1-1 " 4 R. Pack "1-1 " I r ^ 5 ADJACENT OWNERS --j AND ZONING 0 0 7A-5 R_ • CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480-191 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED,THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING 7.22 ACRES, SITUATED IN THE THOMAS EASTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 474, TRACT 3A, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "AG" AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO "S-P-2" GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT WITH CERTAIN "0-1" OFFICE DISTRICT, "I- 1" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AND "B-1" BUSINESS SERVICE PARK DISTRICT USES, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE .ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST,MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL • ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under its Charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial,residential and other purposes, and to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "AG" Agricultural under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS,a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a person or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and • WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas,at a public hearing called by the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether these G:\ORD\CASES\480-191.WPD Page 1 7A-6 Schanges should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and damages; noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off-street parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off-street loading spaces, and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the promotion of health ad the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the over-crowding of the land; effect on the concentration of population,and effect on transportation,water, sewerage, schools,parks and other public faciliies; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the view to conserve the value of the buildings,and encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout this City; and, WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake,Texas,does find that there is a public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly requires the amendments,and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those • who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and, WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake,Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and air, prevents the over- crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed,are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake, Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 480,the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Southlake,Texas,passed on the 19th day of September, 1989,as originally adopted and amended, S is hereby amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and amended as shown and described,below: G:\ORD\CASES\480-191.WPD Page 2 7A-7 Being a 7.22 acre tract of land situated in the Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No. III474, Tract 3A, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, from "AG" Agricultural District to "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with certain "0-1" Office District, "I-1" Light Industrial District and "B-1" Business Service Park District uses as depicted on the approved Concept Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Texas,to reflect the herein changes in zoning. Section 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake,Texas. All existing sections, subsections,paragraphs, sentences,words,phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance are not amended hereby, but remain intact and are hereby ratified,verified, and affirmed. Section 4. That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed, with respect to both present conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen congestion in the streets;to provide adequate light and air;to prevent over-crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population;and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, Swater, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs and development of the community. They have been made after a full and complete hearing with reasonable consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. Section 5. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. Section 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid,the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. Section 7. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. Section 8. All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any S and all violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any Other ordinances affecting zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to G:\ORD\CASES\480-191.WPD Page 3 7A-8 • such accrued,violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. Section 9. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least ten(10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty,fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions,then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten(10)days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southiake. Section 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 1996. MAYOR ATTEST: III CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 1996. MAYOR S G:\ORD\CASES\480-191.WPD Page 4 7A-9 • ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: • EFFECTIVE: • G:\ORD\CASES\480-191.WPD 7A-10 Page 5 EXHIBIT"A" 4110 BEING the remnant of a 7.99 acre tract situated in Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and being out of the Thomas Easter Survey, Abstract No. 474, and being part of a tract of land conveyed by Mildred Banks to Steve D. Pritchett, et ux by deed recorded in Volume 6774, Page 752, of the Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas, which 7.22 acre' tract is more particularly described as follows; BEGINNING at a steel rod for the southwest corner of this tract, by deed call 807 varas East and 1504.87 feet South of the northwest corner of the Thomas Easter Survey, said point being the most southerly northwest corner of Commerce Business Park, an addition to the city of Southiake, as recorded in Volume 388-214, Page 60, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; THENCE North 00 degrees 28 minutes 35 seconds West, 764.21 feet to a steel rod. in the east right-of-way of Crooked Lane and the south right--of--way of F.M. 1709, THENCE east along a curve to the left of said right-of--way with a radius of 1,974.88 feet, an arc distance of 426.30 feet to a point for a corner; THENCE departing said right-of-way, South 01 degrees 38 minutes 53 seconds East, 724.06 feet to a 5/8 inch steel rod for the southeast �o_rner of said tract and the southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 'A' , ommerce Business Park; THENCE North 86 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds West, 435.48 feet to the point of beginning and containing 7.22 acres. • 4111 G:\ORD\CASES\480-191.WPD 7A_11 Page6 .� • s S. F T WaL 1 0 I / R!/ I h L'z EXHIBI7:T^ I1 R� L .......: T ~ — ^tea.. _ ---------------- • uyF 1 im —4 i6 g� \ 1111141111111 . I le li 1 1 if 1.1 L11 ►o 11111111 ) 11 3 E '=' , Pg ` 1a14{{ 1 I 7 f I,O S . N F ' • ki •{ ... Y • li< 9j iU II 0t i fi II I tt _ i ... S. I ninoim•wma Ill" o g II IIS ' - R ~r ° IIIIQIIII �' �_ • i -1- 7-W40111______ . r A g i tip J! G` . 1• SOufce BLVp. (PIL ice) 411 lIaid'B!pl1 di Q4di gfl14gfiiEf* Esal L , '[I$L/j vj . s 08 i�[ • x p;w..R.e.........._.�........w...r a.vaoa�o. ll-C9_I _ ... tc /io COMMERCE SQUARE 1.11 • - �. i • T.22 ACRES _Krumecco .usrw.w. •r r'f fn; THOMAS FASTER SURVEY ti S - ' 2I _ ,SO UTHLAKE. TEXAS O (!inn nrfl G:\ORD\CAS S1$)80-11 .wry ,. .H I 2 1�90 ,•,:t Page 7 iJLL'�] li 7A-12 I ..40.5 0 ,,, 5 9 3 - HREli i I w .4 rr,. 1 VICINfrY LAP xDocnx 0., i n0 •8 .I.\ u_w n Nv.W mus LUD.-KM USE / 7 LUC-000SDWL I _-- LOU.-WILD USE I \•( ,Af v ' 'A MAW illQS ` ��/ .. \/ /`��/ �� N Mr.'Y -)KT I w n ' \ f�I\ p6 K 2)222 I"2 i I. .. i i • I I I surfrrouo Of mecs 1 : n I II ,- iq ,,,, A \ 1 r . I '''. EROPoSLD ' I ) I O,•1Sw'., I..oo drI 1 jY :: I i .UODO,D va• I } /� )) ' w.<xr.list El?, u a)G j• i PROPOSED HUDDIN6'C• i Io v yy/ QI / d Z • L g_._7._ Ii I f - 9®z 11 8 ' �� I d u 1 11 k - If I MILS iii P �—a C4 lO I' . LD S 7 111•pi lot zQ I 9PECiPIC USE PER ... - 1 = I NIDCL'I!'C-x OS•11 Oi[S N LLSIfD 2 I I otmLDe sTDRAcc�_� / ti ",�, �1.0•01 '" i 1 J1; ,it;If I 1 0 s ZJ%� 7 MA® MOTH OWB@II �'ti I Qj Ij! - c D" ' „ a _. .. ear. era �/ L I. aS b l' ` I I 1.'...... / NO 0/04000 0 I1 •�... I NM 000000.00 Q a PROPOSED HUDDDlG R' I /)I ' 1 11 I I 0101100 nu�u a• MIAa.musm a'.0100:00.0 OOP a ] .Wa . MP WO 0•10100 QQQI I irI �, ,, a N W I I .�. PRn'D Ostu `__f_.-�^"" 5. KM 9S'_M''0-11 1�M DM ' O• W H I 111I I it BO LOS/c'D I' uanmrt . • ,...sr w. ` 1 y 000 w s V1 N • I B 11 "'..«o sacra ruro.. — I F L • vn.. W d I LL —� -t--J—mar �3 - /J-- r ( mw.woa.�m rovnm a CO d —-_ I u,.imc m. 0. ....pro. ro. L a •-- ILL 1.... woUnfl":Now .a.�.m 16q -J" II I I .p.OR 00000'oo,� a ONx 0 n IIIIII LO S VOloaiw�\ti m�v'0O" D U F F W L r`,ri ,}_J Irn. '-"4y I-'—.n 1-.2:�w o I I R ..,.. r. 13004.100000 00.11 m N' IIIII "-'_�- '+O K. OR bolo C Ur.-�wousmu. —J F}__. uo.-in.L. I I orna®rc �' � III '< JAL E-. ."I 1 OLmBO H LOTI O'un'.V. G � .aYaC 00 LJ .0 CHUM m -EL. L 'A 0.,,, D...bP.r. SCKD WVMOYDE OD. O^W0VCWRV w0002ra O.N.O.. S KIM'� C V00DE® . .a0x..L mu nn' s= Wi. wowc:I. conao-c� 0.rt: 37 7. -/((- ILQY 7 OI l // • . 0 0 0 City of Southlake,Texas MEMORANDUM • March 15, 1996 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 480-192, Second Reading ZA 96-03, Rezoning Request REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning property legally described as Tract 5-R-1, The Glory Place Addition as shown on the Plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1626 , situated in the Hiram Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581, being approximately a 11.17 acre tract of land LOCATION: 1111 S. White Chapel Blvd., and being on the east side of S. White Chapel Blvd. and approximately 900' north of the intersection of S. White Chapel Blvd. and E. Continental Blvd. •WNER/APPLICANT: Gary Hargett CURRENT ZONING: . "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District REQUESTED ZONING: "RE" Residential Estate LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density NO. NOTICES SENT: Seventeen(17) RESPONSES: Two (2)written responses received within.the 200' notification area: • Wallace Ryne, 809 Boston Dr., Southlake, Texas 76092, in favor, "Mrs. Hargett, on January 29, 1996, explained to me that the appearance of the property would not change." • Thomas A. Wilson, 100 Stonewood Ct., Southlake, Texas 76092,in favor, "This will add value to the properties in the area." P &Z ACTION: February 8, 1996; Approved to Table (7-0) to the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on February 22, 1996, and continue the public hearing. Due to Resolution 95-24 (case limitations), the Commission was unable to take action on this item. February 22, 1996; Approved (5-0) Rezoning request. COUNCIL ACTION: March 5, 1996; Approved(5-0) First Reading of Ordinance No. 480-192. 7B-1 MEMORANDUM RTIS E. HAWK INANCE NO. 480-192, SECOND READING ARCH 15, 1996 PAGE 2 STAFF COMMENTS: The requested rezoning is to accommodate the current uses and the size of lot in question. Although the applicant's lot exceeds the ten acre minimum required for "AG" zoning, the "AG" district is not considered a residential classification when calculating bufferyards, etc. and, therefore, does not afford the applicant the adjacency protection that he desires. KPG/ls G:\WPF\MEM0\96CASES\96.003Z.WPD • • 7B-2 . ...._. .. ' .--t--\.- 1-- --.-••-- . N -011-14-.1.t...6.VrIV'Itrp,r;•.:iica-jcjizel-----501 5°2 /-(?-11 ....... 1' 3c 4.51 kc 9?\ .... AC ‘ AN 1 .? 'QN 1° , ESP;1.1C2 i opj i S Tork' I ,Ick0, . 2 (2 2. -,.--# ,,,,'''. ,. • z- . • . .,„"' War-, ...2,o 0 ,....., ' ' '• i i .--7'~--. 1-- - liggr ' 4/1*14rti 111011119° - • 1 ‘• '-'1 -- --, -' 'f.:,, a .-. 5,,c . I wozir.......,,,k),. . .0,, . . , _ '....1. • - 1 N"' " . - .'Its- •-• VA VI•s_.4y** ' n . • AO 11 44 f. -- ' OW suRsCf ... -..._, ..1.1..i.i. sx.Y-C:. ,..;,4......A--•-:71_...k•-..f....w... t .::,.....iiiiikof Ic• ?1,,,:...o,„,100,,‘ .... , ..... -.;‹ e'. .0•-• -.....i ----I; . • .•:.. wt" gni- 51 /P. --•qr-,,yr.i •ii•51 '-6 .. • . •'• ( i 1 - .`*"* "tio k' . , 'ik•-• • 1-• •-.. - ' 5 s011i ‘.ti% t .... • t,.• - ... ' 'l 1• •• . in ‘.'. -"' • . • • " ' \ :/• , ..-.tV•-k... i4AL: . - --. r. k i. . •, SiAp. . k... • •- - • '-L• . „vol.': ,, ,•t..., .-A ‘ 1 1'i • - :.. 1/...0,'":• . i . ti:f•",\\'- !,.-_,A9 - ',.,.....,,, ,---. . . . --.....•,` 11110Fr (.17 .,c(f, A k 's• ' V-- -V141-'i-4.,i, \...1.4- `-.4i,.Iffit,, • 3.. ". •„;., . • - •'-'-) ' / i, i. \.'" . f 03 \sr or ,c2N _ ---c- \:- ....x.' • • P Ire,• I.‘i 1 t,:,....,2sa:.)..;.,, _ 11.00,,:i3 \3..4.,...1,/, ! --• 1 %,,,,,,,... -• ,..; • .3....K.. Pl.... vii .11. .,• v-• , '`..... N .......1. . ,.., A k./,-e. - .*5.(s'""'•••., \<-. .7.>)-tf'; * - k.% - .< I .' '''.. ' '.rr•; -r ti,;.:.:,,, %------•,.. .! i-':.- -.,..)?-. to' .-.1.-. 'g."'s '-:\pii-:•4 -.1)'• ......-- ) ,...2. WI _ •04". • ,I • • Nit I. s - '.P.41. ": *-4- Vic - • / -k- 12 --• 44- . f i i it.A.-(1-1 t n. • sak) ..••-•-'---.0. ANS ‘....) . i I i. k / • '-', '‘. ,---v. . • •...1: i , .„1. t...--' ‘.‘:, :.:7:4"7:4. i • . , VaG i..1-re:A-Vil.:.iiii,..‘r." t \ 1 I, - • . err, . „ots•JIIP-,, ., . .-.,‘,1 .0.0 fi /X* . ' A '4 G'' A81 '4.' f- .1' .-: •-i0' --: 11 .- .91''t 1.„.%;.;„.•,..1! t .f ..... ,...2., ‘. ,,,, ,,,.•I., .__E ,,,,,..„,,, .... gp • . .. " • .1 \ 1 ‘14,11,0 '" . 114‘1.)::, . . . •. 1. ‘..,A 10 P4 .-k-W\ • 1-4_ , t.•"- '..., 1 4.1111Itik. i I i ' 04331•'" . . 4 4 0Sill ..,. ;. , .-...., • .$4........... „,,,, : .., ,,,....,- . . ' 'e,:':4".." • i • stt!'"'' 1111 t i ....y. • :.t 'it --1-- '-i• - ' i /i,--i- I, 4:4,4' / ?,..-• ---(5141' -A 1.. •-• ,... ,,i.111. -..i. '''''51°3.. 1 t.'-V.:V"-*' i 4-7- "i' .4. •.,•.0. i "*.N.•-••'. , • 1?•rta...11. ----, ..o•P'"' 1 .A.-1.- la--1 ...)--- I 1. - ..„..' ,,S ' 'i.; 'Sisi 1 ' •-• -- 9,. \,.k •• ..4. • 1.? - 114 ,i ill-1 , ,- ., . si , ..„) 1...1.,_..ii., 4,. i. • ',13,4"."-- ' ii, ' , . .....„...r ..il , .,...,,,,,,,., - _____....---- i ‘. ....1,_ 1 a'-111 I • -- ,. ..,4 .... I .,\. • t,A i, Wt.. ././., -,'.'" 0 ., ‘ ,.... .- ,-,., / . kG ts ..40,irc.A.,/,11..k. . _ ,,,, .1 ________ _ _ I.. . k -k i„. . • .-7 - - a. •, ..?-' . . ..,.,. 41 ,.. ,„,,‘,",,,,,O-- \'4.-100 .•VT ' '''',C,,.i P: 116131%,,... _A, '.....„ • t 1 ..........-----7:71.._..„...,..!...-r--"r 71.. %. .„..„‘,...... .., -•"•• ! I, '. ' '''•1 A i • / .414.0.;:t***KrII.‘ ' 1111 II.‘* .',1:. ' • -7-i4091... I. -A.,. ...., . -------------, ...,.....!,..„5","" j. , . . , i.." , 3G •- ; "-. 1 • " '---,......... .. .1, k I.0.„..P.ivie.c."-• :...K.x . c....n.i.E.A. . '‘c •••'.,.. X.'---'s. s i'•--2k.%AI, ,111 . Y ._.-‘..-. ---.i .-,-- A i .. ; -, . - / t • ''',', A - 7 . ,•-r:''' ' --.. _2_11---.- i •I ‘ I. k ..,"-... . \-",, . . --- : •%:.,.. k ! . , • 01 2--1-------- i i•\ 't ....v.todrissollp._r, .... • . !. .. -. . .••-. \-r"-••••r. i ‘ • I/. k .eviork-A#IP: `•-(,* 1 1 - . - . - ''.--<*..- -'' -*' \ . ---,>•-•,-*A . -ii ' W 1.....-:., --. k. ..,,„__Ir. , .;,.., 4'1 c\ L...:.)--.3-- ,,,,,Ilt. i 1 .co.iisn F.- --r,-- .-. •- ...., .,.„,„,.... 1.....„....,...4-.;,,,0 v-i r'•-• si:•'S . 11„. _.,..1„_.t 1,,___ t__ • 320 A4.-..? ----------- ..),•:>••,.-- ! i•-. ,s,„„.,.s t--- -4.- •-.4i-fi.__k_....ii---i ,.... . 2,13. .t.. • a & g 1 i.•••' '•. • •1 .1 1•-••:r•-- '.•1, -4;' .. ''•••• ••1" i • • i 1 \ 1 ' - ! t• ' . #A. A:. 4 r ..-...1 1.0:"`- • - -' i r•-, t.tur 9. .• "--'---',--- ', •-4--r e .....- ',..•••••-c \ -.$ 0. 1' f '04 ''';:•" ''.-L-- ' ' •-i • • '' ..._ . ...y,- .. ..- T. • ..,. .-. • -- :....• • . - ! --. : i , L 1 Nels ,0 ‘ • , • i ) . i i -, - ."'.4.16 -4'4,...f- •••--Iii .-\--- n.--'-§'1 •',I...A 1••• -r, ;-_. V,M..- A-10.0 .,t-Y i / . c . * 1' ' i • i I ; ' tsi 1 .....- ---1" -4. k 16 '.,_., ---, : (-------1" .---,--i (• ,ifAII!•. .... * _I.-- A*,--,1-,.---;:". ---, c3; ! f / •-..... N"--••... 1 "j c.\-r''''''‘ . " • ',' i i '), ••° •" ! i ! . `,, -'..' • ,,,, , I i ‘ • I f. 102/3 1 ' i A .V.-.' I .... • A • , , ',.. ‘ I *.A.. .- 1 ''' • ' . --", ...: f ...,.. I \ I it.''..1.-'1,.....,...,1. 1.- i -.;,.;001":•. triOt„4. , I ,.,, a, 'i .1'-^i-, *.''Z''-'--,.. ,•! t• IF ' ''• .-).,' .IktRir '71\.„‘ I''‘'.;-. ''''. Ar • 0 • .,,a .. ....-- •••_.._ • ..., ‘-‘ a • p_ \:.1. _ A-295 t i ',.7..,...../ G 0 t4'°‘4C1x-C‘ •-', V4,., iii..k. . . lta•,:. .. 1 j.,. ''',. ' .0% \ ••-; '''•-''-----'10 ??._.,,r.ot I. .-.... i k s. aer: 1 oi....---4-'lini‘1111 ,•••• 'AN..s....'' 0111111 1.• ,_. 107 113 , .•..... .„,..-t '..c...... 1--1.7.-• 1 \ ) \ it r-t`c,-•1 ..... •--- t _. -. - 7---i.•\ till NV) • ' _--------- Iwo c•-i •::-.) .• t ... , .. . .• Suneok Prop. "AG" "AG" TR 5D. I 1h 5c1 L.--.._Jn_J 4.0 AC 2.05 AC PRINC:FTON S. Burnitt h� 1-- PK Sunnybrook Prop.!, t. \ \ R. McNamara _ ` H W. Ryne �- ERR J. Lutz IAJD OA -B KSr, '-1 o ' - G , n .1IR 5r• 1 �(ti 1 a 1 : ; : rop.nnbk 5 • CE Pierce Homes I _ \� �' I \\\C. Calvert 42 W. FinkleY riS i( dO• ,r� I I ocr. i - �.� T. Wilson sroraew000 cr x 1 . o Sunnybrook Prop. G. Hargett ' "SF-1 A" / . . i ,.• '—I� � A __ ;�B. ' finger ; ,os ---- ,,; -- ° ,.o �o M. McCormick ah �- x +� . . D Al- 4 y�_ R. Feenstra R ! R. O'Connell R. Williams , Gilchrist I I "SF-1 A"� ..• As., , N. 3 ,� S. Sunstrum R 1 "SF-1 A" >. "R-PUD" z „7 T "SF-1 A" , ;i' ' s 1 a o,, TRACT hi %/ a 2 C/) _ 6 TRACT r c. _ r. _ 4R TR C1 4 1142© a ze' ! Spin #10 Representative 1 7 �`, P Betty Springer '''r - m o P C2 3 — - ---I .bby �9` .070 tn; 1 e ea _ -/ 293 240 I - - - ----E -CO N-TINENTAL-I3LVD- - - - - ---- - - - -• TR 2D1 42 AC TR 203 / \ •�1.85 AC 1 TR 206 ADJACENT OWNERS - 4 S -,, AND ZONING TR 2D4 TR 2D5 2.2 AC .10 0 - \ ,'ri_N 3 sI -- TR 1 7B-4 //--Ir-, '1 ® CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. 480-192 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 480, AS AMENDED,THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A CERTAIN TRACT OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 5-R-1,THE GLORY PLACE ADDITION AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT RECORDED IN CABINET A, SLIDE 1626 , SITUATED IN THE HIRAM GRANBERRY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 581, BEING APPROXIMATELY A 11.17 ACRES, AND MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" FROM "SF-lA" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO "RE" RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND THE ZONING ® CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS HEREIN MADE;PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING .A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule City acting under. its Charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Texas Local Government Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code, the City has the authority to adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance and map regulating the location and use of buildings, other structures and land for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, and to amend said ordinance and map for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, all in accordance with a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS,the hereinafter described property is currently zoned as "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District under the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS,a change in the zoning classification of said property was requested by a person ® or corporation having a proprietary interest in said property; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, at a public hearing called by G:\O RD\CASES\480-192.W PD Page 1 7B-5 • the City Council did consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether these changes should be granted or denied: safety of the motoring public and the pedestrians using the facilities in the area immediately surrounding the sites; safety from fire hazards and damages; noise producing elements and glare of the vehicular and stationary lights and effect of such lights on established character of the neighborhood; location, lighting and types of signs and relation of signs to traffic control and adjacent property; street size and adequacy of width for traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use around the site and in the immediate neighborhood; adequacy of parking as determined by requirements of this ordinance for off-street parking facilities; location of ingress and egress points for parking and off-street loading spaces, and protection of public health by surfacing on all parking areas to control dust; effect on the promotion of health ad the general welfare; effect on light and air; effect on the over-crowding of the land; effect on the concentration of population, and effect on transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public facilities; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, further considered among other things the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses and the view to conserve the value of the buildings,and encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout this City; and, WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake,Texas,does find that there is a public necessity for the zoning changes, that the public demands them, that the public interest clearly ® requires the amendments, and that the zoning changes do not unreasonably invade the rights of those who bought or improved property with reference to the classification which existed at the time their original investment was made; and, WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, does find that the changes in zoning lessen the congestion in the streets, helps secure safety from fire,panic, and other dangers, promotes the health and the general welfare, provides adequate light and.air, prevents the over- crowding of land, avoids undue concentration of population, and facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,parks and other public requirements; and, WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake, Texas, has determined that there is a necessity and need for the changes in zoning and has also found and determined that there has been a change in the conditions of the property surrounding and in close proximity to the tract or tracts of land requested for a change since the tract or tracts of land were originally classified and therefore feels that the respective changes in zoning classification for the tract or tracts of land are needed, are called for, and are in the best interest of the public at large, the citizens of the city of Southlake; Texas, and helps promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: Section 1.• That Ordinance No. 480,the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Southlake,Texas,passed on the 19th day of September, 1989, as originally adopted and amended, is hereby amended so that the permitted uses in the hereinafter described areas be altered, changed and amended as shown and described below: G:\ORD\CASES\480-192.WPD Page 2 7B-6 S Being a 11.17 acre tract of land situated in the Hiram Granberry Survey,Abstract No. 581, Tract 5-R-1, and more fully and completely described in Exhibit "A" attached • hereto and incorporated herein,from "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District to "RE" Residential Estate District. . Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby directed to correct the Official Zoning map of the City of Southlake, Texas,to reflect the herein changes in zoning. Section 3. That in all other respects the use of the tract or tracts of land herein above described shall be subject to all the applicable regulations contained in said Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable and pertinent ordinances for the City of Southlake, Texas. All existing sections, subsections,paragraphs, sentences,words,phrases and definitions of said Zoning Ordinance are not amended hereby, but remain intact and are hereby ratified, verified, and affirmed. Section 4. That the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the community. They have been designed, with respect to both present conditions and the conditions reasonably anticipated to exist in the foreseeable future; to lessen congestion in the streets;to provide adequate light and air;to prevent over-crowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population;and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, drainage and surface water, parks and other commercial needs and development Sof the community. They have been made after•a full and complete hearing with reasonable consideration among other things of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for the particular uses and with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the community. Section 5. That this ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, affecting zoning and shall not repeal any of the provisions of said ordinances except in those instances where provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance. Section 6. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and that if the validity of the zoning affecting any portion of the tract or tracts of land described herein shall be declared to be invalid,the same shall not affect the validity of the zoning of the balance of said tract or tracts of land described herein. Section 7. Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. Section 8. All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of Ordinance No. 480, as amended, or any other ordinances ® affecting zoning which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and; as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation,both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted G:\ORD\CASES\480-192.WPD Page 3 7B-7 • until final disposition by the courts. • ' Section 9. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon at least ten(10) days before the second reading of this ordinance, and if this ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty,fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions,then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten(10)days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. Section 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the day of , 1996. MAYOR ATTEST: S CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the day of , 1996. MAYOR - S G:\ORD\CASES\480-192.WPD Page 4 7B-8 • ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: • EFFECTIVE: • G:\ORD\CASES\480-192.WPD 7B-9 Page 5 • EXHIBIT "A" Legally described as Tract 5-R-1,The Glory Place Addition as shown on the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1626 , situated in the Hiram Granberry Survey Abstract No. 581,being approximately a 11.17 acres. • S G:\ORD\CASES\480-192.WPD Page 6 7B-10 City of Southlake,Texas MEMORANDUM March 15, 1996 • TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: ZA 96-19 Revised Concept Plan/Countryside Bible Church REQUESTED ACTION: Revised Concept Plan for Countryside Bible Church being Lot 2, Block A, Ravenaux Village and being 8.924 acres situated in the Thomas Hood Survey, Abstract No. 706 LOCATION: 250 Ravenaux Drive, being approximately 600' west of N. White Chapel Blvd. OWNER: Countryside Bible Church APPLICANT: Terry Mitchell CURRENT ZONING: "CS" Community Service District •AND USE CATEGORY: Public/Semi-public NO. NOTICES SENT: Twelve (12) RESPONSES: Three (3) written responses received within the 200' notification area: • Charles M. and Mary Le Keen, 2116 Sagebrush Trail, Grapevine, Texas 76051, "We no longer own any property in Ravenaux,please remove our name off the mailing lists. Thanks." (Response received March 4, 1996.) • John H. Larson, 335 Ravenaux, Southlake, Texas 76092, in favor, "with the following three provisions: 1) proposed bufferyards be planted concurrent with construction, 2)no exemptions or variances granted,and 3) require a plant bufferyard along the southern end of the property beginning at the 30' turn around circle and extending to the west corner of property". (Letter received March 4, 1996.) • W.H. Crumbaker, P.O. Box 92836, Southlake, Texas 76092, in favor. (Response received March 5, 1996.) P &Z ACTION: March 7, 1996;Approved(5-0)subject to Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated March 1, 1996, amended as follows: 1) forgiving the north bufferyard in item#6 (bufferyards). SSTAFF COMMENTS: The Applicant has met all the review comments of the Plan Review Summary No. 1 dated March 1, 1996 with the exception of the items addressed in the Plan Review Summary No. 2 dated March 15, 1996. KPG/ls G:\WPF\MEMO\96CASES\96-019RC.WPD 7C-1 ST 6.95 Ac F—"-"T"T` IC IC `~• I. �1- ' IC I '�.. ` 'a l ST 4-s ICl i 1CII% . vi‘a �,L . 1 3A2 SC SD! i '=' i .,f \ i 1C1E1A1 - i 4.9 At IC1 28.7}Ac `` IGInc 1C1EIA ) ;.,�{ 7B .- 514 Ac 1CIEt _•--•J - 7A1 7A2 24.76 Ac i�`- {"'-1-, 2 I tE2 1C3 jZING j i I 7AtAl; , •�I :`~�. RA - tG2 ICtEIB 110 Ac SPANS i i a:.T......�. �');jI� ��7 r w- 'A� {:,' •sc LAl 18181 J'.INi i8 c. RN T9G�1 ,. ,�N�O OO i 5C �A1 SA1A , TU. l`�K,a 1B16 SS.RKY A-IIJ4 -. _9 - 1E D I ' 181A 181A 1 _._�_._.-� 1CIA ! i SLIMY A-1104A 1BIC IC. IF N O 1 4A2 4 Ac ICI o ' 4A1 r-481 4B21I IB1 ,,`'- BID 2 Ac 3.79 M J �i=A_vpN U -- 13,4 Ac 231 - i 3 G ~- , 84.22 Ac I I a r /+1, c Q ! i s c ��EJ 1J.7'7 Ac , 9.03 Ac $W 4.3 Is 32.8 Ac 16 4 2!3 i ! 3 1 IA r 28231 R _.. (�ON ,8 • S.gS fEI�DI $ 1 1 ,AI _p,V 1 f IS 2.0Ac -c`tea _- � IN IB t�� 3 EAST DOVE ST. I I 1 _ 11 it ° 182 7.36 Ac 2.15 IG 1.87 2 Ac ""- — <• Y— - 1BI -- `- T11 i iy ! i 1AS^ 1B3C J1B21B WFST DC�E STREET ! _'7� H I ,{�1y1 6.2 Ac - it IA i ip i t ! i--J -. - ti .rtAD ..� _ 0 SAc t t�� i t 1 I_ S �-1Lt--1 80 Ac IA 0in OtZGII ; 0?A I i 1.......' )Nf � 1 '-'-'-"- ?'r-. 1B 1 7A2 11.33 Ac Mc �N G� • i I i I tea p1A `-'--- --- &645 Ac BR ANY CT V ; f II WEST 5.9 Ac 1 i '� !R��yJ ' J. 17'f/ES 11 IC , 2 Z+a f �` • r. SGRIEY A-Tl .-P •, IA1 36361£Y A-I620 IA I LL,Ap -_ VT' ,0 •t 1 1/ r5 I i ROU 1" Ni. CA 6&7 Ac I 40.0 At 2A2A i 35 Ac 10 Ac _.��,.. 10 Ac J _._I /�, 13 Ac i/ 4 _ `% u{�� I :A}, 3A 3Af (ram. -- _ R 6f,I. 3A4 II. 2G` GLUM• J 2 0 -6.. 33 LARKIN H.ACHIVE S Y 45 SURIEY -300 A 56.33 At IA 2J 1;�. 1 _et. yy j 602 ! �t';rA4�a rnr: 3A2A ytyr fi 1B i .-.J..—.I2E1 .'!i i• i i i 3A2B 3� �O �.....• 28 I i i i ��pj�� i , 77, 30 3C 81 0 •)VF iVE$� ) NO SB2 38 381 x2 — i` `� ' ,� GO- i /1 R/xi 3.15 Ac 5.97 Ac 1?) ill x 2C1 _9'UR;____ -'-_'_— ylt ! I I 6D : AD0N. sT Ake, 3 3A 2A i : I p K® — -_G CS 8F 8G� 8DXI _.( _ .-•3E113 3EA26 Ac r._._.- - .--=G1!- B B -1:: .___`.Rr 2 , 8C2 ------rwG . i ,ESF 401 —L- 5.53 Ac 118 8A4 4A ,\ 8A 8,411� 8A16 8A 8A8A1 ® 8 884 � IEI 1 1F 182_ _ ,A —�!-__- 8 BAS 5A 8 g �y - w — �j?.. i IIC 11E 6A6 A 1 • 8A8/ 1 2' 687 I - r•... ! 6 4 8 3_ BB Li9L1 1, 5 ,( 5 Ac -• _ - r ..rr A 8 682A 6BIA O�f'�'��11pp77��'', r - L �iE/' 1 N e c:' BAIS A - 881A 19 A`i- ! O !� -.i�ri," �;M1.8 A< M�Y- fz 8A2 8A98A w1r - ! j j i ! ! !a4 _f' ! I 11C2AI 11C1 11F 99 10 ' 1 1 ! I 1 - .�'�l- .�'y.� I I j t - •-tt—.L4,L.. _ tt,,��•w i .r % i 11D (`J I 9 retil ! IIIiy�ii iV�'P. ''nTti�NA% �.N:.c(�0 i ! ciPi, .4.. �'.w VV. HALL nb�1oN r.y �.\''• .rsl ftlEY A-607 Ayi I S 35 Ac 11 .� •:,,,. � ' TRACT MAP - r �- i i ! . . t ._. �.i�. .1 i c' i 1 �-171-r.1i1-')_., . 1 I . ! ! 1 1 : ! 11A ! 1 �"�/"-.•- 's'7,.1.4 ! \ i I I 11 1 1 i I i I i I 11A2A 11A 9F I m ; 1 T ! 1 I .T1,4_! `,,. •• M.T.i. 1 Lt._ 1. 7C-2 , �1 N lilt 1 1 i 1 1 �� 't 1 i i i i IIA2 T I !� ! 1 I �", I -% �- i i ! 1 kji i%i ._i�_i.J._L 1.._ oc1 .11s0S•1 1-`1 mil! a• 'I A • _ _ _ _ _ Spin #11 Representative Gary Fawks \ t ` 6 6F1 3 c 1 C 6F 2 AG 6 W. Crumbaker "AG" Pargas of Grapevine In7d.V. Tucker /- T. Glosser V v • Q.) „AG„ .,AG„ r. 2,...>< - • • Q , P. .Wilson r p6 G 1 , E ' � 6J G. Fawks OL D/FW—White Chapel Rd. Ltd. "SF-1 A" ' H Y1 1 � ' ill AG I 1 • C. Keen • /� , "C-1 " � I 0 / � L. Wayne 8J „S-P-2„ I V DREz Edwin Cole Ministries "O-1 „ 6 II I 1- \---- \ - - "S-P-1 " \ ADJACENT OWNERS 6 D _ • - . ____ . ____ . AND ZONING II 7C-3 I. 425, TRACT 6F ZONED AC ZONED AC III ... CEOROE B.TILLERY JR.EST. S 88 21'48•E 182J7' LU.D.:MIXED USE TRACT AG F• 15'DRAGIAGE/UflUTY ESMNT. PARCAS OF CRAPENNE,INC. 02 LU.D.:LOW DEN.RES. I / • _ LU,D.:MIIQD USE S ZONED SE1-A ey a't/, vTOi TZONEDRACT • AG LOT 10/DLK.A I. �� / I H TRACT OF GRAPEVINE,INC. SCOTT A.JOHSTON .1 7 O /E%ISTC.TREES O \ n LU.D.:MILD USE \q RA`iENAU%PLACE.VOL J88-217 I / ( `J1�,5 5 79'J �� P.75.P.R.T.C.T. I11 / y / I ��// 8 15.E V.'. BALL FIELD I 133'-0'0t NEW PANNG/ IEDGE OF EA1sYC PA — `_ 23I.6I' LANDSCAPE BUFFER"'—.'•. 1 lo I I .7/I I • A I`IT 1 1 —� O ��:> • PER FREES 1 _ I E%IS C POLE W N 1 1 I P ••? V10E UNDER DUN• O 4 ACCENT TREES •,� 1 I I _b ! / TO MR'. F W _ (0 12 SHRUBS III I` ry R42' •I I / // _/ ,_ Y 7,I\ 1 I •o R18 I I /' �4I EU(T:o P.RI.Ir.0'UONRAG�- „' 5 U . (n�" IIl iJ RESTRIPE PI RKINC K�•y j (UN\TERC OUNL_.� 657 —�� =Z J X in ZONED SFl-A O1 I 0 EL C i •LOT 11/BLK.A YY w TO THESE 0 S. n R23'-0' 1 I II I SERNL / /J J l \ y2F�� _ W�>-. t\ CARY L FAWNS Y 41�i `ri NI I I E1 I _I `I I %5%j"I-'I-I-1-1-�+-1 a— < O ' R 114 W 0 co RAVENAU%PLACE,VOL.388-217 {e o 1 '-0• • P.75.P.R.T.C.T. ,1 1 gp , Lwj 1 __ Q O=p.� NI 1 j1 %ISTC:ATRMR' _a — o E%ISYC.TREES E i PROPOSED BIDC.In 4C'_p11 k METER I J (n . SIIE: J 0 SINTLE STORY 1 —b-- : - — &LOCAt — I W APPROX.19000NEW SEPIC SYSTEM — § p- SOFT FLOOR AREANORTH(••..1,—, 1/CODES I I ^ \/�l`L{I!�' VICINITY MAP = LU.D.:LOW DM.RES )1_ _—— ; R25-0' �d•l BASKETBALL COUTtT & I— �_�_ �' In NEW GAS METER ——1-1/4'S LB GAS UNE; � OUT7�OOR SRtUC RE I //' 1 I. = 0 0 I i — LONE STAR GAS G \ IC 0 I c.v,a..u• I —/ —� = U W PAT GRIGGS \\ I I —F —I ~ BI7-ZBS-9615 I �. W— \ 40'-0' PROPOSED BEDG.`2 I 1. �I A h--I l 0 y . PROPOSED SINGE STORY I I11 I F�� Z m 0 Q C0 1\ 2'_0' -5 S0. 7P FLOOR AREA I\� _ .INTO E%15RM o U m x H f7 I'1:Rf,.i11l5P.?IIR ' \ L ---B58�[ )-_ / WA 'UNE 1--r' R.245A0,L.214.80' / —+�-657' ��` I' LOCARON�vI LU.D.: MI%ED USE d 0 Q ) m1 \ 1 1 1 NEW 2 WAFER LINE o—N BS 04'J0:W 208.0' LL \ 'I i I I ` FOR DOMESTIC \ ZONED A d Z Y n J \ I ; I •� \ DFW/WHITE CHAPEL ROAD.LTD. <}'Q \///'''�� \ I I 4 RNG -656__ -----------------\--- W CC 1 LU.D.:LOW DEN.TIES \ ; i O \ W F w 1TJ-Z Q\ ZONED SShA \ I ; \, \O I L s. _ FTI--� p O LOT RAVEN/A I%PUCE \\\ I' 11 E%ISYC.TREES \\i ; 15'ORAINAOE/URUTY ESMNT. r .J. II F- 0 N 0 a \ 1 i y • %\ MAR 111996 I \\ ~ ----E)OSYG 6'WATER ILL �L `I ZONED q `y�, I ,� i 1\ l \ yN T LL LOT 1/BLK.A \ \ 16 •C`\ t+. (KES%.) 5 0 K.WAYNE LEE . tF•' .1 4 T. LOT 2/BLK.A \ K ` M, VOLRAV.SBU%VILLAGE l N IL1 0\ L .{ VOL 388-213,'P.31,P.R.T.C.T. L/(t' + I \ DISTINCT ZONED CS \ �` N• Lu.D: MIXED USE ` �5oa PROPOSED:NO CHANGE n 1 -< �� LU.D.:MIXED USE �'.y. U\ E%ISTG.LU.D.: g1URCH \ C� `\ 1" m 'R`\ PROPOSED LU.D.:PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC \ N \ ogLT ZONED SP 2(460-43)' ��J -`}-\\ •--------------- _ \c'�' \T% EMI., . UNE 7E0'D 89R1•m—m LOT 2R2/BUG:8 RANEIIAU%VILLAGE •y --- \.Z \ o NORTH 482,37' 'IONE CABINET A.SLIDE 2120,P.R.T.C.T. °' \ - \cO. L Ion EAST 34.06' .NONE \ /F'`V EASEMENT &DRAINAGE C VNI • NORTH 231.62' NONE \ \\ \` TO�'0. E� a EAST 411.27' 4ONE; \ \ 1 EAST 280.59' 40.4E I pp T], SOUTH 110.0' NONE SOILS INFORMATION BY ALPHA TESTING \ \ VAULVE Q``• Kg ,1 SOUTH 325.72' NONE REPORT N0.95418 GATED 8-2-95 \\ \ / V`� \JP'��O ' i5:g = SOUTH 373.99' NONE L� IS',EESSTH404 790 1 NONE;10--C 12 16 4B ' \ -, / / o^• /'rs •)�' 6 e 1 i koH R.2S2.35. LA325.72• , \` —/ .- I. /-/ c�N 76 58'J6'W 309.57 • - SITE PLAN �f. / SHEET NO. •R••0 •S- T E%.SION 1 SCALE:I- 40'-0� PER APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR ` LU.D: MIXED USE 6 NORTH t1i°�-1—� :LK.B.RA 9.- • ZONED SP,1 9480-1 • OT 2R1/BLK.B AVENAU%VILL. 'CASE N0.U 86-10' C.: 20J-, C.T. • City of Southlake,Texas MEMORANDUM • March 15, 1996 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: ZA 96-14, Site Plan for Primrose School Attached is a letter from Nancy Cangelosi,Applicant for the above-referenced case, requesting that the item be tabled until the City Council Meeting on April 2, 1996. As we have previously discussed, only the letter requesting the tabling is included at this time. The entire packet will be forwarded when the case is given full consideration. KPG G:\WPF\MEMO\96CASES\96-014SP.TBL • • 7D-1 1 ` Sr Primrose School of Southlake 305 W. Chapel Downs Drive Southlake, Texas 76092 March 12, 1996 Ms. Gandy, Please table our petition#9614 for the final site plan for Primrose School that is scheduled for a hearing by the city council on Tuesday March 19, 1996. We request that this plan be placed on the agenda for city council on Tuesday April 2 ,1996. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, • . 00121-kt • Nancy Cangelosi Owner Primrose School of Southlake rUMARrPnantrIN 121996 1111 7D-2 City of Southlake,Texas • MEMORANDUM March 14, 1996 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Shana K.AYelverton, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Impact Fee Study--Public Hearing As you know,the public hearing to discuss updating the water and sewer impact fees, and adopting roadway impact fees for the City of Southlake is scheduled for March 19, 1996. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide an opportunity for the public (interested residents, developers, builders, etc.)to provide input into the process prior to Council's vote on first reading of the ordinance. The public hearing has been advertised per statutory requirements of Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, as well as through our normal public notification process. The following will be discussed during the public hearing: • ✓Brief Introductory Remarks - Study Team members will provide introductory information regarding the purpose of the study, the requirements of Chapter 395, the methodologies used, and the recommended fees. If necessary, Study Team members will also be prepared to answer any questions the Council or audience may have regarding the capital improvement plans. ✓Committee Comments -The advisory committee is required to file written comments with the City five business days before the public hearing. Southlake's advisory committee has filed their comments, and members will be available during the public hearing to answer any questions you may have about the process or the written comments. ✓Public Input- It is difficult to ascertain the level of interest in the project. Although the reports have been made available to the public, we have had limited interest expressed. To my knowledge,we have handed out only two packets. Still, impact fees are often the subject of intense interest and we may well have more interest that we anticipate. Please place the public hearing on the agenda for the March 19 City Council meeting. The first reading of the ordinance will be placed on the agenda to immediately follow the public hearing. • SKY c/If-I February 29, 1996 • To: Mayor and Councilmembers, City of Southlake From: Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) Subject: 1995-1996 Roads, Water, and Wastewater Impact Project After diligent and extensive work with the staff-consultant team, the 1995- 1996 Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) asserts that all impact studies, reports, and recommendations are consistent with the requirements of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. In addition, the CIAC offers these general opinions and assurances: • Growth assumptions are middle-of-the-road and are based on local data and trends or on regional or national standards. • Capital plans are right-sized and manageable. • Cost projections are reasonable. • Proposed impact fees are adequate, competitive, and, at the beginning, • comparable to current exactions. (For water and wastewater, the proposed fees support continuation of flat utility rates.) Specific committee comments, observations, and points of emphasis (grouped by type) follow. Roads • Although it has a reputation in the professional planning community as implementing "best practices" for regional computer models, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) model used to make traffic projections is based on back-level data and is said to require substantial functional enhancement, especially for accuracy at the local level. A new version of the model is expected in 1997. • Barton-Aschman Associates, the transportation consultants on the study team, were not especially responsive, expansive, or articulate in addressing the committee's methodology concerns (for example, the role of the NCTCOG model), which caused considerable frustration and delay. • With the goal of having a common road impact fee across the city, the 1111 CIAC took care to include meaningful capital projects in each service Page 1 7E—al • area — with only token projects, a service area would qualify for only an • artificially low impact fee. • Original construction cost estimates (from the study team) were trimmed somewhat at the committee's urging —these lower estimates (in the report) can be compared against actuals in the next impact-fee review cycle. • Right-of-way (ROW) acquisition is an eligible cost, and the committee guessed that about half of the ROW would have to be purchased, which is reflected in the project estimates. • If today's practice for impact fees is followed, adoption of road impact fees will change the source and timing of road exactions: today, developers pay perimeter road fees at final platting; tomorrow, contractors would pay impact fees as building permits are issued. • Today's "critical drainage structures" assessments are embedded in the proposed road impact fees. Water • CIAC consideration of the water-system capital projects was in the context of the city's intention to join the regional water system and, thus, • to accept the City of Ft. Worth as its sole supplier of water. • Having multiple sources (major pipelines) for water is a critical requirement that has been highlighted by previous committees. With the regional water system, this should be accomplished within the next two years. • A proposal for an updated reimbursement policy for developer-funded water projects is being pursued separately and in parallel with this impact study. • Proposed ground-storage facilities will help lessen peak-demand rate surcharges, and these savings are reflected in the project cost estimates. • Proposed elevated-storage facilities will assure better pressure for routine uses and provide better reserves for fire-fighting. Wastewater • Tie-in to the Denton Creek drainage basin trunk line to the Trinity River Authority plant near Roanoke is near—the Solana site and the Higgins Branch basin (part of the N-1 line) will be online by year-end 1996. • Page 2 7E- 3 • Because it does not represent new development, the city program to • bring sewer service to existing subdivisions is outside the scope of impact fees. • A proposal for an updated reimbursement policy for developer-funded wastewater projects is being pursued separately and in parallel with this impact study. The CIAC members appreciate the opportunity to have served the city on this project during the past year. Joe L. Wright, Chairman Ernest P. Johnson Paul W. McCallum Bruce McCombs /, David C. McMahan Robert O'Neal Lanny Tate • Page 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM • Reviewed Thoroughfare Plan to determine potential projects • Assumed that projects would be 41, constructed to ultimate section as shown on Thoroughfare Plan • Determined cost based upon: • Cheatham & Associates Perimeter Road Fees • Modifications requested by CIAC 7E-5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM • Criteria for Final Project Selection • No interim work done within • the last 2 years, this year or next year • At least one project in each service area • Intuitive analysis of probable projects within 10 years based upon known developements • Elimination of projects based on intuitive thoughts on would would NOT be done within 10 years 7E-ë 0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM • Projects eliminated if there was an indication that work would 0 be done by Developers CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM • Costs Included in Analysis • Construction • Right of Way • Critical Drainage Structures • Traffic Signals • Engineering & Surveying 7E-s CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM. • Construction Costs for Sections • C2U - $125/If • A4U - $170/If • A5U - $220/If i 1 1 CITY OF f il SOUTHLAKE T r ' II .�� 6b.., l . ` '~ l • \z: .r s e. I b J4 ! 'Y I .• m— 1 . lhbl.11 , �j . <� <" . iz, ;: ;� �q T -� 11\- .Is, did;_Z. :� . r Mr Wir= ' 11111.rlaibliiiirl 'MUMIMM5g2W .a®aw mxooaa an+w C`� • ml�� S MI 11 \ • — 'V i V,* ..: .4%. I% %,,.to, ...__ drii ill'k '<fr $2. ' - ... 1 tiliii fM:ittli 4. .-. 00,110111. 'WPM . 1: 1E01j.,. £; .rr ...- ., 9 • gii\ 1 163-11 71 — . _ — . —.) iit.I.Lt IIERsn' ma MEESE INEMMEMMEN pr 4t. . ......- sr. el: r.„,.....Ki ... lion eihittio .. a. las6 r__ I •fir 01 ,i.f.......GM Elot ID ice, lir. __ .ioR 1 41,. .poIg i . I i a nil g • m, iff eRD�sm? �ffL. j . . �...07D�00Km04�DC:aawiwaWOO�Hax ,•"'•a a 0oeieaeraaee0efaar+a, ou_ II lui I . z 1 , . 1 1 ill 11 1 .1. ,_... .. 44 VO I - Railroad Crossing Signal O Traffic Signal Recoupment , • Traffic Signal Improvement i:m : Roadway Improvement Project SO Recoupment Project •in Projects Not Eligible for FIGURE 2 impact Fee Recovery POTENTIAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATIONS 17 • k CITY OF - --t7 r SOUTHLAKE 1 - 1 fT 'r I0 .%..:)II?\ 1pi,, •• . „• .. --.--II---\:'1.:k P•t...- , S 1-- jV , f i' J j 11 e''. 1. 6 J:- 11a �11 ., • ` - ___ Yam_ m� .:= _� • ,. _ . lmit, i4, • . .„:„..,„.., . NI lip.....::, - -- --Iiilliv .'"N11111 i r 1 - 1 ;i:,/,-, , m.,, \:. as 'i . —A116.1. '' ,.:e; .,.. f 1 l NIil ,iim • 7.4 ,., . 11-:F1 N - .d= ..1, %,c-ii 6.zTe TIsO rm z,.v. aLw.! it !,400'..z:. • . , a:1 . 1 : . ' 0 - /. ./„: , ..__ ,.. , ilia-': ilibili-4- ! , . fzi.z., ,,h.i :.„-..,,,,1,, , wor-., .-purau 0 „: VaNzinig •4"ex,* '4.=too:ii: 1 ..7•-i,ww. • IEL,L11.1"41ff rj• Y ___ - .-.i' ,: 111M .1:: 0 r 1 1 ________I e - I I -, _All isk'k 1 .,4 I t trimif.:11 1 tj I . " . . IlitiVill 0 W I 'Me \0ru" f r i , ;iv— la i i . 0"-' 11. gi) 41111111110 110) ..% i • I. Aff Noll /\--,-„,\ gL ..-c z) ‘i .i..i..,-,_../ 46'5��/ awopr ./.1 i ia. ....,,,,'' .'A aVss c o k\.,o'N'a.c..c--O,-.CI 2.-..'.\-.10-x--a1.1-c1/1e1o1,1,-x/.a*,1c1Vcaii.a.ii%l.l:*ii'r.ml.-i- _. --e.--e—l....7-1..1IL.\:\"a92.945225:=2:52& ,', d -1 Roadway Improvement Project l:i. Q Recoupment Project • Q Traffic Signal Recoupment Railroad Crossing Signal Traffic Signal SFIGURE 3 .r RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATIONS 7E-I/ 10 1 , S O U T H LA IK E ; _ A=Pending- 1996 Budget Funds 7B=Complete-Funded in 1993-94 and 1994-95 Budget , C=Pending- 1996 Budget Funds ...,, :.?! D=Completed 1995 1 • E=Pending- 1996 Budget Funds :. F=Complete- Funded in 1993-94 Budget III1 6 III G=Complete-Funded in 1993-94 and 1994-95 Budgets A�' ►` � 4.- H=Pending-Scheduled for 1997 i c. I=Pending- 1996 Budget Funds \ r' J=Pending- 1996 Budget Fund�s j i1/4 \'t4.Vap '1 ...% I 11 il 111110....bA ', : --'1111161;111R11406:11•1114,,, • (,•,j'iliat"WI'Till ....., , ,...� s ®,. miss "" -'�Fi4 .��. %V 1111.MIIIIWOkif 4.,. kkilvim,13,7.1,:i;. 4. . .......... lilt Mill i...r 4 ''S1/4%'-'-'11F , .1.; Pl. .is. , 111".1.4101.0.,,. . - (-wocowoowwan.a emit m tams zts, s: 4iik..-11A4kill Fie � Malr� �• l mr.l NUWININV:. if;j"ikliii-01 - ,1 1 , - oa• - • - -i reffitilt Ina. wq mi,,,,,„ii= -, ,, . ........, .. ..„.... Frolg.li. I giatiim ia:„. g ._. .. .. .. . __ _ _ ,y.10'..1111111 . .g_ Mt.. . Tret) 11:10_,Ximerilis i ... r . t lie 1 1 . _ lk , • �1 t. ir 70.\\,Liptiii . •• bil„ 6,...,..,, 111111111PAIM f l +� IIVA 1 IN ' Mr •.1.-• le c!gouts:!e ffi a!ix_a ss®t��s. ex wau..:.a+�.u»xocoawc•�.«w dnOmmom�m, o?"�•;b�" .Ai�736@:lSood7d��+s�1f `d4 L1S Irv Vr� R ¢iSr"�' \ liI 1 _7lootktvi III 1 . 1� ‘lr , : ,, 1 ,l,._,.! ,....., ,. � 1 t 2 / h • Railroad Crossing Signal 0 Traffic Signal Recoupment • Traffic Signal Improvement Q Roadway Improvement Project () Recoupment Project ® Projects Not Eligible for FIGURE 4 Impact Fee Recovery $-.,,` ;';� Bond Project FUNDING FOR.kOADWAY PROJECTS III IN SOUTHLAKE Impact Fee Projects 22 7F /c Fee Based on Fee Based on old • Fee Based on Impact Fee of Perimeter Road fee Ultimate Road Actual Fee Subdivision Lots Street Fron agefType of Road Section $1,095 of$50,000/mile Fee Based on New Perimeter Road Fees Section Collected 1 I Prior to 9/95 After 9/95 Hills of Monticello 1105 3,664 LF @ A5U 1 1,719 LF@A5U 1 114,975.00 50975138i 255,692.50 282,607.50 547,289.61 Vti509751001 !Monticello Estates 11171 1,147 LF@A5U 1 1 128,115.00 . 1086174= 54,482.50 60,217.50 116,615.49 rf/M.411,10g360Z4i 1Cambridge Place 11461 519 LF @ A5U I i 422 LF @ C2U . I i 1,757 LF p C2U I- -1- 159,870.00 25,549.24 128,155.00 ?,!:•:!if:F. Z1'41',845S00: 183,506.73 )01:Q1-413,141,I645.00 Lonesome Dove Estates I.1501. 1,318 LF @ C2U 1 1,486 LF @ C2U T: ,_ 1,752 LF @ C2U__ 1 164,250.00 ..:„.;--. .,•'';43",143:9:411 216,410.00 239,190.00 273,360.00 Inn,:,..•:7;;;I:::43;,143i94i Regal Oaks I 22 I 537 LF @ C2U :..,---,:?-'..A,;24;090.001 5,085.23 25,507.50 28,192.50 32,220.00 1151431M24090!00; Coventry 101 1,368 LF @ A4U 362 LF@C2U I ,i No 110,595.00 . 16;382',`581 82,175.00 90,825.00 128,875.44 ONOttatirl6t382i58;' 'Park Place 391 789 LF @ A4U k si 1I :,,,,,,,42705.0a: 7,471.59 37,477.50 41,422.50 61,802.37 42'..705f00; !Country Walk 551 654 LF @ A5U i I 60,225.00 .-. ' ... --6,193:18 31,065.00 34,335.00 66,492.18 lett4:1.11:7=:::E46493!"48, 1 ‘ 1 I Proposed S reet Impact Fee/Lot $1,095.00 Perimeter S eet Fee 47.50 1 Perimeter S reet Fee 52.50 _ A5U Ultima Street Section 101.67 A4U Ultima Street Section 78.33 ,C2U Ultima e Street Section 60.00 ----- R2U Ultima Street Section 72.50 • III III 0 . Water and Sewer Impact Fee Analysis.. - - - - Residential Fee Based on Fee Based on Fee Based on old Fee Based on Impact Fee of Impact Fee of Perimeter Road fee Ultimate Road Development Square Footage Street Frontage/Type of Road Section $691.578/1,000 SF of$50,000/mile Fee Based on New Perimeter Road Fees Section Actual Fee Collected Prior to 9/95 After 9/95 Cross Roads Square 65,876 429.27 LF©A5U . 45,558 0 w X4;065.06 20,390 22,537 43,644W21:4;0655QO Southlake Marketplace 81,762 56,545 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Commercial Fee 691.578 Proposed Fee IN 0 0 4110 • Final Report Development of Transportation Impact Fees for The City of Southlake Submitted to The City of Southlake, Texas Submitted By Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. November 2,.1995 • City of Southlake Water & Wastewater t Capital Improvement Plan ;&4 Prepared For 1995 Impact Fee Update `.t,_ i ,...,, ti Prepared By kz,L4, Eddie Cheatham, P.E. Lti Cheatham & Associates A Lewis F. McLain, Jr. Fiscal Planning Consultant k --=Mh= L. `thiQK" January 31, 1996 -ice City of Southlake,Texas • MEMORANDUM March 14, 1996 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Ordinance 658, First Reading, for the Abandonment of a Portion of Miron Drive Right-of-Way in Miron Subdivision The Miron Subdivision is located just west of Woodland Heights and on the south side of Southlake Blvd. (F.M. 1709). When the subdivision was built, approximately one third of the platted street, Miron Drive, was constructed. The remaining two-thirds of the street has not been constructed, used, nor accepted as a public street and "constitute a public charge without a corresponding public benefit." Council is requested to declare this street right-of-way (ROW) as excess ROW and abandon the southern two-thirds of Miron Drive. The attached ordinance declares that the ROW of Miron Drive, "except that portion of the right-of-way which contains an existing paved roadway (see 0 attached map) constitutes a public charge without a corresponding benefit, and the public would be better served and benefitted by its vacation and abandonment." The ordinance also authorizes the mayor to execute one or more quitclaim deeds on behalf of the city. Please place on the March 19, 1996 agenda for first reading. Gil - ' - BW Attachments: Ordinance 658 Map wpdocs\wthead.mem\agenda\myrondr.wpd • _ A ORDINANCE rfoi. 6 5 8 • AN ORDINANCE VACATING AND ABANDONING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF MIRON DRIVE IN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,TEXAS,DECLARING THAT SUCH PROPERTY IS UNNECESSARY FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC; RESERVING A TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT FOR USE BY THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE QUIT CLAIM DEEDS RELEASING PUBLIC OWNERSHIP INTEREST AND CONTROL OF THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,the City of Southlake,Texas is a home rule city acting under its charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Southlake, after careful study and consideration,has determined that certain portions of Miron Drive in the City of Southlake, are not being used by, nor useful or convenient to the public in general; therefore, they constitute a public charge without a corresponding public benefit,and the public would be • better served and benefltted by their vacation and abandonment; and WHEREAS, in order to remove any question as to the continued interest or ownership of the public in said right-of-way, the city desires to execute a quitclaim deed releasing all title,ownership and control in said right-of-way to the owner or owners of the abutting property,save and except a temporary access easement providing access to certain property located adjacent to Miron Drive. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHIAKE, TEXAS: [Nail s\glake\ordinanAmiiwndrvac(03-14-96) rage 1 grt3_07._ SECTION 1. • right-of-way d abandoned as public roe all The following is hereby vacated and abara__on property:tty: of Miron Drive located in the Miron Addition to the City of Southlake,save and except that portion of the right-off-:.ay which contains an existing paved roadway, as more specifically described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes. The right-of-way is not being used by, nor useful or convenient to the public in general. it constitutes a public charge without a corresponding benefit; and the public would be better served and be efitted by its vacation and abandonment. The right-of-way so vacated and abandoned shall revert in fee simple to the owners of the abutting properties. SECTION 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in this ordinance to the contrary;the vacation of the portions of Miron Drive described herein is conditioned upon and subject to the reservation of a temporary access easement within said right-of-way,providing access for the • benefit of the City of Southlake to adjacent property to be utilized by the city for an elevated water storage tank. This temporary amass easement shall remain in full force and effect until a permanent access easement is dedicated and/or granted to the city across adjacent property in the iviiron Addition, either by replotting of the Miron Addition or by separate instrument. SECTION 3. The MM.;yor of the MY of Sou Vie, Texas, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute one or more quitclaim deeds telcasin. g all elm to title, ownership, or control of r.vikfiN e1oril;naactmu+oadr vac(X-4 96) III Nip z ga-3 the sight-of-way, on behalf of the City of Southlake, Texas, save and except a temporary 411) access easement as herein described. SECTION 4. A copy of said quitclaim deeds shall be presented for filing with the County Clerk of Tarrant County, Texas by the office of the city secretary. SECTION S. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the city council that the phrases, clauses, sentences,paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable,and if any phrase,clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any mart of competent jurisdiction,such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the.remaining phrases,clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the III «....r t- :., this ordinance in "5a rpo ation in ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED ON ?SST RAGING ON THIS DAY OF , I996. MAYOR. ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY IIIEVResViake‘ordinanc\mirandr.aac(03-14-96) Page 3 PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF • 19►9E6. 1 I•WrieVeS iv*tt 1%Ark ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CIty Attorney • f enViakc\ordinanc\iplroadr.vac(03.14A6) Pogo 4 • gL3 -s __ .......� n-�t7 I^ .- in 1/2" I.F.F. we , _-L45.0_0_._ •- -->- ,-"�--- mt:� • •• -mid u.�10. - I tea•U.E.23a. R. ci II ' n - is 50' e�Rn ISo BunlNcr -E SEusr� - 0 O iR . • ERIsnNR" 39 F_Jr -s lc sTRUC1UREIn.z 1 i va , 0 co r PAVEMENT •p d rQ • b 1.03 AC ,:� j' "•,S 89'S2'21' W `.I l j' U Z` - ro cY - /� ,'•169.08' o ,,,.• LOT F 1~' 4; =r f° I .9"tY' .f ,2 y ro F t•oo AC. 1, . I S 89'52'29" E • Jt 31 '" - sTRuCTuREg- EXISTING ' G��ptay ---le-) �- o 200.31 . • vot. ' . I'v i �pO��O c y • io L�fa �� w la! • 0Q'b00 0 . 19 ^� 11 LOT 2 :.03 LOT 1 I i al CS l'OC"\: el-2-' S 89'49'20"I C I:• I� "; (iv:, Ica_ Q- Z I 145.00'� 1• I EXISTING. 1 1/2' LP.F. I (_. STRUCTURE I. 03 NI- co .F. 1 170.00' I z4 I-: • ��i8\ig I ,S 89'55'08" E • 1`- a I:- 1 tts io''u:t— _I �N L=1 O i.r- �e �'0D os 89'S7'2t' w I PHASE I w� Ii�, of I� 191.51' 1 PHASE II = 1 :1? m r I - 1--- I;•-3 LOT 4 o rn - :- 4.17 A . F1 .4 I� I y F 1•: v 01 z �. • '0 1 --i z N a- > 0 p0• w b . oz `.' .J OI v lb Ca- cn yQJp` I;= Z AI � r I 0 n I cy m 1:�� ,1;: 0 CD Y Mini _-0 I-'; 30' B.L. _ __o o LOT 2 Iw c� 391.18 ir. ' & / ' x _ 01 $� • 46 .5 '�� m 0 ,pro rerfr :. ,,,,,e- •• _ . _, "7,4)- / m Wt 7. • 341.66. b I‘ j- 'A 30: B.L I:.i / 1 > ao .� Pi *U.S.'1 / I• .{ pi z LOT-3 b Li �I in - (-,.1 1 "to be. cao-h_cic-n.ect cl 0 • N t:= i" `-�{ W I I.'.I LOT-4 EXISTING 15' U.E. 15' U.E. i S 69"47'30" W 315.00' S 89'34'56" W 453.71' 1/2" I.P.F. 1/2" 1-P.F. I � I 1 i . 1- f. City of South lake,Texas MEMORANDUM March 15, 1996 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Commercial Developer Agreement for Village Center, Phase I-East The Commercial Developer Agreement for Village Center Phase I-East, which includes the proposed Kroger, is attached. The usual requirements for performance bonds, letter of credit or cash escrow are incorporated in the agreement. There are a few changes within the standard agreement that require Council attention. • On page 3, the Developer requested additional language to insure that the City will not unreasonably withhold or delay the construction plans. This is usual practice for the City not to delay construction plans review, therefore, Public Works staff has no problem with this additional language. Similar language is on pages 4 and 5. • On page 5, the section regarding amenities is struck out because there are none. IP • On page 8, there is no off-site and/or sewer pro rata nor is there any off-site water. • On page 8, OFF-SITE DRAINAGE: will be required in the amount of$7,655.99 ($623.30 per acre X 12.283 acres). The critical drainage structures are located within North Kimball Avenue approximately 800 feet north of S.H. 114 and on Shady Lane. • Page 8, PARK FEES: requires a park fee of$6,141.50 (12.283 acres X $500 per acre). • Because Village Center will abut S.H. 114 and F.M. 1709, there will not be a perimeter street fee. During the February 6, 1996 Council meeting the Developer requested approval of this agreement so that site grading and soil erosion measures could begin. Because City engineering staff had not completed the plan review at that time, rather than approval of this Agreement, Council considered and approved a Special Developer Agreement for the site grading of Village Center. Please place this on the March 19, 1996 agenda for Council consideration. 63 BW/sm Attachments: Commercial Developer Agreement Special Developer Agreement Map /O / VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE I-EAST COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT An agreement between the City of Southlake, Texas, hereinafter referred to as the City, and the undersigned Developer, hereinafter referred to as the Developer, of Village-"Center;Phase;:I-East, to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, for the installation of certain community facilities located therein, and to provide city services thereto. It is understood by and between the parties that this Agreement is applicable to VillageTCei ter,Phas—e-TEast Lots 1;2 3; (a commercial development) and to the off-site improvements necessary to support the subdivision. I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: A. It is agreed and understood by the parties hereto that the Developer shall employ a civil engineer licensed to practice in the State of Texas for the design and preparation of the plans and specifications for the construction of all facilities covered by this agreement. B. The Developer will present to the City either a cash escrow, Letter of Credit, performance bond or payment bond acceptable to the City guaranteeing and agreeing to pay an amount equal to 100% of the value of the construction cost of all of the public facilities to be constructed by the Developer, and providing for S payment to the City of such amounts, up to the total remaining amounts required for the completion of the piibliclaciliti'es subdivision if the Developer fails to complete the work within two (2) years of the signing of this agreement between the City and Developer. All bonds should be approved by a Best-rated bonding company. All letters of credit must meet the Requirements for Irrevocable Letter of Credit attached hereto and incorporated herein. The value of the performance bond, letter of credit or cash escrow will reduce at a rate consistent with the amount of work that has been completed by the Developer and accepted by the City. Performance and payment bond, letter of credit or cash escrow from the prime contractor(s) or other entity reasonably acceptable to City, hereinafter referred to as Contractor, will be acceptable in lieu of Developer's obligations specified above. C. The Developer agrees to furnish to the City maintenance bonds, letter of credit or cash escrow amounting to 20% of the cost of construction of underground public utilities and 50% for the paving. These maintenance bonds, letter of credit or cash escrow will be for a period of two (2) years and will be issued prior to the final City acceptance of the subdivision. The maintenance bonds, letter of credit or cash escrow will be supplied to the City by the contractors performing the work, and the City will be named as the beneficiary if the contractors fail to perform any • required maintenance. 10 ,4-a • D. It is further agreed and understood by the parties hereto that upon acceptance by City, title to all facilities and improvements mentioned hereinabove, which are intended to be public facilities, shall be vested in the City of Southlake and Developer hereby relinquishes any right, title, or interest in and to said facilities or any part thereof. It is further understood and agreed that until the City accepts such improvements, City shall have no liability or responsibility in connection with any such facilities. Acceptance of the facilities for this provision and for the entire agreement shall occur at such time that City, through its Director of Public Works or his duly appointed representative, provides Developer with a written acknowledgment that all facilities are complete, have been inspected and approved and are being accepted by the City. F. On all public facilities included in this agreement for which Developer awards a construction contract, the Developer agrees to the following procedure: 1. Developer agrees to pay the following: a. Inspection fees equal to three percent (3%) of the cost of the water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this agreement for which Developer awards his or her own construction contract, to be paid prior to construction of each phase and based on actual bid construction; ® b. Admin istrative Process Fee equal to two percent (2%) of the cost of water, street, drainage and sanitary sewer facilities, on all facilities included in this Agreement for which Developer awards his or her own construction contract, to be paid prior to construction of each phase and based on actual bid construction cost; c. Trench testing (95% standard); d. The additional charge for inspections during Saturday, Sunday, holidays, and after normal working hours; e. Any charges for retesting as a result of failed tests; f. All gradation tests required to insure proper cement and/or lime stabilization. 2. The City agrees to bear the expense of: a. All nuclear density tests on the roadway subgrade (95% standard); 410 b. Technicians time for preparing concrete cylinders; and 2 In A-3 • c. Concrete cylinder test and concrete coring samples. The City can delay connection of buildings to sanitary,sewer service lines or water mains constructed under this Agreement until said water mains and sanitary seveil service lines have been completed to the satisfaction of and accepted by the City. G. The Developer will be responsible for mowing all grass and weeds and otherwise reasonably maintaining the aesthetics of all land and lots in said subdivision which have not been sold to third parties. After fifteen (15) days written notice, should the Developer fail in this responsibility, the City may contract for this service and bill the Developer for reasonable costs. Such amount shall become a lien upon all real property of the subdivision so maintained by the City, and not previously conveyed to other third parties, 120 days after Developer has notice of costs. H. Any guarantee of payment instrument (Performance Bond, Letter of Credit, etc.) submitted by the Developer or Contractor on a form other than the one which has been previously approved by the City as "acceptable" shall be submitted to the City Attorney for the City and this Agreement shall not be considered in effect until such City Attorney has approved the instrument. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. I. Any surety company through which a bond is written shall be a surety company • duly authorized to do business in the State of Texas, provided that the City, through the City Manager, shall retain the right to reject any surety company as a surety for any work under this or any other Developer's Agreement within the City of Southlake regardless of such company's authorization to do business in Texas. Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. J. The Developer agrees to fully comply with the terms and conditions of all other applicable development regulations and ordinances of the City of Southlake. K. The Developer agrees that the completed project will be constructed in conformance with the Development Site Plan and Construction Plans ito7bd, approved 7byihe Cityr(Whicb approval-Shalt not'be niieasonabT1y withheld or delayed) and other permits or regulatory authorizations granted by the City during the development review process. II. FACILITIES: A. ON SITE WATER: ® The Developer hereby agrees to install water facilities to service lots as shown on the final plat of the villag_e Center to the City of Southlake. Water facilities will 3 I 0 A-¢ ® be installed in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and released by the City Engineer. Further, the Developer agrees to complete this installation in accordance with Ordinance No. 170 and shall be responsible for all construction costs, materials and engineering. In the event that certain water lines are to be oversized because of City of Southlake requirements, the City will reimburse the Developer for the oversize cost greater than the cost of an 8" line. Additionally, the City agrees to provide temporary water service at Developer's request and expense, for construction, testing and irrigation purposes only, to individual lots during the construction of buildings, even though sanitary sewer service may not be available to the buildings. B. DRAINAGE: Developer hereby agrees to construct the necessary drainage facilities within the addition. These facilities shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by Developer's engineers, released by the City Engineer and made part of the final plat as approved by the City Council. The developer hereby agrees to fully comply with all EPA requirements relating to the planning, permitting and management of storm water which may be in force at the time that development proposals are being presented for approval by the City. C. STREETS: 1. If applicable, the street construction in the;Village e"Center, commercial PP ,, development of the City of Southlake Addition shall conform to the requirements in Ordinance No. 217. Streets will be installed in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and approved by the City Engineer WhichwTapprova1 shallv not Alie unreasonablyWwithheldyor delayed;. 2. The Developer will be responsible for: a) Installation and two year operation of street lights; b) Installation of all street signs designating the names of the streets inside the subdivision, said signs to be of a type, size, color and design standard generally employed within the City and approved by the City in accordance with City ordinances: c) Installation of all regulatory signs recommended by the Developer's engineer and based upon the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and as reviewed by the Director of Public Works. 3. All street improvements will be subject to inspection and approval by the City of Southlake. No work will begin on any street included herein prior to complying with the requirements contained elsewhere in this agreement. All water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage utilities which are anticipated ® to be installed within the street or within the street right-of-way will be completed prior to the commencement of street construction on the specific 4 /OA- 5 ® section of street in which the utility improvements have been placed or for which they are programmed. It is understood by and between the Developer and the City that this requirement is aimed at substantial compliance with the majority of the pre-planned facilities. It is understood that in every construction project a decision later may be made to realign a line or service which may occur after construction has commenced. The Developer has agreed to advise the Director of Public Works as quickly as possible when such a need has been identified and to work cooperatively with the City to make such utility change in a manner that will be least disruptive to street construction or stability. D. ON-SITE SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES: The Developer hereby agrees to install sanitary sewerage collection facilities to service lots as shown on the final plat of Village Centex to the City of Southlake. Sanitary sewer facilities will be installed in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by the Developer's engineer and approved by the City Engineer;,"wichapprval=sharnot-be unreasonably withheld or delayed: Further, the Developer agrees to complete this installation in compliance with all applicable city ordinances, regulations and codes and shall be responsible for all construction costs, materials and engineering. ® E. EROSION CONTROL: It will be the Developer's responsibility to present to the Director of Public Works a soil erosion control plan that will be implemented for this development. The Developer agrees to use soil control measures such as hay bales, silt screening, hydro mulch, etc., to prevent soil erosion. During construction of the development, the Developer agrees to keep the streets free from soil build-up. When in the opinion of the Director of Public Works there is sufficient soil build-up on the streets or other drainage areas and notification has been given to the Developer, the Developer will have seventy-two (72) hours to clear the soil from the affected areas. If the Developer does not remove the soil within 72 hours, the City may cause the soil to be removed either by contract or City forces and place the soil within the development at the contractor's expense. All fees owed to the City will be collected prior to acceptance of the development. All applicable federal, state, and local permits shall be obtained prior to start of construction. F. AMENITIES: ® It understood by and between the City and Developer that the may incorporate a number of unique amcnitics and aesthetic 5 /04-4 • , , , incorporate specialty signagc and accessory facilities. The Developer agrees to , pond and lake improvements until such responsibility is turned over to a homeowners asseeiation. F. USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is understood by and between the City and Developer that the Developer may provide unique amenities within public right-of-way, such as landscaping, irrigation, lighting, etc., for the enhancement of the development. The Developer agrees to maintain these amenities. The Developer understands that the City shall not be responsible for the replacement of these amenities under any circumstances and further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all damages, loss or liability of any kind whatsoever by reason of injury to property or third person occasioned by its use of the public right-of-way with regard to these improvements and the Developer shall, at his own cost and expense, defend and protect City against all such claims and demands. G. START OF CONSTRUCTION: • Before the construction of the public water, sewer, streets or drainage facilities can begin, the following must take place: 1. Approved payment and performance bonds submitted to the City in the name of the City prior to the commencement of any work. 2. At least five (5) six (6)'sets of construction plans stamped "Released for Construction" by the City Engineer. 3. All fees required by the City to be paid to the City. 4. The Developer, or Contractor shall furnish to the City a policy of general liability insurance. 5. Developer Agreement executed. 6. A pre-construction conference between Developer and City is required. Developer or contractor shall furnish to the City a list of all subcontractors and suppliers, which will be providing greater that a $1,000 value to the development. • 6 10A--7 • • III. GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Developer covenants and agrees to and does hereby fully indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officers, agents, servants and employees, from all claims, suits or causes of action of any nature whatsoever, whether real or asserted, brought for or on account of any injuries or damages to persons or property, including death, resulting from or in any way connected with this agreement or the construction of the improvements or facilities described herein; which indemnity, shall terminate upon acceptance by the City of such improvements or facilities; and in addition, the Developer covenants to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officers, agents, servants and employees, from and against any and all claims, suits or causes of action of any nature whatsoever, brought for or on account of injuries or damages to persons or property, including death, resulting from any failure to properly safeguard the work, or on account of any act, intentional or otherwise, neglect or misconduct of the Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, agents, servants or employees, which indemnity, shall terminate upon acceptance by the City of such improvements or facilities. B. Venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. C. Approval by the City Engineer or other City employee of any plans, designs or ® specifications submitted by the Developer pursuant to this agreement shall not constitute or be deemed to be a release of the responsibility and liability of the Developer, his engineer, employees, officers or agents for the accuracy and competency of their design and specifications. Such approval shall not be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility and liability by the City for any defect in the design and specifications prepared by the consulting engineer, his officers, agents, servants or employees, it being the intent of the parties that approval by the City Engineer signifies the City's approval on only the general design concept of the improvements to be constructed. In this connection, the Developer shall for a period of two (2) years after the acceptance by the City of Southlake of the completed construction project, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, servants and employees, from any loss, damage, liability or expense on account of damage to property and injuries, including death, to any and all persons which may arise out of any defect, deficiency or negligence of the engineer's designs and specifications incorporated into any improvements constructed in accordance therewith, and the Developer shall defend at his own expense any suits or other proceedings bought against the City, its officers, agents, servants or employees, or any of them, on account thereof, to pay all expenses and satisfy all judgements which may be incurred by or rendered against them or any of them in connection with herewith. 411 • D. This agreement or any part thereof or any interest herein, shall not be assigned by the Developer without the express written consent of the City Manager, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. E. On all facilities included in this agreement for which the Developer awards his own construction contract, the Developer agrees to employ a construction contractor who is approved by the City, and whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, said contractor to meet City and statutory requirements for being insured, licensed and bonded to do work in public projects and to be qualified in all respects to bid on public projects and to be qualified in all respects to bid on public projects of a similar nature. In addition, the Developer, or Contractor shall furnish the payment and performance bonds in the name of the City prior to the commencement of any work hereunder and shall also furnish to the City a policy of general liability insurance. F. Work performed under the agreement shall be completed within two (2) years from the date thereof. In the event the work is not completed within the two (2) year period, the City may, at its election, draw down on the performance bond, letter of credit or other security provided by Developer and complete such work at Developer's expense; provided, however, that if the construction under this • agreement shall have started within the two (2) year period, the City may agree to renew the agreement with such renewed agreement to be in compliance with the City policies in effect at that time. IV. OTHER ISSUES: A. OFF--SITE AND/OR SEWER PRO RATA: upgraded-facilities required by the City to serve future developments. A. OFF-SITE DRAINAGE: The;Developefiaiders at�ld-cthafthe DrainageQrdirianee Sectita 6:06213-,equines that each development contribute on a^prorata:basis._towards the cost of replacing critical drainage structures dow,nstream_firom:tlie development:- Tlvs"development is:withih7t a basin Serviced'by the box=eulve f n NorU Kinba11"AvenueVand:,Shadyj pie:Theta Develo er�aee �.to -M�� wry }p gr s ;pay, 7 6557.99:={1i2:283 acres N 623:30-1 e-acre): C. OFF-SITE WATER: S 8 /oA-- 9 B. PARK FEES: The developer agrees to pay the Park Fee of$500 per acre, in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 7.0. There are approximately 1;2.2.83 acres in Village'Center which would bring the total cost of Park Fee to $6;141,50. E. PERIMETER STREET FEE: The Developer agrees to pay the Perimeter Strcct Fcc of $50,000/mile, in accordance with Ordinance No. 494. Thcrc arc approximately_ feet of frontage on which would require a Perimeter Strcct Fee of$ . SIGNED AND EFFECTIVE on the date last set forth below. DEVELOPER: By: Title: Address Date: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS By: Gary Fickes, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary 1110 Date: 9 o A-- /o • REQUIREMENTS FOR IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT 1. The Letter of Credit (L of C) must have a duration of at least one year. 2. The L of C may be substituted for utility security deposits exceeding $10,000.00. The City reserves the right to specify the face amount of the letter of credit. 3. The L of C must be issued by an FDIC insured bank in a form acceptable to the City of Southlake. The City reserves the right to approve/disapprove the bank issuing the Letter of Credit. 4. The L of C must be issued by a bank that has a minimum capital ratio of six (6%) percent, and has been profitable for each of the last two consecutive years. 5. The customer must provide the City with supporting financial information on the bank to allow the City to ascertain requirements are met. Suitable financial information would be the previous two (2) years December 31 Call Reports submitted to the FDIC and audited financial statements. 6. Partial drawings against L of C must be permitted. 7. The City must be able to draft on sight with proof of amount owed. 8. The customer pays any and all fees associated with obtaining L of C. 9. Expiring letter of credit must be replaced by substitute letters of credit at least 30 days prior to the expiration date on the L of C held by the City. c:I wp611 devagree I villagc.wpd • 10 Go ,4-I I , 4ict�':+t�--et��e '• E' .. .;= 1 !k T: F E B 1 5 1996 S VILLAGE CENTER.PHASE I-EAST le SPECIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AGREEMENT R t •t.. i v'' E D STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF TARRANT § This agreement is entered into by and between the City of Southlake,Texas,hereinafter referred to as the"City", and Village Center,Phase I-East,hereinafter referred to as the "Developer",the owner of the below described property. 'WHEREAS,the Developer has applied for an agreement to construct a 12.283 acre tract of land situated in the T.Mahan Survey,Abstract No. 1049 in the City of Southlake,hereinafter referred to as Village Center, Phase I-East; and WHEREAS,the City and the Developer desire to document their agreement with regard to certain issues related to the Developer's responsibility'for the construction of Village Center, Phase I-East; NOW, THEREFORE,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The City will allow Developer to construct earthwork and grading on Lots 1,2, and 3 of -• ID Village Center, Phase I-Fast asper the approved plans submitted to the City and'reviewed by the • • City Engineer. 2. It is recognized and agreed by both parties that a final developer agreement must be negotiated prior to beginning of construction for Village Center,Phase I-East in order to address the specific requirements and all other issues associated with a developer agreement. 3. Venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in Fort Worth,Tarrant County, Texas. SIGNED and effective on this 00 day of 1996. DEVELOPER: VILLAGE CENTER, P SE I-EAST CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,TEXAS BY: BY: A 67--.,.-,oHF ' /v. ,14' ' -' ary Fickes, ayor 0 TITLE: 1��i�ir%.�=/� C:\WPWIN60\W PDOCS\DEVELOP.AGR\V LLGECTR.WPD /0 441 : E- -NORTHWEST H[GHWA • /11: � All• t . / % 1 -�QND ii/ I 0 "."--.. �. 1 / / I )`..„ ,....: 6?p ,,;00> `P , o 1 " 1 I:vi.‘,.\,:i.,:::,r, .) _ \ NI .it \ \ \ . iv ., -7---........,„_-_..._: 7.7. • 1 ' A4 ' 'Iltif...1 .,,,.... .„ 1 \ \ \? , if:i i , /I, `Nili-•::* " « \ \ -----____ \,..- -Li I,\ \ \, k as - \ .1 \ \ .,. fr1! (' I ' Iii 11 1 rr..Ita Vxt�_ ,Iallt_• _. a . ; )11111k ‘.. Ci t ` l �1 14I '!. . i1►:� �, ELLMM ,..�*— iikt7rr. \\ 1 + 1)1, 1 �, / V, % i O- �1 .7....„ a \ t ra iv c': ..... ;I, . 4.,_ .. . 00. pi . ''' ri 1 . ik iti it , 7 . , 0, L 1, 1 It Iv 4'\ T ,A) i o� is Cs\ \'k..--1 %N \j 1 .; - !v • !� 0.• I 1 ,all. 1 1 � 4...NI(' • • 44,ALi _ '\...\\ r ,t, tiit: e, I '44 '\.1 0.i.' I) - lit 1 ' 1114 14( IA Utj ki62, 1 ' .); -.;" , , 1\ \ I. \,\ tic. 1,.• ‘..." ... .- -- .. ' . Nir4 1 NA II * \ 1 .:t:s's"- li` c ....,' .... ___... ‘-, . *Arilliey. i T \l 1 6 `, ....,., lig � � 4` r...,4" VAP--4 vs,..v,. t. . Isi., 9 O7/tunossr--..,_14"_,„..jori,_,..„,_____t_ TLAB V - - City of South lake,Texas 11) MEMORANDUM March 13, 1996 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Mid Year Review--March 26, 1996 Attached you will find the agenda for the mid year review, scheduled for Tuesday, March 26, 1996. This agenda has been prepared with input from the staff and City Council. Although we are planning to hold the mid year review in a retreat format,there are distinctions to be made between this effort and that of the June Retreat. I have attempted to distinguish the two in the following table: Item Mid Year Review June Retreat 1)Purpose Review status of current budget. Plan for next budget year. Look into progress of Review new program ideas, departments, capital projects, departmental issues and and other projects for which concerns,personnel and funds were allocated in the equipment needs, etc. budget. Also look at items discussed during budget work sessions, but delayed for action until mid year. 2)Agenda Agenda will include a thorough Agenda will include items review of projected revenues planned for inclusion in next and expenditures vs. actuals, year's budget, such as planning status of projects included in the for future capital projects,new current budget,potential budget programs to address citizen amendments, etc. concerns/needs/demands,project prioritization for the coming year. ..., IIIItem Mid Year Review June Retreat 3) Text Items The mid year review packet will The June Retreat packet will include a number of items include a number of items prepared in text format for the prepared in text format for the City Council to review. City Council to review. Although not slated for Although not slated for discussion,these items will discussion, these items will provide written updates on provide written updates on current projects. projects proposed for the coming budget year. 4) Time Allocation This year, the mid year review The June Retreat will be will take place in a retreat scheduled for 1 'V2 days. This format. However, only one day should allow sufficienttime for (8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.) will be City Council and staff to discuss allocated for the review, due to plans for upcoming budget year. its somewhat limited scope.4lease note that most of the time allocated for the mid year review will be spent covering financial issues. presentative from the firm which conducts our independent audit will be present at the mid year iew to discuss the audit. At the conclusion of the audit segment, we will then move into discussion of the current year's budget. As mentioned in the table, this discussion will specifically cover projected revenues and expenditures as they relate to actuals, departmental status reports, unfunded needs, mid year additions, and budget amendments. We have also made time to discuss the status of capital projects which were included in the budget. There will be a section of the agenda set aside for an"open forum." This section of the agenda will provide time for us to discuss other issues related to the 1995-96 budget or projects. The attached table lists the topics that were submitted by staff and City Council for discussion during the mid year review. Unfortunately, time will not permit a thorough discussion of each. Thus, I have indicated on the table the format in which they will be brought forward. If time permits, I believe we should discuss the mid year review with the City Council in more detail. Please let me know if you have comments or questions. SK /Y— ID CITY COUNCIL MIDYEAR REVIEW March 26, 1996 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. 8:30 a.m. 1) Opening Remarks 8:40 a.m. 2) Review of FY 1995-96 Budget 10:00 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. Budget Review Continued 12:00 p.m. LUNCH (working) 12:30 p.m. Capital Projects Status Reports • 2:30 p.m. Other Mid Year Review Issues 3:30 p.m. Adjourn Please Note:The following have been provided as "text only"items, included in your packet as a means of providing additional information. Any of these items may be discussed during the "other issues"portion of the meeting, at your request: 1)Condemnation Procedures 4)Master Thoroughfare Plan Update 7) Strategic Plan 2)Neighborhood Sewer Program 5)Park/WB Master Plan Update 8)Performance Appraisal Vegetation Management Program 6)Joint Utilization Program Update 9)Multi Year Financial Plan // ?-5 • Council/Staff Topic Suggestions Item MYR-D MYR-T J.Retreat Other CC Mtg. Revenue-YTD Budget vs Actual X Discuss Large Variances X Half-Cent Sales Tax-Durham Gym X Projections-Next Year's Budget X Staff Shortages X Automation Efficiences X Progress of Capital Projects X Proposed Drainage Projects(Like Summerplace) X Land Acquisition/Facility Construction X Ordinance Changes/Priorities X X Improved Resident Communications X X Extra Space at Telesupport for Mtgs. X IlkUpdates X lti-Year Financial Planning X Strategic Plan Update X Performance Appraisal System X Condemnation Procedures X Additional Subdv.-Neighborhood Sewer X Future Construction of Thoroughfares X Interlocal Agreement-Keller Water Meters X Seal Coat Alternatives X Neighborhood Ditch Cleaning Program X Vegetation Management Program X Pavement Marking Program X Water Cross Connection Program X Computer System Upgrades X Status of Master Thoroughfare Plan X •elop Submittal Process X //i6- '7 • Item MYR-D MYR-T J.Retreat Other CC Mtg. Placement of DPS Facilities X X L Fire Division Staffing X West Beach/Bicentennial Master Planning X Update on Joint Use Program X Mid Year Budget Amendments X S.H. 114 Update X Moving Water Division to Water Tower X MYR-D=Mid Year Review-Discussion MYR-T=Mid Year Review-Text Only • •