Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2000-02-01
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 667 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS FEBRUARY 1, 2000 MINUTES COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rick Stacy; Mayor Pro Tem Gary Fawks; Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Ronnie Kendall. Members: Patsy DuPre, Debra Edmondson, Rex Potter and Wayne Moffat. CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Billy Campbell; Assistant City Manager Shana Yelverton; Assistant to the City Manager Shelli Siemer; Interim Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy; Planner Chris Carpenter; Director of Economic Development Greg Last; Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman; Director of Public Works Ron Harper; Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas; Senior Civil Engineer Shawn Poe; Director of Public Safety Garland Wilson; Assistant to the Public Works Director Valerie Bradley; Director of Finance Sharen Elam; Chief of Building Services Malcolm Jackson; City Attorney Wayne K. Olson; and, City Secretary Sandra L. LeGrand. WORK SESSION: Mayor Rick Stacy called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m. Councilmembers and staff discussed items on the agenda. The work session was audio and video tape- recorded for future reference. Copies area available by request from the City Secretary. The Work Session ended at 6:00 p.m. REGULAR SESSION Agenda Item #1, Call To Order. Mayor Rick Stacy called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Agenda Item #2 -A, Executive Session. Mayor Rick Stacy advised the audience that the City Council would be going into executive session pursuant to the Texas Government Code Sections 551.071, 55.1072, 551.073, 551.074, 551.076, 551.086, to seek legal advice from our City Attorney; to deliberate regarding real property matters; to deliberate regarding a prospective gift; to deliberate regarding personnel matters; to deliberate regarding security devices; and /or to deliberate regarding economic development negotiations. Council adjourned into executive session at 6:30 p.m. Council returned to open session at 7:15 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 1 of 29 Agenda Item #2 -B, Action Necessary /Executive Session. No action was necessary as the result of the executive session. Agenda Item #3, Invocation. Visiting Pastor Denny Davis, St. John's Missionary Baptist Church, gave the invocation. Agenda Item #4 -A, Mayor's Report. Mayor Rick Stacy reported that Public Information Officer James Kunke is the proud father of a new baby girl, Macy Elizabeth Kunke, born on February 1, 2000. Mother, daughter and father are all doing fine! Mayor Stacy made the following announcements: ➢ February 4, 2000 the Annual Southlake Chamber of Commerce Banquet will be held at Marriott, Solana. ➢ February 7, 2000, the City of Southlake 1999 Employee Awards Banquet will also be held at Marriott, Solana. ➢ SPIN #6 will meet on February 9 at 7:00 p.m. in the Senior Activity Center. Topic: Channel Improvements along West Jones Branch from SH 114 to Shady Lane. ➢ SPIN #7 will meet on February 9 at 7:00 p.m. at the C.I.S.D. Annex Building (1301 West Dove Street). The topic will be: Stadium Site, located on South Kimball Avenue. ➢ SPIN #7 will meet on February 10 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 667 North Carroll Avenue. Topic: Shady Oaks Center located on the southwest corner of Lake Crest and F.M. 1709. ➢ SPIN #12, #13, & #16 will meet on February 9, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Topic: West Department of Public Safety (DPS) Site located on the northeast corner of Randol Mill Road and F.M. 1709. Mayor Stacy announced that the art clubs at each of the schools in the C.I.S.D. are preparing a mural for display on the construction fence at the New Town Hall site. There will be nine murals in all. The murals will be painted on 8X8 sections of plywood. During the 1 Anniversary of Town Square planned for March 25, 2000, proclamations will be given to each school naming the artists of each mural. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 2 of 29 The "first" Dedication Ceremony will be held on February 8 at the site. Carroll Junior High School will hang their mural at 3:00 p.m. [nine students participated in this work of art] followed by Johnson Elementary School at 3:30 p.m. [twenty -six students participated in this mural]. The public is invited to attend the dedication ceremony to encourage the students who participated in this project. ➢ The annual "Mock City Council Meeting" will be held on February 29 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Agenda Item #4 -B, City Manager's Report. City Manager Billy Campbell stated in view of the length of the council meeting tonight, they would not have the report on the conservation issues that had been prepared. Because of the weather last year and already this year, the public works staff if working on a policy to be put in place involving these issues. Agenda Item #4 -C, SPIN Report Linda Warner, Representative of SPIN #9w, gave the SPIN Report. She stated, "This area is located in the southern portion of the city comprising mostly Timarron and The Dominion and a few smaller neighborhoods. The northern border is F.M. 1709; Byron Nelson Parkway to the east; White's Chapel Boulevard to the west and the southern border is the city limit line at Bear Creek." Ms. Warner stated the SPIN meeting, which was canceled last week, will be held Tuesday, February 8. She noted that on March 6, at the Wentwood Community Center in Timarron, she and the representative of SPIN 9e, will be available through -out the day to allow residents in that area to come and get information on the various projects. The times will be from 9:30 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. and from 12 noon until 2:30 p.m. The evening time will be from 6:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. They plan to be available to answer questions about the SPIN program and other things. Ms. Warner stated an item on the agenda tonight, #10 -A, Alternative Alignments for Parkwood Drive, is of particular concern to residents in her SPIN area. Agenda Item #4 - D, Park and Recreation Board Report No report was given during this meeting. Agenda Item #5, Consent Agenda Mayor Stacy announced the following items would be included on the consent agenda. He explained to the audience that the items listed will be voted on with only one vote and if anyone in the audience has a request that an item should not go on the consent agenda, the item will be deleted from the consent agenda and considered separately. He read the consent agenda items into the record, noting that the city council added several items to the consent agenda during the work session. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 3 of 29 5 -A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on January 18, 2000 and the Special City Council meeting held on January 13, 2000. 5 -B. Resolution No. 00 -08, Calling the General Election for May 6, 2000. 5 -C. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional service agreement with Belcheff & Associates, Inc., for engineering and design of North Kimball Avenue reconstruction from Highland Drive to SH 114. 5 -D. This item removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 5 -E. This item removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 5 -F. This item removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 5 -G. Resolution No. 00 -15 Quitclaim Deed for a portion of old North Carroll Avenue. No action was taken on this item tonight. 5 -H Award of bid to American Tennis Court Contractors for batting cages at Bicentennial Park. 5 -I. Ordinance No. 769, 1 Reading, Hotel Occupancy Tax Ordinance. 5 -J. Ordinance No. 772, 1 Reading, Changing the street name of Bastogne Way to Merlot Drive. 5 -K. Resolution No. 00 -17, Authorizing the City Attorney to bring condemnation action for the purpose of obtaining a permanent drainage easement for use by the City for the construction of drainage improvements. 5 -L. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement for Walgreen's. 7 -K. Ordinance No. 480 -326, 2 °a Reading, (ZA 99 -138), Rezoning on property legally described as Tract 20 situated in the R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 992, and being approximately 2 acres. Current zoning: "AG" Agricultural District with a requested zoning of "SF -1B" Single Family Residential District. Applicant: Linnie McAdams. Owner: Linnia Johnson. Table and continue the public hearing on March 7, 2000. 8 -B. Ordinance No. 480 -321, 1 Reading (ZA 99 -108) Rezoning and Revised Concept Plan for St. Martin -in- the -field Episcopal Church. Table at the request for the applicant to February 15, 2000 City Council meeting. 8 -D. Ordinance No. 480 -328, 1 Reading (ZA 99 -128), Rezoning and Site Plan for Countryside Bible Church. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 4 of 29 8 -E. ZA 99 -129, Plat Revision of Proposed Lot 2R, Block A, & Lot 2R2R, Block B, Ravenaux Village, on property legally described as Lot 2, Block A, Ravenaux Village. Agenda Item #10 -B, was deleted from the agenda. Agenda Items #5 -D, #5 -E, #5 -F were taken off consent agenda to be discussed separately. Motion was made to approve the consent agenda consisting of the following items: Agenda Item #5 -A, amending the minutes of the January 13, 2000 meeting; Agenda Item #5 -B, #5 -C, #5 -H, #5 -I, in the amount of 7 %; Item #5 -J, #5 -K, noting the 2.7468 acres; Item #5 -L, as amended; #7 -K, tabling and continuing the public hearing on March 7, 2000; #8 -B, tabling to February 15, 2000; #8 -D, subject to the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation; modifying the timing and type of screening on the west as follows: • Accepting a rail fence in lieu of the 8 -foot screening requirement for the properties north of Ravenaux Drive and the hammerhead turnaround area; • Reserving the right to require additional screening if a new concept plan is filed which places buildings closer to the residential property line; • Requiring the fence and required bufferyard be constructed concurrently with the hammerhead ( "fire truck ") turnaround; and, • Deferring the screening on the property south of Ravenaux Drive until Phase 2 construction. Agenda Item #8 -E, subject to the Planning and Zoning recommendation with the changes as discussed. Motion: Kendall Second: Edmondson Ayes: Kendall, Edmondson, Potter, Fawks (abstaining from Items #8 -D and #8E), Moffat, DuPre, and Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on January 18, 2000 and the Special City Council meeting held on January 13, 2000. The minutes of the January 13, 2000 meeting were amended. 5 -B. Resolution No. 00 -08, Calling the General Election for May 6, 2000. The General Election is called by resolution not less than 75 days prior to the date set by the Texas Election Code. One open place on the ballot will be for the Mayor and Councilmember Place 2. Other procedures in the resolution include: designating a polling place for election day and for early voting; establishing election precincts Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 5 of 29 within the City; appointing election judge and alternate judge; establishing procedures for early voting; and other election procedures. 5 -C. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional service agreement with Belcheff & Associates, Inc. for the engineering and design of North Kimball Avenue reconstruction, from Highland Drive to State Highway 114. North Kimball was included in the 1992 Street Bond Program for reconstruction. The project was delayed several years for two reasons: First, Tarrant County reconstructed this section of roadway in 1990, just two years before the 1992 Street Bond election and repairs were not needed at that time; and second, over the past 2 -3 years, the City was anticipating possible developer participation (Terrabrook) for reconstruction of the ultimate road. Tarrant County has committed to providing the labor for the reconstruction of North Kimball if the City will pay for the engineering and material costs. This would result in an estimated 50 -70% savings for the City. Tarrant County has scheduled this project to begin in May 2000 with an estimated completion date of August 2000. The project scope will include constructing a two -lane, 22 -foot roadway width that will be widened to 33 -feet to provide a left -turn lane for southbound traffic. The radii will be increased at the intersection of Highland to provide for improved turning movements. There was $200,000 budgeted in the 1992 Street Bond Program for this project. The amount of the engineering and surveying proposal totals $41,591. The estimated material costs to construct this project are $100,000. Therefore, the estimated cost to construct this project is $141,591. 5 -G. Resolution No. 00-15, Quitclaim Deed for portion of old North Carroll Avenue. No action was taken on this item tonight. 5 -H. Award of bid to American Tennis Court Contractors for batting cages at Bicentennial Park. City staff met with both the SBA and the SGSA to review the preliminary designs for the batting cages, as well as their placement in the park. As a result of the meetings, the associations agreed upon the design of the batting cages and their locations. Staff conducted the bid process and two vendors submitted bids on this project on January 14, 2000. Funding for the batting cages had been allocated within the SPDC Matching Funds Program for FY 1999 and FY 2000. The bid amount exceeds the approved matching funds, however, the SBA has committed $2,394.14 of association funds to cover the difference. Both SBA and SGSA have committed to provide all of the required funding necessary to complete the project to the City, prior to entering into a contract with American Tennis Court Contractors. 5 -I. Ordinance No. 769, Is' Reading, Hotel Occupancy Tax Ordinance. The City Council has indicated a desire to pursue the adoption of a hotel occupancy tax in the City of Southlake. The local hotel occupancy tax can provide an alternative source of funding for a city's economic development initiatives to promote tourism in the convention and hotel industry. In the memorandum from Assistant to the City Manager Shelli Siemer, dated, January 27, 2000, she indicated that the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 6 of 29 maximum allowable hotel occupancy tax rate is seven percent (7 %). A copy of the memorandum is hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting. The memorandum provides information pertaining to the allowable tax rate, comparison rates with neighboring cities, the allowed use of hotel occupancy tax revenues including definitions of prohibited uses. 5 -J. Ordinance No. 772, 1 Reading, Changing the street name of Bastogne Way to Merlot Drive. The Final Plat for Versailles Phase I was approved in 1996. That plat included a street named Bastogne Way running from Fountain Drive to the north line of the subdivision with a dead end at undeveloped property. The final plat for Versailles Phase III, which was situated along the north side of Versailles Phase I, was approved in 1999. A street named Merlot Drive was platted tying into the north end of Bastogne Way. There are no addresses on Bastogne Way. This ordinance would eliminate this problem. 5 -K. Resolution No. 00 -17, Authorizing the City Attorney to bring condemnation action for the purpose of obtaining a permanent drainage easement for use by the City for the construction of drainage improvements. The City has been in the process since October 1999 to acquire this drainage easement on Mr. Taylor's property. The channel improvements along the West Jones Branch must be substantially complete before the drainage structures along SH 114 are replaced. The City had the property appraised. The City offered Mr. Taylor $63,200 for the easement. As of this date, Mr. Taylor has not made a counter - offer. If the condemnation action proceeds to the Commissioner's Court, the City will incur attorney's fees and possible consulting fees from the appraiser, engineer, etc. 5 -L. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a developer agreement with Walgreen's. The final plat for Walgreen's was approved on January 4, 2000. Walgreens' site is located on the southwest corner of F.M. 1709 and South Peytonville. The development of this site will include the construction of a deceleration lane on the eastbound approach of F.M. 1709 to southbound South Peytonville and 1,017 feet of off -site sanitary sewer. The developer is requesting that the 3% inspection fees and 2% administration fees be waived on the construction of the deceleration lane. TxDOT will inspect the construction of the deceleration lane, therefore, this request is justified. On January 10, 2000 the Park Board approved a park fee of $2,887.20. This developer agreement is the standard agreement. 7 -K. Ordinance No. 480 -326, 2 Reading, (ZA 99 -138), Rezoning on property legally described as Tract 20 situated in the R.D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 992, and being approximately 2 acres. Current zoning is `AG" Agricultural District with a requested zoning of "SF-1B" Single Family Residential District. Applicant: Linnie McAdams. Owner: Linnia Johnson. This item was tabled in consent agenda to the March 7, 2000 City Council meeting, continuing the public hearing to that time. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 7 of 29 8 -B. Ordinance No. 480 -321, ft Reading, (ZA 99 -108), Rezoning and Revised Concept Plan for St. Martin -In- The - Fields Episcopal Church. This item was tabled to the February 15, 2000 City Council meeting at the request of the applicant. 8 -D. Ordinance No. 480 -328, ft Reading, (ZA 99 -128), Rezoning and Site Plan for Countryside Bible Church. The property is located in Lot 2, Block A, Ravenaux Village, an addition to the City of Southlake. This item was approved subject to the conditions as noted in the motion. 8 -E. ZA 99 -129, Plat Revision of Proposed Lot 2R, Block A, and Lot 2R2R, Block B, Ravenaux Village. This item was approved subject to the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and with the changes as discussed. Agenda Item #5 -D, #5 -E, #5 -F, Approval of the Facilities Utilization Agreements with the Southlake Baseball Association, Southlake Girls Softball Association, and Grapevine - Southlake Soccer Association. Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman presented the facilities utilization agreement between the City of Southlake and the Southlake Baseball Association. The Southlake Baseball Association currently serves approximately 1,200 children between the ages of 6 and 16. Annually, the City and the SBA enter into an agreement for the use of game and practice fields for spring and fall seasons, as well as All Star tournaments. The agreement also covers the use of the baseball concession stand in Bicentennial Park. In general, the facilities utilization agreement is intended to address such issues as season dates, insurance requirements, hours of play, field maintenance, field requirements, and concession stand use, among others. A copy of the memorandum prepared by Kevin Hugman, dated January 28, 2000, is hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall asked Mr. Hugman if, in regard to his discussions with City Attorney Debra Drayovitch, could he point out the items in the agreement that she had concerns about. Mr. Hugman stated he did not have Ms. Drayovitch's letter with him and did not remember all of the items from the letter. He stated one of the items that she did express concern with is the wording in the agreement that stated the City would maintain the field at competition quality and that has been changed in the agreement along with other points of concern of Ms. Drayovitch's. Ms. Kendall asked if Drayovitch has seen the agreement again after the changes were made. Hugman stated she has not, but she had given them her comments and they [staff] incorporated all her comments into the agreement. Councilmember Patsy DuPre had questions about the change in availability of extra practices if the city doesn't have to maintain the fields at competition quality? Hugman stated, "Because we don't have any extra fields, we use our maintained fields for practice fields." Councilmember Kendall commented that she asked Hugman and asked the City Attorneys today, if in any way this facilities usage agreement excludes the public from Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 8 of 29 using these fields? And the answer was, "no" [at least from Hugman]. Kendall stated, "But my concern then came that functionally, it excluded them because we were holding ourselves to such highs standards of maintaining these fields and keeping them in such great shape, that we were not allowing the public on these fields when they weren't being used because of all the pressure to maintain them because of the contract here. I want some assurance from you Kevin we are not under such pressure from this contract that we will not allow the public to use their fields." Director Hugman stated, "We do allow the public to use the fields now. Functionally, we try to discourage it because of the fact that we have the responsibility to prep the fields for games. We have to do that every day for games. When we prep them in the afternoon we try to keep people off of them so that we are ready for the games to start. We take a low -key approach to this, and if people are on the fields, we ask them to leave, but we don't make a big issue with it. We also work with people if they contact us ahead of time. We will reserve a field for them, by working around issues, if the field has already been reserved for games." Councilmember Gary Fawks asked, "Kevin, in the past when this concern has come up, do you identify the fields around the community that are available for the public to play on -- what diamonds are available for the average citizens ?" Hugman responded to this question. Motion was made to approve the facilities utilization agreements with the Southlake Girls Softball Association, the Grapevine - Southlake Soccer Association, and the Southlake Baseball Association as discussed. Motion: Potter Second: Moffat Ayes: Potter, Moffat, DuPre, Edmondson, Fawks, Kendall, and Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote Agenda Item #6, Public Forum No comments were received during the public forum. Agenda Item #7 -A, 26th Year (2000) Community Development Block Grant CDBG). Senior Civil Engineer Shawn Poe stated the City has participated in the CDBG program since 1994. Prior to 1994, the City did not qualify for CDBG funds because there were no known qualified target areas within the City. The current target areas were established following staff's request to Tarrant County to perform a survey for determination. In 1995, Sutton Place and Oak Lane were approved as qualified target areas under the CDBG program. Consequently, under Council direction, staff implemented a plan to construct sanitary sewer, water, paving and drainage improvements to serve the residents of Sutton Place and Oak Lane. For the 26th Program Year, Oak Lane is scheduled to have an 8 -inch water line constructed. The necessary right -of -way required to construct the water line was donated to the City by each resident in Oak Lane. The proposed water line will replace the undersized water line currently in use. The undersized water line was Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 9 of 29 previously installed as part of a private water system. The City purchased the rights to the private water system. A copy of the memorandum from Mr. Poe dated January 28, 2000 is hereby attached to the minutes of this meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Motion was made to move to authorize the staff to submit an application for improvements including construction of a water line for the Oak Lane Addition. Motion: DuPre Second: Fawks Ayes: DuPre, Fawks, Kendall, Moffat, Edmondson, Potter, and Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote Agenda Item #7 -B, Ordinance No. 657 -A, 1 Reading, Amending Ordinance No. 657 Imposing Impact Fees for Water, Wastewater, and Roadway Improvements. Assistant City Manager Shana Yelverton presented Ordinance No. 657 -A, amending Ordinance No. 657, imposing impact fees for water, wastewater, and roadway improvements on first reading, and after holding a public hearing as required by law. Ms. Yelverton stated for almost a year a team of staff, consultants and the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (comprised of the Planning and Zoning Commission) have worked to update the water, wastewater, and roadway impact fee study that was adopted in 1996. The update, that was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, provided an opportunity for examining every component of the study. Ms. Yelverton stated on Monday, January 24, 2000, a workshop was held with City Council to discuss the study and its components. To complete the process, Council would need to approve amendments to the text of the ordinance, adopt the water, wastewater, and roadway capital improvements programs and land use assumptions included as exhibits with the ordinance, and adopt the maximum allowable fee and collection fee schedules. Mayor Stacy asked Director of Economic Development Greg Last to calculate the fees for the Sabre project and have the information available prior to the second reading of the ordinance. Consultant Lewis McLain was present to answer questions from Council. He noted the City Council would be asked to approve the maximum allowable impact fee, as well as the collected fee, as part of the ordinance under consideration. The following alternatives may be considered when doing so: Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 10 of 29 • The maximum fee approved by Council as apart of the ordinance may not exceed the maximum fee published as part of the notice for the public hearing. • The Council may set the collection fee at whatever level it deems appropriate, provided, that it is less than the maximum fee. Note that the City's consultants have strongly recommended that the Council consider adopting a collection fee that is less than or equal to the equilibrium fee calculated by our fiscal consultant. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Based on discussions, the Assistant City Manager suggested she could bring in the traffic engineers to meet with City Council prior to the second reading of the ordinance. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 657 -A, 1 Reading, as presented by the City staff including the exhibits. Motion: Fawks Second: Potter Ayes: Fawks, Potter, Kendall, Moffat, DuPre, and Edmondson Nays: Stacy Approved: 6 -1 vote Agenda Item #7 -C, Ordinance No. 480 -323, 2 " Reading, (ZA 99 -120), Site Plan for Carroll ISD Middle/Intermediate School Ordinance No. 480 -323, 2' Reading, (ZA 99 -120), Rezoning and Site Plan for Carroll I.S.D. Middle /Intermediate School, on property legally described as Tracts 1, 1A, 1C, 1D, and 3A, situated in the John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, and being approximately 37.416 acres. Current zoning is "SF -20A" Single Family Residential District with a requested zoning of "CS" Community Service District. Owner and Applicant: Carroll Independent School District. City Manager Billy Campbell commented that the Interim Director of Planning and her staff would be presenting a new concept in presenting the information to the City Council that would enhance the information, making it much more concise, much more readable and provide much more information for Council to make their decisions. Senior Planner Chris Carpenter presented ZA 99 -120, stating that the First Reading was approved on January 13, 2000 during a Special City Council meeting. At that time the notices to property owners within the 200' notification area were made a part of the record. It was noted that the First Reading was approved with the following modifications: Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 11 of 29 • On Item #9 in the review summary, granting the applicant's request to reduce the parking spaces from the 398 shown to 379 spaces in order to accommodate the construction of parking islands in the parking lots; • Requiring the applicant to erect an eight -foot (8'), double -sided fence along the west and south property lines; • Stating that there be no restriction of joint use of the facilities; • Requiring that the stadium lighting be turned off forty -five (45) minutes after game activities have concluded, but no later that 9:00 p.m.; • Requiring that no stadium lights be used on Saturday or Sunday; • Reserving the right to restrict all stadium lighting after observing the Carroll Junior light demonstration. Mr. Carpenter reviewed the requested variances that the CISD asked the City to do: • Vertical and horizontal articulation (item #5); • Landscaping and parking islands (item 6d); • Lighting standards — 20 -ft. candles and they are proposing a white light as opposed to sodium lighting required (item #8); • Parking spaces 437 required (item 9); and • Recall applicant's commitment to comply with 4:1 slope on the setback on the south; otherwise will require a variance as shown. Councilmember Edmondson asked Ms. Gandy if she had discussions with TPM about meeting the articulation at all? Ms. Gandy stated she had not, however, they have received the staff comments and they know where they are outside the articulation. Brent Cline, 2152 Brookgate Drive, Grapevine. Mr. Cline stated he is present to answer questions. Councilmember Fawks asked Mr. Cline to address the "mechanical units" on top of the buildings that will be seen from the residential properties. Mr. Cline stated it is difficult to see on the overheads, but some of the areas are single story buildings and some are two story units. He stated they are planning on screening the units that will be visible with 3 %2 or 4 foot extensions on the roof and will screen as part of the ordinance with a metal panel material that is pre - formed. Councilmember Edmondson noted the screening must be architecturally compatible with the building. Cline stated they are trying to tie the screening in with the face of the building. They have discussed a few things, but the metal panels are what they have come back to. Mr. Cline commented about the number of parking spaces, and stated there are twice a year events that will push them over the limit [parents nights]. The school district has committed to making sure that both schools are not having events at the same time so that they will not be over the parking limit. A discussion was held regarding the parking spaces and the parking islands. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 12 of 29 PUBLIC HEARING: Pattie Minder, 223 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Ms. Minder thanked the City Council members who came to her house to view the proposed school sites regarding issues and the effect the schools will have on the Woodland Heights neighborhood. Ms. Minder presented photographs to Council who had not seen the school site with regard to the residential property. She referenced the light demonstration which was held at the Junior High School on two separate nights, and thanked the Councilmembers who were present to view the lights. She asked Council to require the school district to require a one -half million - dollar bond for a period of five years to be used to repair the drainage on the properties abutting the school site. She stated she had been polling students with regard to having a lighted stadium at the new schools vs. being bused 6/10 mile to the new larger stadium. Their response was that they are used to being bused and have no problem with it. She also thanked David Yelton, school board member, who also came out and looked at the school property from the Woodland Heights subdivision. Councilmember Fawks asked Ms. Minder about the double -sided fence, and she stated she feels they deserve a double -sided fence as opposed to a single sided wooden fence with the smooth side in toward the school. C.D. Dorris, 213 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Mr. Dorris thanked the Mayor and City Council, school board, and consultants and everyone who worked on the project. He stated, "We are all working on the same thing -- to educate our children." He presented to the City Secretary an "opposition statement," which he read into the record, "Southlake Citizens living in Woodland Heights Neighborhood are opposed to Ordinance No. 480- 323, 2 Reading because: o Stadium with Lights and Loudspeakers: Lights do not meet requirements of the light ordinance. Also, due to topography, the light will be invasive to our homes. Our property will suffer devaluation, according to an appraiser. o Drainage of Storm Water from this property does not have adequate means to handle the additional water. This will have a reverse impact on properties in Woodland Heights. o Loss of over 700 trees, many area near 100 - year -old live oaks." Mr. Dorris presented thirty -one (31) signed opposition statements to the City Secretary. Mr. Dorris stated they are not opposed to the schools, however, one school is better than two schools on this property. It crowds and impacts the area. He stated they are opposed to a stadium with lights when the new stadium is not more than 6/10 mile down the street. Mr. Dorris stated all the noise and light will come up from the "hole" and it is an invasion to our property. Regarding the Drainage issue, he still does not understand it. Water will come off Woodland Heights, and will miss the detention pond. He is concerned that not enough information is coming back to the homeowners. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 13 of 29 Dennis Minder, 223 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Mr. Minder also thanked the members of the Council and a school board member that came out to the neighborhood to see the various situations that the residents are in. He addressed parking, stating they decreased their parking spots because they are eliminating the visitors side, which decreased that amount of people. He stated he would like those parking spaces to be put back in. In reference to the double -sided fence, it seems unfair that the south side can get a two -sided fence for their ostriches and they cannot get a two -sided fence for their horses. Mr. Minder showed photographs of the amount of water from a 2 -3 inch rainfall and the amount of water covering the area where the school purchased property. Regarding variances requested to the ordinances: variances are usually set aside for something that will be in the near future development, not for something that is five years down the road. They stated the Woodland Heights neighborhood does not want variances given, as the CISD has not shown cause for variances. Mr. Minder also stated he felt it would be appropriate for the City to require a $500,000 bond to cover the repairs to drainage and that it should be in place for five (5) years. He asked that the CISD comply with the current light ordinance. Corrine Tuttle 219 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Ms. Tuttle also showed pictures of the school property from her back porch. She stated one of her main concerns is the lighting being proposed to be put at the stadium. The topography of the property and the Woodland Heights area is different from the lights at the other stadiums. The stadium will actually fall in the valley and the neighborhood comes up and they will actually be looking at the tops of the lights so they are not concerned about the lights that will cross the property line below, but are concerned about the glare that they will see when the lights are on. She is asking that that variance not be granted. She stated she has driven to the other three sites that have lights and feels they are adequate for the sports programs that are now going on. Tuttle noted the new stadium going in 6 /10 mile from the new schools and that the district has four facilities with lights available for the kids. She stated she feels the layout of the property and the lay of the land just doesn't allow for the glare to disappear. She stated she is worried about the screening panels and is worried about the screening around the air conditioning units. Ms. Tuttle stated she had their property appraised about one year ago and called the appraiser again and he stated that schools are good neighbors, but stadium lights are not a good neighbor. She asked the City Council to not pass the variance that would allow the stadium lights to go in. Diane Smith Fawn, 215 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Ms Fawn stated she would like a notation in the record that they have drainage problems on the back of their property. She also asked for money to be placed in escrow for use on repairs to the drainage problems. She asked that the City Council not grant any variance. If by not having lights, it means no stadium, she does not feel they are depriving children and it is a win -win situation. Pamela Muller, 214 Westwood Drive, Southlake. Ms. Muller stated she lives in Woodland Heights Estates and they are on one of the highest areas in the City. She expressed concerns about looking out at stadium lights and personally is still opposed to the zoning of the property and as a tax -payer paying four times more in school taxes than Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 14 of 29 city taxes. This area was master planned to be low density. The property adjacent to her is a minimum of three acres. She expressed concerns with the capital improvements funds being used to improve South Kimball Avenue to make that road safe for the bus traffic. "Today, if Kimball is not improved, it will be a serious safety hazard for the school children, Muller stated. She is also opposed because aircraft flies over the area. Unfortunately things fall off of aircraft. Again, there will be additional costs with construction to the building to be compatible with the aircraft noise. Having said all of that, Ms. Muller stated, "I know there is nothing you can do about it -- that you have to approve this zoning, even though we may all disagree about this location. My only hope is that in the future, the School Board will take the Council's lead and start televising their meetings so that the citizens will know what is happening with the schools. I think the citizens need to know how those school taxes are being spent." She thanked Councilmember Kendall and Edmondson for coming out and actually coming on the property and seeing the situation first hand. Ms. Muller congratulated the City for passing the lighting ordinance. In the Time Magazine there was an article about light pollution. Muller commented, "Our City has had the foresight to minimize light pollution in our community. The alternative that has been mentioned is that the school district use the new stadium for night games, as it is only 6/10 mile down the street. The residents in Woodland Heights will be eye level with the lights, not just the polls." She stated she hopes that the Council will turn down the variance request and protect the neighborhoods property values. Mr. Brent Cline stated the District had agreed to an avigation easement with DFW Airport and that it is currently being worked out between the attorneys. Councilmember Debra Edmondson asked Mr. Cline what was preventing him from meeting the articulation requirements? Mr. Cline answered the question. Edmondson asked Mr. Cline, if the City were to require them to meet the articulation ordinance, what would that do to the plans? Ms. Edmondson asked Mr. Cline how much it was costing to build each of the schools? Mr. Cline stated the total is $28 million dollars for both schools, including site work. Mr. Cline stated that is an estimate at this time as they are still in the process. The bond issue was approved at $19.5 million and $15 million. CISD Superintendent Ted Gillum. Mr. Gillum stated all the projects could be built for the bond money of $81.5 million. Mr. Gillum stated they would preserve the large tree with the hawk, and they would screen the mechanical units according to the City ordinance. Ms. Edmondson commented on the drainage issues on the proposed site, and read from Section 3.02 c (3) of the drainage ordinance regarding drainage over private property. Cheatham and Associates, Engineering Consultants. Mr. Cheatham stated the CISD has two options in handling the drainage on the property and at this point and time, they do not have anything signed from the property owners. Edmondson asked if the system is designed over the 100 -year flood? Cheatham stated it would cover the 100 -year flood. Ms. Edmondson stated the system that goes in must meet all City ordinances or we are selling our City short. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 15 of 29 Councilmembers Fawks and Potter asked questions regarding the drainage channel being proposed. Councilmember Fawks asked Mr. Cline if there were any provisions that would provide improvements to South Kimball Avenue? Mr. Cline responded that it was their understanding that the City was going to provide the improvements to the roadway. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall asked Malcolm Jackson a question concerning the meter readings from the lights at the Junior High School [referencing the light demonstration] and asked him to compare the lights he saw last night with our current light ordinance? Chief of Building Services Malcolm Jackson responded, "We did conduct a light meter test at the Junior High facility on Monday night. The findings were simplistic and they took measurements at various locations throughout the field, along the side of the field in the areas available for the teams, and took measurements outside the field going away from the lighted field area. What we determined is that the field area itself would require an excess of 20 candle powers which is what our ordinance allows as a maximum today. The readings ranged from 18 [on horizontal] to 22 -23 -24 [on vertical]. Once we got outside the stadium, beginning at 50' away, the light measurements read a 1.1 candlepower on the vertical and on the horizontal reading a .7." He continued to give the readings from the light meter test held on Monday night at the Junior High School. He stated the readings continued to drop to below the maximum allowable under the current ordinance provision. The ordinance today requires that any lights on a pole in excess of four feet in height, must be high pressure sodium [the yellow lights you see in parking lots]. This would require a variance because these lights are considered white lights as opposed to the yellow lights. Councilmember Fawks questioned "shielding" on the lights. Jackson responded to this point. Councilmember Debra Edmondson stated, "First of all, as we said the last time, none of us up here chose the site for the schools but these schools with the locations advertised were passed by the voters. There has been some suggestions to deny these schools, and I believe that this is not a good thing to do because these schools were passed in the bond and we would be putting hundreds of children in portable buildings if we did not build these schools. But, saying that, this job that we get paid so much for, is to me, being able to look at myself in the mirror. This past week we have had some light shows at the junior high, and we were told that these lights were not the latest and greatest but all most. Any while, I was not there when most of the neighborhood was there. I did get over to the junior high school and then went around to Oak Hill Estates, down Highland and through Durham. On the Durham side it was lit up like a Christmas tree. Ms. Tuttle nicely invited Council to her home, and when I went to her home, if I had any question before that time, I knew then, that I could not support a variance to the lighting to this site. We are elected to represent homeowners and to me it does not matter if it is one, or two, or a lot of homeowners. I try to do what I think is the right thing. While I strongly agree that we must approve these schools, what I cannot support is a variance to the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 16 of 29 lighting ordinance, because I believe that it would significantly impact the quality of life and the property values of those living behind the schools in Woodland Heights. I have made my statements about the drainage, the tree with the hawk, and also the issue of screening the mechanicals and their agreement there." Edmondson thanked the neighborhood as they had been very diligent in getting their points across and said hopefully it will be a win -win situation that is fair for everyone. Councilmember Rex Potter stated, "I did a lot of soul searching last night and probably a lot of us did as far as what our thoughts are, and one thing I can say is, Mayor you have had strong feelings on this for a long time. It has not happened in the last week or two, but I do not agree with your bad mouthing the School District. I don't think it is appropriate for us up here -- for us to bad mouth them or challenge their fiscal responsibility but to try [after their decision] to mitigate the impact on the neighbors to make this plan work. This is what I hope our objective is here tonight -- to go and make this a win -win situation. In my election this year, I had two points and one was to build a better relationship with the school and also to represent the homeowners and to care about them. Working with the school board is not necessarily doing everything that the school board asks. We've got to try to give and take." Potter stated he was not comfortable with the parking planned for the school, as he had seen from the other schools the problems they have with parking. He stated he would like for Council to address this. On the tennis court issue, he wanted to be sure the City is going to move those tennis courts. He was concerned about screening and did not want the boxes like on Wendy's. Regardind drainage issues, Potter said, "We are not going to solve that here and now, but we need to look closely in the developer agreement." He stated he did not want to do anything that would give those two property owners any kind of idea that they have the upper hand on the school district and they need to work with the school board on the box culvert. Regarding the two -sided fence, Potter commented, "I feel something that would be durable needs to be put in. On the south driveway, we need to work on that. The school stated they want it to be left -in and right -out and I think the school needs to address this now. Regarding lighting, I had great difficultly and our legal advice says we cannot say no, but you cannot just say you are or are not going to have lighting. I want the school to find a way to comply so that it meets our ordinance." Councilmember Patsy DuPre asked, "If we allow lighting with a variance, we could dictate some of the terms, but if we don't allow lighting, do we not have that flexibility ?" City Attorney Wayne Olson stated, "The question I have heard from the Council was, could you create special conditions beyond our ordinance for light? And my answer is no, you need to require that the school district comply with the ordinance. Because they are asking for a variance from you, Council can place reasonable conditions on granting that variance To be sure that the variance is not going to adversely affect surrounding properties, and etc., so you do have some leeway in that regard. I do not believe that you can create new conditions to put on lighting, if you feel that your ordinance not sufficient enough. You would need to amend the ordinance if that is the case." Councilmember Gary Fawks stated, "I'm inclined to say we probably need to require required parking. I have not seen a school yet that was over parked. On Kimball Avenue, Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 17 of 29 the last thing we need is for parents to not be able to access the lot or unable to park there. That situation could become very critical. I have given a lot of thought to the lighting issue, and would say tonight that I would support a motion that would not support the variance for the lighting. The screening ordinance today is not the one that was in place when Wendy's was built, so that type of screening would no longer meet our ordinance. The ordinance in place today would hopefully be aesthetically more pleasing and would prevent the visual impact on the homeowners. The finished floor height on the buildings would be very close to the elevation of Kimball Road." He stated he feels the City should require the school to meet the parking requirements, and noted he is not sure about directing bus traffic, that he would like the school district with their expertise to decide the best way to move their buses around the school site. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall stated she echoes a lot of what had already been said. She agreed that Council should allow the school district to direct their own traffic, and that is not someplace the City should go right now. Kendall stated, "I think we can address that issue in the future." Kendall commented, "I have been thinking a lot about this rezoning and site plan over the last two weeks, and the thing that keeps coming back to me are lights, drainage, and parking. I say parking, because I have had kids in six schools in this city and it could be a problem in all six schools, but I know in five schools, that parking is a urgent problem. I cannot look the residents of this town in the face if I give you all a variance for this school site after what I have observed over the last few years. So, I don't know what has happened in the past, but if I can prevent it from happening in the future I am going to do it. I am not going to vote for a variance for parking. Also, I cannot give a variance for lights. If you "talk the talk you have to walk the walk" and if you call yourself pro- homeowner you cannot ignore the impact that these lights have on these homeowners. That is basically it, I have talked to attorneys and staff and I feel the way we need to handle drainage is in the developer agreement. So we will take a hard look at that and address the things that Debbie brought up during that time." Motion was made that we [Council] approve ZA 99 -120, subject to Site Plan Review Summary No. 1, dated December 3, 1999 per the following: • Deleting item #5 to allow vertical and horizontal articulation as shown; • Modifying item #6d granting relief from constructing parking islands and parallel parking spaces only; • Accepting the applicant's commitment to use lights rather than bells to announce class changes; • Accepting the applicant's commitment to move the southern parent loop driveway to the north to comply with the 200' spacing requirement and to better align with Johnson's driveway across Kimball; and reserving the right of the city to later require the construction of a pork -chop in the southern most drive; • Restricting the traffic movements should circulation and safety concerns arise in the field; • Deleting the northern circulation road from the plan; • Requiring the bufferyard on the west; Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 18 of 29 • Requiring as many trees on the site as directed by the City Landscape Administrator; and plant any left over ones in the Kimball medians and any left over plants at the other school locations; • Require that all construction traffic use the northern most driveway; • Requiring that the HV /AC system be screened from adjacent properties in accordance with our current ordinance; • Acknowledging that a sanitary sewer connection be made available in the northwest corner of the site and that neighboring properties may tie on at the neighbors expense; • Accepting the applicant's commitment to remove the two - hundred -fifty (250) future bleachers from the west side; • Accepting applicant's commitment to keep the large oak tree with the `red hawk' in it; • Requiring the applicant to erect an eight -foot (8') double -sided fence along the west and south property lines; and • Direct the Landscape Administrator to place as many trees as possible along the property line. Motion: Kendall Second: Fawks Ayes: Kendall, Fawks, Moffat, DuPre, Edmondson, and Potter Nays: Stacy Approved: 6 -1 vote Mayor Stacy stated for the record, "There was a bond issue, Ms. Edmondson, but they did not ask for a football stadium and they did not ask for two schools on South Kimball Avenue. My goal, Mr. Potter, was to never bad -mouth anybody in the school district. I worked pretty hard for many years for this school district and for this community and my goal is to work together to make the `right' decisions for this community, and I believe collectively, this is the worst decision that we have made yet." Councilmember Edmondson responded, "Just for a point of information Rick, I did get the bond update and it does have Middle School #3 on a 37 -acre site on South Kimball and Intermediate School #3 on the same 37 -acre site." Council adjourned for recess at 10:35 p.m. Council returned to open session at 10:50 p.m. Agenda Item #7 -G, Resolution No. 00 -14 (ZA 99 -127), Specific Use Permit for St. John's Missionary Baptist Church. Resolution No. 00 -14, (ZA 99 -127), Specific Use Permit for a Church per Zoning Ordinance No. 480, Section 45.1 (2), on property legally described as Lot 1, Block C, Commerce Business Park, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Volume 388 -214, Page 60, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas and being approximately 1.66 acres. A Concept Plan will be considered Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 19 of 29 with this request. Current zoning is "I -1" Light Industrial District. Applicant: St. John's Missionary Baptist Church. Owner: SLJ- Commerce - Exchange II, Ltd. Senior Planner Chris Carpenter presented this case noting that seven (7) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and one (1) response was received from outside the 200' notification area from: Karen L. Robertson, manager, Noise Compatibility Office, DFW International Airport, 3200 East Airfield Drive, DFW, opposed. On January 20, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Specific Use Permit (7 -0 vote) subject to the Specific Use Permit Plan Review Summary No 2, dated January 14, 2000. Mr. Carpenter stated the church plans to occupy 7,336 s.f. with a 200 -seat church. Pastor Denny Davis, Senior Pastor of St. John 's Missionary Baptist Church. Pastor Davis stated they want to make this a satellite church with the main church located in Grand Prairie. He noted there are 450 worshipers in the Grand Prairie facility. He stated their plans are to have an early Sunday morning service with a Bible Study on Tuesday evenings from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Davis noted for the record that this location is only temporary and they are planning on a two to three year window; with a flexible lease. PUBLIC HEARING: Paul Tomme, Legal Department with DFW Airport. Mr. Tomme referenced Ordinance No. 479, that was passed as the result of the 1988 Settlement Agreement between the City of Southlake, the Federal Aviation Administration, the DFW Airport Board, and American Airlines and Delta Airlines, Incorporated. Mr. Tomme stated this is not a permitted use per the ordinance due to the fact that the property is within the DFW's 75 DNL noise contour according to the Airport's Official Noise Contour. He commented that they believe this use does not comply with the requirements of the ordinance, but stated, an avigation easement will always do some good. Mayor Stacy asked Mr. Tomme if they realize that the applicants are only asking for a temporary use for 2 to 3 years? Councilmember Edmondson asked Mr. Tomme specifically what there concern is? Mr. Tomme stated their concern is more of liability concerns. They do not want people moving into an area when there is nothing of record telling them that the planes have been flying over the area for years. Mr. Tomme stated, "They have nothing of record yet, and have to look at these things on a one by one basis and try to limit our own liability and keep from being sued on a reverse condemnation. We believe we could successfully defend reverse condemnation cases, but people still buy property and do not pay attention to the planes flying overhead." Councilmember Edmondson asked Tomme what is the difference from 200 people in a space having a worship service, and 200 people working in an industrial site? Mr. Tomme stated people working in an area do not try to sue the airport. He acknowledged that an avigation easement would be helpful. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 20 of 29 Mayor Stacy stated he was the developer of the property and as part of the requirements of the plat, every property owner has signed an avigation easement on property in Commerce Business Park. That is why he stated he feels this request should be addressed on a temporary use with the understanding that it is just that. If they were trying to put a permanent church in this location, he would be opposed to that, but this is only temporary. City Attorney Wayne K. Olson stated, he feels we should bring the applicant up and see if they have a problem signing an avigation release. Ron McClellen, 208 Timber Lake Way, Southlake. Mr. McClellen stated he is in favor of St. John's Missionary Church in Southlake. He stated he understands avigation releases and has been in the area when planes have flown over. He has no problem with the release. Pastor Denny Davis stated he does not have a problem with the planes and he does not have a problem signing an avigation release. Pastor Davis stated he would not have a problem with starting the service on Tuesday evening after 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall said, "Welcome to Southlake and that this is probably the most meaningful and best SUP that I will ever be granting, and thanks for choosing Southlake." Motion was made to approve the Special Use Permit for ZA 99 -127, acknowledging the Summary Review Summary No. 2 dated January 14, 2000; with a time limit of three (3) years; and acknowledging the applicant's commitment to sign the avigation easement. Motion: Kendall Second: Edmondson Ayes: Kendall, Edmondson, Potter, Fawks, Moffat, DuPre, and Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote Agenda Item #7 -D, ZA 99 -113, Revised Site Plan for Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Gateway Plaza Addition. ZA 99 -113, Revised Site Plan for Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Gateway Plaza Addition, on property legally described as Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Gateway Plaza Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slides 5356 and 5366, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 4.35 acres. Current zoning is "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District with limited "C -3" General Commercial District uses excluding the following uses: 22.2 (7) Conventional golf courses, including outdoor driving ranges accessory thereto, but excluding outdoor miniature golf courses; 22.2 (16) lodges, sororities, and/or fraternities; 22.2 (17) deleting the works "and care" but allowing "medical care facilities to include nursing homes, hospitals, with their related facilities and supportive retail and personal service uses operated by or under the control of the hospital primarily for the convenience of patients, Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 21 of 29 staff and visitors "; 22.2 (18) mortuaries, funeral homes and undertakers; 22.2 (23) plumbing and heating appliances, repair and installation services; 21.2 (8) business colleges or private schools for vocational training of office related careers, such as stenographers, executive secretaries, etc; 21.2 (24) frozen food lockers for individual or family use, not including the processing of food except cutting or wrapping; 18.2.A (29) radio recording and television broadcasting offices and studios; and requiring that Building 13 to be contained in its own lot and to allow single story 0-1 uses only or a sit - down restaurant with table service within the same pavement envelope. Applicant: O'Brien & Associates, Inc. Owner: Wyndham Properties, Ltd. Senior Planner Chris Carpenter presented this case and noted that nine (9) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and one (1) response was received from Dr. Michael Tate, D.D.S. 3101 East Parkway, Southlake, undecided. On January 20, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved (7 -0 vote) this case subject to the Site Plan review Summary No. 3, dated January 14, 2000, deleting Items #1.a (50' stacking depth on Driveway C3); #2.a (articulation); and #2b (pitched roofs). Terry Wilkinson, Wyndham Properties, Ltd. Mr. Wilkinson was present to answer questions of Council and to explain the request. He stated originally what was planned [showing the locations on the map] and what he is now planning. Stating, on the corner property they are planning a fabric store and that is why they are changing the site plan from the original plan. Robert Dozier, Lincoln Properties, Inc. Mr. Dozier stated they have a five year lease on the property for Calico Corner Fabric Store with three (3) five year options. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Chris Carpenter explained what is being planned by the City for the portal entry. Motion was made to approve ZA 99 -113, Revised Site Plan subject to the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. Motion: Edmondson Second: DuPre Ayes: Edmondson, DuPre, Potter, Fawks, Kendall, Moffat, and Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote Agenda Item #7 -E, Ordinance No. 480 -327, 1 Reading, (ZA 99 -131), Rezoning and Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 2, Gateway Plaza Addition. Ordinance No. 480 -327, 1 Reading, (ZA 99 -131), Rezoning and Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 2, Gateway Plaza Addition on property legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Gateway Plaza, Addition, being approximately 1.15 acres. The legal description and Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 22 of 29 proposed zoning is the same description as noted in agenda item 7 -D above. Current zoning is "S -P -2" Generalized Site Plan District with limited "C -3" General Commercial District uses. Senior Planner Chris Carpenter noted that seven (7) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and one (1) response was received from Dr. Michael Tate, D.D. S. 3101 East Parkway, Southlake. Undecided. Terry Wilkinson, Wyndham Properties, Ltd. Mr. Wilkinson stated he covered everything previously and noted that he has no problem restricting the hours of operation for the restaurant [not having a 24 hour restaurant]. Wilkinson stated he has no problem with the Site Plan Summary and that the request for approval is for the retail fabric store. If he decided he wants a restaurant in that location down the road, he will come back to Council for approval. Motion was made to approve ZA 99 -131, Rezoning and Site Plan, subject to the Site Plan Review Summary No. 2 dated January 14, 2000; accepting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation; with the hours of operation limited to no later than 2:00 p.m; clarifying the use for retail is a fabric store. Motion: Potter Second: DuPre Ayes: Potter, DuPre, Edmondson, Fawks, Kendall, Moffat, and Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote Agenda Item #7 -H, ZA 99 -137, Revised Site Plan for Block 3, Southlake Town Square ZA 99 -137, Revised Site Plan for Block 3, Southlake Town Square, on property legally described as Block 3, Southlake Town Square, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slides 4892 and 4893, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 5.220 acres. Current zoning is "NR -PUD" Non - Residential Planned Unit Development to include "C -3" General Commercial District uses. Applicant: Cooper & Stebbins, L.P. Owner: Southlake Venture West, L. P. Senior Planner Chris Carpenter presented the Revised Site Plan noting that two (2) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and no written responses was received. On January 20, 2000 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved this item (7 -0 vote) subject to the Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated January 14, 2000, deleting Item #3 (articulation) and accepting the articulation as shown on the submittal. Frank Bliss, applicant, 1256 Main Street Suite 240, Southlake. Mr. Bliss stated they are requesting a revision to building #3C on the plan. Councilmember Fawks asked Mr. Bliss Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 23 of 29 about the articulation, and Bliss responded that they believe they do comply with the articulation requirements. Brian Stebbins, 1256 Main Street, Suite 240, Southlake. Mr. Stebbins also discussed articulation with the City Council, noting that they have to articulate each building and believe that they are in compliance with the articulation requirements. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Motion was made to approve ZA 99 -137, Revised Site Plan for Block 3, Southlake Town Square, subject to the Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated January 14, 2000; approving the landscape plan as submitted; and basically tracking the recommendation made by the Planning and Zoning Commission; deleting #3 articulation. Motion: Edmondson Second: DuPre Ayes: Edmondson, DuPre, Fawks, Kendall, Moffat, and Stacy Nays: Potter Approved: 6 -1 vote Agenda Item #10 -A, Alternative Alignments for Parkwood Drive Director of Public Works Ron Harper stated at the January 4, 2000 City Council meeting, the Planning Department presented several alternatives to the current Parkwood Drive layout and alignment. Staff has provided a pro and con analysis of the alternatives presented to date. Mr. Harper presents options "A" through "E" and explained each option to the City Council noting that staff feels Option B is the best, with the abandonment of the existing right -of -way. Councilmember Wayne Moffat stated he feels the important thing at this time is to protect the residents from the through traffic. Ken Head, 501 Clayton Court, Southlake. Mr. Head stated he feels Option `B" will minimize the traffic and that approving it would be a positive step in the right direction. Ray Semadini, 501 Parkwood Drive, Southlake. Mr. Semadini stated he feel Option `B" will accomplish what they feel is best for the neighborhood and that he speaks for the entire neighborhood. "As you go forward there is potential here as well as a park, or selling that land back to the developers, finishing out the neighborhood, and for the senior center, and the entire neighborhood it is a win -win situation for everyone." Ed Gibbons with Remax Real Estate. Mr. Gibbons stated he is representing Dr. Richards, and noted that the main concern for Dr. Richards is access to Byron Nelson Parkway and F.M. 1709. He stated Option `B" is a good plan. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 24 of 29 Terry Wilkinson, property owner. Mr. Wilkinson stated he acquired the property on the corner and they will agree to build a concrete common access easement [24" wide curbed]. Director of Public Works Ron Harper stated there is no reason that cannot remain a common access easement. Motion was made to direct staff to go forward with Option `B" as presented tonight. Motion: Moffat Second: Fawks Ayes: Moffat, Fawks, Kendall, DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, and Stacy Nays: None Approved: 7 -0 vote Agenda Item #8 -C, Ordinance No. 480 -329, 1 Reading (ZA 99 -124), Radiology Associates of Tarrant County. Ordinance No. 480 -329, 1 Reading, (ZA 99 -124), Rezoning and Site Plan for Radiology Associates of Tarrant County, on property legally described as a portion of Tract 5D2 situated in the Obediah W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, and being approximately 1.126 acres. Current zoning is "R- P.U.D." Residential Planned Unit Development District, being P.U.D. No. 1, Timarron. Requested zoning is "S -P -1" Detailed Site Plan District with "0-1" Office District uses and the "C -2" Local Retail Commercial District use of health service facilities. Applicant: Southlake Imaging, L.L.C. Owner: Westerra- Timarron, L.P. Senior Planner Chris Carpenter stated that six (6) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification areas and one (1) response was received from Robert Stevenson, 2113 Taxco, Carrollton, Texas, in favor. On January 20, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved (7 -0) this case subject to the Site Plan Review Summary #3, Dated January 14, 2000, deleting Item #1 but noting that the applicant will try to move the building back as far south as possible without encroaching into the southernmost bufferyard and existing trees; deleting Item #2.a (minimum driveway spacing), and deleting Item #3 (parking). Terry Wilkinson, owner, applicant. Mr. Wilkinson discussed the issues of parking on the back of the building vs. parking in the front of the building next to F.M. 1709. He stated he prepared the site plan with parking in the rear because he though that is what the Council wanted to see on F.M. 1709. Dr. Rick Radenham. Dr. Radenham described the use of the building to the Council stating basically these are primarily insured patients that are referred to them for a CAT scan or other tests. He noted the patients are single visit patients. Mr. Wilkinson stated when this came to the SPIN meeting, the group was very adamant about the driveway in the front stating they did not want traffic off of F.M. 1709. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 25 of 29 Therefore, they moved the building forward. If Council wants the building further back, and have the parking in the front of the building -- he can do that. He agreed to redesign the plan to show the parking in the front and bring back to Council at the second reading. Motion was made to approve ZA 99 -124, subject to the Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated January 14, 2000; adding the unrestricted in, right- out -only and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission; allowing a 30' as shown. Motion: DuPre Second: Moffat The motion was withdrawn. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480 -329, 1 Reading, accepting the applicant's commitment to redesign the building moving it further away from the road and save the trees; subjecting that, deleting item #2.a and deleting #3; driveway on F.M. 1709 has right- out -only and full access entrance. Motion: Edmondson Second: Fawks Ayes: Edmondson, Fawks, Kendall, Moffat, DuPre, and Potter Nays: Stacy Approved: 6 -1 vote Councilmember Wayne Moffat left the meeting at this time. Agenda Item #7 -J, Ordinance No. 480 -324, 2 " Reading, (ZA 99 -122). Ordinance No. 480 -324, 2 Reading, (ZA 99 -122), Rezoning on property legally described as Tract 2C3 situated in the Obediah W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899, and being approximately 3.561 acres. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District, with a requested zoning of "SF -1A" Single Family Residential District. Owner and Applicant: Sherry Berman. No presentation was given on this item due to the late hour. Let the record show that fifteen (15) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and no responses were received. The change of zoning to the "SF -1A" Single Family Residential District does not require a Concept Plan Review by staff. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480 -324, 2 Reading. Motion: Potter Second: Edmondson Ayes: Potter, Edmondson, Fawks, Kendall, DuPre, and Stacy Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 26 of 29 Nays: None Approved: 6 -0 vote Agenda Item #7 -F, Ordinance No. 480 -322, 2 " Reading, ZA 99 -114, Carroll Meadows. Ordinance No. 480 -322, 2 Reading, (ZA 99 -114), Rezoning for Carroll Meadows, on property legally described as Tract 2C situated in the Absolom H. Chivers Survey, Abstract No. 299, and being approximately 12.469 acres. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District with a requested zoning of "SF -1A" Single Family District. Applicant: K.M. Properties, Inc. Owner: 011ie Mae Thrailkill. No presentation was made on this case tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480 -322, 2" Reading. Motion: Potter Second: Fawks Ayes: Potter, Fawks, Kendall, DuPre, Edmondson, and Stacy Nays: None Approved: 6 -0 vote Agenda Item #7 -I, Ordinance No. 480 -II, 2 " Reading, Revisions to Zoning Ordinance 480, as amended, regarding regulations on carports, covered parking, and parking garages on non - residential property. Interim Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy presented Ordinance No. 480 -II, 2nd Reading, Revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended, regarding regulations on carports, covered parking, and parking garages on non - residential property. Ms. Gandy stated the City Council requested that staff prepare regulations for non - residential carports and parking garages as a result of several recent requests for covered parking in development projects. Presently, there are no specific development regulations regarding carports and covered parking in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended. A 120 -day moratorium was enacted to allow sufficient time for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to study, discuss, review and take appropriate action on this matter. The moratorium was due to expire on December 29, but was extended to February 2, 2000 due to the cancellation of the second regular City Council meeting in February. Ms. Gandy presented recommendations made during the Joint Work Session of the Council and the Commission on December 2, 1999. These recommendations are shown in bold and italics in the current draft ordinance. Specifically, these include: Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 27 of 29 • The creation of another SUP (separating carports and multi -level parking garages) and eliminating the option of carports in the 0-2 and commercial districts; • The addition of the requirement that the square footage of parking structure footprints shall count toward lot coverage, impervious coverage and required interior landscape area; • The limitation of height of attached carports to 20 feet; • The option to allow more than 4 spaces under a carport if the structure is not visible from a public R.O.W. nor from a single family property; and, • The addition of "or similar" building materials, but specifically excluding cement and concrete tilt wall or similar materials. Councilmember Gary Fawks stated he is hesitating to add a zoning category for an individual, because he really doesn't know that he wants to see shopping centers with covered parking. He stated he hates to open that door as he can see it being difficult to stop. PUBLIC HEARING: Richard Myers, Capital Realty Corporation, Grapevine. Mr. Myers thanked the City Council and staff because he knows they put a lot of work and detail into the carport ordinance. He stated he feels it is quite impressive. Mr. Myers said, "The building setback issues are when you abut a commercial property. So there is a five -foot differential between where the curb line is for parking spaces and the green grass and trees start." He stated in Georgetown, it would be the ideal place to do some carports on the side of the building, where it would not be visible from F.M. 1709. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the number of carports and it seems like it would make sense to face them on the side of the project. They think six (6) would be a nice number to have. Public hearing closed. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480 -I1, Second Reading, changing "4" to « Motion: Potter Second: Fawks Ayes: Potter, Fawks, Kendall, DuPre, and Edmondson Nays: Stacy Approved: 5 -1 vote Agenda Item #8 -A, Ordinance No. 480 -HH, 1 Reading, "Outside Storage" Ordinance No. 480 -HH, deletes Section 38, "outside storage" establishes a new provision in Section 45, "Specific Use Permits" that outside storage be permitted only when granted a specific use permit by the City Council, establishes new regulations for outside Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 28 of 29 storage in Section 45 and revised Section 39, "screening' addressing some inconsistencies. Councilmember Rex Potter stated he would be willing to pass this ordinance on the first reading, but that he has reservations on the outside storage and wants to discuss this further prior to the second reading of the ordinance. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480 -HH, 1 Reading. Motion: Potter Second: Kendall Ayes: Potter, Kendall, DuPre, Edmondson, and Fawks Nays: Stacy Approved: 5 -1 vote Agenda Item #12, Adjournment Mayor Rick Stacy adjourned the Regular City Council meeting at 1:05 a.m. ' ! � c ay. Rick St. ATTEST: idipi =,. A % n R Sandra L. LeGrand A City Secretary o ; t ° ,. N: \City Secretary\MINUTES \cc - min- 02- 01- 00.doc Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2000 Page 29 of 29 CONFLICT OF INTEREST AFFIDAVIT THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OFc V'4c I, /44cy rcv 4 as a member of the r� r 6„t^ci , make this affidavit and hereby on oath state the following: I have a substantial interest in a business entity or real property as defined in Chapter 171, Texas Local Government Code, and a vote is to be taken or a decision is to be made that will have a special economic effect on this business entity or real property. The agenda item affecting this business entity or real property is: COMPLETE (A) or (B): (A) The business entity is (name); or (B) The real property is located at: 36 u cJekta u �C I have a substantial interest for the following reasons: (check all which are applicable) Ownership of 10% or more of the voting stock or shares of the business entity. Ownership of 10% or more or $15,000 or more of the fair market value of the business entity. Funds received from the business entity exceed 10% of gross income for the previous year. Real property is involved and 1 have an equitable or legal ownership of the property with a fair market value of at least $2,500. A relative of mine has a substantial interest in the business entity or real property that would be affected by a decision of the public body of which I am a member. Upon filing of this affidavit with the City Secretary, I affirm that I will abstain from voting on any decision involving this business entity or real property and from any further participation on this matter by discussion or debate. Signed this ) day of Ci , AXIL. r4 g" "a T The State of ' AU § County of , , , 7 § Befor m �� , � f Ll�/1�� on this day personally appeared D-bi Al known to me (or proved to me on the oath of or through (description of identity card or other document) to be the pers+ whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. J.-ALM Give n under my hand and seal of office this ) day of � , A.D. 0. to .1 (^�{^ ... rru:_ .a.... A RY P6 B Sli�lC'+ � ?G ANn * ,t Notary Public � Z k p 5 STATE OF IEXA`?i )6-1)(4 9Ft ° comm A .001 No ary Public in and for the State of Texas H:\LIBRARY\MunicipaMIERGETonflictofInterestAffidavit.wpd CONFLICT OF INTEREST AFFIDAVIT THE STATE OFF TEXAS § ._:OUNTY OF (41% I, Cl. as a member of theW-n.lCe 9t��c , make this affidavit and hereby on oath state the following: I have a substantial interest in a business entity br real property as defined in Chapter 171, Texas Local Government Code, and a vote is to be taken or a decision is to be made that will have a special economic effect on this business entity or real property. The agenda item affecting this business entity or real property is: _ C COMPLETE (A) or (B): (A) The business entity is (name); or (B) The real property is located at: 336 PQ u e ' c r y I have a substantial interest for the following reasons: (check all which are applicable) Ownership of 10% or more of the voting stock or shares of the business entity. Ownership of 10% or more or $15,000 or more of the fair market value of the business entity. Funds received from the business entity exceed 10% of gross income for the previous year. Real property is involved and I have an equitable or legal ownership of the property with a fair market value of at least $2,500. A relative of mine has a substantial interest in the business entity or real property that would be affected by a decision of the public body of which I am a member. Upon filing of this affidavit with the City Secretary, I affirm that I will abstain from voting on any decision involving this business entity or real property and from any further participation on this matter by discussion or debate. Signed this / day of NtLi/M1 , 'err re . • 'icial The State of l> § County of § Be re 4 l lI on this day personally appeared Mil, 'I/ known to me (or proved to me on the oath of or through (description of identity card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to de foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. Given under my hand and seal of office this ) day oflitt, , A.D.. (SE •\I e\vPpB SANDRA L. i_eGRQND * �i * Notary Public / SLATE OF TEXAN:, ��rFOFt� Pry r n Fs ) *,42001 AL& Notary Public in and for the State of Texas H:\ LIBRARY\ Municipal\ MERGE \ConflictoflnterestAffidavit. wpd February 1, 2000 To Rick Stacy, Rex Potter, Wayne Moffat, Ronnie Kendall, Debra Edmondson, Gary Fawks, and Patsy Dupre: As a resident of Southlake living in the Woodland heights neighborood I amvery much opposed to the stadium lights and have concerns regarding the drainage plan as set forth in Ordinance N. 480 -323, 2 Reading (ZA99 -120). The stadium lights: 1. are not compatible with residential property when positioned 135 feet from private property. 2. will devaluate the adjoining residential property. 3. severely detract from the existing serene rural residential environment. I have read, seen or heard nothing that indicates a real need for these stadium lights. The most expensive lighted stadium in the city will only be six tenths (0.6) of a mile away. I believe the city has adequate facilities to meet the immediate and future needs for lighted stadiums. I invite anyone to show me otherwise. Drainage: The proposed drainage system coupled with the retention pond should provide adequate drainage for nominal amounts of rain. However, due to the loss of some of the permeably land due to buildings and parking lots, once the retention pond is full any additional precipitation will exacerbate our existing flooding concerns. The model used to provide proper drainage is only accurate to a point. The calculations used although valid rely heavily on assumptions. If the assumptions are flawed the result will be inadequate drainage and increased flooding on neighboring land which will only come to light after the fact. I am not questioning the assumptions but would like some assurance that if a flooding problem develops that it will be properly addressed and remedied in a timely manner. If the drainage model proves to be inaccurate will there be funds and resources available and the political will to rectify the problem? Thanks for your time and consideration. Tuttle 219 Eastwood Drive Southlake 488 -1874 O , ..,ffreyP.Fegan Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport Executive Director February -1, 2004 The Honorable Rick Stacy FEB i ;n , Mayor City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 RE: City Council Agenda Item Resolution No. 00 -14 (ZA -99 -127) Dear Mayor Stacy: Please allow me to address an agenda item slated for tonight's meeting of Southlake's City Council. The agenda is to consider a Specific Use Permit for the St. John's Missionary Baptist Church to use an existing building located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Market Loop and Exchange Boulevard, Resolution No. 00 -14. For reasons listed below, the Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport Board opposes the proposed Specific Use Permit. We previously wrote the Planning & Zoning Commission voicing our concerns; however they unanimously approved the project on January 20, 2000. The property is situated within the DFW's 75 DNL noise contour according to the Airport's Official Noise Contour. Being located only 2 statute miles from the end of Runway 13R/31 L, the property is subject to routine overflights as low as 400 feet above ground over the proposed site. Further, the building shell is complete, and we are not aware of any efforts to mitigate, exacerbating the incompatibility problem. Attached please find a copy of the City of Southlake's Zoning Ordinance 479, which the City was required to adopt and enforce as a result of the 1988 Settlement Agreement between the City of Southlake, the Federal Aviation Administration, the DFW Airport Board, and American Airlines and Delta Air Lines, Incorporated. For ease of review, please refer to the highlighted areas in Table A "Incompatible Land Uses" where it specifically states: "Land use and related structures are not compatible and are PROHIBITED" (emphasis added) in reference to Public Use and Community Service (CS) zoning such as churches, hospitals and schools above 75 DNL. Administrative Offices * 3200 East Airfield Drive * Post Office Drawer 619428 * DFW Airport, Texas 75261 -9428 * 972/574 -6(8) Mayor Stacy February 1, 2000 Page 2 of 2 In summary, the proposed use: • Violates the 1988 Settlement Agreement between the City of Southlake, the Federal Aviation Administration, the DFW Airport Board, and American Airlines and Delta Air Lines, Inc. • Is incompatible with and violates the City's own Ordinance 479, Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance • Is incompatible with FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Guidelines. Any one of these factors alone is a reasonable basis to deny the use permit. The DFW Airport Board urges the City of Southlake to assist the airport in reducing future noise problems by complying with the above referenced settlement agreement and by not approving the proposed Specific Use Permit. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, qb Gary Keane General Counsel GK/dag Attachment cc: Wayne Olson St. John's Missionary Baptist Church Kevin Cox Karen Robertson S: \gkeane \Stacy Itr AIRPORT COMPATIBLE LAND USE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 479 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF THE DALLAS /FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BY CREATING APPROPRIATE ZONES AND ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR CHANGES IN THE RESTRICTIONS AND BOUNDARIES OF SUCH ZONES; DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS USED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE MAP; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT; ESTABLISHING A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN PAMPHLET FORM; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by the Airport Zoning Act, Chapter 241 of the Local Government Code of the State of Texas, as amended. It is hereby found that excessive noise levels generated by Airport operations may disrupt activities and impair the welfare and unrestricted use of land and its occupants within the vicinity of the Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport (the "Airport "); accordingly it is declared: (1) that the Airport fulfills an essential community purpose; (2) that the encroachment of noise sensitive, vibration sensitive, or otherwise incompatible land uses will destroy or impair the utility of the Airport and the public investment therein; (3) that it is necessary in the interest of the welfare of the general public, and specifically, the citizens of the City of Southlake, that the creation or establishment of incompatible land uses be prevented; (4) that it is necessary in the interest of predictable growth and development of land in the City of Southlake, the long term integrity of Airport usage and operations, and minimizing future conflicts between use and operation of the Airport and development of land in -1- the vicinity of the Airport that the creation or establishment of incompatible land uses be prevented; (5) that the prevention of these land use conflicts should be accomplished to the extent legally possible by the exercise of police power without compensation; and (6) that to accomplish all of the objectives of the City as set forth in the above stated findings and declarations, it is necessary to define the boundaries of the Airport Overlay Zone (in which Airport compatible land use zoning regulations are applicable) to minimize, to the maximum extent possible, the future potential for public concern caused by noise from the use and operation of the Airport. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAXE, TEXAS: SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Airport Compatible Land Use Zoning Ordinance." SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS As used in this ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Administrative Official" means the person appointed by the City Manager of the City of Southlake to administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance. (2) "Airport" means Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport. (3) "Compatible Land Use" means the use of land within the vicinity of an airport which does not endanger the health, safety or welfare of users of the land because of levels of noise or vibrations created by the operations of the airport, including the taking off and landing of aircraft. (4) "Ldn" (Yearly Day -Night Average Sound Level) means the 24 hour average sound level in decibels, for the period from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels for the periods between midnight and 7:00 a.m., and between 10:00 p.m. and -2- midnight, local time as averaged over a span of one year. A mathematical definition of Ldn can be found in F.A.A. regulation Part 150, §A150.201. (5) "Nonconforming Use" means any pre- existing structure, object of natural growth or use of land which is inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance or any amendment thereto. (6) "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint stock association or body politic and includes a trustee, receiver, assignee, administrator, executor, guardian or other representative. (7) "Runway" means a defined area on the Airport prepared for landing and take -off of aircraft along its length; and specifically means Runway ONE THREE RIGHT /THREE ONE LEFT (13R /31L) at Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport as it exists in its current location and configuration. SECTION 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (1) There is hereby created an Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment to have and exercise the following powers: A. To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Administrative Official in the enforcement of this ordinance; B. To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of this ordinance upon which such Board of Adjustment under this ordinance may be required to pass; and C. To hear and decide specific variances. (2) The Board of Adjustment of the City of Southlake is hereby designated to serve as the Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment (hereinafter called "Board of Adjustment "). (3) The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for its governance and procedure in harmony with the provisions of this ordinance. Meetings of the Board of Adjustment shall be held at the call of the Chairman and at such times as the Board of Adjustment may determine. The Chairman, or in his absence the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. All hearings of the Board of Adjustment shall be public. The Board of Adjustment shall keep minutes of its proceedings showing the vote, indicating -3- such fact, and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, all of which shall immediately be filed in the office of the Board of Adjustment and shall be a public record. (4) The Board of Adjustment shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law stating the facts upon which it relied when making its legal conclusions in reversing, affirming or modifying any order, requirement, decision or determination which comes before it under the provisions of this ordinance. (5) The concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board of Adjustment shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of the Administrative Official or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under this ordinance, or to effect any variation in this ordinance. SECTION 4 ENFORCEMENT It shall be the duty of the Administrative Official of the City of Southlake to administer and enforce the regulations prescribed herein. Applications for permits shall be made to the Administrative Official upon a form published for that purpose. Applications required by this ordinance to be submitted to the Administrative Official shall be promptly considered and granted or denied. Applications for variance shall be made to the Board of Adjustment by first filing said application for variance with the Administrative Official, who shall within ten (10) days of receipt transmit said application to the Board of Adjustment for determination. SECTION 5 AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (1) Establishment of Zone For the purpose of regulating the development of noise sensitive land uses so as to promote compatibility between the Airport and the surrounding land uses, to protect the -4- Airport from incompatible encroachment, and to promote the good health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Southlake, and property users therein, there is hereby established within the City of Southlake a compatible land use overlay zone to be known as the Airport Overlay Zone. (2) Boundaries of the Zone The Airport Overlay Zone shall generally correspond to that area contained within the 65 and 75 Ldn noise contours plotted at the north end of Runway 13 Right - 31 Left. These noise contours are plotted in increments of ten (10) Ldn on the Airport Overlay Zone Map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and said noise contours hereby establish the boundaries of the Airport Overlay Zone. The noise contours are based upon the noise map contained in the 1974 Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Dallas /Fort Worth Regional Airport, approved in May, 1974, and are subject to change when the official noise map at the Airport ` is revised. The Airport Overlay Zone Map, together with all explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. (3) Permitted Uses All uses permitted by the City's Zoning Ordinance within the boundaries of the City of Southlake shall be allowed except where there is a conflict between the Airport Overlay Zone and the existing zoning ordinance. When such a conflict exists, the Airport Overlay Zone governs. (4) Restricted Uses Regardless of the underlying zoning under the City's Zoning Ordinance, those uses listed in Table A, Incompatible Land Uses, shall be prohibited in the Airport Overlay Zone except under the Guidelines set forth in Table A. SECTION 6 NONCONFORMING USES (1) Regulations Not Retroactive The regulations prescribed by this ordinance shall not be construed to require the removal or other change or alteration of any structure not conforming to the regulations as of the effective date of this ordinance, or otherwise interfere with the continuance of any nonconforming use. Nothing herein contained shall require any change in the construction, alteration or intended use of any structure, the construction, alteration or use of -5- which was begun prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and is diligently prosecuted. No new construction, alteration or enlargement of any structure or use shall take place except in conformance with this ordinance. (2) Destruction of Nonconforming Use Whenever the Administrative Official determines that a nonconforming structure has been destroyed, torn down, physically deteriorated or decayed by more than fifty percent (50 %) of the replacement cost, such structure or use may not be rebuilt or recommenced, except in accordance with the regulations of this Ordinance. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, any one or two family dwelling, or any structure or use accessory thereto, existing at the effective date of this ordinance, which is wholly or partially destroyed by fire, tornado, or other causes, may be reconstructed provided such dwelling or accessory use is permitted by and meets the regulations contained in the applicable zoning district in the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 7 APPEALS (1) Any person aggrieved, or any taxpayer affected, by any decision of the Administrative Official made in the administration of this ordinance, may appeal to the Board of Adjustment. (2) All appeals hereunder must be taken within a reasonable time, not to exceed sixty (60) days, as provided by the rules of the Board of Adjustment by filing with the Administrative Official a notice of appeal specifying the ground thereof. The Administrative Official shall forthwith transmit to the Board of Adjustment all papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. (3) An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the Administrative Official certifies to the Board of Adjustment, after the notice of appeal has been filed with it, that by reason of the facts stated in the certificate a stay would, in the opinion of the Administrative Official, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings shall not be stayed except by the Board of Adjustment on notice to the Administrative Official and on due cause shown. (4) The Board of Adjustment shall fix a reasonable time for hearing appeals, having due regard for required notice to the public and parties in interest and the need for staff -6- and Board review, and shall decide the same within a reasonable time after the hearing has been held. (5) The Board of Adjustment, in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance, may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as may be appropriate under the circumstances. SECTION 8 JUDICIAL REVIEW Any person aggrieved, or any taxpayer affected, by any decision of the Board of Adjustment may appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction, as provided by the Airport Zoning Act, Section 241.041 of the Local Government Code of the State of Texas, as amended. SECTION 9 ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES The City may institute in any court of competent jurisdiction an action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate any violation of this ordinance or of any order or ruling made in connection with its administration or enforcement, including but not limited to an action for injunctive relief as provided by the Airport Zoning Act, Section 241.044 of the Local Government Code of the State of Texas, as amended. SECTION 10 PENALTIES Each violation of this ordinance or of any regulation, order or ruling promulgated hereunder shall constitute a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each day a violation continues to exist shall constitute a separate offense. -7- SECTION 11 CONFLICTING REGULATIONS Where there exists a conflict between the regulations prescribed in this ordinance and any other regulations applicable to the same area with respect to the use of land, this ordinance shall govern and prevail. SECTION 12 SEVERABILITY 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 court 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 incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 13 SAVINGS All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of any other ordinances affecting zoning, land use and height regulations 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 -8- by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. SECTION 14 PUBLICATION IN PAMPHLET FORM The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby authorized to publish this ordinance in book or pamphlet form for general distribution among the public, and the operative provisions of this ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof than the production thereof. SECTION 15 PUBLICATION IN OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER 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 days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 16 EFFECTIVE DATE 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. -9- 'ASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS ;2?,2-_, DAY OF uti �U , 1990. /� p ate 44, —_-_7 : -- o : \e :y 1.:-:-.A `,� :�3 1\ • " I ATTEST: 1 '''114„,1 I I *IN * t\ � \ � ``` 46/61 A (1.I�'�yl.l� LZ'� CITY SECRETARY / � jy � , PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS h DAY OF 1uC,'lLk/ . 1990. / 1/) tttt tittlflNttt„ ttt / / -- MAYOR i p 1 ? t ��' a ATT ST: .., . •-• S . Atef?t, ///1/1 i? 4 a 4iirr /ur * *\, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney Date: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: c: \slake \airport.ord -10- TABLE A INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES 1 Yearly Day -Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) in Decibels A B 65 -75 Agricultural Y4 Y5 Residential SF -1A, SF -1B, SF -30, SF -20A, SF -20B N1 N MF -1 N1 _ N MF -2 N1 N MH N N Hotels HC Y2 Y3 Public Use CS 35 " Commercial 0 -1 25 35 0 -2 25 35 C -1 25 N C -2 25 35 C -3 25 35. C -4 25 35 B -1 25 N3 B -2 Y N2 Industrial I - Y Y I - Y Y PUD Requirements dependent upon standards for each respective use as set forth herein. SP- 1 /SP -2 Requirements dependent upon standards for each respective use as set forth herein. Cumulative Uses Cumulative uses permitted in respective zoning districts shall be governed by such use's original zoning district KEY TO TABLE Y Yes. Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. *41 161 - ,Land use - and related , structures not compatible -: are prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. Where NLR is required hereunder, the builder shall be required to certify to the City, prior to issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy, that such NLR requirements have been incorporated into the design and construction of the structure. 25 or 35 Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25 or 35 must be incorporated into design and construction of structure. 1 Where the community determines that residential uses should be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor NLR of at least 25 dB in Zone A and 35 dB in Zone B must be incorporated into the design and construction of such uses. Normal single family construction can be expected to provide an NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5 or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. 2 Measures to achieve NLR of 25 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normally expected noise level is low. 3 Measures to achieve NLR of 35 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normally expected noise level is low. 4 Residential buildings require an NLR of 35. 5 Residential buildings not permitted. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. 7 ENed) S Ft1 e- ZZ3 r - 7K9Z S©'-<- %- Off 6 Tx 7(,,c. Q ! NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. E/43: N V N ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_ ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. V 3 f‘_ e_eaa 4 - a NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_ ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. e-a/t/L--14 ljet4.1,cist.2 ,z/o- g , itif? i4 r S J NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. 1 AME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. 4 11° c> ‘e/-a,A/4 AME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_ ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. AO/ / a„/ ,"7//141(',4• ; NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. -:( ( /J.,,,,7-6,)„, vi s),(71 776 NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. C��Or1,a� 03f._h.l ° .(q W,? 4 -t1 (` 2/7 sc} i ?7 . NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. / 615 De. NAME �" ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. to°xi< Mckyc;e_la all east wood Dr. srm 379 8'L8"7 NAME - 7X27446-- ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_ ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. A j ity, � 64.attiVOL 300 -0 a4.2-- NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_ ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. ' /27/51t " 01) LA � ' ' j J `v 1� : I G"X 4 2_, NA*$ ( ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT... ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. 4C144/ '\a,ral_A-4?77N .:;1 /6 tti -- tdc 07) ,_2s - - / - q e,./) NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_ ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_ ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. 7 NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_ ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. \ N - Ncv ` C AL\ j v�, NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. t/ /41.020202 Ab.j GV41g/061 1- 7 7 5 3 & NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. P , , , ,,...-i-., , .4_44.„...., ' 41 CI ... - eA / 0# i g/ - 7 9,2_) NAME ' ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_. ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. v NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_ ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. ji (7 212 Fos/Du-pock qwd— NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. 1 y 5 NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. e' 4 . ()1 E a...04-6060d ,6 r f ✓v 2 gg (e7Y NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT_ ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. da..- ���� 4d e - 1 AME ADDRESS PHONE NO. FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. CipAL14._. inay6/1- _1/11/1/0--- �(7 . c bo L FEBRUARY 1,2000 TO RICK, STACY, REX POTTER, WAYNE MOFFAT, RONNIE KENDALL, DEBRA EDMONDSON, GARY FAWKS, AND PATSY DUPRE SOUTHLAKE CITIZENS LIVING IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE NO. 480 -323, 2nd READING (2A99 -120) BECAUSE: A. STADIUM WITH LIGHTS AND LOUDSPEAKERS: LIGHTS DO NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF LIGHT ORDINANCE. ALSO, DUE TO OUR TOPOGRAPHY, THE LIGHT WILL BE INVASIVE TO OUR HOMES. OUR PROPERTY WILL SUFFER DEVALUATION, ACCORDING TO APPRAISER. B. DRAINAGE OF STORM WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE MEANS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL WATER. THIS WILL HAVE A REVERSE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS. C. LOSS OF OVER 700 TREES MANY ARE NEAR 100 YEAR OLD LIVE OAKS. Cameor3 e Wei C) ( J 69 Ea511, l S g NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM January 28, 2000 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 657 -A, Amending Ordinance No. 657 imposing impact fees for water, wastewater, and roadway improvements Action Requested: Approval of Ordinance No. 657 -A, Amending Ordinance No. 657 imposing impact fees for water, wastewater and roadway improvements on first reading, and after holding a public hearing as required by law. Background Information: For almost one year, a team of staff, consultants and the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (comprised of the Planning & Zoning Commission) have worked to update the water, wastewater and roadway impact fee study that was adopted in 1996. The update, that was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, provided an opportunity for examining every component of the study. The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) thoroughly examined each component of the study in detail, providing input and advice regarding the land use assumption report and proposed capital improvements program. Additionally, the CIAC studied the methodology used by the consulting team and provided important feedback to ensure that conditions specific to Southlake were fully considered as part of the study. The CIAC has prepared written comments on the study as required by law. On Monday, January 24, 2000, a workshop was held with City Council to discuss the study and its components. Staff and consultants were on hand to answer questions and provide an overview of the study components, as well as the calculated fees. To complete the process, Council will need to approve amendments to the text of the ordinance, adopt the water, wastewater, and roadway capital improvements programs and land use assumptions included as exhibits with the ordinance, and adopt the maximum allowable fee and collection fee schedules (also included as exhibits to the ordinance). Following Council's approval of the ordinance on second reading on February 15, 2000, adjusted fees will be assessed at the time of final platting for new development. 4-\ Billy Campbell, City Manager January 28, 2000 Page 2 Financial Considerations: The City of Southlake has collected water and wastewater impact fees since 1990 and roadway impact fees since 1996. A report, detailing collections and expenditures of these funds to date, was provided to the CIAC for review as required by Chapter 395. The CIAC has provided their review of the accounting reports as part of their comments, which have been provided to the City Council. Citizen Input/ Board Review: As previously mentioned, the CIAC has been involved in an extensive review of the study components. Minutes of their meetings were provided to the City Council for the January 24, 2000 workshop. Legal Review: The city attorneys have reviewed the ordinance under consideration. Alternatives: The City Council will be asked to approve the maximum allowable impact fee, as well as the collected fee as part of the ordinance under consideration. The following alternatives may be considered when doing so: 1) The maximum fee approved by Council as part of the ordinance may not exceed the maximum fee published as part of the notice for the public hearing. 2) The Council may set the collection fee at whatever level it deems appropriate, provided that it is less than the maximum fee. Note that our consultants have strongly recommended that the Council consider adopting a collection fee that is less than or equal to the equilibrium fee calculated by our fiscal consultant. Staff, in conjunction with the consultants, has prepared a recommendation for consideration by the City Council for the adoption of the collection fee, as shown on Exhibit E -2. Supporting Documents: "Impact Fee Collection level Recommendation," Memo from L. McLain Ordinance No. 657 -A, including all exhibits Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approval of Ordinance No. 657 -A Lewis F. McLain, Jr. Fiscal Planning Consultant 2515 Nature Bend - Carrollton, Texas 75006 972 -418 -6536 / 972 - 418 -1830 Fax / lfm@citybase.net Memorandum To: Shana Yelverton Subject: Impact Fee Collection Level Recommendation Date: January 28, 2000 I have given a considerable amount of thought to the appropriate level of impact fees to be established for collection purposes. The update has produced the following outcomes: • The maximum water impact fee has risen from $1,798.32 to $3,609.00 (100% increase) per 1" residential meter. • The maximum sewer impact fee has risen from $1,265.68 to $2,249.00 (78% increase) per residential account. • The average roadway impact fee has risen from $649.25 to $1,669.88 (157% increase) per vehicle -mile (V -M). However, some of the individual roadway service areas (SA) have increased more dramatically: o SA 1 - from $508 to $898 or 77% o SA 2 - from $795 to $1,045 or 31% o SA 3 - from $760 to $2,641 or 248% o SA 4 - from $551 to $1,181 or 114% o SA 5 - from $643 to $1,442 or 124% o SA 6 - from $618 to $1,075 or 174% o SA 7 - from $722 to $1,520 or 111% o SA 8 - from $597 to $3,557 or 496% Note that the engineering equivalency table that has been established results in a value of 3.03 V -M per residential lot. Therefore, the fees per V -M shown above should be multiplied by 3.03 to determine the roadway impact fee for a residential lot in Southlake. The legally maximum impact fee (water, sewer and roadway) that could be charged to a single family residential home is $16,636 compared to the current level of $3,550. Related to roadway impact fees, the following observations should be considered: 15 -3 • It is possible that the wide variation between the calculated roadway service areas could present a problem if the actual fees adopted for collection purposes has a similar variation. The cost differences have been documented and represent the cost relationships that might be fairly recovered at a constant reduction rate applied to all service areas. This issue was discussed with the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC), but there may be other perspectives to consider. • The City decided to charge the same impact fee to all service areas in the 1996 roadway impact fee study, thereby establishing a precedent with which to contend. • There is likely to be a perception that great variations in fees charged across the service areas are, in fact, inequitable. The reason for the service area segregation is a geographical limitation established by law rather than by sound planning logic. • The City does not separate the sewer system into service areas, although there could be some logic applied for these projects that mainly divide into two drainage basins. These points outlined have influenced me to rethink the roadway service area collection fee issue. It is my recommendation that the City continue its current practice of charging the same fee to each roadway service area. The next question, regarding the recommended fee to be collected, can now be addressed. Recommendation It is my recommendation that the City establish a collection fee that: • Recovers 50% of the maximum water and sewer impact fee, which is a 24.65% increase over the current collection fee level. • Limits the roadway impact fee increase to the same percentage increase from the current collection level as is applied to the water and sewer fees - 24.65 %. • Retains the current methodology of recovering the same fee level uniformly across the eight roadway service areas. • These changes will result in combined fees of $4,425 or an increase of $875 from the current level of $3,550 per single - family residential lot. The changes in the commercial development could be higher or lower, depending on the type of usage and the revised equivalency tables. 2 ✓t�„L� Additional Rationale There are other factors that I would highlight as having an influence on my recommendation, most of which have been included in one of my reports or presentations: • There does need to be a reduction from the maximum impact fee to establish a collection fee that recognizes the other sources of payments that new growth pays for itself through utility and tax bills. An impact fee payer today (through the builder) is a utility and tax payer within a few months. Utility and tax rates include a component for infrastructure financing. If a new citizen paid 100% of the maximum impact fee, which fully compensated the City for the capital costs, then there would have to be two levels of utility and tax bills, an administrative and political nightmare. The appropriate and fair way to recognize this second method of payment is to reduce the impact fee collection level to 60 to 75% in most cases. • There was legislation passed by both the Texas House of Representatives and Senate that would have required a reduction of the maximum impact fee by a minimum of 50% to recognize the potential for charging new growth twice. The bill was vetoed by the Governor in favor of additional study. My recommended 50% recovery level discussed in this letter is influenced partially by the knowledge of the actions of the state legislature but more so is influenced by the potential revenue that would be produced and the limitations beyond which create certain developer community resistance. • The City has already built most of the water and sewer system structure, some major components designed to handle ultimate new growth. The importance of sustained growth can be dramatized by the examination of the potential for a lessening of impact fees and the resulting base to carry the burden. In other words, much of the infrastructure is in place to handle future growth, but it is a certainty that the existing utility and tax payers will have to pay for the capacity provided for new growth whether that new growth comes or not. Therefore, I am sensitive to the negative factors that would influence future development -- not for the sake of developers and builders as much as for the benefit of the existing rate and tax payers. 3 13'5 c L a a) a) as ■■ a a co .- L o� L co L L 0 0 . 0 v 3 ••— °' `�- o � w CO 42 ft c Z% .— � V) i O a Q �, d E W W N o !a Q ca sz 0 d c -- 0 0 a) CV o ._ < Q 0. o t . o V 0 W W 8 .c 0 H o u 7B-Li I Exhibit A -1 _ • T ai k _. CITY wit um, • OF •ff . iii i. S OUTHLAKE ° - - ®uthTak '� ` r1 N. f 'lei: - • 1 ti , 1 :: • N :■ ,, . .._........_ - " • \ ''. i r :._, „........_ _ 1 __, ,„___,..._. _____,„ .. I( i__ x � I \ _ A IIF —___ \ 1 a te - .- , , \ ^' s . S I= `; ., I tt �. I • _ il - 9 i .._...,-, . . . n I r- i ...... , v ��a —te 1, ` I` I R� v �.. - \ - yr= ! III , !C'i y m ' °"� ..... .t? ..I �s - I I. ,, F .., W - fi r ' ^— ! n ��,� I--� . '1=':," -it ,-,,:„," _ ili 1 _ . . ,........,...._ = , , - I -- --- --_–_ –.- imm-4 II '7__ . , i I 7-12- ' .11Will 1 ' `. ■•___ : , ..,,.,— A [I - e - I L • -rte___ zoC : 'No ill y ^�._ K-a j — • — — � =i2'. ., - °c... 1 . .'=� =•r . — '+. " ' ';� it -___ L •., "r. , W .`i rrr SERVICE AREA FOR WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES 76-ktg- Exhibit A -2 CITY .....- — � OF _ �..�.._ SOUTH l:E outhtak • / _, . ' - rte; ` , L. i:; i N • • • , . . , t l' _ 1 1 J .'�`„ i 1 ` 1 . _ , W E • s .....:_______ ;� , �� `< + ' • r _ ,'., - j am ! . i s = ii..; 1• ! WW1 . 7 ' ' ■;!_le ' • -6---f-''-**r.•1'...■:-----1....,-• 111111 , . _ , . Tag- _ , , , 7 -- , . - -Ft! 1 1 ' IA =��' ! �' h _ _ --._,• -�.:._ ` ! � 1 �,—._ - ; ; _1 . - '" .. `� __ . y - _ =fir ... _ _ IH o f y { ~- I �� ~ z iL..... 0 - __. -, - „.......:-.... t e ji.. ; -.... . -1 immars.„„...... 11 I - _ :: sa . ,- . ` __: I ` ter �; 1L - te r : _ ®: � .. • , • mss' - ° . �.� 4 SERVICE AREAS FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES 7 13 N V C o c0 C m O O N O cn W � _ c C E c� _ J cn O tc E N O o. Q cn co ,3 cc CO CD N Cti t 1- . 7(--i H . L c J 0 v a a -a .. as 4 As" l'i ct .§. i g . :4 2, l c a tu ) 2 0. L. .0 :1-i o (1) cD 2 > ._ p _ ca FL i O LL a = 0 L W }' >, 0 . ..., zit, 15 E — 4.0 simi ylma cn W � oa to a = to i . co > i ap 0 g o E U) r- O CD •— N 4 p ' L = c L T 0 0 - v = 0 a) p EL. li — •-0.. .� G co •— ._ � - > >, 0 NO . cD = W a. W W CI E I— tilm 0 12 u. _ 1 7t -4s s. G) .4.+ CO C W > O _ O v • t Q ` O O 0 iii / = r L G) C L • co a • E Y N C CIS -1-' Q * 1 O •c o . N - O u) w ril .12 y- cp 1 O c X N et COOONNO d u)c)coOOO ` .j 1 1 W O O e- N M M Yr c0 CD O to O t0 N 3 4O O N > ' + 1.1.1 r- N C7 �O d O M V — = r v- J V O. > E 1- a W o d 4 " 00 - =E= =c =cEcmcc 0. aaaaa0•- 0•- 0•- 0•- 0•- 0•-•- Vn > 1— ,EEEEEa --E E - - Qa� €It 65 6666 01- 01- o1- o1- oI- o~~ 0 0 0 C) 0 0 CO 1 1- f+ : N - - - 0 . N N M N' r CV N N M M t0 tC Co Co O a co C r 78"Ut Exhibit D-2 . • • _ TOTAL (1999) SERVICE UNITS (VEH-M1/ DEV. UNiT) LAND USE CATEGORY CEVELOPMENT TRIP S.A. ' S.A. I S.A. I S.A. ! S.A. S.A. I S.A. S.A. UNIT IATE 1 3 I 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 FORT AND TERMINAL ---_ I-- - . . .. _ - . ruck 1 ermine! .Acre 5.55 1 6.56 ! 6 HET' : -- s.ii .. 1 S.ss ! 19.65 _ 19.55 _ _ _ !N CUSTRIAL I 1 ___ L. . .., _ , General Light Industrial 13C .-0 SF GFA 0.98 2.94 0.98 1 0.98 198 ! 0.98 2_94 i__ 2.94 _ 2.94_ General Heavy Industrial/Manufacturing 1300 SF GFA 0.68 2.C4 0.58 0.68 0.68 L 0.58 2.04 1 2.04 2 04 - ndustrial Park 1300 SF GFA 0.92 2.76 0.92 0.92 0.92 1 0.92 2.76 1 2.76 - 2.7s Warehousing '.:30 SF GFA preii 1.83 0.66 0.66 0.66 I 0.56 1.83 I 1.83 1.83 Mini-Warehouse 1300 SF GFA 0.29 0.67 i 0.31 0.31 0.31 1 0.31 1 0.87 I 0.87 0.87 RESIDENTIAL I -. L -- , Single-Family Detached Housing .. 1.",•vrelling Urn 1.01 103 3.03 3.03 3.03 .333 103 I 103 103 • - AcartmentiMutti-lam8y ! Dwelling Ur4t 0.67 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 i i . 2.31 _ 2.01 I 2.01 2.01 - Mobile Home Park Dwelling Unit 0.58 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1 1.7. 1.74 Retirement Community I Dwelling Unit 1 0.34 1.02 1.02 1,02 1.02 1 1 02 - 7.02 i 1.52 - 1.0i LODGING I - .. ctel I Room 0.61 1.83 0.39 0.39 0.39 . C.39 1 i_ 1.77 J 1.47 I 1.47 Cther Lodging Facilities Roam 0.47 1.41 0.30 0.30 0.30 I 0.20 1.36 , 1.13 I773 " RECREATIONAL 1 • i - _„ - J Arena , Acre 33.33 99.99 21.43 21.43 21.4.3 96.44 80.37 30.37 _ - 1 21.44 96..___ Driving Range Tee 1.25 175 020 020 020 ! 020 162 3.01 3.01 Golf Course . Acre 0.39 1.17 0.25 0.25 0.25 I 0.25 1.13 0.94 0.94 HeatthrRecreational Clubs and Faraties 1.000 SF GFA 1.75 525 1.13 1.13 1.13 I 1.13 5.06 4.22 4.22 -I--. Ice Rink 1.000 SF GFA 2.36 7.08 152 1.52 1.52 1 132 6.83 5.69 5.69 Live Theater Seat 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 1 0.01 0.06 . o.os . i . __. . -. _ Miniature God Hole 033 0.99 . 021_ __ 021 _ '6:i .. _ _ 0 _ 0 _ 5 . __ 180 I 0.80 _ _ . ... ... Movie Theater Seat 0.14 0.42 0.09 0.09 ' 0.09 I 0.09 0.41 0.34 I 0.34 - Tennis Courts Court 3.88 11.64 2.49 2.49 2.49 1 2.49 11.23 9.36 I 9.36 INSTITUTIONAL 1-_-_[ L.._. .... ___ A.__ . ,L .... Church 1.:CO SF G FA 0.30 0.63 0.13 0.13 0.13 I 3.13 -- 0.57 I 0.47 i __ . ' 0,47 :ay Care 1,2C0 SF GFA 0.66 139 0.25 0.22 0.29 ! 0.22 1.25 I 1.04 I 1.04 ;MEDICAL ..._ _ __ ._ _ .. nic 1 , : C0 ST GF A 5.18 15.54 - 3:91 .. . 331 . - - 331 7 - ..i:T Ts .4 , 1457 1F 1 1_ :-.0scital Bed I 1.22 3.66 0.92 0.92 0.92 3.92 3.SE I 3.45 3.45 1 Nursing Home 1 Bed I 0.20 030 0.15 0.15 0.15 : 0.15 1 0.60 r 0.57 0.57 OFFICE .. 1 Corporate Headquaners Building 1,000 SF GFA 1.39 4.17 1.52 1.52 1.52 f - 1.52 4.17 .. . 1 General Office Building 1.000 SF GFA 1.49 4.47 1.63 1.63 1.63 123 4.47 I 4.47 4.47 Medical/Dental Office 1 Loco sF GFA 3.66 10.98 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 10.98 I 10.98 10.98 Single Tenant Office Building 1,000 SF GFA 1.72 5.16 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 5.16 I 5.16 5.16 Office/Business Pa& 1,000 SF GFA 1.50 4.50 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.54 4.50 I 4.50 f 4.50 COMMERCIAL. . I k Automobile-related .L___ . Automobile Care Ceraer 1.000 SF GFA 2.03 6.08 1.30 1.30 j 1.20 1.20 1 5.37 I 4.39 4.89 Automobile Pans Sales 1,CCO SF GFA 3.41 10.23 .. 2.19 2.19 1 2.19 2.19 1 9.361 8.22 8.22 Gasoline/Service Station Fueling Position 8.44 5.07 1 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.C1 L 4.56 3.30 180 Convenience Market with 12 or More Fueling Positions . Fueling Position 5.89 3.53 0.71 0.71 0.71 2.71 3.18 2.65 2.65 Convenience Market with Less than 12 Fueling Positions_ 1,000 SF GFA 20.61 12.37 2.47 2.47 2.47 ! 2.47 L 11.13 927 927 New Car Sale3 1 ,C00 SF GFA 224 6.72 1.44 1.44 1.44 I 1.44 1 6.48 5.40 5.40 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Center Service Position 3.11 9.34 2.00 2.00 2.00 1 2.00 9.01 7.51 7.51 -- Self-Service Car Wash Stall 347 2.08 142 142 042 0.42 128 136 1.56 Tire Store 1,000 SF GFA 2.97 8.90 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.91 6.58 7.15 7.15 Dining . -- Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru 1.000 SF GFA 16.74 40.09 8.02 8.02 8.02 8.02 36.08 3037 30.07 Fast Food Restaurant without Drive-Thru 1.000 SF GFA 13.08 31.31 626 6.26 626 6.26 28.18 23.49 23.49 High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 6.19 14.83 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 13.34 11.12 11.12 Quality Restaurant 1.000 SF GFA 4.19 10.05 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 9.04 733 7.53 . Grocery Stores and Convenience Monists Convenience Market with 12 or Mots Fueling Positions Fueling Position 5.89 3.53 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 3.18 2.65 2.65 Convenience Market with Less than 12 Fuertng Positions 1,000 SF GFA 20.61 12.37 2.47 2.47 2.47 _ 2.47 11.13 927 j 9.27 Supermarket 1,000 SF GFA 7.37 22.10 4.74 4.74 4.74 4.74 21.31 17.76 17.76 Other Retail Fres-StandIng Retail Store 1,000 SF GFA 2.53 7.59 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 7.32 6.10 6.10 Furniture Store 1.000 SF GFA 0.21 0.63 0.14 0.14 0.14 1 0.14 0.61 0.51 0.51 PhannacyOugstoni 1,000 SF GFA 5.30 15.91 3.41 3.41 3.41j 3.41 15.35 12.79 12.79 Shopping Center 1.000 SF GFA 2.47 7.41 1.59 1.59 1.59 T 1.39 7.14 5.95 5.95 Video Arcade 1.000 SF GFA 5.32 15.96 3.42 3.42 3.42J 3.42 15.39 12.83 12.83 - Video Rersai Mon • 1.000 SF GFA 6.80 20.40 4.37 4.37 4.37 4.37 19.68 16.40 16.40 Wholesale L. Wholesale Medici 1.000 SF GFA 0.21 0.63 0.14 0.14 0.14! 0.14 0.51 0.51 r 0.51 • SERVICES • I.. Bank (Walk-In) LOCO SF GF4 , 19.39 33.71 6.74 5.74 6.74 L i.74 30.34 1 25.29 I 2529 Bank (Drive-In) 1.000 SF GFA I 29.03 49.20 9.34 9.34 924 . 1 - 914 4433 I 36.90 I 36.90 76 7 1 o o 0000000000 a) 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;., CA CA 00 r r N O O I- C) v O o Ti. C1) V '. 00 ti N O CO CO ` 0 N 00 O 0 ". .1 O K) O CO W N 0 CI N r N r r r r M r EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA N CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD to Cl) CO 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 N ; ■ 00 O 00 O O r C) 00 N F CA V co CA co O 0) co O izt r N CA d' A+ y N I N CA I` I` O CO CO 1- O CO W Ti. r Immi LJ.1 ° to EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA to ma O O V 'C re)° C) o aaaaaaaa V �a Cn ZZZZZZZZ / ) W 0 r CU v � EA EA as = . w 0 0 ++ U. W . > o 0 0 Lei csi 0 ° M co aaaaaaaa - O ♦ : a s h o Lo., zzzzzzzz �/� / V /� 00 r r V♦ A . W ° EA. EA. , ♦♦ E W .� A ppl W °' ._ E 'g V 0- = w 6 J ) d > 1C L a w RS J a) a 0 as u_ 0) g t 0) ca i Q La CV V r Cl M d• 0 CO I� CO U. E ° Q 011 CO CO CU CO CO CC CO J V L` 5 L L L L L L L L a � i m L- - aaaaaaa4V Q a) co o A ii t CO CT/ .v v v v C) V v v LU •d+ = N= co d a a) a) a) a) d a) cu T- �� � cn cncncncncncncn z e e 0 0 O 0 N N N Cl N N N N a) • O o ED 0 LO to 0 CD 0 CD CD C0 0 (0 CD u.i 4 et co thrioeiMMMMM ++ G C et N O N 0) 0) 0) O M 0) as as 0) 0 �et N et CO e et et etetetet et etet W EA E9 ER EA. EA E .E .E - EHEF? e e 0 0 0 0 14) to o te) K) 14) to 14) l 1%. N O o O O 000000c 0 +=+ 0) N et ID LO 0 0 N N N N N N N N 0 e-1%. tf) et 0) N et et et et et et et It U O CO e= e W e- E). E9 EF? ER EA E9 EA. EA. EF} E/. EA. EFL e e 0 0 0 0 CO M 0 0 0 0 t[) to 14) V) tt) 10 t0 1t) 0 e- o 0 (6 C O M M M M M M M M ++22o1M O In o u) 00000000 v e - CO et N 0 e- et et et et et et et et U O M ,- r , W e- EA. Ef? EA ER EA EA EA. EA EA. ER EA. E9 = e e 0 0 0 0 CO CD CO CO CO CD CD CD tr)0 0 0 0 0 0)0)0) 0) 0)0)0)0) > 0e ' ° O 0 0 0 10 to tQttitot[itritri � 10 0 0 0 0 ao0owao00000004 CD 0 S v CO CD t0 M e- e- e- CO M C) M C) CO C) CO W d 4 `' M e= e e • c cn 4.4 ER Ef? Eft ER fA Eft fR ER EA. 40 EA. CU C O O 0 <<<<<<<< O _ 1 > cr) IM M o o O zzzzzzzZ ..a; O� M 0 ti M O Q • U N e- • cn W W = fA E9 E$ O LL V X 0 0 0 aaaaaaaa >i 4 t.) w 0 0 o ZZZZZZZZ V V t i 14)) t 0 0 ' / ^ as e T e = V O. LL We- E 4 V 40, ER El* Nom itS Q E re c 0 m w a >. = E m w — ' W li 2 O E - a) Ts 2 W u " W d c cu c m N a m 2 c N a l i a Z C d 0s i a IL O ) *+ ? 11- LL O. LL. ;e- NMet to C01� W W _ t9 CD a) v L 2 as Q W CO OS CO CO CO CO CO CO d 0) d d d a) 0) as u- G) L 3 aaaaaaaa F- H G. .' ZZ > E i + 3 ' 0 �a)a)a)a)a)a O 0 a L g tea)) Ix tt ;a °r : v) : a� c� a) w m m a m a m as 1_ '" '" Q �°cncn�cncn�cnN i "--- 7 a —L i 1 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM January 28, 2000 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shawn Poe, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: 26 Program Year (2000) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) — Staff Recommendation & Authorization for Staff to submit an application for improvements including construction of a water line for the Oak Lane Addition Action Requested: Staff's project recommendation for the 2000 Tarrant County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is construction of a water line to serve the Oak Lane Addition. Staff seeks Council authorization for staff to submit an application to Tarrant County for the 26 Program Year CDBG. Background Information: The City has participated in the CDBG program since 1994. Prior to 1994, the City did not qualify for CDBG funds because there were not any known qualified target areas within the City. The current target areas were established following staff's request to Tarrant County to perform a survey for determination. Below is a list of the past projects that have been funded partially or in full by CDBG funds. CDBG PROGRAM PROJECT YEAR 20 (1994) 12" Waterline along Florence 21' (1995) 12" Waterline along Randol Mill 22 (1996) Sutton Place Sanitary Sewer 23' (1997) Sutton Place Drainage 24 (1998) Sutton Place Water & Paving 25 (1999) Oak Lane Sanitary Sewer In 1995, Sutton Place and Oak Lane were approved as qualified target areas under the CDBG program. Consequently under Council direction, staff implemented a plan to construct sanitary sewer, water, paving and drainage improvements to serve the residents of Sutton Place and Oak Lane. A list of these planned improvements along with the current status of each is attached (Timing of Improvements). 7A - 1 — City of Southlake, Texas For the 26 Program Year CDBG, Oak Lane is scheduled to have an 8 -inch water line constructed. The necessary right -of -way required to construct the water line was donated to the City by each resident in Oak Lane. The proposed water line will replace the undersized water line currently in use. The undersized water line was previously installed as part of a private water system. The City purchased the rights to the private water system. Financial Considerations: Attached, is a copy of the 2000 CDBG application that includes a detailed cost estimate and project map exhibit. The estimated cost to design and construct the water line along Oak Lane is $250,000. The anticipated CDBG cost participation is $86,000. The CDBG funding is subject to change depending on the amount appropriated each year to the program by the federal government. Nevertheless, the estimated City's contribution to the cost of this project is $164,000. In the CIP budget, $300,000 was appropriated for the engineering, surveying, and construction cost for the water line to serve the Oak Lane Addition. Citizen Input / Board Review: There have been several public hearings in the past regarding the improvements to Sutton and Oak Lane. Previous City Council's have committed to the residents using the allocated CDBG funds along with City funds to construct these improvements. Legal Review: Not applicable Alternatives: Not applicable Supporting Documents: Timing of Improvements 2000 CDBG Application Notice of Public Hearing Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council authorization for Staff to submit an application for improvements including construction of a water line for Oak Lane Addition. Please place this item on the February 1, 2000 Regular City Council Agenda for review and consideration. cQ_ SP /sep 7A -2 1 4 0 ° ° b 0 0 W ," 0 to in o0 0 0 U H N M .0 O A 5 U EA ds O Q U o o O o o 0 ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o 5 GQ - 0 , 0O 0O at - - o EA 00 E w 0 EA 69 69 4.) C) a) 0 a) V) 0 .4 * .4 WI * cn U 4-i 4 4 0 5 5 E-1 ❑ > 0 U * o * y o ¢' * 44 0 0 o 40 444 E a . 0 i O N ^ �N �' > 4 0: E E > o 4 Cm 00 w o a) t 0 2 U 5 N 0 ts E ego a' 0 0 01) 00 w a)) .5 q i . = :rs 2 4) �, fl os s _ ¢' itli 1-4 a) - c) , E -d t C) � w ¢ , - a) 0) 0) o o 0 a a CZ ,...4 U .Q" -g . . ti rI) Fn 0 0 0 EA 0 ett 0 9 ON O\ CA Q\ 0 0 .9. tA go "5 = * EA N W OA OA OA OA O O y -0 0 .� o0 E U e 0 'ai -0 o 0 - o U � ",.- , . " o � U v � • cs • o . o o .a A C7 N N N N N N a E a P.4 kl U a * * * 7A -3 City of Southlake, Texas _ MEMORANDUM January 27, 2000 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services (ext. 772) SUBJECT: Approval of the Facilities Utilization Agreement for Southlake Girls Softball Association (SGSA) Action Requested: City Council approval of the Facilities Utilization Agreement for Southlake Girls Softball Association (SGSA). Background Information: The Southlake Girls Softball Association (SGSA) currently serves approximately 600 children between the ages of 8 and 18. Annually, the City of Southlake and SGSA enter into an agreement for the use of game and practice fields for spring and fall season, as well as tournaments. The agreement also covers the use of the softball concession stand in Bicentennial Park. In general, the facilities utilization agreement is intended to address such issues as season dates, insurance requirements, and concession stand use, among others. Through the years, staff has reviewed other municipal field usage agreements as part of the development process for the current document. The draft agreement is also reviewed annually by the City Attorney and staff in order to address any related recent changes. The draft agreement is then forwarded to the Association for review and comment. Based upon the review of the City Attorney, staff, and the association, changes to this year's agreement include: • Exhibit A, paragraph 7, stating that SGSA may be held responsible for the cost to repair fence damage resulting from warm up hitting and soft toss. • Practice and game dates for the year 2000. • Minor wording modifications intended to clarify the document. Also included as part of the agreement are the general field requirements for SGSA which include: • Bicentennial fields #1, #2, and #3. • Carroll Intermediate School practice field. • Koalaty Park practice fields #1 and #3. • Durham Elementary practice field #1. Financial Consideration: Not Applicable. sr•/ Billy Campbell, City Manager January 27, 2000 Page 2 Citizen Input/ Board Review: The Parks and Recreation Board unanimously approved at their January 10, 2000 meeting, recommending the Facilities Utilization Agreement to City Council for approval. The Agreement has been reviewed by the Southlake Girls Softball Association, and was approved at their January 6, 2000 meeting. Legal Review: The proposed facilities utilization agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and is modeled after previous facilities utilization agreements. Alternatives: • City Council comment and input on the facilities utilization agreement. • Council decision not to enter into an agreement with SGSA for the use of City athletic facilities. Supporting Documents: • 1999 — 2000 Facilities Usage Survey. • Proposed 2000 Facilities Utilization Agreement with SGSA. Staff Recommendation: City Council approval of the 2000 Facilities Utilization Agreement with the Southlake Girls Softball Association. s'.z ;z CJ y . r m ti N U O 'b Z fe .c' . z b v c ; o z o 3 3 '�'? y H N V1 c, Cl) Vl •CC : ■ >+ ›. ,+ >" ±�.. O E"f;_ iS. o d y y 1a; , m °. z 0 0 z 0 o p • R b b k a a • G. tH 4 , a r. 0 O W i n, fn ` i , En O fn p fn 0 cd O ai � , 0 N i N 0. 6) N 0 y h O y p Chi ? . rm. ao z ›, z w Ct b �� 696 c u y a� 0 t C y t) g E . _AT y.i i., O 4 - .4.i".'4;-040 O a° ty 6) a) .0 6) p O y v . O -, p ...4 V Qi `y .G s. Ll. bA 'Jr N z 'J-i z }i vl 69 be hi4 N N Vl a t 46i' = o � c `-'o p 41 O LA E . cd 1 ��yy m 'V t CD .,. • • IZ to Pr :; s9 5 b0 � C L." G' G C Q O y . R a O O O O O O = 04 E U C) U U U U ... 00 b V TY 0 0 0 0 0 ..n +4a O N 44 * Q Q Q Q < O • -0 �, y °' CI z a • °i °p z Z 3 ? � >. z j. o �. a� �: rh , 74 it .0 V cu C = �in c� - H H Lam' .y 66, b �.+ • > •> 44 ���11 f w c41 p F g 8 y G. .. N . GC H • L O r i O O O V1 Q a Gr. r� C' V * V .-�+ N M S •3 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM January 28, 2000 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services (ext. 772) SUBJECT: Approval of the Facilities Utilization Agreement with the Grapevine Southlake Soccer Association (GSSA) Action Requested: City Council approval of the Facilities Utilization Agreement with the Grapevine Southlake Soccer Association (GSSA) Background Information: The Grapevine Southlake Soccer Association (GSSA) currently serves approximately 1,600 children between the ages of 6 and 18. Annually, the City of Southlake and GSSA enter into an agreement for the use of game and practice fields for spring and fall seasons. In general, the facilities utilization agreement is intended to address such issues as season dates, insurance requirements, hours of play, field maintenance, field requirements, and concession stand use, among others. Through the years, staff has reviewed other municipal field usage agreements as part of the development process for the current document. The draft agreement is also reviewed annually by staff and the City Attorney in order to address any recent changes. The draft agreement is then forwarded to the Association for review and comment. Based on the review of the City Attorney, staff and the association, changes to this year's agreement include: • Bob Jones Park fields # 1 through #11, and south practice fields • The addition of St. Martin's in the Field practice fields #1 and #2 • Practice and game dates for the year 2000 • Minor wording modifications intended to clarify the document Also included as part of the agreement are the general field requirements for GSSA which include: • Bob Jones Park game fields #1 through #11 • Bob Jones Park south practice fields • Carroll Elementary School soccer practice area • Johnson Elementary School practice area • St. Martin's practice fields #1 and #2 • Durham Elementary practice fields #1 and #2 Billy Campbell City Manager January 28, 2000 `age 2 Financial Consideration: Not applicable. Citizen Input/ Board Review: The Parks and Recreation Board unanimously approved at their January 10, 2000 meeting, recommending the Facilities Utilization Agreement to City Council for approval. The Agreement has been reviewed and verbally approved by the Grapevine Southlake Soccer Association. Legal Review: The proposed facilities utilization agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and is modeled after previous facilities utilization agreements. Alternatives: • Council comment and input on the facilities utilization agreement. • Council decision not to enter into an agreement with GSSA for the use of City athletic facilities. Supporting Documents: • 1999 -2000 Facility Usage Survey • Proposed 2000 Facilities Utilization Agreement with GSSA Recommendation: City Council approval of the 2000 Facilities Utilization Agreement with Grapevine Southlake Soccer Association. 3'''• Q y o Z o o c)3..) Mz � W = `" g e . :a+ �' �" �' �+ �" �. �' 'C H £ \° �° 0 0 z 0 z Q. o o tF)! ' ro b ^ 0 �, . i , ,,n 3Y- o N Y N -0 a) a) N «3 C y 4° aa) I) a � €,,s s�9 y C� G :It i!1 cd 69 V ��// b a) b W =I a) 8 .d� � ` ° 1: 1 -' -,,,,-,..,:k., --c c q 'F 4 ! .....,,, ,,, 8 0 ' 0 a) Y a) .0 a) a) a) a w '�_. a a. 0 ... 0 0 C o b Lt l O tr" cC �., N ti a) 3 CT o) s a) a7 e CW vi • d. 0 CN v° ,i72- a io 0 0 0 ; o cr 5 Y � 11? jp o 0 0 0 0 0 >"I = w ar e is y �. o >-1 0 0 0 0 0 y _� Q Q d Q d * C �' Z a) a ... 1 ., 0 a, at L ~ p z z z c' a 8 o • y cn i. L C7 E cd cu Ct�� O S m CD y a) a) ++ O •v ir ' C air 'O 7-, U O EA' w e4 en L y 0. C C L 0 " -7 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM January 28, 2000 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Community Services (ext. 772) SUBJECT: Approval of the Facilities Utilization Agreement with the Southlake Baseball Association (SBA) Action Requested: City Council approval of the Facilities Utilization Agreement with the Southlake Baseball Association (SBA). Background Information: The Southlake Baseball Association (SBA) currently serves approximately 1,200 children between the ages of 6 and 16. Annually, the City of Southlake and SBA enter into an agreement for the use of game and practice fields for spring and fall seasons, as well as All Star tournaments. The agreement also covers the use of the baseball concession stand in Bicentennial Park. In general, the facilities utilization agreement is intended to address such issues as season dates, insurance requirements, hours of play, field maintenance, field requirements, and concession stand use, among others. Through the years, staff has reviewed other municipal field usage agreements as part of the development process for the current document. The draft agreement is also reviewed annually by the City Attorney and staff in order to address any recent changes. The draft agreement is then forwarded to the Association for review and comment. Based on the review of the City Attorney, staff, and the association, changes to this year's agreement include: • The addition of two (2) practice areas in Bicentennial Park • Exhibit A, paragraph 7, stating that SBA may be held responsible for the cost to repair fence damage resulting from warm up hitting and soft toss • Practice and game dates for the year 2000 • Minor wording modifications intended to clarify the document Also included as part of the agreement are the general field requirements for SBA which include: • Bicentennial fields #4 - #10 • Bicentennial practice fields #1 and #2 (new fields) • Durham practice field #2 • Koalaty Park practice fields #2 and #4 Sty Billy Campbell City Manager January 28, 2000 , .ge 2 Financial Consideration: Not applicable. Citizen Input/ Board Review: The Parks and Recreation Board unanimously approved at their January 10, 2000 meeting, recommending the Facilities Utilization Agreement to City Council for approval. The Agreement has been reviewed by the Southlake Baseball Association and was approved at their January 8, 2000 meeting. Legal Review: The proposed facilities utilization agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and is modeled after previous facilities utilization agreements. Alternatives: • Council comment and input on the facilities utilization agreement. • Council decision not to enter into an agreement with SBA for the use of City athletic facilities. Supporting Documents: • 1999 -2000 Facility Usage Survey • Proposed 2000 Facilities Utilization Agreement with SBA Staff Recommendation: City Council approval of the 2000 Facilities Utilization Agreement with Southlake Baseball Association. SbwZ U .U. • 4 i .Gr : . Cl) .n cG U Z . � N Z E : a) a) - '.+ u--t)- to m � w. 3 '" 3 4 R ' r te r) ai a a) a) ar r.. E .,4,,,.;,''',.., s ° U) v ; Z b Z Z 0 0 Z o -` C7 o o U i bb �, is o ,;F _ w r~ w d es. c7 to o T dam E� o S' o_. CD C� a) a) a) ¢ a) +• 1. Z -; ' p O o o - CA •n n ca bs 69 v y ;:4 CV b -0 b n w> ,s3 0 a) . a) 4 U u co • o o a, Q ar .r Ds- 12, Z >-, .. .. i. fY , b0 >.. • Z >4 [-- Z >. v1 elj O O 0 b 1'4 o • RS 69 (.4) O o 74 N O cc. VI a? ae an !s. &) � . G7 °�' z z z j. Z Q b w t/] = y 5 bs- : o s o 0 0 0 0 0 co cal cc) c) c) U U U • c) b0 • b v +•, 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O 1 7 z• ao C C r� O ac CO) o O L.. ca al O .,..e. - L• o as —. O L a) O O 3 L O CIS V] d ..1 W Z C., U * V v.4 N M fD-j 5-'4 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM January 27, 2000 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shelli Siemer, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 769, 1'` Reading, Hotel Occupancy Tax Ordinance Action Requested: Consideration of the adoption of a Hotel Occupancy Tax Ordinance. Background Information: The City Council has indicated a desire to pursue the adoption of a hotel occupancy tax in the City of Southlake. The local hotel occupancy tax can provide an alternative source of funding for a city's economic development initiatives to promote tourism in the convention and hotel industry. As explained in the attached letter from City Attorney Deborah Drayovitch, the city may implement a hotel occupancy tax by adopting an ordinance calling for the levy of the tax. Unlike the local sales tax, the hotel occupancy tax can be implemented without voter approval. This memo highlights information pertaining to the allowable tax rate, comparison rates with neighboring cities, the allowed use of hotel occupancy tax revenues including definitions of allowed and prohibited uses, a summary of how area cities spend their hotel occupancy tax revenue, and possibilities for Southlake to use hotel occupancy tax revenues. Allowable Tax Rate - Maximum Seven Percent (7 %) For those cities and counties participating in the hotel occupancy tax program, the maximum allowable tax rate is seven percent of the price paid for the use of a hotel room. Hotel food and personal service costs are not taxed. There is some variation in the levied tax rates for Texas cities. The comparative tax rates for neighboring cities and total revenues collected are as follows: City Hotel Tax Rate Hotel Tax Per Capita Tax Revenue 1998 Revenue Grapevine 6 % $ 3,280,265 $ 112.33 Lewisville 7 % $ 1,012,481 $ 21.76 N. Richland Hills 7 % $ 284,095 $ 6.19 Bedford 7 % $ 831,540 $ 19.00 Euless 7 % $ 332,995 $ 8.73 Hurst 7 % $ 76,687 $ 2.28 Farmers Branch 6 % $ 2,140,128 $ 88.25 Burleson 7 % $ 80,518 $ 5.00 Billy Campbell January 27, 2000 Page 2 The State of Texas administers a six percent hotel occupancy tax rate. There are seventeen counties, which have received legislative approval to adopt a county hotel occupancy tax. Neither Tarrant nor Denton Counties currently levy a hotel occupancy tax. Use of Hotel Tax Revenues - Promote Tourism The revenue generated from the local hotel occupancy tax must directly enhance and promote the tourism, convention and hotel industries in the city, which levies the tax. It cannot be used for general revenue purposes or to pay for governmental expenses unrelated to the task of tourism. The expenditure must be intended to bring visitors from outside of the city into the city or its vicinity. Expenditure Categories The expenditure of hotel occupancy tax revenues must fit into one of the five statutory categories: 1. Funding the establishment or improvement of a convention center 2. Paying the administrative cost for facilitating convention registration; 3. Paying for tourism related advertising and promotions of the city; 4. Funding programs which enhance the arts; or 5. Funding historical restoration or preservation programs. The explanations below summarize the allowable and prohibited expenditures for each of the five categories: (1) Funding the establishment or improvement of a convention center Convention Center facilities are defined as: civic centers, civic center buildings, auditoriums, exhibition halls, and coliseums owned by the city or other gov't entity managed by the city. Allowed Uses • Acquisition of sites for a convention center • Construction of a convention center • Improvements to a convention center facility, enlarging, equipping, and repairing the facility • Operation and maintenance costs associated with a convention center. • Parking areas or facilities located in the vicinity of the convention center • Prohibited Uses • Recreational facilities such as a golf course or tennis courts cannot be funded by hotel tax revenues. In fact, using a portion of the hotel occupancy tax revenues for a city recreational facility has been upheld by the Attorney Genera to violate the intent of the tax. SL Billy Campbell January 27, 2000 Page 3 (2) Paying the administrative cost for facilitating convention registration Allowed Uses Costs associated with the administration of convention includes covering the facility costs, personnel costs, and costs of materials for the registration of convention participants. (3) Paying for tourism related advertising and promotions of the city Allowed Uses Promotional programs or advertising directly related to attracting conventions and tourists to the city. Prohibited Uses Advertising to attract new business and residents to the city is not an allowed use of hotel occupancy tax funds. (4) Funding programs which enhance the arts Arts is defined as instrumental and vocal music, dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture, design and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic, and craft arts, motion pictures, radio, television, tape and sound recording, and performing arts. Allowed Uses • Promotional activities related to arts programs • Costs associated with the physical facilities to accommodate these art forms (5) Historical restoration and preservation programs Funds spent in this category must be used on a project or activity located within the city or immediate vicinity which will encourage tourists to visit historic sites Allowed Uses • Costs related to advertising and promoting tourists to visit historic sites • Costs associated with rehabilitation or preservation of historic structures Hotel tax proceeds may be used for covering a portion of administrative costs associated with implementing programs or projects covered in the five allowable categories. Efforts to promote the city as a tourist or convention location may involve some travel - related expenses. Such expenses may involve the travel to attend an event or to conduct an activity directly related to the promotion of the travel and hotel industry, or travel directly related to providing staff the training to acquire skills and knowledge necessary to promote tourism. Billy Campbell January 27, 2000 Page 4 Additional Limits on Expenditures The statute sets additional limits on how cities can allocate the hotel occupancy tax revenues to be spent in each category based on the population of the city. These limits also vary based on the amount of tax levied by the city. For a city with a population under 125,000, the following list describes the minimum and maximum limits, which must be spent in each category, if the City Council chooses to adopt a seven percent hotel occupancy tax: • A minimum of one percent (1 %) of the hotel occupancy tax rate must be spent on tourism related advertising and promotions; • A maximum of 15 % of the total revenue produced by the tax can be spent on art related programs; • A maximum of 50% of the revenue may be spent on historical restoration or preservation programs, if no revenue is allocated to construction or operating a convention center. Possible Hotel Occupancy Tax Expenditures The primary qualification for the use of hotel ocupancy tax revenue is that the expenditure directly enhances and promotes tourism. The following lists describe possibilities the City of Southlake may choose to use for the hotel tax revenue. Promotional • City wide festivals /events - promoted regionally, state wide, nationally to bring visitors to Southlake (ie: kite festival, Fourth of July celebration, holiday lighting celebration) • Banners on city light poles promoting various events • National and State recreational tournaments (ie: baseball, softball, soccer, basketball tournaments) • Marketing /advertising of Southlake in state and national travel magazines • Contribution to the Chamber of Commerce for the promotion of tourism to the city • Travel expenses associated with trips to Sister Cities by promoting cultural exchanges to Southlake • Possible costs associated with entrance portals Billy Campbell January 27, 2000 Page 5 Historical Preservation • Restoration of historical sites such as the log cabin • Various programs such as oral history events, historical society • Establishment of a historical commission • Historical memorial or monument displays (ie: such as memorial to Bob Jones) Cultural Programs • Contributions to the Northeast Tarrant Arts Council for promoting, sponsoring and holding arts in the City of Southlake • Contribution to Lake Cities Community Band for their seasonal concerts • Masterworks music series • Possibilities to include some costs associated with Texas Sister Cities International • Funds related to displays of public art Convention Center /Visitors Information Center • The city may choose in the future to build a conference center • Designate a location for a visitor's information center and provide materials for visitors. Financial Considerations: If the City Council adopts a hotel occupancy tax ordinance, the maximum allowable tax rate for the city to levy is seven percent of the price paid for the use of a hotel room. Citizen Input/ Board Review: It is the City Council's authority to designate how the funds are used and to ensure they are used properly. It is the City Manager's recommendation that the City Council determine how to spend the funds for the first two years the tax generates revenue. Some cities create a hotel advisory commission, made up of representatives in the travel and hotel industry, to obtain input on the use of the tax revenues. Legal Review: The City Attorney prepared the draft ordinance and provided a summary cover letter regarding the hotel occupancy tax. Alternatives: The alternative would be to either not adopt the hotel occupancy tax or delay this ordinance for a later date. Billy Campbell January 27, 2000 Page 6 Supporting Documents: Proposed Hotel Occupancy Tax Ordinance and cover letter. Use of Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenues - Area Cities Comparative Analysis Staff Recommendation: Please place this item on the February 1, 2000 City Council agenda for first reading of the ordinance. O N cd N .-� 0) O 71 6 7S O � • — O O . y V 2 .E. 0 ue 0 s. U -0 p _0 a) U U co y b 0 a) o - o o'I- U4: UU vU, °° 0 4' 1 ,� E 0 - >, _ a a) C ., p � m q et b,o O p To Ki a) = O 7 O p a) C � 0 + c N 12, tl, 4... O " N cd +- cd N + y + p,„ U p . o A o 0 a) f) 0 u 2 a - o 0 c a0 t > _ o E 2 ai a y o . a .b a) a a , . :, •_ a) = bo to ° _ a te . ' •., 71 •.� o V. a) a 0 `.CD �.. ..adb 3 U o E E•-I al Ew� od.. AU E-+ 3 0 . cu at 0 CA 'N O ° 0 > 0 p" C. i 0 i x ''' 0. do 0. a) 0 0 o o a) y w 4 O ed o C1) �' 4 .• ••z O cd i+ t. m U O. al b b CD - p a) G 1.4 a) " "y O p h+l o x Z.)::4 x ..0 W a-o ° U e) a) .st N O C N C U O O lEi a) .G 0 0 O p•, O •� � O 1 U U E--4 ,. 0 cd . , 3 a, a) 1. O a) p a U Q U Q y v �+ .., a) a) c p a) _ •O y 11 O p U `n.� ^ 4 cdd Q � ^ cd U tU �: O U 0) y b ed • y o O "C) O Cl O p, y r- al . O En Q cu O .4- r.+ a) a) cd V F. Q 'C 'b , Q ^ t O U O a Q , p o° ' o m, o U (n 0., 0 0 U U a a cc: .4 r. O co U c) C y at z 6 C - i�Q .� rA CL W4 ai eI W y O .cn .° a� o = ° Z 0 w N , � 'I Uo 0 �, 3 oO Q ti ' _ ° o i E E "B C 0 v E ; 'fl .r to ti U 0° C=° co (vi H 0 0 • S' E Uy b❑❑ 8 ° " a y a, .b ° y .O 'b .-+ o O = Q y I. O 0 't; U 0 d w vD w W c. u0 Z U o .-, o b , i 0 .. O . .c 4-. g _ ° O o 0 • , a 4 , , o a a� w 4. .o . o N 'o i c • 0 � U3 0 �.° >, .� o any ° w • � .� 0.0 o orA w 0 0 0 a ' b o o a� b 0 o a o i :� o g y o go ° ° 0 > ' o ..,,,• � a� o > 00 e2 O U o >° 0 0 0 o a� 0 b 4 0 0 0 b Q o o. ao > a� > b U 4.4 0-.9W cAxrI w ad 3 -0 -0 a0r °x : rz es ai r� 0 o 0 0 0 t a. "0 o 0 t0 ed e° o 0 v }i V] Li N o o a - - �s o 0 6 in 0 o .. col - o �� O O P4 Oe° i, U • .-" p 0) w U co 0 o cd 0 U ' 0 00 O rs w U � CA 0. cn O 8 CD ^• .0 it rA c*J too a 5f_ — TAYLOR, OLSON, ADKINS, SRALLA & ELAM, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,M 500 THROCKMORTON STREET TELEPHONE (817) 332 -2580 BANK ONE TOWER TOLL FREE (800) 318 -3400 AT WORTH, TEXAS 76102 -3821 FAX (817) 332 -4740 DEBRA DRAYOVITCH email: Ddravov itch CrD_toase.com extension: 224 January 6, 2000 [VIA EMAIL & FIRST CLASS MAIL] Ms: Shelli Siemer CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 1725 E. Southlake Boulevard Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: Proposed Hotel Occupancy Tax Ordinance Dear Shelli: Enclosed you will find a draft of the proposed hotel occupancy tax ordinance which you have requested that I prepare. The ordinance tracks the provisions of Chapter 351 of the Texas Tax Code, which govem municipal hotel occupancy taxes. For your convenience, I have also enclosed a copy of Chapter 351. The following is a brief summary of the applicable law regarding the City's authority to impose a hotel occupancy tax and the mechanisms. • In general, home rule cities are authorized to adopt a hotel occupancy tax within the city boundaries. The City Council implements the tax simply by adopting the ordinance calling for the levy of the hotel occupancy tax. Unlike a local sales tax, the local hotel occupancy tax does not require voter approval. A city with a population of under 35,000 may also adopt the hotel occupancy tax within that city's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) as long as the combined state, county, and city tax does not exceed 15 %. We have provided that this ordinance imposes the tax in the city's ETJ. If you do not desire this provision in the ordinance, we can delete it. The tax is imposed against any person or entity who pays for the use of a room in a hotel if the room is ordinarily used for sleeping and the charge for the room exceeds $2.00 per day. The price of the room does not include the cost of food service or other personal services except those relating to cleaning and readying the room for use. The statute allows an exemption from the tax for persons who have contracted to use a hotel room for 30 or more consecutive days. The statute also provides that employees of a federal or state agency must pay the hotel occupancy tax at the time they use the room. However, such a governmental entity is entitled to receive a refund of those taxes on a quarterly basis by filing a refund claim with the city on forms promulgated by the state comptroller. Current law does not exempt city officers and staff from the hotel occupancy tax, even if the officer or employee is traveling on official City business. Additionally, SheIli Siemer January 6, 2000 • Page 2 employees of institutions of higher education are not exempt from the application of the tax. The draft ordinance incorporates these statutory exemptions. The tax is paid by the hotel customer to the hotel and then is remitted to the city on a regular basis. The state comptroller's office is not involved. The ordinance provides for a tax of 7% of the charge paid by the occupant of a hotel room, and the term "hotel" is specifically defined in the statute and set forth in the ordinance. If the Council wishes to adopt a lower tax rate, we can amend that section. Most cities, however, adopt a tax rate of seven percent. The operators of the hotel must collect the tax, and report and pay the tax to the city on the 15 day of the month following when the tax was earned. Additionally, the person collecting the tax is entitled to be reimbursed one percent of the gross amount of the tax collected if the tax is paid to the city timely (on the 15 day of the following month). The city, however, is not permitted to retain any established percentage of the collected tax to cover their own administrative costs. The statute and draft ordinance authorize the City to take the following actions against a hotel that fails to report or collect the tax: 1. To require the forfeiture of any revenue the city allows the hotel operator to retain for collecting the tax; 2. To bring suit against the hotel for non - compliance; 3. To bring suit to enjoin operation of the hotel until the required report is filed and /or the tax is paid; and 4. To take any other remedies provided under law. The statute and the ordinance further provide for penalties in the event the hotel fails to collect or pay the tax, or fails to file a report as required. Such failure is an offense punishable by a fine of up to $500, and there is an additional penalty of 15% of the tax due. Further, delinquent taxes accrue interest at 10% beginning 30 days after the tax is due. The ordinance further provides for attorneys' fees in the event the city has to enforce these provisions against any person. Finally, the statute and the ordinance limit the disposition of the hotel occupancy tax revenue. Every expenditure of such taxes must first, directly enhance and promote tourism in the convention hotel industry, and secondly, must fit into one of five statutory categories for expenditure of tax revenues: 1. Funding the establishment or improvement of a convention center; 2. Paying the administrative costs for facilitating convention registration; 3. Paying for tourism related advertising and promotions of the city; 4. Funding programs which enhance the arts; or g Ii— f o SheIli Siemer January 6, 2000 Page 3 5. Funding historical restoration or preservation programs. Additionally, the statute provides certain additional rules regarding the expenditure of tax revenues. For example, a city with a population of less than 125,000, like Southlake, must spend an amount equal or greater than the amount of tax equal to one percent of the cost of the room plus cost of tax on advertising and promotion of the city to attract tourist and convention delegates, and such a city is limited in spending a maximum of 15% of the revenue for certain arts programs. Finally, if the City does not use any of the hotel revenue for constructing or operating a convention center, only 50% of the tax revenue may be spent on historical restoration and preservation projects. After your review of the enclosed draft hotel occupancy tax ordinance, please give me a call with any questions, concerns or revisions. I hope you had a wonderful Holiday. Sincerely, /CAA 4 Debra Drayovitch DAD:tml Enclosure cc: Shana Yelverton Assistant City Manager City of Southlake 1725 E. Southlake Boulevard Southlake, Texas 76092 Sharen Elam Director of Finance City of Southlake 1725 E. Southlake Boulevard Southlake, Texas 76092 W: 1SauthlakelLETTERS \SIemer.LTR.DAD.wpd -21 Realty Capital Corporation Richard A. Myers President February 1, 2000 TO: Mayor Rick Stacy Southlake City Council From: Richard Myers RE: Ordinance No. 480 -II, Non - Residential Carports and Parking Garages After reviewing the proposed carport ordinance, I believe certain provisions of it may cause some unintended consequences that are not in the best interests of Southlake. These are: 1. The requirement that carports cannot be built in the 15 -foot building setback area when a commercial property abuts another commercial property. Since a parking lot is often built next to the ten -foot landscape buffer, I believe it makes more sense to allow the carports to be built up to that buffer when they abut another commercial property. The 15 -foot requirement may force the building owner to build the carports right up next to the building, which would result in less attractive office buildings in Southlake. (Please see the attached diagrams of Georgetown Park III as an example.) 2. The limitation of carports to four, regardless of the size of the office project. Georgetown Park III has a lease with an Internet company, which is contingent upon having six carports. They have high - salaried employees with nice vehicles, who expect to have covered parking after moving to Southlake from Las Colinas. Attracting talented high - tech/software experts is critical to their business. The lack of covered parking in Southlake will make it harder to attract the higher end types of office users, which I believe the City wants. If we are unable to provide them with six carports by July 2000, they can terminate our lease. This limitation will also discourage the development of well - planned office parks and encourage multi -lot office projects, since each lot can have four carports. I propose a maximum of six carports on lots containing up to 20,000 square feet of office space, with additional increases in the maximum with larger office parks. 3. You may want to consider allowing carports within any building setback so long as they are not in the landscape buffer. When office uses abut residential property, the roof of the carport may actually provide greater privacy for the homeowner, since it would probably block the view of the office building into the backyard of the homeowner. 4. Finally, since we need six carports at Georgetown Park III, I would appreciate it if you could allow C- 2 zoning to construct carports. It would save us the trouble of re- zoning the property, and I do not see why C -2 carports would bother anyone more than some of the other zoning classifications. Thank you for considering these issues. I wish I was able to atte tonight's meeting, but unfortunately I have a previous commitment. jb 1111 South Main Street, Suite 200, Grapevine, Texas' 76051 • (817) 488 -4200 • Fax (817) 424 -2448 • : " 1 " E 0 12000 I , .,---- ----- 1 ; , . , .0-1 11.1 1 14 In 3` 1 iit MITI lialii II cii i Ii !Mel it iyi.i ,, 1 ' ip l.1 II ll' fh II li lit' II :, .,. ,,,• i i ' I g 4 co I Ili 31 , It 1 t qi - t • P I %Ili ill 'Out it I 1 Oloqiljilliiiiiilitlill gri 3 0 112 i i , s i 1 i i NIA- ?!1 i 14 f 1011p1 ill 1 II ilia _ : I il 1 ; r T Hi : ,„ : . 11 . lil II ri ill f! Pt i iglill 1 1 1! ? -,...1 gl 1 1 i 11112; : . , • 1 ,9, 1 '-• ' • : 1,.1,1. V 11 qi I • 1-- 71 . 1 1 . -', 1 t * i ' : il id lir 1 t liall i ' - .1 11 it III It I l i i 11 r .... q + 4.142 1 ,.. mor Lq____,,,_ i .„ lir 1 k ! 'i'll il ! i 1. t , i ,, 4 ,,, ,,, ,,, , y s ' 11 . I I I I 4' I . 1 , ii4 as E I 1 Li '' , 'I , • gu n lis, s 1! . wAltwo I t ' ' i 1 12 ii r i. ' 'Pm-, . ,,," - HIP i' 111 0 , 1111 1 11 11 ,_,§, . -. _ 7 ..4.1 - -:-...-.... 444011.17 _ 1.71,,: __'' i l 1 It11111 - 4. i 4 4 4 %,401 it, 1 o ig I "'!.. li Wil I illiil i_il'1,1,.I.I IMI 2 ' li. i 'a! 111,41. III ! •'!'' dr i ' 0 a i ,, , .. i - \ . ., , , , ., , I Iii, 1 I 1 II. W. I- r i . p g . I l • .. . 2 i_ip 1 I ' l l!! '11 ... '-',. . ' i •:- l' ;I I. - Ill ' I : . ikt , 114i ii liii hi 1 ii ' g ; 0 . ' ip . i i' 1 lc 11 , f J - . .01 Jill 1 . 7 ------- z_7= -- 7-..1= - L - 7 -.. :171_, -- lri r . I . lit -', 1 .; 1 _ :_ - • I ! 11 I ! 11 14424 i 1 -- _, CI II I • . I i 1 'm t i i t,t i ti li 1 4 : 7 dtC - " • • ..1!•-•i' .1 _ i • II - Ha. .1 _ . ,. .. ', ,.ilti I . ,. "Emo • ' :',.. I ! ,Il ill li ii • . l - 1 I I 11'., - ,............,._)i 1 ' ! i r vi t•: i44,. . ' i'5 'ii 1 Ili . i t,i i ii it i t 4 t i I iii. eh , , Allingil ,. 1:1" :I II, ,17 ,,.. [ ' i‘ . .1 - 10 IP ill. •• , .1 4 li t i= 4 1 „ 17,--itli li ill 1 4 1 ii 1.141.•.•... I° Ili: ' ' :11"' ifir #1 ; • " I ! 1 l i j ',at- i .■ ■ - I L 1 ' - , , ., tt .1_ Ic 11 ' li 1 1 1 li • ' 4 i 1 ' 1 _i_ 1 1 ti V kilts .1 i - l i gl . i j'• - -:„.... , 1 7 7 1 7, 1 :4 4 „,.. • I 1 i ' II ' 6 t 1-: II . , , .._ . , I. " ■ 1 ... I 91 i i i li il e rl: igri " 1'..' • i 1 ' i ' . id --i., --, ..-2, ' ,.T i., • - " -1. ;=4- • - •:''',....... .. -'--7-- . 2 -----. ---- 0 a L{ 1 11 ! 1 1 Iiiiii ! I I I II 1 l itljt1 k t k k 1 4 i 41 - :- 9g ghil _t1 i ii ''''' --i.... ---,,-,.. ------ • ' ''': •,.. ' . 1 .-. `-i I ----„. - - - -:-__ , -,,,,A ) 1 : 1 1 1 4. 1 ' ' '' A !li ii 1 - - o - z M'' • . . . ., - --2 1 11'.1:. '."=' ' :.:I: _ 1 i , • i - - - - - - _ -"127-.1-.4-44•4 1 42 1 - 4 , ,, • . fut ' 8 4 ii Dii 11 g / 13 11! I --i - _ I - 1 1 4 1 ki4,1 1 I Aft / gl ' ' fi 4 `f 01 are g g el iii 1 • tt.1; ' I 4 0 ‘10 gv A , -....,7 . i • I i 4 il ' il 1 _ I 1 117---; t 'ci e.:___ .) I 4 ___ __. i . 11 i 1 g i 1 GEORGETOWN PARK PHASE IV 1.1 .1 OM I. 16V) 1131. MS I 1 I ›' 6 11 i I 11 i )14 5 SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS CNK ASSOCIATES, INC. III I /C C14...0 , ..,4. , euILDIP1/4, 1 1.3..4Cx I 6' i-i' (193' L.) rrENCE ' i t.4 l l w l/ w l i wr 1 w 1 1 w 1 1 t. l l w 1 1 w 1 1 1 1 / t •• 1 ♦• 1, w 1 1 w 1 1 w 1 1 w 4 4— ANCR£W L, JAI JR ` 1 } t A 5 n =l I . t I • I I = LOAD Ldvg - - 1_ 1 ADGU' OAKg aIIBDIVI IC! � 'XI6TiN3 .kT1 I VOL 388 - / ?9 P/1CsE 39 1 `',' Ln�E r(_;‘ em rPftic t5� t " . 7 ". 1 I ' ` 3 1 E, C.T. ' � •' � � . ( D 91/4 _ ... .. .' �.. r 115E OE9IGNA ricw: I I I 9rl> LOW DENS/T7' RE5fCENTIAL i ' ` _ ., 4 1 I . LLD! �; • 5 / U.F. - - - -- --- _ - " I L t . '... _.. T 1 _ — ...... . t.... .1/4 1 1 it 1 /..w 11 11 , 1 D' PIT /3 , 3D' LJ — 1 1 i ll • t � t 1► :113r i . T I n ,� -�� ' 1 1 I , iii m a r t � F'/E0, 5E7� • 1 d r ? GLEI , s ro 4N WILLIAM3 ; t t p v0L. 11862. PAGE /6.55 "�...'CtU OAKS r lcas �311J(. tJ� +---- / R T. T. 1 �\ U5E DESIGNA TIG�N: J ^ =. La4/ 17 745ITY IE'ESIDENTIAL. 1 CI"EN d°4ICLr - -- I 1 - '141911 tm I EX191Ih6 YECi£tAT1G►J I r s\ , - LANK B TO E rreE'5EQVED ' I. `� `!� / 1. • tu♦ t t \` OLAa 1 \— 1 t rt. L4 _ 1 •fll�� 'D1bIN� i "� y j 4 J : ,�'. • Itc;rRlcK , - .,_— _AL;' - -- __ __4.. , - '""� _ 1 fu4LL- l3' x I1' r1eAdN WrTl•I @i). GATE'S r # .rt:(t ri.►i i ai:•r i 11 aw r ■••••r v a+-# 1 � -# t^ i ar+a l as de 1. l i r .r44 • 114-1. .. _ .. L l e r L.4 )& -.d —_ \ ` � Btirtz, ca sET Du , • --- -4 ` E718..1" 8+ -44Me L/N ' -' t 1 . ..- VOL. 871b. PACsE 764 ' :- . ' I , DRTGT. ZONED AG I LAN( U.E DES/GN4T/&.4,, MFXED , ` ,, �r �. iTri ` , _, ,,, f t "t fix- �' l a` t x r r # v, f `e .1 t 1. � t) i � �` ' - � 3; �za� 4 F ' r 4. s., s- , , ...4.4.-' ., s ... . ,.,.... ' . " 1 f Ulltp ti' i $ t .`' _ 11i i 1 rae, i , i $ , • A r \ .aW ,:.• _ • T u ,` '" fin I er N —(635 11°A, L MN Grapevine 1709 (Southlake Blvd Georgetown ¢ 114 Georgetown a Park Y Park 1 a (121) Colleyville (360 oP t ill Description: Georgetown Park is a professional office, medical and retail develop- in ment consisting of over 100,000 For Worth Dallas square feet of mixed -use space. Location: 1/2 mile west of Highway 114 on FM 1709 in Southlake. Easy access to Highway 114 and DFW Airport. For leasing information: Available as Space: 1,000 - 15,000 square feet I CENTRAL REALTY GROUP 1 i t P Lease Terms: Three (3) to seven (7) years LeAnn Brown Tenant Finish Metro: (817) 424 -5700 Allowance: Available Fax: Metro (817) 424 -5790 111 11 11 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 6r. 9,000 ..,,L t t ma ima � ; _ L SF i Cil F- C i i— I L 1 f q i I I C O S 1 OLD - I ` I1 V g i SOLD '� f� ti VI . L 7 1 14,500 C /[ 11 — , f `4 ,, A i; aj y '/ ; �e Georgetown = — �g i , Park b , ` Site Plan ; �1 � -_ r 1 ('' 1 1 Downtown Dallas I Las Colinas DFW Airport Highway 121 ,y? Gr'r oM. Baylor Hospital Grapevine Town Center -. \ \ " ti, 'Shg .. aart r g ._ r - - �. � �� 5. f ut Retail � � — ' `Z` ' ` q Cornerstone Business Park "` ' - -.: _ _ 4 , �. . .. r , . — *.. - — Geo :Mown Park - >_ - 1 tiny Bank . z #v . ' "° Southlake Center €a s .p iz- * g _ - Pritnr0Se School — Kimball Rd. .. Via- ? Kimball Rd wr., .,r.. v 7 c._ a Southlake Facts: 1999 average household income c' $100,000 IN Fastest growing city in Tarrant R MIMI County I 10 minutes from DFW and Alliance Realty Capital Corporation Airports I 1111 South Main Street Suite 200 Traffic Grapevine, Texas 76051 Metro (817) 577 -8880 Counts: Southlake Boulevard: 34,474 www.realtycapital.com vehicles /day , Ir ' i . ' ,,' ;' k j,:i •::: ' -,7_ . .4 -- -.---1 . MIS . • r1« i • «-. ' 7 • • • ' " - . . , 4 .- 1 r - I : _ ... , C ,, . , • ', I ' A t .... . . . C 4 . , . , . . 11 ,',..?" ., , • 1 . ,1/.................".. , ' 1 . . I , . ...... . ,.. .. ■ IA '..' c ,- , ... ., . C , • i ' :-.-: ,'".• - 1 i • 1 ' , ' ' • 1 il r „ • ; . • , -, „..,.•'•^.': I . 1 , ' 1 , ■ , .. .. ,. . . - 1 . . _ . -) Al I . .. . _ - ■ , , . 1 • ; - i — I 1 I I . .,. : -.. ' 44 4 ' ' . 'ii ' • . 1 . 1 ■ , , 1 i:',„, , - i . ,,, :!, • . 1 1 R ,,.i•, t ;, ,, S y r, ' i`• 1 +J . 6 a `� k b T #'" f j h ti ; ' , ), ',„ � : * I . g 1 `'� w to t. 0 s" #1., k A e j 1 1111 , ,;•.,.!0,,,,, , ,.-, ,., -- .........._z____ • , .. • •,., ,.e.,, • ,.. r , , - , t ,i.,,,,,•,,, , , 7 .4,-t 1 , , ,• ,,,,,,..,..., I, , ,., , , , , 1 t „...„.......•,,, , I„ „„ .1 . „,,, r , , lif .141 1 1. T � J ' ' ti § 1 s 4 il i 1 - { P 1 1 ( 1 . I 1 1 w Y Y --- 71 -- �� [ AA 1 '� - .... ' .. iiiiiet—"6 T . 6r'll-ri * ` �n ., _ ,,,�.,; . Is� .. � __ ~� 4 ::::1'; k a A b 3 1 ( MfF . ,: ,..„ • 1 .' f yl� 7yy7 v!!:.: :1- z I t: t9" i;� I i . r.1. ._ ' ' ' (,7 '1; 1 i „ir.-..,,', , . ..,' 1 , : . • ...,., 1 , . .. .. • .,..,....., , `fit 4 . ,, F. �/ ` 1 5 , F I fI • ■ i ir C. : ;, r:: "-'4 - A . ,„ '''''., _ *, , I t' . I I r i r;' L �� F , At y ^► +YIY1=a; 7.1 . ........• - .........n..-"":17 -: .___. _--- .- - --- A!-t!ti 9 aio._w.. P 411111P' . -mi OP • 'A. r • ; 4 4 41P0 \ ? N • • • • Off • 7a v . i =! s. • ./• j am,,,. . -''- ' $ . - . _ t -, , •,iii 1.2e y ∎ „F... . ._. a 4 a w j .. II - r r i li 1 i "a 4 • � a ."..4 e./ �" - "le ';fie} << J ' ,y �, .. .. \ w '. ` 1irp Pt �� i ••� L. ��k � IF S .. / v • 10 4 • 4 1 g Y 1 r_n_ a` he t t 1 ti. t. • 4 ;; 4 ' L }f r w. • '' 1. ;; 114. M F 1:. .. , , ,, t ;j lc • • 4