Loading...
2000-02-15REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 667 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS FEBRUARY 15, 2000 MINUTES COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rick Stacy; Mayor Pro Tem Gary Fawks; Deputy Mayor Pro Tern Ronnie Kendall. Members: Patsy DuPre, Debra Edmondson, and Rex Potter. COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Councilmernber Wayne Moffat. CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Billy Campbell; Assistant City Manager Shana Yelverton; Assistant to the City Manager Shelli Siemer; Director of Finance Staten Elam; 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; Assistant to the Public Works Director Valerie Bradley; Chief of Building Services Malcolm Jackson; Director of Public Safety Garland Wilson; Interim Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy; Senior Planner Chris Carpenter; City Attorney E. Allen Taylor Jr.; and, City Secretary Sandra L. LeGrand. WORK SESSION: Mayor Rick Stacy called the work session to order at 5:55 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. Agenda Items #5-1 and #5-K, regarding TXU electric and gas utilities. District Manager Harriett Gibbons was present to explain to Council the actions being taken by TXU regarding the recent filing with the cities and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to modify, close or delete certain rate tariffs. The proposed effective date is March I, 2000. The proposed changes go into effect on that date unless regulatory authorities suspend the effective date or take action on the merits of the request prior to March 1, 2000. She noted the cities might suspend the effective date for up to 90 days. The work session ended at 6:30 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. The Mayor noted City Council meetings are video Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 1 of 36 and audio taped for furore reference and copies are available from the Office of the City Secretary. Agenda Item #2-A, Executive Session Mayor Rick Stacy advised the audience that City Council would be going into Executive Session pursuant to the Texas Government Code Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.073, 551.074, 551.076 and 55.086, 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 7:20 p.m. Agenda Item #2-B, Action Necessary/Executive Session No action was necessary as the result of the executive session. Agenda Item #3, Invocation Pastor Jo Ponder, White Chapel United Methodist Church in Southlake, gave the invocation. Agenda Item #4-A, Mayor's Report Mayor Rick Stacy welcomed everyone to the meeting tonight and stated, "I think I can help the crowd a little bit because we have a super system to sign up to speak. There are several of you here tonight to talk about opposition to the Mobil Tetco Station at Peytonville Avenue and Southlake Boulevard. We do not intend to talk about that at all tonight. You are welcome to stay for the meeting but we are not going to talk about that tonight. That will be on the agenda for the Bond Program on the first meeting in March. I know several of the notes say that you support four lanes instead of five lanes on the North side of Southlake Boulevard. We respect that, we went to the SPIN meet'mgs and heard that, and we invite you to come back at the next meeting but we have a really full agenda and we are not going to talk about that. If you want to talk about something other than that, we will be happy to address it. I didn't want you to hang around thinking we were going to talk about that." Councilmember Edmondson stated perhaps that issue could be addressed during the public forum. Mayor Stacy stated, "There are seventy- five (75) cards filled out for this issue and we are not going to do that." Mayor Stacy suggested that one person could speak for the group and that can be heard during the public forum. The Mayor noted that members of the Southlake Leadership class were present for the meeting. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 2 of 36 The following announcements were made: Road Closing: Shady Lane at the intersection of SH 114 will be closed for utility construction for approximately three weeks beginning February 14, 2000. February 16 at 7:00 p.m. SPIN #7 will meet at the Senior Center. Topic: Gateway Plaza Phase II. The Greater Southlake Women's Society is pleased once again to offer the voting public the opportunity to greet and hear the candidates for District 98 State Representative by hosting a "Meet the Candidates Forum" on February 24, 7:00 p.m. at Marriott Solana in Westlake. The candidates are incumbent Republican Representative Vicki Truitt of Keller; Republican Nancy Moffat of Southlake; and Democrat Gene Mitchell of Fort Worth will be present to answer questions and share their views regarding issues that affect constituents in District 98. The League of Women Voters will moderate this non-partisan forum. February 26, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. SPIN will hold their annual SPIN Retreat at the Boy Scouts of America National Training Center at Solana. Councilmembers are invited to attend. February 29 at 6:00 p.m. SYAC members will hold their annual "Mock City Council Meeting" in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. March 3, SPIN #9e and #9w will hold an Open House at the Wentwood Community Center in Timarron. For more information contact Shelli Siemer at the City Administration Offices. March 4, from 6:30 to 11:30 p.m. at the Ranch of Lonesome Dove, the Northeast Tarrant Arts Council will feature "Arts Follies 2000, the Tube Revue." For more information, contact Cindy Laster at 282-4832. Councilmember Patsy DuPre shared with the audience a letter the Southlake Fire Department had received from Scarlet Werner regarding an act of kindness shown to her daughter [age 2-1/2 years] by the firemen on duty when she delivered cookies to them at Christmas time. Her letter stated the firemen on duty gave her a toddler bike helmet for use when she fides her new bicycle she received for Christmas. The letter read, "What had begun as a small gesture on our part to thank you for working on Christmas Day, turned into a wonderful gift for our daughter. We received much more than we gave and I want you to know that we really appreciate it." Councilmember DuPre stated she wanted to share this sto~y because she is also proud of our nice firemen and proud of the fact that we encourage children to wear helmets. Mayor Staey said the Fire Chief asked him to point out that Southlake has had two hon'ible house fires both starting by candles. He asked everyone to be very careful with Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 3 of 36 candles, stating, "Whether you enjoy candles or someone in your house enjoys candles, be sure that they are out before going to bed. They can be extremely dangerous." Agenda Item O4-B, City Manager's Report City Manager Billy Campbell stated no report would be given. Agenda Item 04-C, SPIN Report Bill Stone, 1508 Pecos Drive, Southlake gave the SPIN Report. Mr. Stone is the representative for SPIN #13 which includes the west central portion of the City, with the major subdivisions being Myers Meadows [275 homes] and Southridge Lakes [375 homes]. He thanked the SPIN liaisons in his area. Since the last report to Council, almost seven months ago, they have had a busy time in SPIN #13. They held SPIN meetings recently on the Walgreen's store to be located on F.M. 1709 at Peytonville Avenue; The Natatorium at Carroll High School; Southlake Marketplace Phase III [Hobby Lobby] and the Traffic Management Bond Improvements, including F.M. 1709 at Davis Boulevard and Peytonville Avenue. Last week a SPIN meeting was held on the Department of Public Safety [DPS] facility to be located at F.M. 1709 and Randol Mill Road. Over 100 Southlake residents attended these meetings to listen and speak on their issues. Mr. Stone reported, "The meetings were successful. The citizens were respectful to those who presented the topics at the meetings. This is not to say that the residents of SPIN #13 are completely satisfied with traffic, construction, and the many growth issues that confront them." Stone stated there were some residents present at the Council meeting that would like to state their concerns on an issue. He stated he is sure that the residents are satisfied to live in one of the finest cities in Texas, thanks to the finest City staff and many tireless volunteers. The SPIN standing committee asked him to remind the councilmembers of the SPIN Retreat and to extend a welcome to them to attend the retreat. Agenda Item O4-D, Park and Recreation Board Report Mary Georgia, 2404 Taylor Street, Southlake, gave the Park and Recreation Board report. Ms. Georgia stated she was the representing the Park Board She stated the Park Board recently considered changes to Bob Jones Park as well as changes to a couple of ordinances. When SPDC approved the Park Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) at the end of December, they allocated $10,000 for a survey of area residents and teens concerning the need for a Teen Center. Requests for proposals (RFP) were sent out in early January and four firms responded. Staff and the Park Board chair selected the firm of Raymond Turco to conduct the survey. This firm has had extensive experience in park- related issues. Tomorrow a citizens' committee and staff are planning to have an initial meeting to discuss the objectives with the consultants. They will discuss how the survey will be conducted. The field survey is expected to begin the end of February with the survey being distributed in March. Agenda Item #6, Public Forum Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 4 of 36 Mayor Stacy stated, "Before we go onto consent agenda since we have standing room only crowd, I want to be very respectful of your time and try to address this issue first, so that you also will have respect for people who are here for agenda items. If you want to talk about the Tetco Mobil gasoline station issue I would ask Chief of Building Services Malcolm Jackson to come forward and tell us what has transpired." Malcolm Jackson, Chief of Building Services. Mr. Jackson stated, "I have been working with Tetco and with some of the Myers Meadows representatives to attempt to resolve the noise issues at Tetco. Most recently we have been in contact with Mr. Hams, the attorney representing Tetco. Their most recent position is that they will disconnect the blower in its entirety and discontinue its use permanently. In addition to that, they have agreed to address the clanking of the lids on the storage gas tank units and to make contact with their fuel supplier to be sure that the supplies are only delivered during normal business hours. They have declined to take any additional action, generally citing some maintenance concerns with regards to some other suggestions that have been made. I requested Tetco to submit their final decisions to the City in writing and I anticipate receiving that within the next few days. Once we receive that we will make contact with some Myers Meadows residents to see what additional action can be taken at that particular time." Mayor Stacy stated the blowers are the most significant noise factors. Jackson stated prior to this issue resurrecting itself, they were under the operational hours fi.om 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and their intent was to expand those hours to the normal business hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on weekdays and 12 midnight on week ends. Which is still a concern of the residents in Myers Meadows. Brian Hickey, 109 Killdeer Court, Southlake. Mr. Hickey stated they did have a meeting with Tetco and they discussed their concerns with them. Their concerns include the noise fi.om the car wash and the noise from the dryers. The noise made by the cars driving over the tank covers and the supply tracks delivering gas during off-hours is intrusive. They have addressed the majority of those issues. They said they would test all the other options and present the options to the property owners concerning the other issues. We left that meeting with the feeling that they were willing to make substantial efforts to resolve the issues and that our concerns have been heard and that they would fix the problems with regards to the noise. One week later we heard back from Tetco and they only offered one option and that is the option we heard tonight with regard to turning off the blower. They want to run the car wash the hours noted by Malcolm Jackson and we feel this is unacceptable, as we believe it violates Noise Ordinance No. 435, Section H. These options would make it impossible for a family and their children to sleep [there are twelve children directly effected by this noise]. The noise makes enjoying the inside and outside of our homes almost impossible and it does not fix the problem. We understand that a former City Council approved the site plan for this Mobil station and we are asking this City Council help us fix this problem. He presented a petition with 150 names of those requesting help with this situation. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 5 of 36 Mayor Stacy stated he feels those present should give Malcolm Jackson a round of applause because he is your best cheerleader and he is really working for the cause of the property owners. He will see the problems through and he won't stop until it is resolved. We will address the road part of the concerns at the next City Council meeting. Agenda Item #5, Consent Agenda Mayor Stacy announced the following items were included on the consent agenda. He explained to the audience that the items listed would be voted on with one vote and if anyone in the audience had 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 several items had been added to the Consent Agenda, including items #7-F [to table] and #10-A. The consent agenda included the following items: 5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on February 1, 2000. 5-B. This item left intentionally blank. 5-C. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract with Coca-Cola for concessions at Bicentennial Park and to terminate contract with Pepsi-Cola. 5-D. Resolution No. 00-16, Tobacco Use Policy, amending the Personnel Policies Handbook to include a Tobacco Use Policy. 5-E. Resolution No. 00-18, Approving Bylaws for the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors. 5-F. Resolution No. 00-18, Appointing Karen Lyman to Drag and Alcohol Awareness Committee to fill an unexpired term. Variance to Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 4.01 (I) 2, Plat Expiration, as amended extending the validity of Case No. ZA 98-051, Final Plat - Harrell Place Addition. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional service agreement with Belcheff & Associates, Inc., for the engineering and design of sanitary sewer improvements to serve Cedar Oaks Estates. 5-I. Authorize the Mayor to execute an encroachment on easement agreement with TXU for sanitary sewer improvements along the north side of Dove Street from North Carroll Avenue to North White's Chapel Boulevard. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 6 of 36 ZA 00-005, Plat Vacation of West Beach Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, according to the plats recorded in Volume 395, Pages 585, 586, 587, Deed Record Office, Denton County Clerk's Office; and Volume 2, Page 30 (converted to Cabinet A, Slide 12), Denton County Clerk's Office. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. Owner and Applicant: City of Southlake. 5-K. Resolution No. 00-20, Suspending proposed effective date for TXU tariff filing. 5-L. Ordinance No. 764, 1st Reading, Authorize the issuance of Certificates of Obligation, Series 2000. 5-M. Ordinance No. 765, 1st Reading, Authorize the issuance of Certificates of Obligation, Series 2000-A. 5-N. Ordinance No. 766, 1st Reading, Authorize the issuance of Certificates of Obligation, Series, 2000-B. 5-0. Ordinance No. 767, 1st Reading, Authorize the issuance of GO Bonds, Series 2000. 5-P. Ordinance No. 768, 1st Reading, Authorize the issuance of Tax Anticipation Notes, Series, 2000. 5-Q. Ordinance No. 480-331, 1st Reading, (ZA 99-141), Rezoning on property legally described as Tract 5C situated in the Hiram Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581, and being approximately 7.939 acres. Owners and Applicants: Ted and Lesley Holt. 5-R. Ordinance No. 773, 1st Reading, Abandonment and quitclaim of a portion of old North Carroll Avenue to Juergen Stnmck. 5-S. Accepting resignation of Councilmember Debra Edmondson, Place 4. 5-T. Resolution No. 00-21, Calling a Special Election for May 6, 2000 to fill the vacancy for Councilmember Place 4. Ordinance No. 480-329, 2nd Reading, (ZA 99-124), Rezoning and Site Plan for Radiology Associates of Tarrant County. Request to table to March 7, 2000 meeting. 10-A. Approval of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) projects for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. Motion was made to approve the consent agenda as follows: Approving Items #5-A through #5-T; Item #7-F, table at the re.quest of the applicant to March 7, 2000; Item #10- A, with the following changes: reducing the scope of the North Peytonville Avenue Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 7 of 36 reconstruction and adding South Carroll Avenue and Continental Boulevard improvements as discussed in the work session, and further directing staff to use the remaining funds from prior C.O.s for the North Kimball Avenue improvements as discussed during the work session. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Fawks Kendall Fawks, Kendall, DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, and Stacy None 6-0 vote ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on February 1, 2000. The minutes of the meeting were approved as presented. 5-B. This item left intentionally blank. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract with Coca-Cola for concessions at Bicentennial Park and to terminate contract with Pepsi-Cola. In March 1996, the City entered into an exclusive concession agreement with Pepsi-Cola to provide soft drink beverages at Bicentennial Park in exchange for six scoreboards valued at $19,000. The term of the contract was for a period of seven (7) years, expiring on February 7, 2003. An amendment to the original contract was entered into on October 5, 1996, providing for three additional scoreboards valued at $9,948 and extending the termination date of the contract to February 7, 2006. Due to the growth within Bicentennial Park, it was determined that it would be in the City's best interest to explore opportunities to secure greater financial returns in exchange for the exclusive rights to provide beverages within the park. Requests for proposals were sent out and the results were that Coca-Cola greatly exceeded the proposals from Pepsi and Dr. Pepper. The general provisions of the Coca-Cola proposal are as follows: · Ten year term of agreement · Payment of $325,000 to the City over the term of the agreement · City collects 20% of commissions on all vended products · Exclusive package product in all concessions and pro shop · Exclusive Coca-Cola products for all events in Bicentennial Park · Full service vending, two vendors by main concession, two vendors by small concession, and two vendors by inline rink (Coca-Cola responsible for all installation costs and compliance with State and City codes) Sale of 20-onnce plastic bottles. Pricing not to exceed $1.25 on carbonated products and $1.50 on non- carbonated products · Funds to be used to support improvements within Bicentennial Park (annual park improvements would be developed by staff with Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 8 of 36 input from the associations and submitted to Park Board for recommendation to Council) Sponsor Coca-Cola Classic Tournament(s) baseball, softball, tennis, etc., not to exceed $5,000 out of annual funds paid by Coca-Cola. Financial consideration: Coca-Cola is proposing the following arrangements: · Up from payment to City in year one, $100,000 · Up front payment annually, years two through ten $25,000 · Pay City 20% commission on vended products (requesting placement of six vending machines within the park) · Provide all equipment and signage necessary to distribute the product. Resolution No. 00-16, Amending the Personnel Policies Handbook to include a Tobacco Use Policy. Ordinance No. 725 addresses smoking in City facilities. Currently there is not a policy in place that addresses the use of smokeless tobacco products in City facilities. Additionally, no policy currently addresses the use to tobacco products in City vehicles. In an effort to consistently apply a smoking policy, staff has recommended that a policy should be approved that addresses all tobacco use. In an effort to maintain all City property in a clean manner, a policy prohibiting the use of all tobacco in City vehicles is also recommended. For these reasons, staff has developed a tobacco use policy that prohibits the use of all tobacco products in City facilities and City vehicles. This policy would apply to all employees, volunteers, contract employees and vendors. Resolution No. 00-18, Approving Bylaws for the Tax Increment Reinvestrnent Zone Board of Directors. At the January 13, 2000 TIRZ Board meeting, the board adopted bylaws to provide guidelines for the board. During the meeting, the board made some changes to the bylaws. The first change included holding a regular meeting once a year during the fourth quarter of the calendar year to allow for the annual report to be presented at the end of the year, but not tying the board down to a specific month. Two additional changes include changing the wording from "may" to "shall" hold meetings within a public building, and changing the name of the Tarrant County Junior College to Tarrant County College. The Bylaws will become effective upon approval by the City Council. Resolution No. 00-19, Appointing Karen Lyman to Drug and Alcohol Awareness Committee to fill an unexpired term. The vacant position is the position held by former CISD citizen-at-large member Roxanne Matela-Berenbleim. The CISD recommends replacing the vacancy with Karen Lyman, who was working with Roxanne as a parent network-sub-committee member. Her appointment will provide for a smooth transition. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 9 of 36 Variance to Subdivision Ordinance No. 483, Section 4.01(I) 2, Plat Expiration as amended, extending the validity of Case No. ZA 98-051, Final Plat of Harrell Place Addition. On June 18, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the above referenced plat. This plat has not yet been filed in the County Plat Records, and expired on June 18, 1999. The consultant for the project, Edward Childress of LandCon, Inc., acting on behalf of the owner, Wayne K. Lee, has requested that the validity of this plat be extended for 30 days from the date of City Council's action upon this request. Authorize the Mayor to enter into a professional service agreement with Belcheff & Associates, Inc., for the engineering and design of sanitary sewer improvements to serve Cedar Oaks Estates. The amount of this engineering and surveying proposal totals $26,291. The City budgeted $34,500 in the CIP for the engineering and surveying for this project. The estimated cost to engineer, survey, and construct this project is $430,560. The City surveyed the residents of Cedar Oaks Estates to determine if a consensus existed in the subdivision to support the construction of the sanitary sewer. Of the 29 notices mailed, 14 were completed and returned. Of the 14 completed surveys, 8 residents support the installation of sanitary sewer. If the survey is correct, it indicated that the residents agree to connect to the sewer within six months following construction of the sewer line. Authorize the Mayor to execute an Encroachment on Easement Agreement with TXU for sanitary sewer improvements along the north side of Dove Street.from North Carroll Avenue to North White's Chapel Boulevard. The City constructed a 14-inch and 18-inch force main along the north side of Dove Street from Carroll Avenue to North White's Chapel Boulevard within an existing TXU electrical easement. The City obtained approval from TXU to construct the force main within the existing TXU easement prior to construction during the design of the force main (1997). The City also was required to obtain approval from the underlying property owners to install the force main. The Encroachment on Easement Agreement is standard TXU procedure for any improvement constructed within an existing electrical easement. ZA 00-005, Plat Vacation of West Beach Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake. The City of Southlake according to the plats recorded in Volume 395, Pages 585, 586, and 587, Deed Record Office, Denton County; Volume 2, Page 34 (converted to Cabinet A, Slide 14), Denton County Clerk's Office; and Volume 2, Page 30 (converted to Cabinet A, Slide 12), Denton County Clerk's office. The current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District. Owner and Applicant: City of Southlake. Resolution No. 00-20, Suspending proposed effective date for TXU tariff filing. On January 25, 2000 TXU Electric made a filing with cities and the PUC to modify, close or delete certain rate tariffs. The proposed effective date is March 1, 2000. The proposed changes go into effect on that date unless regulatory authorities suspend the effective date or take action on the merits of the request Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 10 of 36 prior to March 1, 2000. Cities may suspend the effective date for up to 90 days. Given the level of study to determine Southlake's position on the filing, and the need to discuss the issues with "experts" in the field, a suspension resolution has been approved. Ordinance No. 764, Ist Reading, Authorize the issuance of Certificates of Obligation, Series 2000. The City is issuing certificates of obligation for capital improvement projects because the projects are more than the City can fund in one year from the current revenues or other sources of funds. The proceeds from the bonds will be used for street and drainage improvements. The debt will be repaid through the City's ad valorem tax rate. These certificates will not affect the FY 1999-2000 $.422 tax rate, and it is the City's intent to maintain the tax rate at the same level in the future within the planning parameters of the multi-year financial plan. The amount of the issuance is $3,895,000 Certificates of Obligation, Series 2000. Ordinance No. 765, ist Reading, Authorizing the Issuance of Certificates of Obligation, Series 2000-A. The City is issuing certificates of obligation for capital improvement projects because the projects are more than the City can fund in one year from the current revenues or other sources of funds. The proceeds from the bonds will be used for water and sewer capital improvement projects. The water and sewer neighborhood projects will be repaid through the City's Utility Fund and the projects that are part of the City's Impact Fee Study will be repaid through collected impact fees. The amount of the issuance is $9,245,000 Certificates of Obligation, Series 2000-A. Ordinance No. 766, ist Reading, Authorizing the Issuance of Certificates of Obligation, Series 2000-B. The certificates of obligation will be issued with a dedicated pledge of accumulated tax increment reinvestment zone revenues, and backup pledge of the City's property tax. The reinvestment zone was created effective January 1, 1997, meaning that date is the baseline for the values within the zone. The City, County, Hospital District, Junior College and Carroll School District property taxes collected on the increment values after that date are dedicated to the zone, and will be used to fund the Town Hall and other infrastructure improvements within the zone. The amount of issuance is $11,940,71 ! Certificates of Obligation, Series 2000-B. Ordinance No. 767, Ist Reading, Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2000. In May 1999, the residents of Southlake approved the $24.18 million Traffic Management Bond Election, of which $17.3 million will address intersection widening and improvements to facilitate traffic flow along F.M. 1709 and SH 114. Also included, as part of the bond election, was $4.73 million for trail development, connecting City parks and extending north and south, and providing an east/west trail along F.M. 1709. The third component of the bond will provide $2.15 million funding for design enhancements to portions of SH 114 as it is reconstructed. The general obligation bonds are issued by ordinances. The Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 11 of 36 5-Q. 5-8. City would receive funding in mid-April. The debt will be repaid through the City's ad valorem tax rate. The bonds will not affect the FY 1999-2000 $.422 tax rate, and it is the City's intent to maintain the tax rate at the same level in the future within the planning parameters of the multi-year financial plan. The ordinance authorized the issuance of $13,637,675 general obligation bonds. Ordinance No. 768, Ist Reading, Authorizing the Issuance of Tax Notes, Series 2000. The Southlake Crime Control and Prevention District Plan in September 1997 outlined the strategies to address public safety issues. The primary and most critical of these strategies is to enhance community safety through modem efficient facilities. During fiscal year 1999, the Crime Control District and City Council approved the purchase of the necessary land to build the first Public Safety facility. The tax note will be dated February 16, with a three-year maturity schedule. The Crime Control District will repay the annual debt service with Crime Control District sales tax collected in subsequent years. The ordinance authorizes the issuance of $2,690,000 Tax Notes. Ordinance No. 480-331, 1st Reading, (ZA 99-141), Rezoning on property legally described as Tract 5C situated in the Hiram Granberry Survey, Abstract No. 581 and being approximately 7.939 acres. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District with a requested zoning of"RE" Residential Estate District. Owners and Applicants: Ted and Lesley Holt. The property is located at 911 South White Chapel Boulevard being on the east side of South White Chapel Boulevard approximately 110' north of Princeton Park Drive. Ordinance No. 773, 1st Reading, Abandonment and Quitclaim of a portion of Old North Carroll Avenue to Juergen Strunck. On June 1, 1999 the City of Southlake abandonment several portions of old North Carroll Avenue in the area of the relocated North Carroll Avenue. Juergen Stmnck and Cooper and Stebbins had a separate agreement in which Cooper and Stebbins would deed property to Mr. Stnmck. Because of this agreement, the City did not need to take action regarding the abandonment of the road to Mr. Stmnk. Mr. Stmnck is in the process of perfecting his title and the title company has requested this quitclaim deed. Accepting the resignation of Councilmember Debra Edmondson, Place 4. Councilmember Debra Edrnondson, Place 4, submitted her resignation on the Council on February 8, 2000, in order to file for Mayor in the May 6, 2000 General Election. According to the City Charter and the Texas Constitution, Ms. Edmondson will continue to serve on the City Council until her successor is elected on May 6, 2000. Resolution No. 00-21, Calling a Special Election for May 6, 2000 to fill the vacancy for Councilmember Place 4. As outlined in the City Charter and the Texas Election Code, in order to fill a vacancy on the Council, a special election must be called. Both General Election and Special Election candidates will be on the same ballot. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 12 of 36 Ordinance No. 480-329, 2na Reading, (ZA 99-124), Rezoning and Site Plan for Radiology Associates of Tarrant County. The property is described as a portion of Tract 5D2 situated in the Obediah W. Knight Survey, Abstract No. 899 and being approximately 1.126 acres. Applicant: Southlake Imaging, L.L.C. Owner: Westerra-Timarron, L.P. This item was tabled at the request of the applicant, time certain March 7, 2000. 10-A. Approval of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) projects for the 1999-2000 Fiscal Year. Each year staffproposes projects to be included in the City's Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The projects recommended by staff were discussed in detail at the January 24, 2000 City Council work session. A copy of the information provided in the Council packets is hereby attached to the minutes of the meeting. The CIP was approved as follows, "with the following changes: reducing the scope of the north Peytonville Avenue reconstruction and adding South Carroll and Continental Boulevard improvements as discussed in the work session, and further directing staff to use the remaining funds from prior C.O.'s for the North Kimball Avenue improvements as discussed during the work session." Agenda Item #6, Public Forum, Continued Greg Carver, 501 Austin Oaks Drive, Grapevine. Mr. Carver complimented members of the City Staff of Southlake [City Manager Campbell, Shawn Poe, Paul Ward and Malcolm Jackson] who have worked with him for about eight days now. Mr. Carver asked for guidance from the City regarding his issues with the construction of SH 114. Mr. Carver noted he wants SH 114 to be built, but is having problems with the job trailers and the storage site, which is near his residence. He asked the city to help him by way of state agencies and local politics. Mayor Stacy stated that Malcolm Jackson would work with him on this issue. Agenda Item #10-Dy Connector Road between Peytonville Avenue and Shady Oaks Lane and the connector road between F.M. 1709 and SH 114 Director of Public Works Ron Harper stated on September 21, 1999, the City Council had a second reading of Ordinance No. 754, for the purpose of amending the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. At that time Council did not approve the option brought forth by staff. Harper presented three options for creating a connector street between Peytonville Avenue and Shady Oaks. With each option he has submitted a list of advantages and disadvantages which are: Option 1. Realign the intersection of Highland and Shady Oaks and proceed adjacent to the southern line of Coventry Manor to a point approximately 200 feet north of Woodbrook. Advantages: Least impact on current undeveloped property. Provides Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 13 of 36 direct connection to Highland. Disadvantages: Most expensive due to need to realign Highland and to acquire property east of Shady Oaks. Tumberry would need to be realigned so as not to cause a multi-leg intersection at Shady Oaks. This would impact the detention pond, which would need to be relocated. Option 2. A direct link between the future school road between Shady Oaks and White Chapel and Woodbrook. Advantages: Best engineering situation since it does not create any new intersections. Provides direct access between all school sites. Disadvantages: Most intrusive on undeveloped property. Splits tracts. Does not create best flow for non-school traffic continuing east past Shady Oaks. Option 3. Connects from the future school road and a point approximately 250 feet south of Woodbrook. Advantages: Direct access between all school sites. Less intrusive on undeveloped property than Option 2. Disadvantages: Creates additional intersection on Peytonville. Mayor Stacy read from Public Comment Forms, those who indicated they are opposed to all three options: Jodie l~eber, 610 Loving Court, Southlake. Susan Hixson, 614 Loving Court, Southlake. Chuck Hixson, 614 Loving Court, Southlake. Matt Tuggey, 1361 Cross Timber Drive, Southlake. President of Cross Timber Hills HOA. Champ A. Lee, 1199 Cross Timber Drive, Southlake. Ken Trumpsfeller, 1793 Kingswood Drive, Southlake. Frank L. Bliss, 1362 Lakeview Drive, Southlake. [Opposed to Option 2] Mel Ottinger, 1005 North Peytonville Avenue, Southlake. Jackie Phillips, 1334 Yr'oodbrook, Southlake. Marsha L. Palla, 1207 Cross Timber Drive, Southlake. Ronald N. Palla, 1207 Cross Timber Drive, Southlake. Donna Bailey Robinson, 1209 Cross Timber Drive, Southlake. Sherrian Henslee, 985 North Peytonville, Avenue, Southlake. Paul Gorman, 1205 Cross Timber Drive, Southlake. Mr. Gorman stated he is opposed to all three options. Paula Eggar, 1075 North Peytonville Avenue, Southlake. Ms. Eggar stated six hundred cars pass her driveway in a two-hour time flame each day. She said she understands that if this is passed, it is just a proposal on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. She stated all three options are a bad idea. Gary Long, 1205 North Peytonville Avenue, Southlake. Mr. Long stated he is opposed to all three options. He thanked the City Councilmembers for voting this down and waiting until all the neighbors have been notified. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 14 of 36 Doug Eggar, 1095 North Peytonville Avenue, Southlake. Mr. Eggar stated he is opposed to all three options. Virgil Swirczynski, 910 Shady Oaks Drive, Southlake. Mr. Swimzynski stated he is opposed to all three options. Steve Lakin, President of Southridge Lakes HOA. Mr. Lakin stated he thinks the problem is that eighty homeowners in Coventry Manor Addition [are] trying to alleviate a traffic problem and by doing this Council is increasing the traffic problems for other homeowners in Southfidge Lakes. The way it is, is the way it should be. "Buyer - Beware!" Mayor Stacy stated that roads are one of the toughest challenges that face this community. He commented, "The Thoroughfare Plan does not mean it is going to happen, it only means that it is possible to happen and that the city might get right-of-way without paying for it." After a lengthy discussion, motion was made to send the three options or other altematives to those options, back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Tie Vote: Kendall Edmondson Kendall, Edmondson, and Potter Fawks, DuPre, and Stacy 3-3 Motion was made to reconsider the motion. Motion: Fawks Second: Potter Ayes: Fawks, Potter, Kendall, DuPre, and Edmondson Nays: Stacy Approved: 5-1 vote Councilmember Debra Edmondson suggested folIning a work group to study the issue of the amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan with representatives from Cross Timber Hills, Coventry, Southridge Lakes and that the neighboring homeowners be included in the work group with the understanding that a majority of this Council believes a road is needed through the area. It is also her suggestion for members of the work group to each bring a suggestion forward. She stated she feels that Council must be prepared that when the suggestion is brought forward, that Council should support the suggestion presented by the group. Mayor Stacy suggested a traffic engineer be included in the work group. Motion was made to approve having a work group to study the Thoroughfare Plan in regards to the location of a connector road between Peytonville Avenue and Shady Oaks Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 15 of 36 Lane. The group should include members of staff, of the CISD staff, homeowners, and a traffic engineer and to move on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: DuPre Potter DuPre, Potter, Fawks, Kendall, Edmondson, and Stacy None 6-0 vote Mayor Stacy asked if anyone present had comments regarding the connector road between F.M. 1709 and S.H. 114. Director of Public Works Ron Harper stated on April 7, 1998, the City Council approved the Village Center East Circulation Study, and at that time the alignment between F.M. 1709 and S.H. 114 was recommended as the final alignment and staff is asking for approval from Council to include Nolen Drive on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. Motion was made to approve the suggested alignment of a connector road from F.M. 1709 to S.H. 114 and go forward through the process of recommending this to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an amendment to the Master Thoroughfare Plan. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: DuPre Edmondson DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, Fawks, Kendall, and Stacy None 6-0 vote Agenda Item #10-By Establish design parameters and authorization to advertise for bids for the reconstruction of Pine Drive from South White Chapel Boulevard to Lilac Lane. Senior Civil Engineer Shawn Poe presented background information on the request for design parameters and authorization to advertise for bids for the reconstruction of Pine Drive fi.om South White Chapel Boulevard to Lilac Lane. Mr. Poe stated the sanitary sewer along Pine Drive was installed and completed in November 1999. The reconstruction of Pine Drive was scheduled to begin following construction of the sanitary sewer. The reconstruction of Pine Drive is budgeted in the FY 99-00 CIP budget. The reconstruction of Pine Drive will be bid following approval of the CIP budget and completion of the engineering plans. Currently the road width varies between 15' to 18'. Trees line both sides of the road almost the entire length of Pine Drive There are limited rights-of-way in some areas if the roadway is widened. Before the engineering plans can be completed, the City Council must decide on the design parameters. The standard width for an asphalt roadway is 22' wide. If the road is widened to the standard width, additional right-of-way may be required in areas and several trees will be candidates for removal. Chris Now, 225 Pine Street, Southlake and Blaine White, 250 Pine Street, Southlake. Mayor Stacy asked Mr. Now and Mr. White to meet with Shawn Poe in an effort to come Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 16 of 36 to some agreement regarding this issue. One suggestion by Mr. Now and Mr. White is a three-way stop. They both concurred that speed on the roadway is a main issue. Shawn Poe stated, "I have discussed this with the property owners [who live on Pine Street] and we have agreed to move forward with an 18' wide width, and eliminate one tree on the south end near the intersection of Lilac Lane; extending the intersection of White Chapel to Pine as far north as possible, so there is minimal encroachment on Mr. White's property." They propose for the new part of the roadway to be 33' [three lanes] wide. Mr. Poe stated they would move forward with a traffic warrant study as discussed in work session. Motion was made to move forward with Pine Drive improvements as discussed above. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Potter DuPre Potter, Edmondson, Fawks, Kendall, DuPre, and Staey None 6-0 vote Agenda Item #8-A, Ordinance No. 480-330, 1st Reading (ZA 99-132), Rezoning and Site Plan for CISD Addition No. 6 (stadium) Ordinance No. 480-330, 1st Reading (ZA 99-132), Rezoning and Site Plan for Carroll I.S.D. No. 6 Addition, on property legally described as Tracts lB and 3, situated in the C.B. McDonald Survey, Abstract No. 1013, and being approximately 42.424 acres. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District with a requested zoning of "S-P-I" Detailed Site Plan District with "CS" Community Service District uses including transportation facility and stadium. Applicant: Cheatham & Associates. Owner: Carroll I.S.D. Senior Planner Chris Carpenter presented the first reading of Ordinance No. 480-330, stating fourteen (14) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and nine (9) responses were received from: James F. Lunsford, P.O. Box 1685, Dallas, Texas, in favor; Jack Lovette, Southlake Cornertstone Business Park, 13154 Coit Road, Suite 102, Dallas, undecide& Ralph Segars, 11560 Hillguard Road, Dallas, in favor; Johnny Beech, 701 Whispering Woods, Southlake, undecided; Louis Kaposta, 2311 Crooked Lane, Southlake, opposed; Iva Lee Johnson, 720 Whispering Wood Circle, Southlake, opposed; Pamela Morrison 710 Whispering Wood Circle, Southlake, opposed; Bobby Struempler, 700 Whispering Wood Circle, Southlake, opposed, and Juanita Sapp, 317 Crooked Lane, Southlake, opposed. Ted Gillum, Superintendent CISD. Mr. Gillum stated a football stadium was purposed for this site. He stated there were four sites being considered for the stadium: Town Square, Carroll High School, the old middle school and this site. After town hall meetings and focus group meetings, this site was selected, primarily because it has the best access and it has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. The bond Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 17 of 36 election went forward and was successful. There are approximately eight homes north of this site. At this time there are approximately forty (40) school district events to be held at the stadium each year as well as play-off games and other games within the school district. The number of joint use events on this property has yet to be determined. He stated they have committed to joint-use of this facility with the City of Southlake. He said there are some meeting rooms under the home bleachers that could be used. The major issue with this site is parking. Mr. Gillum stated all major stadiums built in this area have been built with a 5:1 parking ratio. He stated this causes them to seek a variance. Another major issue for the football stadium is lighting. The school and City have agreed that the lighting needs to exceed the lighting ordinance because of safety issues. Rob Dawson, lighting engineer. Mr. Dawson stated they are seeking 70-foot candles and that the skill level of the players is the main issue. Mark Daniels, Project Manager with Total Program Management, 860 West Airport Freeway, Bedford. Mr. Daniels said the only issue that came out of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was pertaining to lights. Mr. Gillum stated the Pla~ing and Zoning Commission allowed a limit of 85% impervious coverage. He noted they have a 22-acre parking area and have allowed for 1,500 parking spaces. The stadium will have 10,000 seats. Mr. Gillum commented they have had two SPIN meetings. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall questioned the road issue saying, "Dr. Gillum you budgeted to construct the north one-half of South Kimball Avenue in front of your school. I saw a statement in the CIP memorandum that says the city can reimburse the school district, once the debt has been issued to cover the expense of the project. We are talking about reimbursing out of the TIF funds, correct?" Mr. Gillum stated he does not know anything about reimbursement and he thought the district had committed to half of the road. Gillum stated, "I will say this, one issue that is there we don't really know what that is going to cost. Several months ago when the board made that commitment, they committed to $125,000 which was an estimate we had from the developers to the south. He was estimating $320,000 for that section and our program managers are saying that it will be more like $225,000 for our half. I have not gone back to the board to ask if they would commit to that level. I believe that the commitment is there and we need to be sure that we can find the money. I don't think that we are asking for reimbursement." Mayor Stacy stated, "But you do expect us to take the road from there on up to F.M. 17097" Gillum stated, "Yes." Councilmember Rex Potter had questions regarding the motion made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Councilmember Edmondson had questions regarding landscaping. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 18 of 36 Lowell Morrison, 710 Whispering Woods Circle, $outhlake. Mr. Morrison stated he is not happy about having this stadium in his back yard. He's asking for a brick fence instead of a masonry wall. Mr. Gillum stated they would not have enough money for a brick fence. They also asked for a 60' buffer. Dr. Gillum assured the residents that alcohol would not be sold on the premises. But they want to be sure up front that there will not be problems. "Good fences make good neighbors" according to Mr. Morrison. Mr. Morrison said they are asking if other than CISD football and soccer games are played at the stadium, they would to see the lights shut down by 11:00 p.m. A discussion was held regarding the parking and phasing of the landscaping. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall made the statement, "It's the City's intent to fund the infrastructure around the stadium with TIF funds. Earlier tonight we went through the CIP budget and we looked at two things. We looked at continuation projects and we had almost one-half million dollars for sewer budgeted to this site. In the new projects, we had $2.5 million dollars budgeted for roads and other things. We are akeady issuing C.O.'s out of TIF funds to cover the new Town Hall, which is a prior commitment. The property values that exist now in the TIF boundaries do not support additional C.O.'s for this infrastructure, not as of today. We are hoping that early in the next budget year, the property values will be such that we can use TIF to leverage those additional bonds. That is a question mark. It may not be there! If it is not there, that means that it is coming out of the general fund, and that is the announcement that I want to make. I have talked to Sharen Elam [Director of Finance] quite a bit. If it comes out of the general fund, that will be the entire CIP budget for the next year. That will be it, total! I am telling you that up front. I want to say to the public, that I know all along -- you know that the intent would be that these roads would be in place when you open and it has been the public works director's intent and our intent, and it is not guaranteed because of financial constraints and I just know that once the school goes in, if the infrastructure is not in place, there will be a lot of pressure on the city. So I want to go on record, up front, that we might have some financial constraints in the future, but we will do our best." Ted Gillum stated, "We understand this and we know that we have to rely on the city to build South Kimball. So an alternative for us, that we have discussed, is to go up Silicon Drive [Cornerstone Business Park] to the north -- that is an exit that will be there. And to the south, we will build enough [roadway] to get on onto S.H. 26. So, we still have two exits to the site. The bus barn will be out there, and if necessary we can go out onto S.H. 26 and go up Bmmlow Avenue. That is not what we want to do, but we can do that." Mayor Stacy stated, "You also put the Council on notice, that we need to get the next phases of Town Square going." Councilmember Edmondson stated she would make the motion, noting, that she thinks the stadium will make a great addition to our community, and that it is long over due. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 19 of 36 Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-330,1st Reading, (ZA 99-132), subject to the Revised Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated February 11, 2000, incorporating Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations with the following changes and additions: · Recognizing the district's commitment to the north property owner for putting panels in the chain-link fence; · Recognizing the district's commitment to the western property owner with the chain-link fence adding slats; northern property owners with a tilt-wall brick-look fence behind those owners, allowing the district to eliminate two rows of landscaping medians in the parking lot which will enable them to increase the bufferyard on the north from approximately 30' to 50' recognizing they will bring in those exact numbers at the second reading; · Accepting the lighting for the facility, on the field as demonstrated tonight using the internal shields with the visors; · Allowing the district to phase in the tree mitigation plan which they accept over the next five (5) years, so that they can use operating funds instead of bond funds; · Limiting events by entities other than the CISD and City of Southlake to ending at 11:00 p.m.; · Accepting the district's commitment to not light any signs on the north side of the property; · Accepting the district's commitment to the best of their ability to bring forward at the second reading, a reciprocal parking agreement with adjacent property owners; · Allowing white lights; · Allowing the variance as requested from the school district on the lights on the field; and, · Deferring the 8' screening. Motion: Edmondson Second: Fawks Councilmember Rex Potter stated, "I will vote for this, but if I do not get more confidence on the lights at the next reading, we have gone the maximum to mitigating the impact. They need to do a little bit better as to their diminishing returns for it is to their significant benefit to put the shields on the lights. I will expect the school district to come back with a lighting specialist to give more information." Ayes: Nays: Approved: Edmondson, Fawks, Potter, Kendall, DuPre, and Stacy None 6-0 vote Councilmembers adjourned for recess at 10:30 p.m. Councilmembers returned to open session at 10:45 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 20 of 36 Agenda Item #8-B, Reconsideration of the request for variances to outdoor lighting requirements set forth in Ordinance 493-B for Carroll I.S.D. Middle/Intermediate School Reconsideration of the request for variances to outdoor lighting requirements set forth in Lighting Ordinance No. 693-B, for the Carroll I.S.D. Middle/Intermediate School on property legally described as Tracts 1, lA, lC, 1D and 3A situated in the John A. Freeman Survey, Abstract No. 529, and being approximately 37.416 acres. Location: West side of South Kimball Avenue approximately 900' south of East Southlake Boulevard (F.M. 1709). Owner and Applicant: Carroll Independent School District. Staff did not make a presentation. Mark Daniels, TPM, made comments regarding the lights being proposed on the football field. He stated they are 80' high with an average of 30-foot candles. The fixtures are not those being used at the stadium. Dr. Gillum stated they are asking for a minimum lighting not the maximum, and they are appealing to the City Council because they do not feel they can safely light the fields without the variances being requested to Lighting Ordinance No. 693-B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Cindy Sykes, in support of the variance. Carlos Dorris, 213 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Mr. Dorris stated for the record, once again, they are not opposed to the schools, only to the lights. Maureen Bourcy, 722 Byron Way, Southlake. Ms. Bourcy is in support of the variance. Corrine Tuttle, 219 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Opposed to the lights on the football field. Jill Dickey, 1000 Highland Oaks Drive, Southlake. She asked the City Council to look for the good of the City and the CISD as a whole. She stated she is president of P.T.O. at Rockenbaugh Elememtary School. In favor of the lighted football field. George and Lou Ann Heath, 1351 Lakeview Drive, Southlake. In favor of permitting all variances, especially lights. John and Martha Taylor, 209 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Opposed to the lights. [presented letter]. Pamela Muller, 214 Westwood Drive, Southlake. Opposed to the lights. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15,2000 Page21 of 36 Diane Smith Faughn, 214 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Opposed to the lights. [presented letter]. Ken Grossman, 217 Westwood Drive, Southlake. No lights please. Joe Bentley, 214 Westwood Drive, Southlake. Opposed to the lights. Dennis Minder, 223 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Opposed to the lights. Russell Levins, 223 Westwood Drive, Southlake. Opposed to the lights. Pattie Minder, 223 Eastwood Drive, Southlake. Opposed to the lights. Marilyn Johnson 495 South Kimball Avenue, Southlake. Opposed to the lights and the schools in that location, noting that she is not in the school district. Datrol Parsons, 1361 Lakeview Drive, Southlake. She supports the comments made by Dr. Gillum about the safety of the students being the main objective here. Public comments closed. Councilmember Gary Fawks had questions for the school district. He asked how tall the polls would be in this request? Response was 80-feet. He asked what the maximum foot- candles would be on the fields with this request? Dr. Gillum responded that the average across the fields is 30-feet. Dr. Gillum stated it is not a problem avoiding weekends with the use of the fields. Councilmember Rex Potter questioned the number of events to be played at the field. Dr. Gillum replied that if he looks at the 30-year life of this facility, it is difficult to give a number. He stated he does not see more than ten (10) nights per year under the current system. However, if middle school soccer goes in, it may add sixteen (16) games. If he had to commit to a cap at this time, he stated, he would have to use forty (40) games per year. He stated at this time he is comfortable stating sixteen (16) games per year to 2002. Councilmember Fawks asked the City Attorney to comment on the city and school responsibilities regarding this request. He noted the comments were shared with Council and he feels they should be shared with the citizens of Southlake. City Attorney E. Allen Taylor, Jr., commented, "As I pointed out to the Council and as Mr. Olson pointed out in a previous meeting, it is a gray area. In trying to explain it to the average citizen it is difficult because your dealing with two different sources of authority. The Texas Constitution creates the framework of government under which we operate at local governmental level. It creates two types of governmental structures. One is a series of general-purpose units of government -- the state, the county, the city. The second line of governmental entities is called special purpose [district] units of government. One of which is the collective school system. The Constitution says that the schools system [the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 22 of 36 special purpose unit of government] constitutionally created to deal with education, has absolute authority to manage the educational issues relating to serving the public needs in Texas. General-purpose units of government are given the right to enact public health, safety and welfare regulations, including, zoning, building codes and development regulations. What we are facing here, is the gray area where they overlap. Cities have the fight to adopt building codes and development regulations, such as lighting standards, landscaping ordinances, parking regulations, street layouts, impervious coverage requirements, and those regulations are applicable to school districts and all other special purpose units of governments. The test is they must be reasonable regulations, and the imposition of the regulations cannot interfere or prohibit the school district fi:om performing its obligation to deliver educational services. To the extent of what the city is regulating, it is related to their [CISD's] delivery of educational services, and the authority of the city or the county, or the state, is limited. The school district has primary jurisdiction." Taylor stated, "The problem we are facing is the reason all of us are being very cautious of this from each other -- the school district and the city -- is this is an undefined area. No one has litigated what the implication of lights are as it relates to the education programs of the school district. What we have advised the Council previously is that it is a very gray area, in which the rights of the city are not clear, neither are the rights of the school district clear. The lighting issues presented here relate to their ability to use athletic fields for athletic functions. Texas courts have determined that athletic activities or school functions -- God knows we have all learned that, with all the church and state separations and we cannot pray at the events any more -- if the school functions are mandated and are controlled by the school district, then they fall under the educational idea. So the city's ability to limit that is bound by the "reasonability test" and our ordinance or regulations cannot go so far as to interrupt their educational programs. What the Council needs to be concerned about in making this kind of decision is, is there sufficient evidence presented to you in the form of lighting studies, electrical engineering analysis, computer models, to demonstrate that the level of lighting they are requesting is necessary to allow them to conduct their educational responsibilities in running this educational program of athletic activities in the school district? If that is the case, then they are in a position where their jurisdiction may well exceed ours. No lawyer can stand up here today and say we know that to be the case. School lawyers can't and city lawyers can't. This issue has never been litigated. The issue of where to locate a school, or a stadium or a bus repair barn, is absolutely the school district's call. How they build the buildings or design the roads -- the city does have the ability to control, as long as the regulations are reasonable or do not prohibit them in their ability of performing the educational function." Councilmember Gary Fawks stated, fi:om what he just heard, the decision of whether or not to install a lighted field rests not with the city but with the school district. Allen Taylor stated, "Yes, because the lighted field is essential to their ability to use the fields for their educational purposes. Our test here is, are we establishing a minimum of regulations, and are they doing the minimum they have to do in performing their educational functions?" Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 23 of 36 Councilmember Rex Potter wanted the record to reflect that no one on the City Council has ever contemplated litigation against the school district. Other City Council members agreed with Councilmember Potter's comment. Councilmember Patsy DuPre stated she has never even heard that remark coming from a school board member. Councilmember Fawks said when Council looked at the issue the last time, there were some issues that had not been addressed, and they as a body, could not put their stamp of approval of it. Since that time, staff and Council have worked through the issues and technicalities and are now ready to reconsider this issue. Councilmember Potter commented that the issue now is that Council needs to mitigate with the school district on the issues to make the least impact on the residents that live nearby. Motion was made to grant the light variance for the Kimball site for the football stadium for 80-foot poles and no more than 30-foot candles including an exterior shield; that the school district will mm off the lights by 9:00 p.m., turning off the west facing lights first as soon as the event is over; sixteen (16) events currently per year; with no lights being used on weekends; that only CISD games will be played on the field and joint-use activities; using white lights; with no more than 2 V2 foot variance to the candle lights. Motion: DuPre Second: Potter Mayor Stacy asked a representative of the school district if this accomplishes their goal? Dr. Gillum stated it does. Stacy stated, "The argument of these lights to me, is the same argument as building the varsity stadium at the high school rather than at the new varsity stadium site. That is kind of hard for me to swallow. Because I don't like the new varsity stadium site, and I don't like the twenty acres of parking, I wanted the varsity stadium built at the new Town Square with a parking garage. But Dr. Gillum said with the S.W.A.T. Team and the snipers, that they could not control it in a parking garage. I think we will probably have thirty or forty cops down there on the twenty acres of parking. This site to me is absolutely the worst decision [combined] that has been made since I have been the Mayor, between the school board and the Council because of all the decisions that have been discussed -- from money, topography, and drainage. I believe that this site will have parking problems, traffic problems, and it will create drainage problems far beyond whatever TPM has estimated at this point. I think there will be lighting problems and noise problems. I know it is a CIP problem for the City in trying to build up the road and the water that we need to get down there. It is just a big problem to me, and to me the problem is much bigger than lights, and it indicates a weakness that we don't work together enough -- that we don't work with the school board in trying to select sites for the schools. It is dramatically important that we work together in site selection. But based on all of this, it is a done deal and we have to work with it. I hope in the future, we can work more closely with the school district on site selection because it effects so many things." Ayes~ Fawks, Kendall, DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, and Stacy Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 24 of 36 Nays: None Approved: 6-0 vote Agenda Item #8-C, Ordinance No. 480-321, 1st Reading, (ZA 99-108), Rezoning and Revised Concept Plan for St. Martin-In-The-Fields Episcopal Church Ordinance No. 480-321, 1st Reading, ZA 99-108, Rezoning and Revised Concept Plan for St. Martin-In-The-Fields Episcopal Church, on property legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, St. Martin-In-The-Fields Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 1346, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 11.8 acres. Current zoning is "CS" Community Service District. Requested Zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "CS" Community Service District uses. Applicant: GSBS Batenhorst, Inc. Owner: St. Martin-In-The-Fields Episcopal Church. Senior Planner Chris Carpenter made the presentation stating that seven (7) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and one (1) response was received from: Ranch Land Leasing Co, Inc., 216 Warbler Court, Bedford, no comment, "This tract of land sold to Four Peaks Development Company on May 28, 1999, and I think Four Peaks is in Southlake. " Mr. Carpenter stated on January 6, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved this case (7-0) subject to the Concept Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated December 3, 1999; deleting Items #2.a. 1 (cemetery use required to be no less than 500' from any residence and shall be enclosed in a fence); #2.d. 1 (screening on east and southeast); and #3 (bufferyard requirements); and Vice-Chairman Peebles said he is not opposed to the requested variances to Items #2.b.1, #2.c.1, and #2.e but would just like to see them at the Site Plan stage. This item was tabled by the City Council on January 18, 2000 and February 1, 2000. Sam Jones, applicant. Mr. Jones was present to answer questions of Council. Councilmember Kendall asked Mr. Jones to walk through the review summary, noting she understood the comments regarding the request for variance from the building articulation. She asked Mr. Jones to explain Item #2.c. Mr. Jones stated all they are asking for is the reduction from the 8' fence requirement to the 6' fence requirement, due to the fact that the developer on the adjacent property is agreeing to put the fence in relative to the property that will be going in next to the church property and the fact that the fence that they propose putting in will be more favorable to the residents than the 8' fence, as it is such a high fence next to residences. Mr. Jones commented regarding the bufferyard on the east, and stated because of the park land that is adjacent to the area, they are asking for a variance. He explained the situation and reason for the variance to the City Council. All that is required is a 10' bufferyard and they are offering a 40' bufferyard and are asking for an adjustment to the landscaping because they are providing more bufferyard area. Along the south property line they have the same adjacency issue and are asking to not have planted bufferyard areas. They are asking for relief because they are next to park property, although the property is zoned residential Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 25 of 36 and that it is several hundred feet in area. He stated anything they do on the property would be an enhancement to the property. Motion was made to approve ZA 99-108, 1st Reading, for rezoning and Revised Concept Plan, subject to the Staff Review Summary No. 4, dated February 11, 2000, and accepting the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Kendall DuPre Kendall, DuPre, Edmonds#n, Potter, Fawks, and Stacy None 6-0 vote Councilmember Gary Fawks stepped down for Agenda Item #7-G. Agenda Item #7-G, Ordinance No. 480-328, 2"d Reading (ZA 99-128), Rezoning and Site Plan for Countryside Bible Church Ordinance No. 480-328, 2nd Reading, (ZA 99-128), Rezoning and Site Plan for Countryside Bible Church on property legally described as Lot 2, Block A, Ravenaux Village, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Volume 388-213, Page 31, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas; a portion of Lot 2R2, Block B, Ravenaux Village, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tan:ant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 2120, Plat Records, Tan:ant County, Texas; Tracts 6G2 and 6H situated in the Thomas M. Hood Survey, Abstract No. 706, a portion of Countryside Court right-of-way; and being approximately 13.791 acres. Current zoning is "AG" Agricultural District and "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with "CS" Community Service District uses. Requested zoning is "CS" Community Service District. Amended Zoning request to "S-P-I" Detailed Site Plan District with "CS" Community Service District uses. Applicant: Countryside Bible Church. Owners: Countryside Bible Chumh; Integrity Development, Inc; and Oliver Billingsley. Senior Planner Chris Carpenter presented ZA 99-128, noting that seventeen (17) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and eight (8) responses have been received. A copy of this information is located in the zoning file for this item. Carpenter noted that on February 1, 2000, the City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance on consent agenda subject to the Site Plan Review Summary No. 3, dated January 28, 2000, and subject to P & Z's motion, but 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; Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 26 of 36 · 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 properties south of Ravenaux Drive until Phase 2 construction. The applicant was present to answer questions from Council. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were received during the public hearing. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall stated, "As most of you know, I am a member of this church and God has blessed this chumh in many ways. One of those ways is that he has brought in a number of people and the chumh has been packed for several years and I am so excited that they're expanding and they have been a good community neighbor. I know that they will continue to be so. I can attest to the need for this expansion." Motion was made to approve ZA 99-128, subject to the last motion and the stipulations that were made [as noted above]. Motion: Kendall Second: DuPre Ayes: Kendall, DuPre, Edmondson, Potter, and Stacy Nays: None Approved: 5-0 vote Councilmember Gary Fawks returned to the Council table at this time. Agenda Item #12, Adjournment Motion was made to not adjourn this meeting, but to continue this meeting Tuesday, February 22, 2000, beginning at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, and continuing the public hearings on all the remaining items at that time [Item #7-A, #7-B, #7-C, #7-D, #7-E and continuing item #10-Cl. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: DuPre Fawks DuPre, Fawks, Potter, Edmondson, Kendall, and Stacy None 6-0 vote (to continue this meeting). Meeting ended at 12:45 a.m. on February 15, 2000 and continued February 22, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CONTINUATION OF FEBURARY 15, 2000 FEBRUARY 22, 2000 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 27 of 36 MINUTES COUNCILEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rick Stacy; Mayor Pro Tem Gary Fawks; Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Rounie 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; Director of Economic Development Greg Last; Director of Community Services Kevin Hugrnan; Director of Public Works Ron Harper; Deputy Director of Public Works Charlie Thomas; Senior Civil Engineer Shawn Poe; Assistant to the Public Works Director Valerie Bradley; Interim Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy; Senior Planner Chris Carpenter; Deputy Director of Public Safety Fire Services Division Ricky Black; Deputy Director of Public Safety Police Services Division Gary Gregg; Public Information Officer James Kunke; City Attorney E. Allen Taylor Jr.; and, City Secretary Sandra L. LcGrand. Agenda Item gl-A, Call To Order Mayor Rick Stacy called the Regular City Council meeting of February 15, 2000 back to order on February 22, 2000 at 6:15 p.m. Agenda Item #7-A, Ordinance No. 657-A, 2"d Reading, Amending Ordinance No. 657, Imposing impact fees for water, wastewater, and roadway improvements. Ordinance No. 657-A was presented by Assistant City Manager Shana Yelverton who stated that for almost one 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 requirements of Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, provided an opportunity for examining every component of the study. Ms. Yelverton stated that 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. On first reading, Council approved amendments to the text of the ordinance, adopted the water, wastewater and roadway capital improvements programs and land use assumptions included as exhibits with the ordinance, and adopted the maximum allowable fee and collection fee schedules. Council's approval on first reading adopted the impact fee collection level recommendation as presented by Lewis McLain, coordinating consultant for the project. Ms. Yelverton stated the city attorneys have reviewed the ordinance under consideration. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 28 of 36 The City Council was asked to approve the maximum allowable impact fee, as well as the collected fee as part of the ordinance under consideration. The following alternatives were 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 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. The city councilmembers discussed this issue with the consultant to great extent. The individual comments can be heard on the audiotape, which is hereby a part of the record [a copy of which is available in the Office of the City SecretaD']. Lewis McLain, Fiscal Planning Consultant. Mr. McLain presented a memorandum to the Assistant City Manager, which gave his impact fee collection level recommendation, and he stated he has given a considerable amount of thought to the appropriate level of impact fees to be established for collection purposes. Mr. McLain's recommendation included: · 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 $4,550 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. PUBLIC HEARING: The following citizens presented thoughts regarding impact fee increases and calculations that should be considered: Terry Wilkinson, Normandy Lane, Southlake. Martin Schelling, North White Chapel Boulevard, $outhlake. Frank Bliss, 1362 Lakeview Drive, Southlake Brian Stebbins, 904 Independence, Southlake Director of economic development Greg Last was asked to make comments regarding his observations made by the individuals who spoke during the public hearing. Mr. Last Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 29 of 36 stated, "I think there has been a lot of good observations. In fact, the last point that Mr. Wilkinson made brings a kind of good closure to it in that the vehicle mile calculations that have been done on the engineering studies which have a lot of technical basis, adds more detail costs on the types of uses that are coming to the city. That is a benefit to the city in that they are more tailored to the city. That increase, when applied to the table, gives us basically that 24-25% increase based on the old vehicle mile calculation. I think what the development community is pointing out is that a lot of the things that we have talked about being desirable in the city are being incrementally impacted greater than maybe the average than they had anticipated from the old chart. I like the concept that Councilmember Fawks was proposing, in that it provided for an increase to the prior fee. And basically, what he is saying, is using that equivalency table we would implement it basically as established based on the 493 number which was the 25% number. Then again we would have a rationality check as to the increase of that number as opposed to the prior calculation number, not to exceed whatever the number is you choose by policy. What that does is at least normalizes the total cost for the development community so that they do not have to anticipate a thousand percent or a four hundred percent increase in cost. I don't think that they are opposed to a fair contribution towards the capital structure. I think they realize that the costs of water and sewer are real costs that are coming forward. The economic contribution that those developments bring after they are on the ground, not only for ad valorum tax, but to sales tax standpoint. I think you are going to need some kind of increase to cover the inflationary costs for water, sewer and streets. I think they understand that. I think the biggest concerns on the types of uses that we desire, is to not have such a scary fee that the developers will not even knock on the door. If they don't come talk to us, we can have all the agreements that we are going to have and we will not get them to come. The potential developers do not give us a lot of time, they expect an answer in three or four days on what the fees are going to be because they are looking at different sites in the area." Mr. Last stated, "I think having some kind of cap will give the developers and the City the ability to say it shouldn't exceed this for that type of use." Public hearing closed. All the information presented is hereby made a part of the minutes of this meeting. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 657-A, 2nd Reading, with the following stipulations: adopting a graduated increase over water and wastewater collection fees currently in place to reflect a 10% increase effective February 15, 2000; with a 3% additional increase February 15, 2001; and a 2% additional increase effective February 15, 2002; further adopting a collection fee of $493.62 per vehicle mile for roadway impact fees; and adopting a collection schedule that provides the collection of fees by land use and service area as depicted in alternative "D" as presented this evening; instructing the City Attorney to provide ordinance exhibits to reflect these changes; providing in the text of the ordinance to provide that the new rates will not apply to final plats, plat showings, plat revisions currently in process; to include the pre-submittal process; and capping the annual increase in roadway fees to not exceed 25% of the prior year level for any given year. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 30 of 36 Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Fawks DuPre Fawks, DuPre, Edmondson, Kendall, Moffat, Potter, and Stacy None 7-0 vote Mayor Stacy commended staff and Lewis McLain for all their efforts and the gentlemen who commented during the public hearing. Agenda Item #7-B, Ordinance No. 769, 2nd Reading, Hotel Occupancy Tax Ordinance Assistant to the City Manager Shelli Siemer presented the second reading of Ordinance No. 769, Hotel Occupancy Tax, stating the first reading of the hotel occupancy tax ordinance was approved by the City Council during the February 1, 2000 City Council meeting. 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. 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. Ms. Siemer stated the maximum allowable tax rate is seven percent (7%) 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. According to City Attorney Debra Drayovitch, 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%. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 769, 2nd reading, hotel occupancy tax ordinance. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: DuPre Potter DuPre, Potter, Fawks, Kendall, Moffat, Edmondson, and Stacy None 7-0 vote Agenda Item #7-C, Ordinance No. 772, 2~a Reading, Changing a Street Name of Bastogne Way to Merlot Drive Ordinance No. 772, 2na Reading, changing the street name of Bastogne Way to Merlot Drive was considered. 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 is situated along the north side of Versailles Phase I, was approved in Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 31 of 36 1999. A street named Merlot Drive was platted tying into the north end of Bastogne Way. There are no addresses on Bastogne Way. To eliminate the street name change in the middle of the block, Bastogne Way should be changed to Merlot Drive. PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 772, 2na reading as presented. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Potter Edmondson Potter, Edmondson, DuPre, Fawks, Kendall, Moffat, and Stacy None 7-0 vote Agenda Item #7-D, Ordinance No. 480-HH~ 2"d Reading, Revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 480, regarding outside storage, outside display and screening Zoning Administrator Karen Gandy presented the second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 480-HH, regarding provisions for outside storage and screening. The draft being considered addressed changes recommended by Mayor Pro Tem Fawks regarding the storage of living plant materials; recommendations from Councilmember Edmondson regarding cart storage areas and recommendations from Councilmember Potter regarding items located in front of buildings and visible from public right-of-way, dumpster screening and several minor changes as noted. It also included the one-year amortization period drafted by the city attorney. Ms. Gandy stated on January 18, 2000, Council discussed the ordinance and tabled the first reading due to the following unresolved issues: Whether or not to allow display of sales items (e.g. vending machines, ice machines, Christmas trees, etc.) and charitable sales events in front of principal buildings; Whether or not the displayed items should include living plant materials; Whether or not these displayed items should be screened with a wall constructed of masonry or similar materials; Whether or not this ordinance would prevent the flea market from operating; and, What is the appropriate way to bring existing outside storage/display users into compliance with these new regulations? On February 1, 2000, the City Council approved first reading of Ordinance No. 480-HH. Councilmember Gary Fawks stated he felt it was a good ordinance and a lot of work had gone into writing it. He stated he was going to vote for the ordinance, whether or not the vending machines were placed inside the buildings. Mayor Stacy agreed with Fawks. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 32 of 36 An extensive discussion was held by councilmembers regarding the issues stated above. Councilmember Patsy DuPre presented photographs of vending machines outside the buildings in Southlake and Councilmember Rex Potter presented recently taken slides of vending machines on the outside of buildings in Southlake. Councilmember DuPre stated, "Right now what we are proposing is any vending machines or any ice machines shall not be located outside anymore." DuPre stated, "I don't have a problem with a 4' wall and hiding all of the items that were showed behind a 4' wall. I guess the only one that I was concemed about was Coke machines being hidden behind a wall if they can't go inside." Potter stated his concerns are that if someone goes off and builds a wall, there is nothing that prevents them from building a wall today. DuPre had questions about the articulation on a screening wall, and read from the ordinance, "If someone builds a wall, it has to meet the articulation." Councilmember Potter stated he felt it was the kind of look that the Council wanted to have. Potter said, "Council has gone through all of this effort, and I wonder why do we want to have the machines outside?" Mr. Potter commented that the city of Fort Worth does not have outside vending machines and if they have an ordinance against them, why can't Southlake? Mayor Stacy jokingly stated, "Rex, I think I will go out and buy a dozen Coke machines and put them across my front pomh at the house, so that when you drive by, you will have to look at my Coke machines." Counilmember Wayne Moffat stated he applauds Potter's passion and concern but he disagrees. He stated he appreciates the fact that Potter cares so much. PUBLIC HEARING: Tracy Willobee, 1221 Timberline Court, Southlake. Ms. Willobee stated she feels the machines should remain outside for the convenience of the mothers with small children who want to pull up and get a cold drink without having to take the children inside the buildings. She feels having a wall put up in front of the machine would be a safety issue to her as well. Councilmember DuPre stated what if the business is closed and you have a car full of children and they want a soda? Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-HH, 2nd Reading, directing staff to delete all references to outside storage in all non-residential zoning categories; amending tonight's presentation to delete vending machines and pre-packaged ice machines as permitted for storage outdoors forward of the principal building; and allowing outdoor storage of bagged grass seed, fertilizer, mulching, bark chips, play sand, potting soil and fire wood forward of principal buildings behind a wall not to exceed four-feet, that is at least one foot taller than the stored area, that does not require articulation. Further amend Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 33 of 36 this ordinance to allow for outside storage of propane in approved screened area as further permitted by the Fire Marshal. Motion: Fawks Second: Potter Councilmember DuPre stated she still does not have much problem with the Coke machines outside. She stated she would support this ordinance because overall she feels it is a good idea for the city. Councilmember Wayne Moffat stated on behalf of the mothers and children in Southlake, that he will vote against this ordinance. Ayes: Nays: Approved: Fawks, Potter, DuPre, Edmondson, and Kendall Moffat, Stacy 5-2 vote Council adjourned for recess at 8:45 p.m. Council returned to open session at 9:00 p.m. Agenda Item #7-E~ Ordinance No. 480-327~ 2"d Reading~ (ZA 99-131), Rezoning and Site Plan for Lot 3, Block 2, Gateway Plaza Addition Ordinance No. 480-327, 2nd 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, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, according to plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 5365 and 5366, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, and being approximately 1.15 acres. Current zoning is "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District with limited "C-3" General Commercial District uses. [specific uses outlined on the agenda for this meeting]. Applicant: O'Brien & Associates, Inc. Owner: Wyndham Properties, Ltd. Senior Planner Chris Carpenter made the presentation on this case, and stated seven (7) notices were sent to property owners within the 200' notification area and one (1) response was received from J. Michael Tate, D.D.S. 3101 East Parkway, Southake, undecided. The City Council approved the first reading of this ordinance on February 1, 2000, subject to the Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated January 14, 2000, and subject to P&Z's motion deleting Item #1 (pitched roof) and modifying permitted uses to read: "S- P-I" Detailed Site Plan District with "O-1" Office District uses, a retail fabric store, and sit-down restaurant open no later than 2:00 a.m. and subject to revised elevations submitted at the meeting. Terry Wilkinson, applicant. Mr. Wilkinson stated there are no changes from the first reading. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 34 of 36 PUBLIC HEARING: No comments were made during the public hearing. Motion was made to approve Ordinance No. 480-327, 2nd Reading, (ZA 99-131), subject to the motion made on the first reading of the ordinance [as noted in the minutes of this meeting]. Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: Fawks Edmondson Fawks, Edmondson, DuPre, Potter, Moffat, and Stacy None 6-0 vote Councilmember Kendall was out of the room and did not vote on Item #7-E. Agenda Item #10-C, Revisions to the Park Use Policy regarding fundraising events Director of Community Services Kevin Hugman stated at the September 13, 1999 Parks and Recreation Board meeting, a consider item on the agenda was the approval of a request from the Lake Cities Mothers of Multiples (LCMM) to hold a fundraising event at Bicentennial Park. During consideration of this item the Board discussed that the current Park Use Policy does not establish guidelines to consider fundraising events at parks and public facilities on a case-by-case- basis. As mentioned in the discussion, the absence of a consistent policy for approval/disapproval of such events could increase the City's exposure to litigation and/or liability. The Board approved this request on a regular agenda, but requested a revision to the Park Use Policy that addresses this issue for their consideration. Staff further researched the issues involved, and found that most cities do not have a policy that establishes guidelines for evaluation of fundraising requests by community-based organizations. Generally most cities do not allow fundraising events unless the event is a City sanctioned or sponsored event. In further review with the City Attorney, it was determined that "sponsorship" did not readily clarify the issues of appropriateness, but did create more potential liability for the City. As a result, wording regarding City-sponsorship was deleted from the proposed revision, while still retaining the idea that a large, special event that created significant public interest was the preferred approach. The Park Board at its January 10, 2000 meeting considered these changes. Some Board members expressed concerns that this was too restrictive an approach. The Park Board did vote to recommend the proposed revisions to City Council for approval. Recognizing the differing opinions, and the complexity of this issue, staff has also prepared an Alternate "A" approach, which is considerably less restrictive as to the types of fundraising events that may be approved to be held in City parks or public facilities. Councilmember Ronnie Kendall stated she was the reason that we have Alternate "A" She said she feels strongly that the City should not be limiting this, and that the original proposal was too restrictive. She stated she feels we will have smaller events -- that other organizations might want to have an opportunity to hold events here. Even under alternate "A" she does not feel the City should limit this to 501C (3) organizations. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 35 of 36 Councilmember Potter commented, "where do you draw the line? The smaller things like garage sales? Would [we] ask them to use the commemial parking lot? We get some activity that we don't feel is appropriate and the general citizens do not feel are appropriate, but we cannot say no because we have opened the door." Councilmember Kendall stated that the freedom of speech organizations have a fight as well to have such events. Mayor Stacy stated he agreed with Ms. Kendall and likes the odds of allowing all the organizations to request events. Councilmember DuPre stated the ordinance does not seem to limit the events to organizations that are large enough to do them. She made a comment questioning how "non-profit organizations" using facilities would be handled and used the Diabetics Association as an example. Councilmembers expressed that the users be responsible for clean up after the event. Motion was made to approve the following revision to the Park Use Policy regarding fundraising events as follows: Motion: Second: Ayes: Nays: Approved: · Using Alternate "A" · Under 2B1, removing section 501C(3) · Eliminate Section 3 · Section 4, sufficient lead time for staff to schedule events · Add a section to require a sufficient clean up fee, with the amount being at the discretion of staff. Kendall Edmondson Kendall, Edmondson, Potter, Fawks, Moffat, DuPre, and Stacy None 7-0 vote Agenda Item #12, Adjournment Mayor Stacy adjourned the continuation of the February 15, 2000 meeting at 9:30 p.m. Sandra L. LeGrand City Secretary N:\City Secretary~llNUTES\cc-min-2-15 -00.d~ ~111111t1%%1~\x Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2000 Page 36 of 36 Debra Edmondson 1306 Plantation Dr. Southlake, TX 76092 Home Phone 817 - 488 -3144 FEB EB 8 2n00 February 08, 2000 L... Sandy LeGrand, City of Southlake 1725 E. Southlake Blvd. Southlake, TX 76092 Dear Billy, In accordance with Section 2.08 of the Southlake City Charter, I am resigning my Council position, Place 4, to run for the office of Mayor of Southlake. Referencing the letter from Southlake's city attorney, I will continue to serve the citizens of Southlake as a councilmember until my successor for Council Place 4 is chosen in the May 2000 election. It is a privilege to serve this City, and I am looking forward to working with the Council leading Southlake into the 21st century. Si e ely, I TO k P • : a Edmondson MS. ANN K. CREIGHTON 705 LAKEHURST COURT SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 February 21, 2000 Hon. Rick Stacy Councilmember Rex Potter Councilmember Debra Edmondson Councilmember Patsy DuPre Councilmember Wayne Moffat Councilmember Ronnie Kendall Councilmember Gary Fawks City of Southlake Administration Building Southlake, TX 76092 RE: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Dear Mayor Stacy and Councilmembers: I have decided to resign my position on the City of Southlake's Planning & Zoning Commission to seek a seat on the Southlake City Council. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to serve the City on the Commission and hope to be able to provide further service to the City in the future. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with you over the past several years. Very truly yours, k Ann K. eighton AKC/ cc: Ms. Sandra LeGrand, City Secretary Mr. Billy Campbell, City Manager Master Thoroughfare Amendment Shady Oaks to Peytonville I am opposed to all three of the Options for the proposed Shady Oaks to Peytonville Thoroughfare. X /) LC 1 Q - Date:. / j Name: ) e, c !' �� r f ' Address: / ( 7 ,k' Master Thoroughfare Amendment Shady Oaks to Peytonville I am opposed to all three of the Options for the proposed Shady Oaks to Peytonville Thoroughfare. X r _ / lc _D )ate: '- k T ;- C: i > r -, \ce\ � c 1 v t`� \\ s`� Name: � �-.-- ;-- Address: ON(. Master Thoroughfare Amendment Shady Oaks to Peytonville I am opposed to all three of the Options for the proposed Shady Oaks to Peytonville Thoroughfare. 7 fi '7 � Date: 6 /670 Name: 12c/thi / di Address • / z c- T My name is Donna Robinson I live at 1209 Cross Timber Drive; my home backs up to Peytonville at a point close to where Option 1 proposes to empty onto Peytonville. I am opposed to all three of the options for the Shady Oaks to Peytonville thoroughfare. I do not feel any of them are needed. Traffic is going to increase because of the new school; that's going to happen without the thoroughfare. However, a new thoroughfare would only cause more problems for the area. If Option 1 or Option 3 are adapted, a new intersection would be created on Peytonville. Added to the existing Peytonville /Raven Bend/Southridge Lakes intersection and the Peytonville/Woodbrook intersection, this would be a third intersection in less than a 1/2 mile stretch of road. It is likely that these intersections would have to be controlled by 3 -way stop signs or red lights because of their close proximity to each other (one every 400 ft.) and the school. The increased noise and gas fumes produced by cars waiting at these intersections, and headlights from cars turning at these intersections, would definitely decrease the property value of all of us living at these intersections. Option 2 bisects the school's property. Option 3 drastically impacts the homes and properties in the right -of -way. As evidenced by statements made in previous council meetings, none of these property owners want to give up their land or their homes for this project. Perhaps parents do need a way to get from one school to another without driving around, but an eastern entrance easement through Mr. Clow's property (if he's agreeable), that does not cut all the way through the school's property would seem to be the least intrusive and least expensive alternative. Residents on the east enter the school off of Shady Oaks, and residents on the west enter off of Peytonville. Seems simple to me. If you build a road, developers will build on it, people will live on it, and then those people will want the city to solve their traffic problems caused by a thoroughfare that was already there when they moved in; just as the new homeowners in Coventry Manor have. A sixty foot thoroughfare connecting two thirty -five foot asphalt roads doesn't seem to be a solution, only a very costly appeasement for the residents of Coventry. Let's put cu- tax money into improving the streets already surrounding the new school and forget about criss- crossing every last bit of undeveloped farm land with a new street. Master Thoroughfare Amendment Shady Oaks to Peytonville I am opposed to all three of the Options for the proposed Shady Oaks to Peytonville p Y DATE: 2 -15 -2000 Thoroughfare. NAME: DONNA BAILEY ROBINSON ADDRESS: 1209 CROSS TIMBER DRIVE SOUTHLAKE, TX X I�i r / 6)- Thoroughfare Amendment Shady Oaks to Peytonville I am opposed to all three of the Options for the proposed Shady Oaks to Peytonville Thoroughfare. X Date: Name: c` ame• Jkt@ inl iti HE:NS /, Address: February 15, 2000 City Council Members: First let me thank you for your past support of our neighborhood the variance to the stadium lighting that the school board requests. By supporting our neighborhood you have been threatened with lawsuit and portrayed as being opposed to the children, which of course is not true. The lighting ordinance was established for good reason. I cannot think of a better example than the situation that is presented to you now as to why this ordinance needs to be enforced. I'm sure that you've seen the petitions signed by hundreds of Southlake residents that want the variance to the stadium lighting approved, and I'm sure you realize that they all live on the other side of town. Of course, I'd prefer to have the school and stadium located in their neighborhood and lights shining in their homes instead of mine. Well, the schools, stadium and lights will be built off Kimball next to our neighborhood and all I'm asking is that you continue your opposition to the request for variance to the Southlake City Lighting Ordinance and let the school board and their handlers figure out how to keep the lighting within the guidelines. Thank you, n .ate . J n and Marth- aylor 209 Eastwood Dr. Southlake, TX 76092 215 Eastwood Southlake, Texas 76092 February 13, 2000 Mayor Stacy, City Council Members Due to a business commitment, I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting on February 15. However, before you reconsider what we thought to be a fair and just decision, I would like to reiterate a couple major points. This is not a matter of the residents being able to handle 15 nights of lights glaring in their eyes. The first meeting with the school, the Superintendent said 5 nights. Each meeting we saw the number increase and last week at the school board meeting, we heard a fourth number, now up to 16 nights a year. Don't you think that if Carroll School District took our concerns seriously, they would have determined just how many nights were involved? Truth is, we really don't know how many nights are involved. Further, if the school did make a commitment to a certain number of nights lights would be used, would it carry any more weight than the two -sided fence once agreed upon? Secondly, we asked the City that if the school did have these lights that the city would not consider joint usage, which of course would limit the usage of the lights. We were told the city must have joint usage. We hear how the school has compromised with the residents. Besides offering to shut off lights (that don't meet city code in the fast place) an hour earlier than code requires, what sign of compromise have we seen? A compromise would be that residents live with 16 nights a year (or whatever number seems to be handy), the city backs off from joint usage of the lighted field, and the school have some kind of limitation of the lights. Another point I would like to make is that we are not asking children to play sports on a dark field nor spend 12 hours school days. We are asking the school to make additional use of a $14 million facility, approximately '/z mile away. At the past school board meeting, we heard all the reasons why this was impossible. If I had been a member of the school board, I would have been embarrassed by the lameness of the argument. As I am sure you will see tonight, surrounding cities have more teams and less lighted fields. Is our school administration less capable of organizing and managing their schedules? Maybe it is more an issue of not being worth their time to come up with alternatives any more than it is to determine exactly how many nights lights will be used. Please do not give the school the unlimited ability to deprive us of quality living in our homes. Sincerely, F / Diane Smith Faughn CONFLICT OF INTEREST AFFIDAVIT THE STATE OF TEXAS § § k_:OUNTY OF RP" § I, 6pici W as a member of the Q-.-1-1-1A-(4.8 c 1c eic , make this affidavit and hereby on oath state the following: I have a substantial interest in a business entity or rea 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: 7 COMPLETE (A) or (B): (A) The business entity is (name); or (B) The real property is located at: 33'( r4oe ad y pie t 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 S day of `e 604/7 , • -2 -d 4 IPA t _ 11110 410 -•3T he State of _ ' § County of _Miff § efore e 4,14,1t„,A ��ti on this day personally appeared . � �,�1, known to me (or proved to me on the oath of or through (description of identity card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. Given under my hand and seal of office this � attita day of A.D. 2t0 . (SEAL) �4PRY 1QNUR .: c( Natary PLINK * # �fX STATE C)� 1 r_X?S '` AJ/i . � rqr oF� � ; � p,7 m s: ;�uu1 otary Public in an for the State of Texas H:\ LIBRARY\Municipal\MERGEContlictotInterestAffidavilwpd RESOLUTION We, the members of the Rockenbaugh Elementary School Parent Teacher Organization, resolve to stand behind the Carroll Independent School District in its pursuit of fair and equitable facilities for our children. We respectfully request that the City Council reconsider and approve the lighting at the middle school and high school stadium. We are united in our plea that the educational needs of our children be first and foremost in the minds of council. Sec. 1.002. of the Education Code states An educational institution undertaking to provide education, services, or activities to any individual within the jurisdiction or geographic boundaries of the educational institution shall provide equal opportunities to all individuals within its jurisdiction or geographic boundaries. The council's decision to deny the variances for the lighting of the middle school and the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of the High School stadium hinders the CISD from providing each school child an equal opportunity to participate in activities. We, as parents and taxpayers demand that these facilities be fully equipped to meet the needs of the students as voted in the previous bond election. Without lights the stadiums may not be used to their capacity and will affect the number of students that will be able to participate in activities at the stadiums. In addition, there will be transportation and safety issues that will arise in transporting the participants to and from other campuses where the facilities will accommodate activities when lighting is a factor. We feel that CISD has made the necessary concessions to the residents surrounding the middle school with their compromises to landscaping, fencing and limiting the field to only 10 games per year with the lights being turned off be 9 p.m. Please put the educational needs of our students first in your reconsideration of the lighting of the football fields. Respectfully, Rockenbaugh Elementary School PTO February 7, 2000 February 11, 2000 To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Rex Potter, Council Member, Place 1 Subject: Southlake Ordinance 480 -HH Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Over the years, we have gone to great lengths to develop and incorporate high - quality development standards into Southlake's zoning ordinances. I think that all of us hope that these regulations will result in beautiful commercial and residential developments throughout our community. The Staff and Council expend considerable time and effort in reviewing each site plan to ensure the development will be of a style and nature we all envisioned for Southlake. We have made substantive progress in this regard, but I believe that we still have a ways to go. In many respects, our effort have resulted in a nice building with adequate buffer yards and landscaping, but unfortunately the owner/business manager has been allowed to take actions which cause the development to appear unplanned and trashy through the use of outside storage. At the Mayor's suggestion, I have taken pictures of various commercial developments that I believe have unsightly outside storage. At our next Council meeting, if time permits and the Council wishes to do so, we can view pictures of these sites. As you know, I have a strong desire to have legislation that will prohibit the view of bundled firewood, prepackaged ice machines, and vending machines in front of a non - residential development. Although I believe that many of these developments can incorporate these items within their buildings, I am not opposed to the having them stored outside so long as they are not visible from adjacent properties or public rights -of -ways. Although the Mayor continues to belittle me in this regard, I feel the extent of quality development achieved through our regulation of building articulation, set backs, building size, buffer yards, etc. is significantly diminished with the allowance of such outside storage items in the front of the buildings. I hope that each of you will support me in adopting the proposed regulations containing my suggested changes in this regard. Thank you for your support. Rex Potter Southlake City Council Place 1 CC: City Manager • JOINT REPORT The administrative staffs of the City of Southlake (the `City ") and the Carroll Independent School District ( "Carroll ISD ") have come together to discuss issues relative to construction and growth in the community. As a result of that discussion, they have developed this Joint Statement to acknowledge the legal and political controls over their relationship. In the growth situation currently being experienced, the duty of the City to preserve good government and order of the community is sometimes at odds with the duty of the school district to provide the appropriate educational environment for its students. The parties acknowledge that, according to the Texas Supreme Court, a city may not use its zoning power to prevent a school district from building any school district facility on school district land, at the school district's discretion. However, the parties also acknowledge that school districts are required to comply with the reasonable building ordinances of a city. Consequently, the law provides that as long as a city's ordinance is reasonably related to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the school district must comply with those procedures and regulations. On the other hand, the law also qualifies this power of the city by holding that a city ordinance may not create an unreasonable restriction on the power of the school district to achieve its educational purposes, and may only enforce its restrictions to the letter of its ordinances, and not beyond. Thus, a balance must be achieved whereby the school district will be able to adequately provide appropriate educational facilities for its students while not unreasonably interfering with the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Certainly, it is the desire of both Carroll ISD and the City to work collaboratively to achieve the School District's and City's purposes in a manner which respects the legal rights of both entities. Representatives of the City and Carroll ISD discussed the City Council's denial of the Carroll ISD's request for a variance to allow the use of certain lighting on the football and track field which Carroll ISD proposes to construct at the new Kimball Avenue Middle /Intermediate School. The parties acknowledge that the City cannot prevent Carroll ISD from installing lighting on its football and track field. The decision to light the field lays with the school district. However, Carroll ISD recognizes that the City does have the authority, through its lighting ordinance, to impose reasonable regulations on the manner and use of the lighting on the field utilizing guidelines in which to create a safe environment. The school district has the authority to determine the guidelines which establishes a safe environment for the students on the field. Representatives of the City and Carroll ISD discussed the tree mitigation ordinance as applied to all school district properties. Carroll ISD recognizes that the mitigation of trees is an important and worthwhile public purpose of a growing community. Consequently, the school district wishes to comply with the requirements of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance with such plans as to establish a long -term landscaping plan for other school district facilities. Representatives of the City and Carroll ISD collectively discussed the drainage ordnnnncc, ; applied to the school district property under construction. The school district wishes to adhere to the drainage ordinance. Carroll ISD agreed that the City has the right to restrict the uses of the property so that any negative impacts created by the school district's development on its downstream neighbors are resolved appropriately.. This report contains general statements of understanding as discussed by CISD Superintendent Dr. Ted Gillum, City Manager Billy Campbell, and attorneys representing both entities. This report does not dismiss the opportunity for input from the City Council and /or members of the CISD School Board. -7- Excerpt from: IESNA (Illumination Engineering Society of North America) - Recommended Practices and ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Standards Sports and Recreat 23 Area Lighting Note: As in other chapters of this Handbook, ilIumi- and the skill level of play, that is, the number of nance recommendations are presented in a lux (foot- spectators is directly related to the skill level of play. candle) format, wherein we take 1 fc 1() lx (rather Accordingly, facilities should be designed to satisfy the than the more exact relationship 1 fc = 10.76 lx). Be- highest skill level to be played as well as the greatest cause many sports facilities are laid out in terms of spectator capacity. To determine illumination criteria, Imperial units (yards, feet, inches), the designer may facilities are grouped into four classes: prefer to use the footcandle version. • Class 1-.for competition play in large- capacity OVERVIEW t -4 arenas and stadiums with up to 200,000 specta- tors. (In this chapter, the recommendations of Advancements in illuminating engineering design and illumination criteria for individual sports are technology have allowed sporting events to be increas- limited to audiences of 10,000 or less. Stadiums ingly played and watched at night. During the last with spectator capacity greater than 10,000 gen- decade, light source efficacies have more than doubled; erally require considerably higher horizontal thus, the electrical power and energy required for a and vertical illuminances due to the needs 01 sports facility have been drastically reduced in spite of spectators seated farthest from the playing held increased illuminances required to serve the elevated and of the camera tor television broadcasting. skill level of athletes. The required illuminances under these circum- Associated with improved illuminances are in- stances are frequently more than double those creased problems of glare and color rendering for recommended in this section.) better visual performance and quality television broad- • Class II —for competition play with less than casting. Sports lighting design can no longer be accom- 5,000 spectators. plished by methods of approximation but requires so- • Class III —for competition play primarily for phisticated computations. Therefore, designers need a players, though with due consideration for thorough understanding of illuminating engineering spectators. principles and associated computer programs. - Class IV —for social and recreational play only, For more information on computer algorithms, illu- with secondary consideration for spectators. minance calculation methods, equipment installation, field measurements and illuminance criteria for various There is, of course, some overlap between illumination sports, the reader is referred to the 1ES Recommended criteria for various skill levels of play and facility sizes Practice for Sports and Recreational Area Lighting (see figure 23 -1). (RP -6)) CLASS OF PLAY AND FACILITIES TYPES OF SPORTS The traditional way of classifying sports as amateur Based on illumination requirements, sports may be and professional is no longer meaningful. Modern divided into two groups— aerial sports and ground practices allow both amateurs and professionals to level sports —and within these two groups, they can be compete in the same event, as in golf and tennis - further divided into multidirectional sports and unidi- Furthermore, some amateur sports, such as basketball rectional sports. and football, are played at practically the same skill level and in the sarne facilities as professional sports. Aerial Sports In general, as the skill level of play is elevated, players and spectators require a better - lighted environ- Aerial sports involve the playing of an object (usually a ment. A correlation exists between the sue of a facility ball) in the air as well as on the ground. 723 724 SPORTS AND RECREATION AREAS Pig, 23-1. Classes of Play and Facilities mination, although vertical illumination should be considered_ Typical multidirectional ground day ties: level sports include boxing, curling, field hockey, 1 11 h1 N ice hockey, skating, swimming (excluding high International X g board diving) and wrestling. National X • Unidirectional ground level sports: The object is Professional X rtzr. P ..'.` aimed at a fixed position, usually in a vertical • = X plane close to ground level. For these sports, Sem' •ratessionel X NM E vertical illumination is critical at this vertical • • ._ dubs X X E . M .Wia plane. This is normally accomplished by aiming Rah schools luminaires toward the plane, shielded from view � � X X x of the players and spectators at the starting Elen,entanschoo� ;�� T end. Typical unidirectional ground level sports x�� ���. �? X x Recreational Events �' .r�i :' _,..44,0b,-;",- .' x include archery, bowling and pistol shooting. Social events �Sr.�a+G.,.�`C k7 �S� x „ : Skiing is also a unidirectional ground level Class i—Faciiiies with soectaror caaaalOr of sago to 200000. sport, but for it the sloped ground surface is class a-- Kasuuss for spectators 05000 or tom the illuminated plane and the luminaire beam Claw FIf-- Nospeaal provision tor spectators. is directed down the slope. days Nodal and recreational. La. nors 0mpetidve- • Multidirectional aerial sports: The players and POWER AND ENERGY spectators view the playing object from multi- ple positions and viewing angles. For aerial Since most sports involve the critical viewing of a sports, vertical illumination over the playing fast - moving object, such as a baseball or an ice hockey field is more critical than horizontal illumina- puck, sports facilities normally require high illumi- tion at ground level. It is important to control nance, ranging from 300 to 1500 lx (30 to 150 fc). The direct glare from luminaires by locating the lighting load requires high power densities (watts per luminaires away from the most frequent view - unit area) and high power demand (kilowatts), and in ing directions of players and spectators. Typical some facilities, high energy consumption (kilowatt - multidirectional aerial sports include bad- hours). It is noteworthy that power is consumed only minton, baseball, basketball, football, handball, when the system is being operated. For major sports jai alai, soccer, squash, tennis and volleyball. facilities, the lighting load may require high power • Unidirectional aerial sports: The playing object demand for short periods of time, and thus have fairly is viewed in the air from a fixed position on the low energy consumption. ground. General horizontal illumination is re- For example, a major league stadium for profes- quired at the starting end and vertical illumine- sional baseball and football might be lighted with 700 tion at the finishing end. This is normally done luminaires equipped with 1.5 -kW metal halide lamps. by aiming some luminaires downward at the The power demand would be approximately 1130 kW. starting end and at high angles toward the If the operating schedule of the stadium is 40 night finishing end_ Luminaires must be shielded from games annually for an average of 5 h per game, the the player's view. Typical unidirectional sports annual energy consumption for arena lighting will be in include golf, skeet and trap shooting and ski the range of 1130 x 40 X 5 = 226,000 kWh. jumping. In comparison, a municipal park might consist of four softball fields and be lighted with only 240 Lumi- naires equipped with L -kW metal halide lamps. The Ground Level Sports power demand would be only 260 kW for the lighting_ These sports are played on the ground or a few feet However, the operating schedule of a typical complex above the ground. Players and spectators in the normal might be 200 nights per year for an average of 5 h per course of play do not look upward_ night. This would result in an annual energy consump- tion for the field lighting of 260 x 200 x 5 = 260,000 kWh. • Multidirectional ground level sports: The players For every professional sports stadium, there are and spectators view the playing object from hundreds of public parks and municipal recreational multiple positions, normally looking downward facilities. The lighting energy consumption due to these or horizontally, but occasionally upward. These recreational facilities is considerably greater than that sports require well- distributed horizontal illu- of a few stadiums. Thoughtful design, circuiting and QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF ILLUMINATION 725 control of lighting installations are the keys to energy and viewed in the air rather than on the ground. conservation. Therefore, vertical illuminances should be of primary concern. However, horizontal illuminance is normally QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF used in design calculations for two reasons: ILLUMINATION • Horizontal illuminance values are much less The goal of sports lighting is to provide an appropriate complicated and time consuming to compute luminous environment by controlling the brightness of and to measure in the field. an object and its background so the object will appear • The vertical illuminance values are acceptable clear and sharp to the players, spectators and television when the horizontal illuminance meets the rec. viewers. To achieve this goal, both qualitative and ommended criteria and the design complies with quantitative factors of illumination must be considered. recommended design factors, such as mounting height, aiming and beam spread. Illuminance VertiCal Illuminance. Factors to be considered when The illuminance must satisfy the requirements of the determining vertical target luminance values specified players and the spectators, as well as the television for sports are cameras if any. These requirements should be known at the beginning of the design process, since lighting - Viewing direction. There are an infinite number needs for spectators and television cameras frequently of vertical planes from the perspective of play - exceed the suggested level for the sport itself. Factors ers, spectators or television cameras_ Generally, affecting illuminance levels for all sports are deter- the planes normal to the four principal direc- mined by: tions of the playing field are considered ade- quate for calculation_ Vertical illuminances at • Speed of sport. Visual tasks of various sizes given points in space from different directions must be seen when playing sports at a wide are not additive_ Vertical illuminance must oc- range of speeds against various background cur on the different viewing planes to be effec- brightnesses and colors_ five. • Skill level of players. As the skill level of players • Elevation. Elevations vary with the sport and increases, the speed of objects and the irnpor- skill level of play, and the background lumi- tance of accuracy also increase, which in turn nance varies with facility design and whether it calls for higher illuminances. Professional or is indoors or outdoors. For example, major competitive playing requires higher illuminance league baseball requires high vertical illumi- than unskilled or recreational playing. nancc, up to 150 ft above the ground; whereas • Age of players. It has been recognized that the height needed for basketball is only around older players require a higher illuminance and 20 ft. are less tolerant of glare than younger players. • !!luminance relations. For multidirectional • Spectator capacity. The visual size of tasks di- sports, the ratio of illuminances at ground level minishes as the inverse square of the distance. is also important and should be less than 3:1 This demands increased illuminance to eom- between horizontal and vertical planes as well pensate. For sport stadiums, the illuminance is as between vertical illuminances in the four determined by the lighting required for the primary viewing directions. spectators seated farthest from the playing area • Television broadcasting. The illuminance re- Initial Illuminance. The initial illuminance is that cal - quired tor television cameras and photographic culated or measured for new installations using rated film depends on the sensitivity of the photosen- lamp lumens provided at 100 h of operation (corrected sitive media, aperture of the camera, and depth for any lamp position or tilt factor, ballast factor and of field to be rendered. Television cameras voltage variation losses). using an extended telephoto lens may require Maintained Illuminance. The maintained illuminance twice the illuminance required for a regular is the average illuminance at a point, or throughout an telephoto lens_ area, after a specific period of time or after relamping Horizontal Illuminance. The horizontal illuminance and cleaning. Based upon a designated maintenance specified for sports as target illuminance is normally schedule and using known light loss and field factors, a taken on the ground or 3 ft above the ground. It should close approximation of the actual maintained value can be noted that for most aerial sports, the task is played be calculated. The values used to approximate the light FLOODLIGHT AIMING 743 Fig. 23.39. Illuminance Criteria for Automobile Racing Horizontal Foolcandlss Uniformity Ratio (Maximum to Minimum) Class AppilCatIOf Track Finish Track Finish 1 Professional/International 30 75 2.0 1.5 Il Competition 20 50 2.5 24 IV Reueattonal 10 2 5 _ 3.0 2.0 Fig. 23.37. Illuminance Criteria for Baseball Fields 1 Horfxofttal tfnlformily yerq�el Unlforafily Cass Of Horizontal Footcandlss Vertical Footcandies (= to WnIu (Ysx imwn to Mkllmu Milli Wield Outfield Infield Outfield infield Outfield Infield Outfield' 1 150 100 100 70 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 11 100 70 70 50 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.5 3 #.x k < 4 111 50 30 40 25 2.0 2 5 IV 30 20 25 15 3.0 as : i:.: -:.r u :. „ ; ;.a n y .:. • Aaceptat ie varirai uniformity 1e 4.0 4cwn o dlNd ova Fig. 23 -38. Illuminance Criteria for Bicycle Racing Claw APPS Horizontal Fool.sandlea Uniformity Ratio (Maximum to Minimum) Track Finish Track Finish - 1 PrafassionaVlntemationaI 30 50 2.0 1.5 11 20 30 2,5 2.0 IV Recreational 10 10 3.0 2-0- Fig. 23-39, Recommended Illuminance Values Fig. 23-40. Illuminance Criteria for Football (American) for Feld Hockey - VartkN - Claas Horizontal Fa (Maximum to C ApppCatIon Horizontal Uniformity of Pity Faotosrtidlee Minimum) Fwtosndlas (Maximum 10 Minimum) 1 100 80 1.5 I I CO 30 � 2 0 _ II 50 40 2.0 L High School 20 3.0 111 30 2.5 1 IV 1 20 MOW • <,, > #'- 3.0 Fig. 23.41. illuminance Criteria for Handball Class of Play Application Horizontal Footcandles Vertical Footcandlss Uniformity (Minimum 10 Maximum) II Tournament 30 20 2.0 IV Recreational 15 10 3.0 Fig. 23-42. Illuminance Criteria for Outdoor Ice Hockey Class Application Horizontal Footcafdlss Vertical Foolcandies uniformity (Minimum to Maximum) 11 College/Prafess 50 40 2.0 111 High S ool 30 20 2.0 IV Recreational 20 15 3.0 TOTAL P.04 February 8, 2000 Wells Doak Engineers, Inc. Dr. Ted Gillun Superintendent Carroll Independent School District Southlake, Texas Ref New Middle School Football Field Lighting Dear Dr. Gillum: The recommended lighting for football fields at this level of play requires a lighting level of 30 footcandles. The light source used is metal halide (appears "white" in color) due to it's color rendition and efficiency. To achieve this level of footcandles without glare to the players and to minimize the spill to neighboring areas, poles of 60 ft. to 100 ft in height are typically used and recommended. The city's guidelines for outdoor lighting limit the footcandlcs to 20 and the pole height to 30 feet. This would be typical design criteria for parking areas, etc. Also, a high pressure sodium (appears "yellow /orange" in color) source is required We feel that the city's criteria for outdoor lighting is not sufficient for lighting the football field and could cause the following problems including potential associated safety problems: 1. The high pressure sodium source has poor color rendition properties and could cause recognition problems for the players and officials. 2. Limiting the footcandle level to two thirds of the recommended level could cause problems in seeing the ball and play action adequately. 3. Using 30 ft. poles would cause glare and spill in an effort to maximize the footcandle level on the field (not a practical method of achieving the recommended level). 4. Any limitation of visual recognition could increase the possibility of unnecessary contact. Please call if you need additional information. Sincerely, WELLS DOAK ENGINEERS, INC. 4 AJhL Wells, P.E. cc: Howard Vestal 2800 S. Hulen St. • Suite 212 • Fart Worth, Texas 76109 (817) 920 -9545 • Fax (817) 920 -9565 CBA Boner Associates LLC consultants in Acoustics & Audio /Visual Technologies 200 East 30th Street Austin, Texas 78705 -3809 voice: 512- 476 -3464 fax: 512- 476 -9442 w w w. b a i a u s t i n. c o m Principals Charles R. Boner January 24, 2000 Richard E. Boner Chris R. Roberts Mr. Gary Rademacher Scott T. Samson SHW Group, Inc. Senior Associates 5198 Rufe Snow Drive Brent G. Smith Suite 211 John R. Miller North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Re: Carroll ISD - Football Stadium Dear Gary: As per recent discussions, we have calculated estimated sound levels, anticipated to be generated at the neighborhood property lines by the stadium sound system. Following is a synopsis: 1. The stadium sound system will utilize loudspeakers located in the end zone, near the scoreboard. These loudspeakers will be directed towards the grandstands on both sides. 2. The loudspeakers pointing in the general direction of residential housing do not have clear line of sight to the residential areas. The topography and stadium structure both serve to block a portion of the sound from the speakers. 3. Assuming that the loudspeakers generate sufficient sound levels to be clearly heard in the grandstands, similar to other similar facilities in the area, it is estimated that the typical sound levels generated at the neighborhood property line will be approximately 47 dBA. This figure will change by a few dBA from event to event, based on weather conditions. If I can provide further information at this time, please let me know. Sincerely, BONER ASSOCIATES LLC CONSULTANTS IN ACOUSTICS /4" 2L Richard E. Boner E -Mail: rboner @bonerinc.com February 15, 2000 City Council Members: First let me thank you for your past support of our neighborhood - concerning the variance to the stadium lighting that the school board requests. By supporting our neighborhood you have been threatened with lawsuit and portrayed as being opposed to the children, which of course is not true. The lighting ordinance was established for good reason. I cannot think of a better example than the situation that is presented to you now as to why this ordinance needs to be enforced. I'm sure that you've seen the petitions signed by hundreds of Southlake residents that want the variance to the stadium lighting approved, and I'm sure you realize that they all live on the other side of town. Of course, I'd prefer to have the school and stadium located in their neighborhood and lights shining in their homes instead of mine. Well, the schools, stadium and lights will be built off Kimball next to our neighborhood and all I'm asking is that you continue your opposition to the request for variance to the Southlake City Lighting Ordinance and let the school board and their handlers figure out how to keep the lighting within the guidelines. Thank you, //)14/1 Ja J n and Marth- aylor 209 Eastwood Dr. Southlake, TX 76092 215 Eastwood Southlake, Texas 76092 February 13, 2000 Mayor Stacy, City Council Members Due to a business commitment, I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting on February 15. However, before you reconsider what we thought to be a fair and just decision, I would like to reiterate a couple major points. This is not a matter of the residents being able to handle 15 nights of lights glaring in their eyes. The first meeting with the school, the Superintendent said 5 nights. Each meeting we saw the number increase and last week at the school board meeting, we heard a fourth number, now up to 16 nights a year. Don't you think that if Carroll School District took our concerns seriously, they would have determined just how many nights were involved? Truth is, we really don't know how many nights are involved. Further, if the school did make a commitment to a certain number of nights lights would be used, would it carry any more weight than the two -sided fence once agreed upon? Secondly, we asked the City that if the school did have these lights that the city would not consider joint usage, which of course would limit the usage of the lights. We were told the city must have joint usage. We hear how the school has compromised with the residents. Besides offering to shut off lights (that don't meet city code in the first place) an hour earlier than code requires, what sign of compromise have we seen? A compromise would be that residents live with 16 nights a year (or whatever number seems to be handy), the city backs off from joint usage of the lighted field, and the school have some kind of limitation of the lights. Another point I would like to make is that we are not asking children to play sports on a dark field nor spend 12 hours school days. We are asking the school to make additional use of a $14 million facility, approximately %x mile away. At the past school board meeting, we heard all the reasons why this was impossible. If I had been a member of the school board, I would have been embarrassed by the lameness of the argument. As I am sure you will see tonight, surrounding cities have more teams and less lighted fields. Is our school administration less capable of organizing and managing their schedules? Maybe it is more an issue of not being worth their time to come up with alternatives any more than it is to determine exactly how many nights lights will be used. Please do not give the school the unlimited ability to deprive us of quality living in our homes. Sincerely, , Z 6 -l7/ 7 t Diane Smith Faughn February 15, 2000 Billy Campbell City Manager City of Southlake 667 North Carroll Ave. Southlake, TX 76092 Re: Proposed Impact Fees The undersigned wish to express their concern regarding pending increases to impact fees. Southlake's cumulative fees charged for development already total more than almost anywhere else in the Metroplex. For the reasons stated below, we believe that the proposed increase to water, sewer, and roadway impact fees should be limited to a stepped inflationary adjustment. The steadily increasing demand and rising pressure on services that the City is experiencing is typical of a growing community. Southlake's particularly rapid pace of growth over the past decade has only escalated that pressure. Southlake's commitment to low to medium density residential development has created even greater demand, as more infrastructure has been required to reach fewer homes spread out over a greater area. This has underscored the need for additional quality commercial development to help defray the cost of residential service by spreading such costs among a larger user base through greater capacity utilization. To date, Southlake has positioned itself well in achieving high overall development standards and creating an environment conducive to quality development. Market factors have helped in terms of both timing and demand. The residential boom, which began in the late `80's and early `90's, is now showing definitive signs of slowing down. Larger scale commercial development over the same period, by contrast, has now in the last two to three years proven itself viable. Southlake's opportunity is to take advantage of the current favorable business cycle to enhance the City's status and quality of life by attracting quality businesses through a mutually beneficial strategy for residential and commercial owners. Southlake must seek, and achieve, an appropriate balance between residential and commercial development. Case studies around the country have shown that funding services off a largely residential tax base is very difficult without disproportionately high property taxes or a diminished level of service, both of which have been consistently opposed by the City's residents. A `rule of thumb' cited in the City's November, 1995 Economic Development Strategic Plan is that service provision to residential development costs $1.22 for every $1.00 in tax revenue generated, while commercial development costs only $.32 in services for every $1.00 generated. It should also be noted that sales tax and business personal property taxes generated by commercial development provide additional financial returns to the City which can further diminish other local tax burdens. Suffice it to say, the quality of life which we all now enjoy in Southlake requires an increased quality commercial underwrite. The impact fee increases and other fee proposals currently under consideration are shortsighted in that they simply raise revenues in an attempt to achieve the desired balance. What this approach will actually do is deter quality commercial development by directing it to other, more competitive, locales thereby decreasing Southlake's long -term revenue stream (thus raising the pressure to increase taxes). We need to take advantage of the currently favorable economic cycle and the business momentum generated over the last several years; if this momentum is lost it will be disproportionately harder to regain. Quality commercial development is an opportunity that Southlake can ill afford to miss. Such development is not a threat, but rather a solution to support the lifestyle that Southlake's citizens have chosen. Help us help Southlake. Be thoughtful and longsighted with your increases to water, sewer and roadway impact fees. Cooper & Stebbins Four Peaks Development, Inc. By: By: ' / ` ,o*If ' !, .. _ _ Brian R. Stebbins David McMahan Chief Executive Officer President Wyndham Properties, Ltd. Wright Development C • ‘ / r .Z By: . L. _ By: 4 1 c � Wilkinson Martin Schelling President Vice President Terrabrook f By: t4 4 S ty• Yetts V Presi . -nt We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1709 be reduced so that there is no invasive noise entering the Meyers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not Jpport extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1 / ,P-.2 Pc) - 6 /:it a, 3 01 p w/ Re�./) 0. z-tD - ? / 2. iff 1 ' U u e �� LS(- vtr(.r! 3 . (. -F=� -� ` (`' �'`Jl (Z f `._ �'`� 4 . A<JBAI ci N.....cc--r-a--)a__ 1 ct-fic(-00 �- , L 10 -15 10(0 e_oldLDA 61\ CLAM t PO /�� mac. -mac. Z � CT . y� y — /�2 Y 7 ei-fg r � "o 1/4 ck. q2_4 izz 9. .4=/--, > _,__ // 2 ,e_e_zeze 44 2V --3 ‘ - f_ e_L, 0 3, Oa .t,LO (_,V 1 -/ 1 7 10. aA--<-) 11. (1 /Lui/4 L.. l ._, y y .� ` �,l �.r \J i iA L 1 � I ` cc L \ kil V� ) �.J� , � f 1 ? h J �Ki" � J�J Y J///�1�1,1 VV LLi- We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1 709 be reduced so that there is no invasive noise entering the Myers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not Jpport extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1 . i �Sa ci3e- �eve.11 309 Cava∎\ C Dort -yl(DbLlz& l03 et.) 4-S (- Q-Qa 2. '7 3. )6rOtke. , /feiyothie} g (L- ( 76 z//6 5 1/ l 8. , - L/flc(kad . 366 6)6(aW e/ /- ?7a 9 . L igttke 712CefailetAdi3 °I" CI - 77 � v 10. K 4UV/ /10 107 I de{ e_7 L( z(- C).y 11. /a tict d )'Nuy;C /d //7 /(deer� z(��� - Jr 12. lam — 10 (0 K...acte. `-P 0 - 4 5 88 14 /i/ ' ■ We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1709 be reduced so that there is no invasive noise entering the Meyers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not ,apport extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1 . k;.,� N E�� s. ,S 4� `1,,� � C . 2.5 - 4f3.) 2. 3. (61 - o-a/v A, 'ffit 4. 41 l I 57. 73 Pc 5. l e'sel C2)+4 cot 6..) ; i�/t-LPi6g- L / - S � . f4-4q 8. ''f o /gr' /4 446777/ ' / 9. 01-0-1 voG V/C , 393 1,(,0 RED a-(_ s 12_53 . 10. L I N PF Tiro rrns. o ,, tt D s-1 izs 11. 10,-0.'" 32q. 3I Z. 12. AAA/ I2 st c4" f We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1709 be reduced so that there is no ! noise entering the Meyers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not .,upport extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1 . -iU(IL e 303 Qu6,t CaJr■ 32q . T 2. L,4-.v-E5* � PFiviES l© y 4e/Ideo. ei 957 - 9/1 Y 3. 1 c J �io c ., 7 /r0 a,. frt°o o �./ !� / � 3z?--74 a 4 . / 4 A TT - Preto Cz-r 067 / 4il /1400)644 '12.1-72-0E( 5. , -,G „ _ / 9° Va ,c-i— y /b -Oy') I 4 V r'". C2 S /- & 2 /J�-, /yt 3 r / lam`- J . C / �L"''" Lc J 117 PrA. ret, im-ll,57 7. AA 1 1= Nitt 4I ee.r 1r'' `21)-7 ' Ild � 8. e✓t.A...r) 09 -Nne.1 9. J � 7 v o 1 7/10 ft( ° �l ',,' i/ . �7 �, C lJ i1 `� Raw ,� �✓ 3 (ae� 10. Vii'.. , iz------------- ic i , �-k, L;1 `-f�c - al `�`� i i . / Al I // kit." /,/, ,,, Ozz( We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1709 be reduced so that there is no 'nvasive noise entering the Meyers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not _upport extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1. .1W,0 (703 E; DS ( -YO W. 2. W Eu Zo Mt_a- - — y U— / ' t � 0eq /Zr 'WE E <' 2 i - ‘ l 'S - -�' gvi 783 e- 4. /e.,6, 3 ilabee,,r q ri 733 5. D O kt, )16(650 h IWO Reiwin9 Con 6-6411 A‘-e - ��1( � 3 2-7-/3J1 8 /4-1-v1;1- 10 of- Cr 6�� 9 . � � '�� /��' � � j _ �c >' 7/- 3 7 / 10. yon ospe. - /7 1 _ a? /k - 0 r Of-NCL- 12.j ece er e_ 5 4,44 ; 1 0 2;6 6(6- o L- k. (2167- 3 37 We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1709 be reduced so that there is no invasive noise entering the Meyers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not upport extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. - 6944/41,-0- ADDRESS PHONE / W 0../ �� , -7 ___„__ 02o 7 AlD446‘A-4-- /(ft•.3("V 3. �, � ? � � ;/// l �l " ✓ L ,� 4. ,.......-1, / v 5 y L ` ' P 7. 1 . ,/ / 7 2 � `cu � 42 ,_ 1_10'11 8. ' ' i r 1 �� �,(-f� i71 • , l�e-�b 7 9. 72/4( Y--� / / 7 0 c - Vii 9/ 10 " - ' / 7 t i,....-A4f . 1 1. i ,i, ,y l 7e) cy�e Zee / Y / � / oe4 ,/ G 197 07-d/) - //3 7 12./ 7 V We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1 709 be reduced so that there is no ' noise entering the Meyers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not ..upport extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1 . a-tn.� .' I 2 . /$ _fs, 4. .f C T - /6E1 3. - c, (/ ze ( 7 �c/ce);,v 0/2_ :3; - F').5 66 5//7 t/ '7 4. t 6 c 7(' 5 77/W , ke- 5.(ii�� X117 ' y -)- T S` Le c `I z q- 5 9-?-- J. ` iN t s 41R C -r 3� q- y �� s Z-100 7. aY P Q��S / ) :, (l ' 'Lr � /, ( - 9. kE0 N:;a S- r` s 4 10 O. ‘I 6 a 2 o i i-. ='► 00(,) L k% ( — 5 - G/ 11. gill- 2II'A( //1 .3%, L/ Gi ifeve /44 6 1 12. '' / - - i We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1709 be reduced so that there is no ;evasive noise entering the Meyers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not upport extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1. ' ` ..-e v..._ 4tr t WO OL-l/A.L<- 8' c 7 a S' I y j Ca' 2. bprO SWANSod IDb Cie-Ai 8reok. (: 207 ae) scia-e) / (� / - �J - i -�i��' �' / IC q S r 1 i nr 11-- ( 4 f /.- - -- ( 7 L ; ) 4. Lk 1 U ----)L' ' 1 5. t. CM l a/1 r k - 0 : t ) L 1L4 rn L I 1 t 4 S Y ) � t c � / '? XI/ 115/19c(� /,� ( � s 7. 1-e- bre.k'kH i4 (( /<i l /te en cl/ - U6 7 8. q, /7/3 (1nese-deo q.1 -4/67 9 . `7Z /16 r (7a / l' q 9 r 1 Mo &ocoADL,) a 10. 4-__,C.,-.t E k ‘cAk . (oI N - .S y)) (.._( A / . \ \Tt . SMSZ.Lika---G 1 1. th> KI c--4- 1 A 4-2J ° 2-3'2 12. /e i2; HCot c -K- 700 S ,*21�%; C ' qZr • 3a70 i We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1709 be reduced so that there is no 'evasive noise entering the Meyers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not .upport extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1. 4N TI-long J li//) z 10 Sw4LL c 817 -YZ( -36 7s - \ --1 _ y Z i - 3 x 2. LAM • 1 OP\'"C.C_CD t "0 - 7 3„c \C)_,, C- i7 3. ..;-,,,/ / c_:,,f, A/ ' V :// /7diz&/?/P71 /yif , 2 / X15 t1�l�/.�� / ; kr 0 ( ic /` - Of le Ada �J ii 7. ti ; ' \ ' , \ ___ 8. y 9. '- - , 10. < -- __ __ - 2 oz(7 ClG�fey4rC1 �4 - 11. 7 J 12. ✓ Z.4�L oU/ L V& 7 d'd /f We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1709 be reduced so that there is no ' noise entering the Meyers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not support extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. NAME ADDRESS PHONE n� ,�aS a5 / -8 /6 1 )/a2. - -1 _ i 1 D `l xletzur a ti c,--p--(4-_- -2:, - _ --/ 3. , /, � 1 7� -�' °� ( : / - so 9' —9'D- 2 4. j e • / / ( SO ,) , P / 4. 40 - Z / Z / 4 / i 8. I , Z tiv -,L ( 6 -4 C4- Q°1 2 l 3 4- 9. ,)(i)____ 4,----1__ n_ e ,,c' f r 0 o5 4 „ , r < T J gi / a . p_ poct,64tiici-- z/./-- 3 /(S 10. i \lA ID Noji„,,e-A--- 3 _ 11. Yoz/ V .. 5 , _ C144, e_ -,...,-/ l t 1 We the undersigned request that the noise level created by the Mobil car wash at the corner of Peytonville and 1709 be reduced so that there is no invasive noise entering the Meyers Meadow neighborhood. We also do not ,upport extending the hours of the car wash beyond 7a.m. -7p.m. NAME ADDRESS PHONE i 2. / 20 (41( e(-0,3' L/Ov Od y 3 S (Aloft / O , • 4. ' 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1 2. City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM February 11, 2000 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shelli Siemer, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 769, 2nd Reading, Hotel Occupancy Tax Ordinance Action Requested: Consideration of the adoption of a Hotel Occupancy Tax Ordinance. Background Information: The City Council approved the first reading of the hotel occupancy tax ordinance at the February 1, 2000 meeting. 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 �V�I Billy Campbell February 11, 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. 7E— Billy Campbell February 11, 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. 743,3 Billy Campbell February 11, 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 occupancy 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 )Lt Billy Campbell February 11, 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 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 February 11, 2000 Page 6 Supporting Documents: 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 15, 2000 City Council agenda for second reading of the ordinance. • T a o > N • d .. .^ .•. F " O 0 a) C. . O� •� i. "— 2 o O co) a C41 Cl/ Q U3 C ° a) O O .. U +' E O c� O 40 p 40 U ° — WO y E ,, U4:, UU y on 0 a >' „ o .n > • ° O = w O i s O o g bip Q .. `� o ' o c. o o . w b o ° C/3 11., b o a ?1 - o o, _ U p C i. 3. O a , o ` ; ti , a +- ) r, A. 0 '� o 3 a a a a ° 0 p w on h d ' i, ' y, O 3 11 y° •O I y Q ...< C to O . � . 4. ; "fl = n .. O N X o . = cu a cg ° et C14 ° U e o x 4- Ct a) 0 0 i , .O � E,0 td) O 6 cd cn 0 x 00 'Cl. � :. G 0 s ue . o a) ;. E B ° 1 cit au Z, a x al - o :a o o �. 3 o v © o = ° oo se o O V c w �'� a — a� a -o - d cn -4-a + "" n E . 9 i x° v s G ° V x P4 .0 W a - o ° U ° � a6 a) 4, ,+ o En 4., N a y °_ . o C 0 O 0 0 y . N w — a) 14 (1) 41 p �) a . U Tel 0 .4' .., .ti .. ; ? L," U to.., ca U O U > ° 0 b ° = 413 v 0 A O o , y bq " ``b. a a) Q a O .. '.. U ' � w .c w o a) > 03 0 o , N O Cl. '5 0 a) ed = U m i! G. 0 p U a w m . 4' 0 as OU U'S.0 U U .0 C.0 0 y CA CD CD .." rn d W cu C. im CI W cn a) O 0 + 0 U O U U Cd p z co a) �. •e 0 ° oU 6 Q 0 i Cr' o v� st c9 E E V. U °� ate ° � -o '5 E U .v 8 0 . R a) • 0 o ,, . E", O +' N a) raj a U E o a) o ^' C Q m O N •� 0 to U o d w v) w W $. _ti) cn Z U .o o Y 0 o o el U o 3° U o c a) ° a) 0 E o CI) W �,� a, b o. v E a+ i' v 3 'o en o ono ' 4 L, � o o -al E , ea o 'us E . l o -o tml o U o > o ° c. o o a) 0) b o f 0 0 = o ct . > b w - a) a) U o 49 w us xi VD w a 3 Q b a t, 0 r:4 ° x 7.: CMG at a) Q act so o 0 o U 0 ees O 0. us 0 }}� R:1 /. b 2 Q , ,.C P l• 0 + 0 0 CA y E 0 j .� 'b Cy F.4 O � . O O a Oa° A y 4, U a v a b 4. g o cl o 0 o ▪ w Cd E rn a O 8 • • I) ' Q •, �. 44 0:1 a 7 136, TAYLOR, OLSON, ADKINS, SRALLA & ELAM, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 THROCKMORTON STREET TELEPHONE (817) 332 -2580 BANK ONE TOWER TOLL FREE (800) 318 -3400 tT WORTH, TEXAS 76102 -3821 FAX (817) 332 -4740 DEBRA DRAYOVITCH email: Ddravovitchatoase.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 govern 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 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 1-13-11) Shelli 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, 411/6/0 1/ Debra Drayovitch DAD:trnl 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: 1SoutMaketLE1TERS \Sfemer.LTR.DAD.wpd • 7 —11 City of Southlake, Texas ORDINANCE NO. 769 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX OF SEVEN PERCENT ON THE PRICE PAID FOR A ROOM IN A HOTEL; DEFINING TERMS; PROVIDING FOR A TAX LEVY; PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF REVENUE AND REFUNDS; PROVIDING FOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLECTION, REPORTING, AND PAYMENT OF THE TAX; PROVIDING FOR REPORTS, PAYMENTS AND FEES; PROVIDING RULES, REGULATIONS AND PENALTIES; PROVIDING A CUMULATIVE CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule city acting under its charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Southlake has determined that it is necessary to adopt this ordinance to impose a hotel occupancy tax so that the best interests of the citizens of Southlake are served; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 17 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Southlake is hereby amended by adding a new Article IV thereto, which shall read as follows: "ARTICLE IV. • HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX Section 17 -100. Definitions. (1) "Consideration" means the cost of a room in a hotel, and does not include: (A) the cost of any food served or personal services rendered to the occupant not related to cleaning and readying the room or space for occupancy; or (B) any tax assessed by any other governmental agency for occupancy of the room. (2) "Director" means the director of finance of the city or the director's designated representative. (3) "Hotel" means any building in which members of the public obtain sleeping accommodation for consideration. The term includes a hotel, motel, tourist home, tourist house, tourist court, lodging house, inn, rooming house, or bed and breakfast. The term does not include: (A) a hospital, sanitarium, or nursing home; or (B) a dormitory or other housing facility owned or leased and operated by an institution of higher education or a private or independent institution of higher education, as those terms are defined by Section 61.003 of the Texas Education Code, as amended, that is used by the institution for the purpose of providing sleeping accommodations for persons engaged in educational program or activity at the institution. (4) "Occupancy" means the use or possession, or the right to the use or possession, of any room in a hotel. (5) "Occupant" means any person who, for a consideration, uses, possesses, or has a right to use or possess any room in a hotel under any lease, concession, permit, right of access, license, contract, or agreement. (6) "Tax" means the hotel occupancy tax levied in this article pursuant to Chapter 351 of the Texas Tax Code, as amended. (7) "Tourist" means an individual who travels from the individual's residence to a different municipality, county, state, or country for pleasure, recreation, education, or culture. (8) "Visitor Information Center" means a building or a portion of a building used to distribute or disseminate information to tourists. Sec. 17 - 101. Levy and amount of tax. (a) There is hereby levied a tax upon the occupant of any room that: (1) is in a hotel within the City or its extraterritorial jurisdiction; (2) is ordinarily used for sleeping; and (3) the cost of occupancy of which is $2 or more each day. (b) The tax is equal to seven percent of the consideration paid by the occupant of the room to the hotel. Sec. 17 -102. Exemptions and refunds. (a) A person described in Section 156.101 or Section 156.103(d) of the Texas Tax Code, as amended, is exempt from the payment of the tax imposed under this article. (b) A governmental entity excepted from the tax imposed by Chapter 156 of the Texas Tax Code, as amended, under Section 156.103(a)(1) or (a)(3) of that chapter shall pay the tax imposed by this article, but is entitled to a refund of the tax paid. (c) A person described in Section 156.103(c) of the Texas Tax Code, as amended, shall pay the tax imposed by this article, but the state governmental entity with whom the person is associated is entitled to a refund of the tax paid. (d) To receive a refund of tax paid under this article, the governmental entity entitled to the refund must file a refund claim with the director on a form prescribed by the state comptroller and provided by the director. A governmental entity may file a refund claim with the director only for each calendar quarter for all reimbursements accrued during that quarter. Sec. 17 - 103. Responsibility for collection, reporting, and payment of tax. Every person owning, operating, managing, or controlling any hotel shall collect the tax for the city and report and pay the tax to the city in accordance with all requirements and procedures set forth in this article. Sec. 17 - 104. Reports; payments; fees. (a) On the 15t day of the month following each month in which a tax is earned, every person required by this article to collect the tax shall file a report with the director showing: (1) the consideration paid for all occupancies in the preceding month; (2) the amount of the tax collected on the occupancies; and (3) any other information the director may reasonably require. (b) Every person required by this article to collect the tax shall pay the tax due on all occupancies in the preceding month to the director at the time of filing the report required under Subsection (a) of this section. (c) Every person collecting a tax under this article may deduct a one percent collection fee from the gross amount of tax collected on all occupancies in the preceding month if the tax is paid to and received by the director no later than the 15 day of the month following the month in which the tax is required to be collected. If the 15 day falls on a weekend or holiday, the director 1 \SLKSV4001 \SSIEMER$ \SHELLI \HOTEL TAX\ HOTELOCCUPANCYTAX_ORDINANCE.DOC Page 3 must receive the tax by the next business day. If the tax is paid by mail, the date of receipt by the director is the date postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service. (d) Each remittance of a tax required by this article must contain the following statement and representation signed by the person required by this article to collect the tax: The tax remitted and paid to the City of Southlake with this report was collected pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Chapter 17, Southlake City Code, as amended. (e) The director shall maintain a record that accurately identifies the receipt and expenditure of all revenue derived from the tax imposed by this article. Sec. 17 - 105. Tax collection on purchase of a hotel. (a) If a person liable for the payment of a tax under this article is the owner of the hotel and sells the hotel, the successor to the seller or the seller's assignee shall withhold an amount of the purchase price sufficient to pay the tax due until the seller provides a receipt from the director showing that the amount has been paid or a certificate stating that no tax is due. (b) The purchaser of a hotel who fails to withhold an amount of the purchase price as required by this section is liable for the amount required to be withheld to the extent of the value of the purchase price. (c) The purchaser of a hotel may request that the director issue a certificate stating that no tax is due or issue a statement of the amount required to be paid before a certificate may be issued. The director shall issue a certificate or statement not later than 60 days after receiving the request. (d) If the director fails to issue the certificate or statement within the period provided by Subsection (c) of this section, the purchaser is released from the obligation to withhold the purchase price or pay the amount due. Sec. 17 - 106. Rules and regulations. The director is authorized to make any rules and regulations necessary to effectively collect the tax. The director shall, upon giving reasonable notice, have access to all books and records necessary to enable the director to determine the correctness of any report filed as required by this article and the amount of taxes due under this article. \ \SLKSV4001 \SSIEMER$ \SHELLI \HOTEL TAX\ HOTELOCCUPANCYTAX_ORDINANCE.DOC Page 4 �P�IS Sec. 17 -107. Use and allocation of revenues. (a) The revenue derived from any hotel occupancy tax imposed and levied by this article may be used only to promote tourism in the convention and hotel industry, and that use is limited to the following: (1) the acquisition of sites for and the construction, improvement, enlarging, equipping, repairing, operation, and maintenance of convention center facilities or visitor information centers, or both; (2) the furnishing of facilities, personnel, and materials for the registration of convention delegates or registrants; (3) advertising and conducting solicitations and promotional programs to attract tourists and convention delegates or registrants to the city or its vicinity; (4) the encouragement, promotion, improvement, and application of the arts, including instrumental and vocal music, dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture, design and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and draft arts, motion pictures, radio, television, tape and sound recording, and other arts relating to the presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of these major art forms; and (5) historical restoration and preservation projects or activities or advertising and conducting solicitations and promotional programs to encourage tourists and convention delegates to visit preserved historic sites or museums: (1) at or in the immediate vicinity of convention center facilities or visitor information centers; or (2) located elsewhere in the city or its vicinity that would be frequented by tourists and convention delegates. (b) Revenue from any hotel occupancy tax imposed and levied by this article may not be used for the general revenue purposes for general governmental operations of the city. (c) Allocations of the hotel occupancy tax revenue by the city for the purposes set out by subsection (a) above, must comply with the provisions of Chapter 351 of the Texas Tax Code. Sec. 17 - 108. Penalties. (a) A person commits an offense if the person: (1) fails to collect the tax imposed by this article; (2) fails to file a report as required by this article; (3) fails to pay the director the tax when payment is due; (4) files a false report; or (5) fails to comply with Section 17- 105(a) when purchasing a hotel. \\ SLKSV4001 \SSIEMER$ \SHELLI\HOTEL TAX\ HOTELOCCUPANCYTAX_ORDINANCE.DOC Page 5 3- (b) An offense committed under subsection (a) of this section is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. (c) In addition to any criminal penalties imposed under Subsection (b) of this section, a person failing to pay the tax to the director by the 25' day of the month following the month in which the tax is required by this article to be collected shall pay an amount equal to 15 percent of the tax due as a penalty. Delinquent taxes draw interest at the rate of 10 percent per year beginning 30 days from the date the tax is due to the director. (d) In addition, the city is authorized to file legal proceedings against the hotel for noncompliance seeking any other remedies provided by state law. (e) In addition to the amount of any tax owed, a person is liable to the city for all reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the city in enforcing this article against the person and in collecting any tax owed by the person under this article." SECTION 2. CUMULATIVE CLAUSE This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances, in which event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE It is hereby declared to be the intention of the city council that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the city council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 4. \ \SLKSV4001 \SSIEMER$ \SHELLI \HOTEL TAX\ HOTELOCCUPANCYTAX_ORDINANCE.DOC Page 6 PUBLICATION 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 10 days before the second reading of this ordinance. The city secretary shall additionally publish the caption and penalty clause of 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 5. 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. PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF , 2000. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF , 2000. MAYOR \ \ SLKSV4001 \SSIEMER$ \SHELLI \HOTEL TAX\ HOTELOCCUPANCYTAX_ORDINANCE.DOC Page 7 ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY EFFECTIVE: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney i \SLKSV4001\SSIEMER$ \SHELLI \HOTEL TAX\ HOTELOCCUPANCYTAX_ORDINANCE.DOC Page 8 qik' /9\ City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM February ll, 2000 To: Billy Campbell, City Manager From: Ron Harper, Director of Public Works, extension 779 Subject: Connector Road Between Peytonville Avenue and Shady Oaks Lane and Connector Road Between FM 1709 and SH 114 (Nolen Drive) Action Requested: Select or determine an option for the connector road between Peytonville Avenue and Shady Oaks Lane and the connector road between FM 1709 and SH 114 (Nolen Drive), and to direct staff to begin the process of amending the City Master Thoroughfare Plan as appropriate. Background Information: On September 21, 1999, City Council had a second reading of Ordinance No. 754 for the purpose of amending the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. At that time Council did not approve the option brought forth by staff. Attached are three options for creating a connector between Peytonville and Shady Oaks. Each option has a list of advantages and disadvantages. On April 7, 1998 City Council approved the Village Center East Circulation Study. The final version contained a connector road between FM 1709 and SH 114. A request has been made to amend the Master Thoroughfare Plan to include this connector. Council can not make this decision at this time, but can direct staff to submit this to P &Z for proper consideration. Financial Considerations: None at this time. Citizen Input/ Board Review: There were two readings of the connector between Peytonville and Shady Oaks. The Village Center East Circulation Study was a four - month study involving impacted property owners. The study was recommended by P &Z and approved by City Council. 10D -1 Legal Review: The attorneys had reviewed the Ordinance previously submitted for the connector between Peytonville and Shady Oaks. Alternatives: Three options are being presented for the connector between Peytonville and Shady Oaks. Council can choose from any of these three or create a hybrid alternate. Supporting Documents: Map of Options for Connector between Peytonville and Shady Oaks Copy of Village Center East Circulation Study Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt an option for the connector between Peytonville and Shady Oaks. Staff recommends that they be directed to begin the process of amending the Master Thoroughfare Plan to include the connector between FM 1709 and SH 114 as a collector road. l A . ' on 7 E. Director of Public Works 10D -2 CONNECTOR ROAD PEYTONVILLE TO SHADY OAKS Option 1 - Realign the intersection of Highland and Shady Oaks and proceed adjacent to the southern line of Coventry Manor to a point approximately 200 feet north of Woodbrook. Advantages - Least impact on current undeveloped property. Provides direct connect to Highland. Disadvantages - Most expensive due to need to realign Highland and to acquire property east of Shady Oaks. Tumberry would need to be realigned so as not to cause a multi -leg intersection at Shady Oaks. This would impact the detention pond, which would need to be relocated. Option 2 - A direct link between the future school road between Shady Oaks and White Chapel and Woodbrook. Advantages - Best engineering situation since it does not create any new intersections. Provides direct access between all school sites. Disadvantages - Most intrusive on undeveloped property; splits tracts. Does not create best flow for non - school traffic continuing east past Shady Oaks. Option 3 - Connects from the future school road and a point approximately 250 feet south of Woodbrook. Advantages - Direct access between all school sites. Less intrusive on undeveloped property than Option 2. Disadvantages - Creates additional intersection on Peytonville. 1 0D -3 Master Thoroughfare Plan Options Peytonville to Shady Oak -NE4V-CASTLE RD -- - - -- EO XGLEN Z _ -- LU -- -_z NORWICH CT c ' i - -- - -- - CUpE - _ KA�931 ^o LN � � _'u �, ��T _ 1 1 T — , z > I - 'Po c9r I I 1 I Ir i L — ): I , (''' .,_ 1 XFTEq I � — 1 1 -- < - J CD l 1 t 1 o 1 I: I I i ice i — - I r- , 1, , _ / i , , , j Option 1' , , - 1 1 Ci O ption 2 I I 1114101144 _ _- I Optio 3 I _ — i i i 1 E ;T '-/-. 1 � i T A 11GS[SSit�E i I 1 _1 i ' 1 / , / \ I (BOW1F_,rT 1 1 L \ k. - _. TRAVIS I:T , ).----.1 1 I I , , 1 . \ 1 iii I 1 - — `\ I 1 `� ; r �— I — 1 - ' I I I - _ , 1 � _ - 1 1 ,M10 CT }--_. k____, i N IA 10D-4 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM September 1, 1998 TO: Interested Parties FROM: Chris Carpenter, Senior Comprehensive Planner SUBJECT: Village Center East Circulation Study — Final Version Those interested in the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council_ discussion and conclusions regarding the Village Center East Circulation Study should refer to the attached memo and report. These documents reflect the final approval of the study by City Council on April 7, 1998; specifically, please note that the last page represents proposed roadway alignments recommended at that meeting. If you have further questions on this matter, please contact me at (817) 481 -5581, Ext. 866. CLC • 10D -5 City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM April 3, 1998 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Chris Carpenter, Senior Comprehensive Planner SUBJECT: Village Center East Circulation Study: Draft #2 dated 3/9/98 We are forwarding Draft #2 of the Village Center East Circulation Study dated 3/9/98 to your attention. This draft reflects the feedback obtained from three separate property owner meetings and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission made at their 3/5/98 regular meeting. The detailed analysis of the varying options begins in the third section on page 11, and continues through the end of the report to the summary and conclusions, followed by a graphic illustration of the proposed alignments and copies of written correspondence we have received. Staff has been in continual contact with a large number of property owners in the area and anticipates receiving a fair amount of public comment concerning the study from these and other interested parties at the City Council meeting on Tuesday. Staff will be available to answer any questions you may have prior to and during the Council's consideration of all of these issues. Please place this item on the City Council's agenda for public hearing at the regular meeting of April 7, 1998. CLC L\COMDEN WP- FILE SWROJECTSICORRIDOR IVC- EASTCC- MEM2,WPD inn i. * .., VILLAGE CENTER EAST Circulation Study Prepared by Community Development Department Draft #2 - March 9, 1998 . a mimp _ _ 111: dip IN= WW1 PRIIIIII■ I *ik F . �' — `� -.--_-1- X14; IIII :IPAVI 4 ,...... t . 4 \ i — -ii.. 1 . 1 0 lb t \\ ' IN1 II 6 , 1 %%,,, iiii mill II M IMF d NIP t . s= . ikT City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM February 11, 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 second reading. 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. On first reading, Council approved amendments to the text of the ordinance, adopted the water, wastewater, and roadway capital improvements programs and land use assumptions included as exhibits with the ordinance, and adopted the maximum allowable fee and collection fee schedules (also included as exhibits to the ordinance). Council's approval on first reading adopted the impact fee collection level recommendation as presented by Lewis F. McLain, coordinating consultant for the project. 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. 7A -1 Billy Campbell, City Manager February 11, 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. On Friday, February 11, 2000, a group of developers met to consider the proposed changes to the ordinance. A summary of their thoughts will be presented to Council on Tuesday. 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. 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, setting the collection fees at whatever level Council deems appropriate. 7A -2 Exhibit A -1 CITY - - OF SOUTH -� U I — N . 4141111 : 141111 r 1 rte, • "-t / S. - i E E `; ..J , 1111116 \ I` - 1•. am S ■ P. �i l l ,I _� ��--� e� gi - .� . t - Y om' - - - -- I I ∎-.-�_ ° i 2 :. ...._� ~ �..�'' = _� ` - - a : -' L - ; ''- , - _ •* .z .' ., , ^ , ^ — rI i n A r u n . ---r" ' 1, . i' I. m.. O = ■ • \ • ' ...�,. U f- 1 IL'- � ..� a..`:: 1 �� I _ -1 - I 1 —4 �� ' %: d i n V lllI E A r. J VIM P SERVICE AREA FOR WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES rjA4o Exhibit A -2 CITY r ___ ......... MIME " OF t--- ow SouTF LAKE ••••• • uthf ... _7 _______ ______,. _, . ____....,... „____,....... I.. • I , N , - - 11 - .., - .J/ L t/ ■ u� = -ri C , . rte `. ___.- ; ===-=a i ! �llalWl�`� 10 _ C �= - - --'- _ , .. - r .,, - - _ - - i tom __ Illt _� w•.. "4 r- -� -- :E.g.. g E ,_=,__ „ i__ , _ rte Ii :t n tI - -� r , a ,,,,.,...... ,....,,,,,_ EslimiggE - , [5 -, r.r.`, a wil id II I NI MI ..... ..... 1 1 I I al a Ar .....=. �." ±. = ° .y�� I I - . � to i I 1• -- 2 is _ ,., I 1 . ��� � _c., ......._•- , • v 7: , --_.-- , 1 ..5 4 1 t' P SERVICE AREAS FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES W N a) _ o co 4 c E co 45 u) -0 .� cn w o Nw C� �. = E ca J N O E N O ct 13 J d N W CO — 1 A-4z L c J C V _ E C) F. a) . C ,v; a) u) 2 ti ++ " CC . Cl) i —I To sz = 0 (1) " - 1 E): t 2 0- - 0 I m r 3 > O "''' CU i CU co 0 11. 0 cu i � p. W _ �, � 2 >+ 461 E W a 5 L ' � CO — " c - c ..g CI. 0 V iZ. 73 > co 2 a) E O _ u) E :1-' 22. ca E ca V O co 0 E u ) > To c o 1 � s E m e C c ._ E ca 4-. E 2 u. c .12 —, �a .a a 1 0 D .l.r O a� W 'C2,W to W 1- M O c a >, w I-- 4-• 0 .O u. 1 1a- 43 L a) as c eD +; eg > ... __ O MIMI Cr L � d d += d O E ca N ' W y = T L d C L c �E as 0 -- ?coc .L J L ._ 4- L 4, O N O o I 4— w .. — 0 c x c n .4 WOONNO V CDOOOOaOOOOOO ` . (,) CD W W O O N M M et �O C; v- N M M C OO O M /' ,, T T V a =NB W al E cr W 4- 173 -_ 13 -_ -_ -_ ��� _ _ /� - Q O. a. O. a. G. Q*- 0 0- 0- 0 -- 0— V/ ` E E E E E L L L L L L L CD ~ N N N N N O I-- O I- O I- O F- O I-- O I- I- U U 0 0 0 0 CU L -la N d .- M , CV N N C) M 7 41. CO CD Co CO O TO V T 1A -44 Exhibit D -2: Land Use/Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table TOTAL (1999) SERVICE UNITS (VEH -MI / DEV. UNIT) LAND USE CATEGORY DEVELOPMENT TRIP S.A. S.A. S.A. S.A. S.A. S.A. S.A. S.A. UNIT RATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PORT AND TERMINAL Truck Terminal . 6.55 19.65 11.49 6.56 11.49 11.49 19.65 1 19.65 INDUSTRIAL -- ------ - - - - -- General Light Industrial 9 1,000 SF GFA 0.98 2.94 1.72 0.98 1.72 1.72 2.94 2.94 2.94 General Heavy Industrial/Manufacturing 1,000 SF GFA 0.68 2.04 1.19 0.68 1.19 1.19 204 2.04 2.04 Industrial Park _ 1,000 SF GFA 0.92 2.76 1.61 0.92 1.61 1.61 2.76 276 2.76 Warehousing 1,000 SF GFA 0.61 1.83 1.16 0.66 1.16 1.16 1.83 1.83 1.83 Mini - Warehouse 1,000 SF GFA 0.29 0.87 0.55 0.31 0.55 0.55 0.87 0.87 0.87 RESIDENTIAL Single- Family Detached Housing Dwelling Unit 1.01 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03 Apartment/Multi- family Dwelling Unit 0.67 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 Mobile Home Park Dwelling Unit 0.58 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 Retirement Community Dwelling Unit 0.34 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 LODGING Hotel Room 0.61 1.83 0.69 0.39 0.69 0.69 1.77 1.47 1.47 Other Lodging Facilities Room 0.47 1.41 0.53 0.30 0.53 0.53 1.36 1.13 1.13 RECREATIONAL Arena Acre 33.33 99.99 37.50 2143 37.50 37.50 96.44 80.37 80.37 Driving Range Tee 1.25 3.75 1.41 0.80 1.41 1.41 3.62 3.01 3.01 Golf Course Acre 0.39 1.17 0.44 0.25 0.44 0.44 1.13 0.94 0.94 Health /Recreational Clubs and Facilities 1,000 SF GFA 1.75 5.25 1.97 1.13 1.97 1.97 5.06 4.22 4.22 Ice Rink 1,000 SF GFA 2.36 7.08 2.66 1.52 2.66 2.66 6.83 5.69 5.69 0 Live Theater Seat 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.05 Miniature Golf Hole 0.33 0.99 0.37 0.21 0.37 0.37 0.95 0.80 0.80 Movie Theater Seat 0.14 0.42 0.16 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.41 0.34 0.34 Tennis Courts Court 3.88 11,64 4.37 2.49 4.37 4.37 11.23 9.36 9.36 INSTITUTIONAL Church 1,000 SF GFA 0.30 0.63 0.22 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.57 0.47 0.47 Day Care 1,000 SF GFA 0.66 1.39 0.49 0.28 0.49 0.49 1.25 1.04 1.04 MEDICAL Clinic 1,000 SF GFA 5.18 15.54 6.84 3.91 6.84 6.84 15.54 14.67 14.67 Hospital Bed 1.22 3.66 1.61 0.92 1.61 1.61 3.66 3.45 3.45 Nursing Home Bed 0.20 0.60 0.26 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.60 0.57 0.57 OFFICE Corporate Headquarters Building 1,000 SF GFA 1.39 4.17 2.66 1.52 2.66 2.66 4.17 4.17 4.17 General Office Building 1,000 SF GFA 1.49 4.47 2.85 1.63 2.85 2.85 4.47 4.47 4.47 Medical/Dental Office 1,000 SF GFA 3.66 10,98 6.99 4.00 6.99 6.99 10.98 10.98 10.98 Single Tenant Office Building 3 9 1,000SFGFA 1.72 5.16 3.29 1.88 3.29 329 5.16 5.16 5.16 Office /Business Park 1,000 SF GFA 1.50 4.50 2.87 1.64 2.87 2.87 4.50 4.50 4.50 COMMERCIAL Automobile - related Automobile Care Center 1,000 SF GFA 2.03 6.08 2.28 1.30 2.28 2.28 5.87 4.89 4.89 Automobile Parts Sales 1,000 SF GFA 3.41 10.23 3.84 2.19 3.84 3.84 9.86 8.22 8.22 Gasoline /Service Station Fueling Position 8.44 5.07 1.77 1.01 1.77 1.77 4.56 3.80 3.80 Convenience Market with 12 or More Fueling Positions Fueling Position 5.89 3.53 1.24 0.71 1.24 1.24 3.18 2.65 2.65 Convenience Market with Less than 12 Fueling Positions 1,000 SF GFA 20.61 12.37 4.33 2.47 4.33 4.33 11.13 927 9.27 New Car Sales 1,000 SF GFA 2.24 6.72 2.52 1.44 2.52 2.52 6.48 5.40 5.40 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Center Service Position 3.11 9.34 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.50 9.01 7.51 7.51 Self Service Car Wash 8 - -- - Stall 3.47 2.08 0.73 0.42 0.73 0.73 1.88 1.56 1.56 Tire Store 1,000 SF GFA 2.97 8.90 3.34 1.91 3.34 3.34 8.58 7.15 7.15 Dining Fast Food Restaurant with Drive -Thru 1,000 SF GFA 16.74 40.09 14.03 8.02 14.03 14.03 36.08 30.07 30.07 Fast Food Restaurant without Drive -Thru 1,000 SF GFA 13.08 31.31 10.96 6.26 10.96 10.96 28,18 23.49 23.49 High Tumover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 6.19 14.83 5.19 2.97 5.19 5.19 13.34 11.12 11.12 Quality Restaurant 1,000 SF GFA 4.19 10.05 3.52 2.01 3.52 3.52 9.04 7.53 7.53 Grocery Stores and Convenience Markets Convenience Market with 12 or More 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 Fueling Positions 1,000 SF GFA 20.61 12.37 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 11.13 9.27 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 ' Free- Standing Retail Store 1,000 SF GFA 2.53 7.59 2.85 1.63 2.85 2.85 7.32 6.10 6.10 Furniture Store 1,000 SF GFA 0.21 0.63 0.24 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.61 0.51 0.51 Pharmacy/Drugstore 1,000 SF GFA 5.30 15.91 5.97 3.41 5.97 5.97 15.35 12.79 12.79 Shopping Center 1,000 SF GFA 2.47 7.41 2.78 1.59 2.78 2.78 7.14 5.95 5.95 Video Arcade 1,000 SF GFA 5.32 15.96 5.99 3.42 5.99 5.99 15.39 12.83 12.83 Video Rental Store 1,000 SF GFA 6.80 20.40 7.65 4.37 7.65 7.65 19.68 16.40 16.40 Wholesale Wholesale Market 1,000 SF GFA 0.21 0.63 0.24 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.61 0.51 0.51 SERVICES Bank (Walk -In) 1,000 SF GFA 19.89 33.71 11.80 6.74 11.80 11.80 30.34 25.29 25.29 Bank (Drive -In) 1,000 SF GFA 29.03 49.20 17.22 9.84 17.22 17.22 44.28 36.90 36.90 'l45 m0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0000000003 'IP C 0) O) 00 LC) r r N tt) O 1` 0) 0 to O 'Ch 0) d' v. 00 `a' 1'- N O CO C U ` CO N 00 O W r O CA O tJ W NI C'7 N r CV r r r r en r EA Eft EAEft EA. EAEaEftEAE9 Efl N CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO CD Co) CO 0 0 0 O O O O O N 00 L() 00 C1) O r C") 00 N 1` CA V C r) Q) CO 0 0) CO C<) r N 0) gt + 0) N 1 N to N. I. L1) CO Ca 1` LO CO CD _ W 0 r r M EA EA EA EA. EA EA. EA EA EA EA EA MI CD Q> > 01 O 0 G C v m� o iti o zzzzzzzz , CZ (/) w o AS C EA EA O 0 0 — L LL W O) O N O t1 O) M co QQQQQ — Q — O V :- 0 C_ ill. ZZZZZZZZ a . co E W O ^^ ca 9 Ow O E 8 4.... v W a) . _ co E E C) 0. m W J ) a) W O. L W CU J G am . L LL CV g d 0 Ll. a) d CU v r N C'r) �t CA CO F ■ CO Q o L G E L L L L L L L L U CU L L < Q< Q Q Q Q Q — � a) 3, >+ d CD v V v v v v v W 73 D �� C13 v. w a I (O 100 I (D l r 1 0) (0 O 0 1 0) CO N 1 r (n (f) 0) N 0 CO CO 1` C0 V co O 0 V 0) (n U) I r I O 0 I r (n O I N M 1 M (D N V 0 V N- M 0 N- CO 0) CD c0 M 0 (o 10 0 Q c01 V, N IOO (n 0 I h 1 r 0 1 N o. 00 : co 1 0 i N r CO N N (O co r N O co co O co O co 0) 1 0it�I0)'(D co C0 1 1 (DIM; (n ' V I MI(n O I N.r c r M N N N v (n m co CO O CD ' 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 r r 1 1' ' M s- r (0 .- co r r I I I I 69 69 69169 69 69 1 1 1691691 69169 , 1 69169 1 '09:69,69 69 09 69 1 69 09:69 6A 09 69 69 69 69 69 04 09 69 O CO (A N N ' (O 1 (1) I ( n j 0 (0 CO CO 1r 0)1V 0 M. CD I M r co O N 0 00 V O M 0 CO CD O 0) (0 1 N i 0 1 (A ' • (A I CO N ' LO 00 1 N I (n r- 1 0 ' .-- N r 00 0) 10 CO CO d) 0 V V 0) V r r 1� CO , (D ! O 1 (D I (D I N 1 t-- 1 s- (n V V (0 • N (1) N r (0 N N 00 M r- co 00 00 Z h N tt MIV N'r IV ;cciNjr IN,s- IN' r (0 co I IV N1(O M a:.;(45 1� O to 691 1 69 69 09:691 N) I 69 69 6A 169 69 691 691691 69 1 69; 69 I E9 :69 b9 109 U4:69 6 9 . 69:69 V4:69 E9 69 04 ■ O. Q. W V 1 I CO I n (A r C` 1 1 - - N COI CO CO I CO :s-IN 1 (0 1 (9 • 0) 0 r (D '. (p , (n M (n VI-- co Q N (D 0) CO (D M N- CO n 0) 10) O 1` • O V' V CD N' CO CO CD V O co V a0 O 0 V CO Q r r r 0) O) 0) N O O V 0 0p CO N 1 V 1 M 1 0_1 V 1 O CO CO f` d7 0 V o o (n CO CD S ` y (p N M N N r M N r r r r O M r, 14) N- I '- 1 1 11 cN (O M! V V (f) `(T to 169 69 69 69 69169 t 69 69 691 f9I69 1 1 69 I 169:04 ' i 1 09 ' 69 69 69 69, 69 69 69 69 69 Q 1 N1 IOO10) - 0 r-- co 0)l0D O). ,1 0 NIO0'MI010) N (f) CD co i CO Cr CO 0 a) -cr. O' co (O O co ..0 LIJ > I(0i 1�!. NI(D 0) CO 0) 0 ' , (D: 1001,NIMIV NI C) CO N ' , 0) 10 (OIN100 . 0 a .(0 1 I1 -IMI(O IC l M I CO ' (p 1 N- VI 0) 0) N- 1,010 (0 c0 1 0 1 NI N M 1 CO 1 M co OO r0 N - r ---- b ' (O N :r1 VI,N1N ;rI 1 � NI N1M (D 0)1N. 0 : V!O.V v r ! 1 N ui r W 1 W .. 69 69 ( 69 691 I6f) 69 69 69 69 69 09'69 09 09:09 09:69 6969 (19:6969 69 69 69 CA 69 - V 1 I 0) co LL) R•) 0) O 1 V ILO I (6) { r 1 ' (0 M ■ r CO CD : CD h 0) CO CO 0 CO CO V N N- CO 0 N 10 E C N 0 0 (D V r... 1� (L) O N 0) (O N (0 N CO 00 (O (D I- CO O (0 CD CO 00 00 G W (D , O V (A CO CO (O M O N 00 (0 1 I N 1 1 (.0 , M i r V N (f) 0 0) (0 r' M N a0 M U Q C+j CV r r r M N N r I !, �' IN,.M ',(0 co A- M , M 0 M M V . 691 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69169 69 69 69 69 6/ 69 : 69 U3 69 69 69 69 69 69 X CO W 1 U) M 1 M 0) (n to cn N 00 0 ) 0) CD 00 , 0 CO N N O0 V 0 00 1 0) CO N CT , M 0) 0) 0 (0 O CO M I O) O M V N O O O O) M 0 1 O N (D 0) O M (D 1 M 00 M i M N I CO 0 0 0) In co N M 1 to V i1� 00 O M (n (O O �� 1(D r CO m O Itn N (n CO N- M V I M 0 N (n 0) M ..0 M rs' N!e Njr ODi(D NI• N ,,- I c I N N V I I (D : O N' V V' . Q) 1 r' 1 69 1 69 69 69 �I1 1 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 j 69 1 69 69 69 69 ; 69 09 1 69 ' 69 69 1 1 69 69:69 1 69 69 69 69 ' 69 69 1 I 1 CD J N CO I CO ! (D co V (o O 00 CD N- CO N 1 0 0) I CO ' (n V 00 1 in ; N 0 I N- N V I CO (.0 CO 0) (C) 10 Q O 0) V' 00 0 1` 0 0 CO (n 0) 1` (n 1 (n N- N 00 CO 1 ( O M 1 0 CO 100. 1` 1` 1'- O co 0) 0 n N N CO (n .- ,- r V V 00 0 h- U) 0 1- CO ,- I 10 N 1 (n r 1 (D1 N I� 11 0) 1 (0 V 0) 03 O Q N (N r r r r M N r r M r N N V � N1(Nil I�' • T 69 613 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 691 69 69,69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 691169169 69 69 6A Eft 0 1 0 N CO CO .- (0 M (D M O r CO In OO V' 0) ti M CD 10 u.) r..... 0) (C7 Cr 0 Cr V V CO N- Nr OO N O (D V CO 0) CO In (n (C) O ! 10 CD V In , CO M V CD CO Cr CD (O (0 00 V CD N- 1' W (O 0) 1 (D N , 1' I M i O r I M M V u) N 0) N (n 1` 0 CO CD 0 CO Q 1` N N r c. .- r 1 r r1 '. o e- - I V1C ' I c0 0 M, M, V.Q1 V V CO 1 .— 1 . ; ; 1 I ; : ' 1 . , , , 1 = 69 69 69 1 69 69 69 ! 69 69 1 69169 69.69 1 69169 69 69163164,69:69169'61 69 69 69163,63 69 69,69 69 69 1 1 W 1- I I< QIQ Q .. .. ! 1 1Q1Q . < < < < < Q < Q Q w 1.1.. u_ LL LL LL • c E c c 1 ' lL , (L Il Li u u_ u. LL u li I 0C9C9 C90 »» 1 I 0I0j 0 0 0 00000 C d ~ 2 ILL u_ LL LL u. 0) 0) 0) 0) E E N 1 1 tL 1L m ; f4 j 1L LL LL - 0 '0 LL LL LL LL L.L. c O Z () cn CO In CO (n c c c c 0 0 0 a)1 o 1 U co I a)! o a) 0 v) u) u) a G CO CO v) C/) CO -Jp Q '0l00o0 Ce� QI 11 i =U U 00 0 00000 > 0000 ' 3 3 1 1 ;Ioi0 o 0 0 00 o 00000 i000 o co) pppp 01 0 000 0 0 w �I .0 j o d N w �/� ❑ u) W a C w J c' cu _ •() _ v N U.1 t 0) Li co 0) = W Q • c •N - c (D) (+) ++ V CO CO •5 c W = w CO Ex XI a .0 p ..1 o • c m �, T a c ` m m m c 0 2 c a) °' m 0 .D m O O ( al Ta CI •- o W e rn o > U c Z 0) o a) Q a) co .o c a P. U I- � Q S a C L a E E oO c(a u m 0 m= z oo =( a� c c cu O Z c a )zu. 0) Ea) Z oQ rno� cL E..1.) � N m Q CD o0 � m U Y a) a) in N� � r �uJ m cU I - c.� • c� �U V 0 p•- a) °� (t 2 p a) a) v ` m c N c a o 5 0 o V • > - o ca.- i > E o a) I- z as 0 •- 0 = E o a 0) c OI - E 11 21- NUpwU2zu_002(n0 a z ce _1 ce z 2 0 1P1' Al � r c0'O N aD � � N CO 0 �O O O 0 0) V O,N O O OLM N O 01(D O C O;O N 00 -W a)I. -- a) '.. N N N 0 CO CO Q M'.N O �',O), r�.O,V OI,O OI •ct I O' .— co: T. -_ COIc) c0_ O N N. M • O ' NIO co OI co1M O'(D a) N co �- O • O'(b o W 1- N a (�) N- jN N 0 CO M. N CO CC) N diN [t O O 69 EA K3 •64 69.69 '69,69164 613 �'I EA 1, 69'69 69 1 164'69 69 69'69,69;69.69 Ea 69 VI • MM CD 0) ! r "O _M I co N O�O i •N O r-1 O M O 0,1- c0 �.C) O co co , O t` : N ; O i.- 1. h.. 0 0) O'O N O i 0) r! N- , V I V O'' N N- CO 0) st '. V N- 0 I O 1 N V CO OD N- CO OIL 0 0 0 (N r-- C) 0) N- -! 0 • Q r- l N! O1t IC co N O O L6 CD d' I(D O. C I O iOIOI� 05 (6 CI) Z o e- — v M, N N- 1 .SIN CO :tD �, ,' 1 69 6AI64 69 69169 V3 69 Efl 69 64 69 69 69 69164 ERI69 E»I04 69 ER E» CI I 0. L> CO I N N O v CO CO r- r-- 0) n v CO a) , a- i co o ! co 1 co CO v Q Q 0'0 0 CD CD CO N CO O CD I'- n; co co , co O r- � O O CO (0 0) OHO CO 0 N r- N CO t- V 0 1 0 CO ■ (0 �, V ,, r CO (1) CO CO CD iD ` Q (D 0 , �TM (D O MI- n , CO'�ICOIT N,1� 5 co � i .-lCO o N O O l t CO CO -,i i . N ' , . N CO V 1 6A', 64;69 691E4;69 69 1 U3 69 691691603 Ea V3 69 ER VI •VI 69 69 69 , 69 69 El') 169 d Z _ "h,Vi —i O MI N 1M V' .. N ' I O CO CD .O O.M (0 , c\11.1- OIM V > o CO ) CO �i CO Oi O.� M O.O',r� (O�M OVO 1 0 M ' M V 1M .0 Lu NCO; O r� N co O co N CO ly O O O', CO � .. CO 0,, 0 I ! I CO 0 CO 0, 00 �i Q co �' O i N e— (0 (. Lo- - 'V O O 1. 1( ; CO I CO � I cO I C CC) r-- I V N U) N !L- 1 — �1 0 Z EA 69 EA V3 VI 69 64 VI EA 69 6 4 fH b9 EA i V9 1 EH VI 69 169 69 1 69 , 64 V3 :a 69 LL = NN N V' 00 N L0 I V (N— 0 0 0) O c0 E O M O CO N- CO CO t` N O CO N' 0) (0 CO V CO I , - I CO I- CO CO W a 0 U 0 �T O �-,C0 O O O -- I. - CO'O I SO M'IN ION'O'O N 0) CO V Nltt 1N O N M (D N (D 1 N O M' Ire Ml r� i 0 (0 O v� 1 i I 1 `' N • VI i VI i 69 69 69 09 CO 64 EH 69 64 VI 69 6A EA VI 6H ER 6fl 69 691 CO LU 69 U4 EA EA 1 V (1(0 r- (0 CO C n O co N 0) CO 0) N- V'0 r �:O r CD CO M 0 C) M n M 0 CO M 0 O O 0 0) co V' O 0. co E co _ n co c0 co co N �- O .- O (D M O O O N CO O O O M O O Q co O I C 1- co M O.- O (0 r� CA r- (D v r O I `t l 0 N- L6 V 1 N CNI 69 69 ER V3 69 69 64 64 64 69 6R co co 64 data 64 VI 6fl I E4 69 CO EA co Efl C) ..j O 0) co co i co v N N CO v CO N v 0) I- 0 O O M (O CO 1'- C0 NI CO Q CO 0 O O N CO CO CO CO (D O N r- co co LE) N. - co O (o O C co O co 0 CO_ N O CO co V• O V• B O O CO N N O 1 N 0) N M i 0) a) Q N" V N M M N,- O () N 't N (0 N (0 r (V r A 6 9 69 69 69 69 69 6A 69 6» 6» 69 6fl VI UI ER 69 69 69;69 69 69 VI 69 v _ _ C M M 0 d' G O O N .- CO M 'ct O O CO O O O N O c0 O V' CO CO O r-- O co CO O O N N O Cr CO O CO CO r- c0 CD V,- O.- '- O co i c0 O O ;'- co O .- .- CO 00 O N 1 c co co co N CIS ` Q (n O I V M (O CD n M1N M,O co ,,C CD I �� I (0 ' 0) OIIIN .� . 69 64 69 EA 69 69 V3 6R 69'69' � U + ' EA Efl ER VI 69 En Efl VI VI Ul ER Efl Efl co 0" 1 W z Q Q O O Q Q O Q < < < < O < < < < < < < Q Q < Q CD w LL LL +-2 +• LL LL »-• LL LL LL LL LL ' LL LL LL lL LL LL lL U. LL II- LL C7 C7 in in C7 O w C7 C7 0 C7 C7 in C7 C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a LL LL d d LL LL 0_ LL LL LL LL LL a LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL L.L. LL 0 N (n (n W O O c c O O O 0 0 0 0 C cn O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O > 0 0 •- - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C.) 0 0 D 0 0 0 .. O O O O O woo O O O O O O O O O w LL LL T- '- .- r- LL - -• r e .- .0 0 c G) _ , N o N d >> 0 (� CL m 0 d .1-1 m a ca a)ri 2 -6 a) Lu J ce LL L (a LL cq O 2 c L c 1 w . ` a � ) o m y� U S W Q D y '� j ' t O N > L. 0 . J U O r' > J w .Q co c L t a) w F c _c.c o CL t a �' i t t $ U .§ § (n g W a d0 �e�e >� 2 2. c m o -.1 m m m o in m R (o ca w `m o m Z m m (n m rn (1) o H In Cn 2 2 d a) in C) Q N N (� c c . 0 y v v c N 0) c c 4 fn > . U () c en N m -J U a n m ,a) a� Z o o ,_ a) co (u g, m a m a . a) co ca En c O w E E E ' d d U J i n in a) Li r° H w a a a Cr) «€ . a o o a) ai U U E > c( 0 00 ' a ) .- �' S co m a o o o= w L-= r L - o v t L re m m 0<<< 0 0 0 Z 0 (n H p LL LL I 0 0 0 0 (n O LL LL a (n » 3 > w m m 0 (1) lln _A.G. 0 o 0 0 O O N N N N N N N N M O 0 O O 0 tD CD CD CO CD t0 CO cD > 0 OW O d' co M M M M M M M M +r C O et N o N CA 01 C1 O C1 CO 01 01 O v O d' N et CO e- et et et et et V et et et w . , , r w N ER ER ER 6A Ef> ER ER ER ER 6A ER ER 0 o 0 0 0 O to O O 10 10 O O O ) ti N a- 0 0 0 0 0 0 .R0.0.0.0.°. '++ N 4 t in d 0 ci N N N N N N N N V r ti O et 0) C4. et et et et' et et O M r w r ER ER Eg ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER 0 o O 0 0 0 CO M 0 0 0 0 O O O In ID O O O ti) CD r o O O O O M M M M M M M M +r W CA M O O O O 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 ✓ r CO et N O r et V' V' et 1' et 4- O M r r- r - w r W ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER 69. ER ER ER o o 0 0 0 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD to 0 0 O m ro 0 0 O 0 01 C) 0) C) co 0) 0) C) 'a > 0 o uiuitri tritritritritri 92 1‘.: tri o 0 0 0 000000000 V M O t0 CO r r r () C1 CO C1 C1 1'M C') CO V 1:1) 4 Ch r r e - as u) ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER R _ c M M 0 0 0 QQQQQQQQ S 1 • LL > V n i nn e, o 0 0 0 zzzZZZZz O M O ti M O W 0 N r ER Eft ER O LL V X CD 0 0 O QQQQQQQQ ` ++ W > ° ~ o 0 c; Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z .+.r 0 0) t i 11 0 o ._ a) zz. r r 0 CL LL E — ER ER ER mos v as Q. ce 0 D a) ce >, w w = D U. -J w ti U./ d C > a) D U d N. W C J a) L d L U u. o Z p d CO L d ., Q. a) 0r NMetO(0�O W w d E Q ) ›, Q CO CO CO CO CO CD CD CO Q Q u CD c ., L G ca E m d d a) a) d d d L N L 3 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q F- H G. w, ZZ > E0 3� o � uc°)i�uooc0u Et • re T R : en � = co d d a) W d as m a) w i " " Q' C ° cn cn cncncncncncn rl IN - 4A CO 1 O , N- 01 0) 0 1 co (O 1 0 �' (0 , 0) r 1 OD V ' 1O' ) : 'ct co co co 0 N- a) U) 0 CO (0 0 N- 0! LO N 1 :01 10 ' r- 00 co (D'. 0010, 04 a ) CO r M r M 0 CO U) 0 N V Imo; [t; 0,V)1 V I V' 010 10 Ir U) I CO V iVj0i00 1 M'r (0 N U) N N- N 0 N V U) Q co ; Oj i r r : ..-. 1 1 1 r M r 1 N : N , I: r N N LO N I I ; I E R 6 9 EA (A. EA' E A 1 69 EA 1 E L Y EA j I E R 1 EA E R e 3 1 E A E R 1 E R ER 1 69- I E R ' to EA ea e) 69 EA 69 fA EA vE � 0 r N- N M'O (0 Ni0)!CO CO''0) Ir CO' 01 V! 0) N- 0) MIM 0 U)'0 00 co 0 n 0 U) 0' C0 O N I 1 0) 0) U) 1 0 1 N LO , N- (0 ' CO 1 00 O N 0) (O . CO CO ■ 0 CO U) 0 N V N- 'Sr 0 M I 0 V 1 CO 00 (0 N- ' 0 1 (0 V V 0 CO CO r (O N 14) N N- N O N V LO CO Z Q n 0 r,r,,r, ! r ! 0 , 1 N N, ' I l V I�iv. N N (D N IM U) CO (O CO N U) - ER I 1 to ea , 69- EA 69 l ER ER ( 69 e) to 1 EA 69 1 EA EA! ER ER I EA EA vE EA 1 EA 6'9 ER (A EA (A ER 69 W IO r ti N MI0 COIN 0 M r U )I10 Ni0 r'0 r 10 1 N 0I CO r,)� (O 00 C0 0 I's Q 0 t1') 0 CO 0 N 0 0) U) 0 N- N. 0 1 00 I U) 1 0 1 N. N (` 1 0 I V 00 1 r 0 0 U) 0 N V O 'Cr O CO_ 0) V V CO (Y) U) CO V 1 N (O N ! CO (0 0 0 N 0 (V V (O (L 0 r r r r r N IM I Uj n' N N LO N : I I 1 i ', e ER EA 1 ER ER 169 EA ER ER 1 EA I E» I to 169 169 (o to 1 e) 64 ER E» e> ea ''. tR v) e) 69 ea ea e) e) III 0 00,,0) (0'r CO 'N 0 0' M V N- N r,r CO 00 LO 0 0 a0l(O' r O M N 0 CO V CO 0 I N- N 10 1 0 (0 1 0 , CO O 0 r N r r 0 N- (A 0 CO f� 0 M s 0 (O N 0 Q (0 ' 00 ' U) i N ' U) N 1 V I 0 OO I U) co N U) (O N i Cr) CO 1 .- ' N (0 N- CO V VI CO co 69 EA ER co- O U) U) 1 1 r 1 N CO I r r M r LL. l•••• 1 I 1 1 Z , e9 E I A b9 co EA to ! e3 , e) 69 I 1 e) ea 1 69 . e3' ca b9 1 EA e> ' EA EA EA, e) co- to e) ea I I • ! 0 1 co 0 CO N- ( r (O N 0 M I 0 1 r ' M' VIN- N i r r! CO CO ! (O 0: 0 CO (0 (0 r 0 LO N CD CO w V a) O h N 0 0 (O O CO 01 1 r I Cr) 1 r i 0 ) 0) I r 1 CO I t` U) 0 CO 0) 0 CO M 0 U) N y V Q I� i� U) LO N 0 0 U) co N U) CO!N:0j�i it 'r r,N 0) 1 1 ,-- M cr 'Sr C. 0 '7 O ,N M M I r a) 1 I ER 1 I EA ea 1 EA EA EA EA , 69 ER 69 ! 69 I EA ' to ' EA 69 ER e) I EA ER e3 e> EA ER 69 e) ER e) 69 EA e) 0 (f) CD (0110 (0 N OIM VI X 0 1r- (0 0 U) .N (N N- 0 4) 10 0 M CO N- V co M!U) l0 0 0!U) O 0) 1VI N. 0' (N'LOI V' 0 co CO CO M'1 U) N V 0 1� N 0 i� N V' (0'V M r V 0) OO1U) r r (O CO r U) N- Ir ',N r O VI N- 10 0 .a O) Q CI C r 0 1 r r ! ' r O C) U) 1 r , a) l''' e} 1 I ER e> EA EA EA tR EA ER to to EA , EA ER 69 e4 69 EA to ER 169 ER I e3 EA e) ' 1 1 EA e) i (A', 63 I ER U. < 1 0) 1 00 0 CO r r CO N 0) CO 0 r M_ V N. N r r CO CO U) 0) 0 00 (0 0 r' (0 co (NI ,, , CD OD 0)) N- 0 0 U) 0 M CO 0 r r OD (O 0 CO r"-- 0) M 0 U) N ..... Q N V_ 0 CO U) CO N U) CO N 0 CO r r r N CO t` r CO V V CO (0 r N 1 M r r C r r O u) r 1 ER j EA 69 EA EA EA ER ER EA ER to EA e) ' 69 ER ER EA I ER I EA EA , va 69 ER 69 . (A ER e) EA 69 e) cts 1 tt O r N M 0 COIN!0 co M (O Ir- r CO ! .011) 0'0 1-1 CO r1V r- 0 C0 0 f- O I tO O O O N 0 0' 10 O 1 0 1. 0' U) I U) . N- 0) 0 (0 (0 0 ' , V 1 00 r- 0! 0) U) 0 (N V N V N- V 0 CO_ 0 V 1 V 0 0) U) 1 0 I (O 1 CO ! CO 10 U) 'Sr ' V ' N CO ( N 0 N- 0 CO CO ! 0 U) CO sa r 0 !r 1 r r , i t �'. I M I L�LO f� % --1 N N, U) N 1 CU I EA e3 ER EA ea EA ER EA ER EA ER I EA EA e3 ea to I ea e3 t e ER 69 ER to 69 69 69 (A 69 1 69 , 69 , • LU 1 L a L t a L LL t a t u c .E 1 '5 ' 'c 1 u I u t u t u u u L.L. a Cr a ; 00000 DD 1 I 11 0.0 _ 00 0 0000 W d ` 1 LL LL LL LL LL (7( CA cm 0) E E N a) N N O Z _ o I(n co Co co co C C C C O 1 O CU 'LL LL ( (p LL LL. LL a LL LL LL LL O O U U 1 (n (n CD 0 CU O (n (n (n O CD (n (n (n (n 0 c 0 W a to 0 0 0 0 w cc i a j ~ a 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 m CO 0 0 0 0 th G > i 0 O O O O Q Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn r r r r r Q r r r r r r r r r O C l l"J i N a) Q O a) CC a_ N a w w MI 0 t 'ci co 2 Q 0 ' 'O > N U CO = (0 5 c °) I-m X • LL M ■ 1 .0 CO a CD ` O N 7 N w 0 J _ N U a) m Q N C ._ C o z Q d U a) Z •,..••• J c > c a) Q m E ti J °- 23 7 s- m 0 O TO O K W s Y 0 7 >, = O a) Q a) fo w- 5 v) Q a) (0 U(0 C ~ W H J rnaa m c oJ , EU Z c o m o m� E = CO w � QJ = � w � a E - 0 c m0 m e U C 7 a) 0 c o Q H c - (0 o (o Z t a) = a� 0 o I- Oc o cc Y t a) � V � J = @ O p c) 1, a) a� y W a) .0 a) E Z ,_ W m c C) c H •a) c H V Q U • m W o 0 a) Q.' a) a) 'C7 0 C T c a O N Q O L U N ' C O a) al > C O a) H . N Ei • C 0 7 Ez 0 a) a) _ OH �UC9S 5 .ZWETQ 0 =O W 0001 • =1 U WU1Zu_002(n a ? _ d' J cL Z E 0 n A A.-. e' V' N- (D 01 COICO 1 r co co 0)10) co CO I ' 00 r _ I N 0) 0'N'V' O •(D N r LO N ' 0 CO ' 0 I ) CO e' N. CD CD :. CO 0) i 0) (C) 00 N V 0 0 N- N M "Cr V - 0 LO CD1N- r to Op (o1V r._ co co Ir 0 ∎N 0) 0) 01_10 N V' CO N NIttI N co M -�V• �I� c- !c ('7i (D I I N'CO1OC) CV: s-.r EA EA E9 I b9 j 69 ER 69 EA 69 EA EA EA EA' EA EA I EA I EA EA " EA l EA' EA EA I EA EA EA : EA 0 r Vr-. (0I I N'!r co M' 0)10) COIc0 , ' c0 r N _M I(0 ('4I - 0 CD ^ r (p1 r- OI ti (0 O 1 r CO 0)I00 l OI Imo' 0 r co ! M: co I O) co co (1) I— N V O ) n . D ( ( N. - i r� C 0 . to - t` 0) V) I r- 0 ' ' N CO 0) CO 0 ' N V N a Z N p. N N V c0 0 e - a -' I �i N M (O � ,-- (. 0) r,•a -!c0 co ' I (OI CV , CO1CO (V CO L-- L- L 1 1 M 69 EA 169 EA EA 169 ER EA EA I EA EA 1 EA I EA i EA 69' EA co EA EA (A 69 " 69 EA EA EA EA Q. _ I W X OV 0) CO (0 I O N. r I N CO' CO 0 V l r V'NICDiCDI00 0 00!0) Q N 0 CO . 1.0 CD i 0) ; N M r 1 CO CO L0 0 N r O 1 10 L0 O) r O 0 ) ) N CO OJ f N LO V i r O N CO (A ,i In � [t LC) i V 1� (0 ' CO (D I (A in n M 01 00 co N N 1 V N I ,- 10 0) V I V N- 0) (0 , I •ct .-- ! 1) 0 co ' N- 0 ) N - 0 ) gib+ 1 r N EA 69 EA I EA 1 EA EA EA I EA U) 1 EA EA VI 69 EA EA EA ' EA 69 EA EA " EA': EA' EA EA EA EA I I 0 W _ Ni� (DIV;OI CO r-- 0 - ICO 0) r 00 LO N- CO r. (0. N- N-. 10 U V r CO CO CO l i � ' V co CO 1 0) N r I CO • CO VIN CO O r V r-- t0 N.- N-. N O Q - - CV I CO I _ V L0 N.- CO N M 'Cr r CA CO 0) ' h CO ' 1C) L r r �i 'N — rl 1r COI (n N'�'t ic 'CV r N e N . co In CU CO cri i i LL Z E A EA EA EA EA 69 EA EA 1 69 EA Efl 1 EA EA I EA EA , EA I EA EA 1 EA EA EA ■ to EA EA EA EA CO ,-- <- i M (A M (A e- I CO 0 O O N r0 CO p N CO OI� 1CDir LOIN- LO I Q) N 0) i N e CO co co 0 ) 0 ) ) 0 i r-- r CV I a N W "1-- r O e 00 CO -- N N. M CD 0 V (n CO N M V r' 0) M 0) r CO . In V v r - ., r CV e- e r CD LO NI e r CV r I NI, r1NI M LO I I EA EA 1 EA EA E» EA EA !ER EA EA EA EA 1 EA EA EA I EA i EA EA EA � ! EA' EA', EA EA EA EA' EA M W j N 0) CO N 0 0) N a-- 00) (0 N co CV V G) 0) cO CO r- CO 0) ) CO N.- O; ti may V LO 0) CO 0) N CO 0 (O CO CO CO 10 (O N (0 a ^ co (D 0 10 M N N- 0) N 0) 0) 0- 0) 00 N CO CO CO 1'- CD r M 00 t. Q co r e- CO CO V r CV r r CV CO V () 0) r EA EA EA 69 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fA EA EA EA EA EA EA. EA EA EA: EA v d J (n (D M (0 (0 V o 0 CO n 0 r CO ) CO (n r` 1 (0 LO N N LO le e- N 0) N- e- co V' CO (D N r CO M V N M O r V LO c- N O "••••• V r CO CO CO r' N N- CO 0) V (C) r-- CO N M V 1 r O) co 1 0) r-- r 00 1 (o LL O N e c -r (V e I r CO i(lj.C�je- " r. � N'�rIN i M (A'O0 X) I— EA EA EA EAIEA EA E9-1EA EA EA EA to EA 69 EA 69 • EA EA 'EA EA EA EA !EA EA EA '; EA (`•) 00 e- 'cT' r� r 0) M O j N 0D 1 0) V V 0) 1- CO V LO I CO 0 r N' N-- N O V 0 00 r r N 0) W. 10 r 1 (C) V 0 1 0 V r 1(3 (0 1 N. N- r V' CO N O i 0 LO r M CO 0 M N. 'Cr , M '' 0) (-. - 0) 1 (1 CO I O M (0 000 Q r CV CO LO CV a- CO M V e- V LA r� V' e- CO O (`•) CO O COI V re._. 'r e- jN EA EA EA EA EA' EA EA EA EA EA ea Efl EA' EA EA I EA EA EA'' EA • EA . EA EA, EA EA EA EA 3 z < Q Q O O Q Q O < Q Q Q Q O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q < Q Q Cr W LL LL LL ;(3 LL LL .o LL LL LL LL LL }. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U. LL LL g 0 00•w v) 00 rn (9 C7 0C7CD c0 0 0(7000 0 0 00 W a LL LL LL 0_ Cl LL LL EL = LL LL LL LL LL LL C LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL O Z (n 0) (n u) U) 0) CO C/) V) v) [L (n V) C0 (n Q) co (n C/) (/) Cn V) t W = C coo O _ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O p co 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (y D > O 0 0 N N O O O O O O O 00.0 000000 O O O Q s- e- r L L ll e e -- r r e e e V- c - r - e e e e r r e- ct) co 0 2. V N C C C. o > o o a CL m d. co 0_ CC N c 0 t n Y LL W • 'a CZ LL N . (O LL N 0 r F - W C (9 0 @ F, > L- V p m J ( u'o c�c W 0 CO co a • > -5 0 C O t > N W J 0 6.- O W' > 1- J W LL N C L L a) _ c L L o o_ n N N O .s .§ w 0 Y )_ W S C C C U 3 co Q (0 N N a) ( 0 'p — N CU CU • Z , � N O C�0 0 t� 0 N N (0 M N N O 2 En o K a) J 1r co d Z m m (1) sq U a ca ` ._ a) m o D) C a) m c c W . Q a) a) a) u) C c cn .- 0 a o a ) ( c c r (n 0 U cq c a) a) Y tD w DU W o 0 0 c E • c m _J a 0 0 0 'c c E m ( . Q Cr w u W 0 O • E E E ' a) a ) U �c V) V) a1 LL L L F- 4' d N 0 ,- I- (n E d 0 a) U v 2 m D> m o o a '5 D. m 0 m m C) 0 0 0 0 a m = . 0 s -: o a s > L re m m 00<<<0(..)0Z0 Cn i- 5 LL LL= 0 (.7 U U (n O LL LL d co >> > W m m 0 N 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: 7A -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. 7A -4 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. 7A -5 CD CD CD L C N N 4- N N N H U) co O co r co r M N C t70 M O co co t70 O ■ , ci ci V Ea CO ER E n C O i_ 0 0) C.1 co cs, co N N in M M - : - j = O O O C7 O M LC) co � CD CU _ �9. .v.- C N iD o 'a to Ef. E09 EA N a q _C U) 4- 4- 4- 4- U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co m X o0 aO O Ln In O Lri <::11,... —J N co CO e- CD . 0 ". V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD U .- "4' co .c N. co co L ..:r O 10 rt co O ti N co M co co N (1) a C 0 O W O O d nt O 0 _ co to r r h ti O O O ti iti CO cis N r M cc; -= O M (0 (11, Q) Ln O tD CD -o 69 Eft 69 ER N d 0 Q 40:1- ER to C 0) a) O O O O 0 O O O o '/' a) coo ti co co O) M �•+ Efl 69- 69 _ CD 03 Q.. 69 E/9 69. E13- a v. 07 M a0 co N 0 O a) V 15 ai O CO M La M cri N Q) O EA 69 En- Eft 69- 69 69- C2. 69- Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL O o c u) u) u) V) u) v) u) u) j O - O - O O O a O O cts a) O A O O O O a O E 0 r r r r c- N r E A -E o u) O = N 7 °' _ _ "E O `- 0) C C N > C N C +r p U .Y > Q Y E o c c a Q 2 cm It 0 L U) Co m 2 ci) 0) D) N 0 M O 69 O o O 0 _ v N N n M N 69 69 69 0 \ i N M V (. Dl N 4- N (0 l `, W � O N N n N M 7 LL y 69 N 0) M 69 M 'Q N O W 69 q - N W O. ( C O 0) O O O O O O O O O O O) O O 69 69 69 .0 69 69 O O 0 O 00 •- 00 M r = Q U N N O) N • 0 0 69 (0 ( N el CV N r 69 69 69 69 CO O CO d '---- — C o 03 (0 N O N O 0 O V V ° .M... l (O C) N N O (9 69 69 r N- C I� 0) < R N V M C) O ° 3 0') M N O 0) C) C) 69 69 69 69 07 49 0 Q 69 0 12 Oo (O O O O m 2 O O 2 N N O) o N 69 69 69 (") C) a v v o v . 9 v w O N c 0 , O M R N 0) U 69 69 69 69 N 69 69 ( 0 ) — — — — 00 N N 0 (D n 0 0 o a Q a 4.-. N M (D 0 0) O) M p 411 01 (0 0 03 (0 49 69 69 00 C9 U 0 ('0 N D) 4- O N '0 N 69 49 (V ~ 69 69 69 C) W (9 4.• M 0) « a tin — H ,, o (o 0 o 0 r) 0 o 0 0 0 a Ed 0 N (0 0 69 - 69 69 69 (O O O N C9 N n O) �9 ' ( o 0 - co v (o (6 o) 6 0 69 69 69 N 69 < Y ! O 69 69 69 Q 2 O V _ (o N (n 0 C) v 0 0 0 N N 2 co N 0) n N (9 69 69 N N ,' O N C) V N N C w 0. 3 fA .-- co- M .- ' - O U y a1 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 N (7 -C >` 0 m o C u o N 0) 0 N 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 O O) 0) 0) N N 0) U1 0` C) 9 69 69 69 0 O 0) LL o CO f` N 07 co 0) (o co 0) U j N co N M C) N M C) C 00 CO 69 (9 69 69 69 69 69 69 0 L o 0) _� o co 7 0 a A N N N. 7 0 0 0 0 0 C p .L„ U N V 'v 0 n N w 69 69 0 V' 0 3 N Is. N co W N (D CO o a 00 N M N 0) M CV- V ( U x 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 49 a N N l) d) X u Q O _ N U N +12) m a O N O 0 O C) 0 0 0 O 0 Q 0) 69 9- 0) O N N 69 (9 69 0) (0 N • 3 N O) 0 0 0 O C 0 CO O ' Cr.) 0 N 0) (o N R O. N V) 69 N 0 a) 0 O A 0 V C 07 O O C - _ - O 0 csi 0 O (0 m 4- O 0 0 IN IN '0 CL () 0) ` N M 0 (O 69 69 69 0) 0) 0 O_ N (0) n N (9 O 0) s- 0 O CO 69 O ' 0) 69 (9 N 1- (9 (9 6 '° 0) U 0 69 u) "O 7 (0 C E 0 _ _ 3 g) O - - N f) 0 () 0) 0) O O 0 O co co N L 0 a O M N- N CO CO . 99 (9 69 (O N " (y I� N C) �f N C0'0)- 0 0 0 0 -C N 0) (0 (9 N N Vi 0- N 0) 0 N CV 69 Vi 69 69 69 69 0 LL N O` al 0) 0 0)0)) r ° CO N N 0 (D N 0 0 0 '0 7 co U t N C N O h ' CO (9 w 69 N. CO c °- m 3 -0 O) M N (D '0 N 00 N a) E E o o w w N V7 T ~ 69 69 69 fA 69 Vi 0) 0 C C >. 0 N N N 3 (0 n) '. m— - - - - a) d o E o w w >• d o co o O o co o o O o o a) E E c° D a 00 c 0 (o N- co 69 M 69 (9 69 co co E C 0 J J 00 3 0 n 0) co c0 O O 0 O 0 0) O m 69 69 x- 09 Ni 09 o° ° a, c 3 3 LL m N c2 69 69 N o '` ° - N N N U —_ - - LL CO y C c - - - - - - - - - m m m () . co a) (o CV (o 0 (0 IN 0 0 0 N N (0 ry N CO 0) (. (0 69 69 69 N N ,- -0 .-- 3 3 M NI ' N (D ■ C C C 0) N ,Z' 3 N M '- II v 0 ` • 0) 69 69 69 » 69 N C N N (n T2 w a N w ` o 0 ` m: t E 0 — - - - - - - - 0 v E c. o o E 0 � ( ( N 0 0 0 69 N• Of9 0) 0) E E a ( 0 ) d '0 'O 0 0o r N M co 0 (O (o O 0 • O Of a) a) - 0 m co 0) 49 » 69 69 69 u .'- 0 d 0 0 o o o w m u o u a) O N _ O O O ., N cV . L cn - 0 ' N 0 « .. O CV 7 `- ' N . .. x- N N 0 C N N C O C C N Y Y 0) £ j N E E N T. l O O_ a) 0 , 0 0 — . r N y 0 Q 0 0 0. • �.' °- 3 3 m 'o o a 7 ) > > 0 Q Q x C)QQ E o a) o o a M CO -2 o 0 0 0 LL Y J 0 < J O O + + x + U Feb- -11 -O0 03 :03P City of Col le_yvi1le 817- 5 -7564 P -01 i II i II i Th �� u> 1 1 I RS ti • I i 'C I .ri w ! ry f o o l I I! = I, li I il.� l c `° �. - , _ ma =y 1 0_ <11 I m 147 ,<1 h 0 I II .� O, 0, ( 5 1 II�`� l e II c,. ,� 4 ; X<I M< CC d ©; IX 11 1 '4 t 4 i ►1CC 11X -r W 3 ° 1 W c � c_ - { ` 4 I 8 .-- • p , .c� p- 1 1 1I�- R 11 .Fz1, gMI _ PNII 8_ I . 9S� a o ?Q, >_o ?mot � I _ m aw N N ca m �E N a �. 11 011'x11 },, 'ag11 ♦ � t II t aa� �1 �'; a (1mo to 11 t l v tr_MN ( Co Co Co to Ln (A in to fh co ll to Co I Cl. to (o h o a. t (!j I I cow I w �. - ( °° In H.Z15. 4a I I1 I 1 11 _ 1 U � 1 11 I I I i r, I � t _�, �t1 � � I I ! r I1 1 ,1� I A II Q I 1 I c i 16 C E 45 1 E l i u. I `` o . ' 4 . 0 . I. 1 fi a . i p j p I ` j t� , --1 I co- (0 11 I ! a e Il 11;$Il ,5c I 1 c cicls 1 � 1 Q11� ° � 1 ° III a fit 1 sI 1 =�' 1 1 8' = " � I ' �, 2 a 1 1 '+. ; l .c N t I I 4. N � a N - 11 N i . N C 1 1 I t _ CU al N y 1 1 I � 1 4 tie y Q y «�� N O , I Q C CI W t E 1 !, Tot 1 1 I1 y 4 I l � ro a� � � w IX 3; I p I = c "Cj I I ", 8 I U I . i t i .. 0 I L S W O O 1 g f a 1 c l ! 1 y ro C ...I , s I i i o 5 QF) I 0 I0 t o a c m m 1 tit (C iii I l d � wm 1 1 ro mcII Teo l ue. a c 1 0 I 0 a'as I '. v II §. 1U hfl i 0 1 1 , 1 I 0 i l Q 11 31 I a oI u. N N Of 1 c t o & j _\ C4 W t 1 ! - 1 I II -11 " 1 4r� F 1 ! �, 1, 11 I ! 11 !1 1 Q — 1 = 11 g 1 1 a aQ � I 41 GO � 1 Q .,- II) . } rj l ' . 11 v II Mt i+ C g I . �4 . r a I ' 17.-T,_ I if o C1 li _ T — _-� Iro I�� � ; II II E � 1 e II l I ^ c. 0 I 8y I g.1t I11' 4F§.l . 11L 114 II i II I o $R'RaG 11al a » g1! .e 11t' II 11 Ng 11 u, a� o .51 �P ,ui{ tEQ 1 1 8 11 ii e I g ym . 0�.4 I nc --1 ` lI doll 1 0 : 1 g 2 '�E I� � i 1a;gm g II ` 11 6• 1 o + o LI CI iz l c°g4 I c € 1 ET I 4' I� 110NI1 0- g� 1 p is ' a � I °v�3_ ma`s 3 `=j m © y N Q fa 1 w cn I W C I .Y w 3) 14 Vi � c =� i c`�a 3 - El ) _ o a�i" Il 3.4,0' +`u�:S tom 80 °c � c a)W o I N . a Ili c2(j 0° 1 0° � CD a >g `&) I w 3 a+•y N18 ' a ° y a it c �� � is o «.• rca= s tl G1( o I ci cm • j __ I � 4.k 83._ 1 � ,. Iwv..N .=r11 1- a 1w11L.ri 1 Lt ti. 11 CL 19 '1 I + � 0 ! 1 i I1 1 11 !4 11 -� !1 «, e 111 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 c 2 1 11 42 11 ( D =I' E I 1J `�' (p O G v + y 1 ' � = i f ;I �. 11 1 i� §il > 00 I .1, l li II 1 g 1 � I1; I1� ail � I ''i ,- +i w 6 L 4 I + m 1: 1 ; w > us c 0: 31 � m 1 '� 11 Pa 11Kcl lE Iga c X 14 �i I t ct fila I 1; x °11 �� I I 1E I C 1$.. 2 . 11 w 1 II a ar" _li 1t IF a, { ane f E c,I A re Feb- 1 1 -00 03:04P C of Col I eyv i 1 le 817-577-7564 P.02 SCHEDULE OF IMPACT FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT Roadways I Land Use Unit of Trip Area 1 Fee AreirFSn Generation Single Family Dwelling Unit t $1,600 1 _ $1,600 Multi-Family Dwelling Unit_ 1 $1,100 $1,100 Schools Student $190 $190 - - - Institutions -4 Acre $8.000 $8,000 -------------- Churches 1,000 square $1600 $1,600 Cemeteries Acre $700 $700 ., Non-Sales Tax Generating Acre $3,000 $3,000 • Commercial _ . ______. _ Non-Sales Tax Generating 1 Acre $3,000 $3,000 Industrial Sales Tax Generating Acre 1 $0 • $0 * Commercial and Industrial * * $3,000/acre collected 3t building permit issuance and refunded at certificate of occupancy issuance for facilities with 50% retail floor space. Water and Wastewater Water Impact Fee $ 2,936 per 1" meter Sewer Impact Fee $ 256 per 1" meter Meter Type Meter Water Impact Sewer Impact 1 Total Impact Size Fee Fee Fee Collected Simple W $ 2,056 $ 179 $ 2,235 Simple 1" $ 2,936 $ 256 $ 3,192 Simple 1W $ 5,874 $ 512 $ 6,386 Simple & Compound 2" $ 9,398 $ 819 $ 10,217 Turbine 2 $ 11,747 $ 1,024 $ 12,771 Compound 3" $ 17,621 1 $ 1,538 $ 19,157 Turbine 3" . $ 20,557 $ ' 1 1,702 1 $ 22,349 Compound 4" $ 29,367 $ 2,560 I $ 31,927 Turbine 4" $ :15,241 $ 3,072 $ 38,313 Compound 5 - $ 58,736 $ 5,120 $ 63,856 . .. . Turbine 5 Turbine " $ 73,420 $ 6,400 $ 79,020 a ,,, $ 105,724 $ 9,216 3 114,940 Turbine 10" $ 170,334 $ 14,848 $ 185,182 _...,.... ....,_ ,..,, Turbine 12 $ 252,563 $ 22,018 $ 274,579 Contact the Coffeyville Community Development or Engineering Department at (817) 577-7587 for additional Information. core, ,r (n [T s•._„voir - FEE -11 -200 14:10 KELLER C I T Y HALL 817 431 566? P.01 City OTKEILER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fax Cover Sheet TO • NV/1'6 ( i n FAX #• gg P 3 0 - — FROM: Lt,' ei s I ttinsa) ... DATE: 2 - 1! -z PAGES (including cover sheet): E Phone me to discuss 7 Advise when received Sent per your request "J For your information Please handle Per our conversation COMMENTS : Please notify us if there are problems with receipt of this transmission. :h :faxffuEac 15$ 5O T r i MAIN STREET + PC. BOX 770 • K . LLE.R> TE:L S 70Z44 6 (K71431-131 . }: (517)431 3:367 Web: hrtp://www.civofkeller.cora • E- mull: cTiatkellericOgr.c.ne4 RECD F E 1 1 2000 FEB-11-2000 14 1O KELLER CITY HNLL 817 431 5867 P.22 I Exhibit Summary of Fors Water Impact Fee (Residential & Non Residential). Meter $ize d ' IPO E sir simple (std. residential meter) $ 750.00 i 3/4" simple 3,123,00 1 " simple 1,971.00 " 3,750.00 r simple 6,000.00 2' � 6,000,00 7,500.00 i l 3" annpound 12,00000 (for additional meter slats refer to paw D-3) Wastewater Impact Pee (Residential & ?ion Reaidea Par W fi: ftg 5 " simple (>. residential fie) $ 750.00 3/4" simple 937.50 1 temple 1.31210 1.1/2" simple 2,230.00 Y Ample 3,373.00 tntre 3„ 373.0 4,123.00 3" compeamd 6,375.00 additional mess sus rt*r to pale D-3) Roadway Impair* Pee - Residentia ii i Single Family Dwelling or Lot 1 1,500.00 1 (per each wit) 1,10000 Apartment (per each unit) 1,063,00 Mobile Home 632.00 lie Ratilement Horne (per 0 632.00 Roadway Impact Poe - Nos Residential Refer to Land UseNehhic1at4diic• Examples Equivalency Table (Prge Al) • 5,000 sq. t. metal aloe Wang g 3000/1000 x 3.33(total service units) x $263.16 ( 75 - student day ewe (qty): 73 x 0.06 a $363.16 = Si, 34.00 t E` la TOTPL P.02 r rr 21st C1V WM A Bientlitg Paton Coppelt TX 75019 Pft. (12)3344•79 Fax (972)3114 i EN EE _DEPARTMENT FAX COVER MEET Pam • Rar pages: (includin cover sheet) stal _Zoe c C.S CC: u Urgent 0 Far Review 0 Please Comment Q Please Reply As Requested •moments: a + a C . -re e5 s e. a ' t_4., e 4 tl"e t ' at. tF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (972) 304-3679 Engineers tag- fzeltrnceBy Design F -U SCHEDULE 2 WAS FACILITY AND PAYMENT AND couzc IION FEE PER SERVICE UNIT Mir She LS.US Water Impact Fee 5/8" X 3 4" 1.00 $ 450 1" 250 51,1:5 , 1 1 /2" 5.00 52,250 8.00 53,600 s ir 3 " 16.00 57,200 4" 25.00 511,250 6" 6230 528,125 80 .00 536,000 1 115.00 551,750 'From Texas Rural Water Association Recorded Meter Equivalent, based on AWWA Specifications and Design Criteria SellEDULE 2 - PAGE Y ' A00 066111 / > . SCHEDULE 2 • WASTEWATER FACILITY AND PAYMENT AND COLLECTION FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ■ r (,o U cr Meter Size E.S. • w Water Impact Pee _ 5/8" X 3/4" 1.00 S 450 2.50 51,125 5.00 52,250 8.00 53,600 112111111111111111111111111 16.00 57,E 4" 25.00 511,250 6" 62.50 $28125 8" 80.00 536,000 10" 115.00 551,750 .,` 'from Texas Rural Water Association Recommended Meter Equivalent, bated on AWWA if `' Specifications and Design Criteria Sa: DULE 2 - PAGE 2 ,►s3ccns 1 i i ..:�.. r 1 ,.. �. 2 Q I• w. o.r wr s � I ' \ P ,! r t � ` `, ► CITY OF G IPPEIL TEXAS SERVICE AREAS FOR 9 ROADWAY IMPACT FEES iLmQ � � +a*co K. rarc .ato�aEy �w,i Ee asst�.m to 13 - e EII! ma AQ!°58 OIWtf, 0� qtr •Mf LK M9C�t�Ot O N1i E. Q IMR! �i/grM1 i. — *u, BM t w,r�....o.� in4J +aw sIK.E F E { i S t t I I I f NOTE: Only the portion of the CUP, actually attributable to and made necessary by development in the next 10 years may be changed, Therefore, if only 60% of the service units supplied by the C.I.P. are needed in the start 10 years, only 60% of the cost may be considered in calculating fees. S. Calculate the cost per service ► it; Cost of Needed Supply * /Service Units of Demand I ' If the C.I.P. does not provide all the service units need by new development in the service Area, only the cost of what is provided can be considered. Table 2 lists the cost per service unit in each service area. This cost represents the maximum fee per service unit which can be charged under the state statute. The weighted average is based on a city -wide calculation and is not the average of the individual service area costs. The inventory of existing streets, detailed roadway project information and calculations of cost per service unit for each service area are included in the appendix. i TABLE 2 - SERVICE t3NIT COST SUMMARY i Service Cost Per I Area Service Unit r t 1 606 2 340 . 3 392 ! 4 1121 540 c ° pert o 7 337 by &LAOLi I- g 73 10 9 1173 1 Weighted Average 629 t 7 j Ilse/Service ihut Eguivatency Table The result of combining the trip generation and trip length information is an equivalency . table which establishes the service unit generation rate for various land use categories. Separate rates roust be established for residential, industrial, and commercial uses but it is desirable to provide more rates to reflect the differences between uses within those categories. For example, banks and restaurants have different service unit generation rate's. Information is not available for every conceivable land use so some limitations exist. A reasonable number of categories which cover the vast majority of cases was developeed with provisions for individual studies to cover cases not included in the established rates. The equivalency table is shown in Table 3. 1LAlIN .1M .ACT FEES For an individual development, a two part process is followed to determine the impact { fee due. bat .1... yet! L . ■ tl. ►., l. Ake fl‘! I . • .).... ` .L1. r•. .■ . R aP • wk .. 611 it. ., using the equivalency table, No. of Development X Vehicle -miles = Development's Units per development unit Vehicle -miles Pali ' " 1 t .. • . rv' _ n" ► r . rvi J - where the develogment is located, Development's X Fee per = Impact Fee due Vehicte -mites vehicle -mile from Development Examples: For developments Located in Service Area 3, which has a maximum fee per vehicle -mile of $392.00. inge Family Dwelling i 1 dwelling unit x 2.55 vehicle- milesJdwelling unit = 2.85 vehicle -miles 2.85 vehicle -miles x S392.00/vehicle-miles = $1,117.20 {as e_ ..tea 4,.* .r 3 ^. : 1 _ . ; . _ 3u (1,000 s.f. units) a 3.99 vehicle-miles/1,000 1,000 s.f. units = 199.5 vehicle-miles 199.5 vehicle-miles x $392.0O /vehicle -toile = S78,204.O0 l -- .. -- •r -.. Mil .'t T ; 7Ca I IMAM cf, Rttail Coat 100 (1,000 s.f. units) x 4.77 vehicle- miles/1,000 s.f. units = 477 vesicle -gilts 477 vehicle -miles x. $392.O0/vehicle -mil = $186,984.00 300 (1,000 s.f. units) x 1.06 vehicle-miles/1,000 s.f. units = 318 vehicle-miles 312 v!hicic- trails x 3392.00/vehicle-miles _ $124,656.00 10 ! -1-1-111n-, 02/11/00 14:55 C 1 TY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING 8174889370 NO. 8E19 DO8 t 11 1 i --; 2 fa m - i x 2 Ito ,!. o- ''1 � _ r n Y 7 C n { eO A C �e +� C A w X e I 8 • § ; g i g's 8 if. 141; 34gr 3. iti 1 Iii V t M �► n 4 r r .0 x 0 i l=7 1 ; ti ms s$ a zoi ltisiw 2 ; j 24gE i 4 1 ' =$max ax 1 1 � w as i �- v 3 a Y Q 1 i 5 3 a {, 1 Z 1° C3 1 Di co n1141111 F l i t' i i i O '2 8 s 8 i i IS i 7i ii !7 Si d p i }1 4 6 ✓ * ro% S6 0 0 7° 0° ti t x $ i +ii y y s C t F I c b rn '1';'' 0 55 > > >). > 3. I a s > > s > r _ Et 11 i i a a p : z : b y p .. �e s .. K - F p p P p A �m x X x 4 lc x X x x x x k X I S . $ > 4 2 . 4 . 2 . 1 , X it X x x k x x x x x x x lx >t0 N 1 1 r 11 ; . 10 to 2221 XiiatstG41 gaa agasj —p.n. i� 1 , . lispo . P 1 li I 1 _ - 3 � I p w w r a .+ • Q .+ w w r N w w w w • ; .1 N •+ r ► z; 1 1 P w o. e$: r 3. i .. a b A i a. i g " .ya 'i Ib i L` . i; T C O - r w w N t. ♦ O V ' Irclg i , erg ! s 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I k 02 - 14 - 00 08 :37 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ID= 9728741404 P.01 "trowh / Aft • ,O•��.) \ Ft OWERQU ND) T s Y • S IMPACT FEE CALCULATION A. Water Impact Fees Water impact fees snail be calculated by multiplying the number of Equivalent Residential Connections associated with the water meter by the net growth - related capital cost required to provide water service to an Equivalent Residential Connection, less any water impact fee credits applicable to the property pursuant to paragraph C, Credits. Based on the adopted land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the net growth-related capita! cost required to provide water service to an Equivalent Residential Connection is $674. Based on this cost per service unit, the water impact fees by water meter size are as follows: Water Equivalent Meter Residential Size Connections 5/8" x 3/4" $674 1" $1,685 1 -112" 53,370 - q7 - 2 ' 2" $5,392 3" $11,795 4" $ 20.220 6" $42,125 8" $60,660 10" $97,730 B. Wastewater Impact Fees Wastewater impact fees shall be calculated by multiplying the number of Equivalent Residential Connections associated with the water meter by the net growth - related capital cost required to provide wastewater service to an Equivalent Residential Connection, less any wastewater impact fee credits applicable to the property pursuant to Credits, paragraph C. Based on the adopted land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the net growth - related capital cost required to provide wastewater service to an Equivalent Residential Connection is $1,396. Based on this cost per service unit, the wastewater impact fees by water meter size are as follows: 92-14 -00 08:35 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ID= 9728741464 P.92 Wat er Equivalent Meter Residential _Ske_ Connections 5/8" x 3/4" $1,396 1" $3,490 1 -1 /2" $6,980 $11,168 3" $24,430 4" $41,880 6" $87,250 8" $125,640 10" $202,420 C. Credits Sin the event that the Town requires as a condition of development approval, or otherwise enters into an agreement with a developer, to have the developer construct, fund or otherwise contribute toward the cost of a capital improvement or facility expansion included in the adopted water or wastewater capital improvements plan, the Town shall provide for reimbursement in the form of credits against impact fee that would otherwise be due from the development_ Such credits shall run with the land and shall be used to reduce the amount of the impact fee that would otherwise be owed at the time of collection of impact fees. In the event that the amount of such credits would be insufficient to reimburse the developer for the cost of required improvements, the Town shall provide for reimbursement to the developer up to the balance of the cost of said required improvements from water or wastewater impact fees collected from other new development within the same service area. In determining the amount of such credits, the developer shall submit evidence of the actual, fair - market cost of the required improvements. Such credits shall only be applicable against the impact fee;, for the type of facility (water or wastewater) for which the capital improvement is made. 1D. Road Impact Fee The number of service units (vehicle -miles of travel during the P.M. peak hour) generated by a development shall be determined from the following table, subject to the follovwing. References to square feet refer to gross floor area, as defined in the Town's Land Development Code. Impact Fee Calculation (continued) Page 2 02 -14 -00 08:38 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ID =9728 741404 P.03 When a change of use, redeveiopment, or modification of an existing use or building requires the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy, the number of service units generated by the development shall be based on the difference between the service units calculated for the previous use and the service units calculated for the proposed use. However, should the change of use, redevelopment or modification of an existing use or building result in a net decrease, no refund or credits for past road impact fees paid shall be made or created. • in the event of a disagreement between the applicant and the Town over the and usa category applicable to a development, the applicant may present evidence supporting the appropriateness of a particular land use category, and the final decision shall be made by the Town Engineer. = In the event that land use category is one of the "other not specified" categories, the applicant may present evidence in support of alternative trip rate and trip length factors, with the final decision to be made by the Town Engineer. Impact Fee Calculation (continued) Page 3 02 14-00 0F3:88 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1D'9 ?28741404 P•04 . Vehicle- ! Fee oer ;t;toed oe Land Use 1 Unit } Miles/ Service I Impact Unit , Unit t Fee Residential Singtet Detached l Dwelling tjntt 2.85 5400 1 51,140 1 Multi-family DYra taiga T 7.02 5400 J 580 Mobile Horne Dwelling unit I. $400 I $496 1-Retirement Comm Dwelling Unit 1.253 r 5400 I 5480 'Others riot specified_ Dwelling Unit 2.85 5400 1 51,140 1 I Office General Office Building 1 1.000 sq. ft. GFA 1 2.39 5400 I 5956 1 Medical Office t3uiltfing 1,000 sq. ft. CFA 6.53 ! 5400 " 52.512 business Park 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 2.43 1 $400 { 5972 Others not specified 1.000 sq, ft. GI+A 2.39 5400 ! $956 Commercial Shopping Center 1,000 sq. it. GFA 1.65 5400 5660 Quality Restaurant 1,000 s4. ft (FA 1.28 5400 5512 1 00 Food Restaurant 1,000 sq. It GFA 1.28 1- 54 7 071 - MT -1 2 High Turnover Restaurant 1.000 sq. ft. GFA 1.27 ( $400 ( s508 I Building MatenalsiLurnoer Store 1,000 SQ. ft. GFA 1.30 5400 5520 8 dwarerPaint Store 1,000 sq. ft. GFA r- 1.78 5400 5712 Convenience Store l >2000 sp.it.) 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 1.07 5400 5428 Service Station Site 0.38 5400 5152 � Gas Station w,Conv Store <2000 sf Site 2.00 5400 5800 Garden lNursery) 1,000 sq. ft. GFA r 1.30 5400 $520 Bank 1.030 sq. ft. - GFA 0.95 5400 J 5380 �� Hotel Room { 0.51 5400 5204 Motel Room 0.66 5400 5264 , [' New Car Sales 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 1.23 5400 5492 Furniture Store 1,000 so. ft. GFA 0.39 5400 5156 (Solt Course,Cr :ving F.ange 1 Acre 1.16 5400 5454) Others not specified ---1 1.000 so. ft. GFA 1.66 5400 j 5660 Industrial General Light Industrial i 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 0.60 t 5400 5240 Industrial Park 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 1.48 5400 3592 Warehouse 1 1,000 SQ. ft. GFA 1.20 5400 $480 Mini - warehouse 1.000 SQ. ft. CFA 0.40 5400 5160 Others not specified t 1.000 sv. tt. G:=A1 1.48 5400 $592 [Institutional 1 Elementary Schoo) 1 Stude 0.01 5400 � $4 H h S igchool Student 1 0.03 5400 f 512 Junior/Co nmuriity College Student I 0.14 5400 ! 556 i Day Care Center Student 0.05 5400 520 1 Hospital 3rd 1.t3: 54610 3428 L NursngHome Sid r 0.27 - 5d00 j $ 108 Church/Synagogue ! 1.000 sq. it. GFA 0.20 5400 ! $80 1 LUthers not specified 1,000 so. I:. GFA 0.20 1 5400 1 580 i 02/14/2 0e0 08 :44 9722193487 CD/CITY-LEWISVILLE PAGE 01 I..." air i i.lL:7ai.:v-L�- CAPITAL REC OVERY PRO GPJ\M EXHIBIT .A« THE CITY OF LEWISVILLE SHALL ASSESS A CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE FOR WATER AND SEWER IN ASSOCIATION WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION. IF MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING UNIT INCREASES THE POTENTIAL FOR USE OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES, A FEE SHALL BE ASSESSED. THE FEE SHALL BE CALCULATED BY THE LIVING UNIT EQUIVALENT METHOD (OR LUE) IN WHICH WATER AND SEWER USAGE IS DETERMINED BY A FACTOR RELATIVE TO ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE FOR WATER AND SEWER SHALL BE PER THE SCHEDULE SHOWN BELOW. THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE A STANDARD FOR THE CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE DETERMINATION. The meter equivalence shall be determined by the size of the required water meter at the City's delivery point, CITY OF LEWISVILLE Mt I 'tR EQUIVALENT FORMAT Equivalent Factor Meter Size In LUEs 3/4 1.00 1 1,70 1 1/2 3.30 2 b. l0 3 16.00 4 28.00 6 61.30 8 106.70 10 166.70 post -it Fax No pa" 7871 / Par A fro , : 4 C. $ Farr # rl ` " 02/14/2000 08:44 9722193487 CD!CITY- LEWISVILLE PAGE 02 Ordinance No. 2394 -11 Adopted 11/16/98 Exhibit "A" (continued) FORMULAS F R DETERMINI r' CAPITA! RE OVERY FEE Water Capital Recovery Fee = Meter Equivalent Factor in LUE for specific water meter size X Fee Per LUE from Schedule Sewer Capital Recovery Fee Meter Equivalent Factor in LUE for specific water meter size X Fee Per LUE from Schedule SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES PER LUE YEAR WATER SEWER 1998 $ 946 $ 1.160 1999 993 1,217 1 2000 1,039 1,273 2001 1,085 1.330 2002 1,132 1.386 2003 1,183 1,448 2004 1,236 1,513 2005 1,292 1,582 2006 1 ,350 1,652 2007 1,411 1,726 The maximum water impact fee per LUE. as determined in the May, 1998 Three Yepr Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Review, is $2,053.61. The maximum wastewater impact fee per LUE, as determined in the May. 1998 Three Year Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Review, is $1,750.89. DEVELOPMENT FEES Updated July 1999 City of Grapevine, Texas Public Works Department Engineering Division 200 South Main Street Grapevine, Texas 76051 Telephone: (817) 410 — 3135 Fax: (817) 410 — 3003 This information is a brief outline of the most frequent requirements of the City of Grapevine's Code of Ordinances and shall not be construed to be all of the City of Grapevine's Code requirements. FILING FEES FOR PLATS: (Appendix B, Subdivision Ordinance) Plat Type: Zoning Type: Fee: Preliminary Residential Except R -MF -1 and R -MF -2 $100.00 + $5.00 per Lot Commercial, Industrial, R -MF -1 and R -MF -2 $100.00 + $25.00 per Acre Final Residential Except R -MF -1 and R -MF -2 $138.00 + $5.00 per Lot Commercial, Industrial, R -MF -1 and R -MF -2 $138.00 + $25.00 per Acre Replat Residential Except R -MF -1 and R -MF -2 $138.00 + $5.00 per Lot Commercial, Industrial, R -MF -1 and R -MF -2 $138.00 + $25.00 per Acre Amended All $138.00 Vacation* All $90.00 *No charge for plat vacation instruments accompanying a plat. Note: "Clean -Up" amended final plat submitted after public improvements are complete will be $60.00. Note: All filing fees for Plats are payable at the time of the initial submittal of the Plat documents (See Current Plat Review Schedule). O: \FORMS \DEV_FEES.DOC DEVELOPMENT FEES (JULY 1999) OPEN SPACE FEES: (Appendix D, Zoning Ordinance, Section 51) Zoning Designation: Fee: R -5.0, Zero Lot District $1,416.00 per Lot R -7.5, Single Family District $1,146.00 per Lot R -12.5, Single Family District $1,071.00 per Lot R -20.0, Single Family District $ 807.00 per Lot Commercial No fee required. Industrial No fee required. Zoning Designation: Minimum Percent of Open Space: (No Fee Required) R -TH, Townhouse 20% R -MF -1, Multi Family 25% R -MF -2, Multi Family 20% R -3.5, Two (2) Family 10% R -3.75, Three (3), Four (4) Family 10% 1. Park land may be dedicated in lieu of fees (i.e. 300 S.F. per dwelling unit) if the proposed subdivision contains more than 100 lots. This land dedication must be approved by the Open Space Committee and City Council and should be coordinated through the Director of Parks and Recreation. 2. Park land dedication must be accompanied by a Warranty Deed. Note: Open Space Fees are due at the time of the final plat submittal. If public improvements are required, open space fees are due prior to construction plan approval. PERIPHERAL STREET FEES: (Appendix B, Subdivision Ordinance, Section 2,B,14,b,1) Roadway Type: Fee: One Third (1/3) Cost: Major Arterial — Type A $703.70/L.F. $234.57/L.F_ Major Arterial — Type B $535.05/L.F. $178.35/L.F. Minor Arterial — Type C $609.17/L.F. $203.06/L.F. Minor Arterial — Type D $510.98/L.F. $170.33/L.F. Collector — Type E $510.98/L.F. $170.33/L.F. Collector — Type F $452.95/L.F. $150.98/L.F. The developer will be required to pay one third (1/3) cost if the development fronts one side of the thoroughfare. If the development fronts both sides of the thoroughfare, the developer shall be required to construct the thoroughfare throughout the development. See the City of Grapevine Master Thoroughfare Plan for thoroughfare classifications. Note: Peripheral Street Fees are due prior to Final Acceptance of the subdivision construction and /or release of building permits. O: \FORMS \DEV_FEES.DOC DEVELOPMENT FEES (JULY 1999) WATER AND WASTERWATER IMPACT FEES: Category: Water: Wastewater: Total: Single Family /Unit $ 1,147.90 $ 478.10 $ 1,626.00 Multi - Family /Unit $ 445.68 $ 186.11 $ 631.80 Commercial or Industrial /Acre $ 2,969.67 $ 1,636.93 $ 4,606.60 (or Government Use) Hotel /Acre $21,267.35 $11,746.08 $33,013.43 Corporate Office /Acre $ 8,632.23 $ 4,776.19 $13,408.42 Note: Impact Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE FEES: (Ordinance 95 -50, July 18, 1995) The builder will be required to submit a drainage plan for approval and pay the following Lot to Lot Drainage Fee with each individual Building Permit application. Single Family and Duplex $150.00 Swimming Pools $150.00 All Other Classifications (Includes Commercial Development) < 1 /2 Acre $250.00 1 /2 Acre to 1 Acre $350.00 > 1 Acre $450.00 The building permit will not be released until the drainage plan has been approved. The site will be inspected for conformance with the approved drainage plan. STREET SIGN FEE: (Appendix E, Construction Standards, Art. I, Item 2.15) The developer shall purchase street name posts and markers for each street intersection. Typically, two (2) street posts and markers will be placed at each intersection. The street sign fee shall be $55.00 per intersection. Note: The Street Sign Fees are due prior to Final Acceptance of the subdivision construction and /or release of building permits. O: \FORMS \DEV_FEES.DOC DEVELOPMENT FEES (JULY 1999) MAINTENANCE BONDS: (Appendix E, Construction Standards, Art. II, Item 1.6) The contractor shall guarantee all public improvements for a period of two (2) years after the date of final acceptance by the City. A maintenance bond shall be in an amount equal to twenty -five (25) percent of the cost of construction for the water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage and street improvements associated with the project. Maintenance bonds shall be issued by a Surety licensed to operate in the State of Texas. Note: The maintenance bond shall be submitted to the Public Works Department at the pre - construction meeting. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES: (App. E, Construction Standards, Art. I, Item 1.5.1) The developer shall be charged a design review and construction inspection fee for the street system, storm drainage facilities, water distribution system and the sanitary sewer collection system in the amount equal to five (5) percent of the total construction cost. The Contractor may work from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except in the case of urgent necessity in the interest of public safety. Any work prior to 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday or on Saturday may be undertaken if the Contractor agrees to reimburse the City for overtime pay as outlined in Appendix E, Construction Standards, Art. I, Item 1.5.2. Note: This fee shall be paid to the Public Works Department at the pre- construction meeting. DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS: (Ordinance 90 -73, December 4, 1990) The developer may be required to prepare sufficient drainage studies and may be subject to costs related to improving downstream drainage structures, if determined to be necessary. See Ordinance 90 -73 for details. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE: (Appendix F) This ordinance sets forth the minimum performance standards necessary to protect against erosion and sedimentation problems within the City of Grapevine and to establish the various public and private responsibilities for providing this protection. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE: (Vol. I, Building & Construction, Art. IX, Section 7 -180) This ordinance sets forth the requirements for minimizing public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. O: \FORMS \DEV_FEES.DOC DEVELOPMENT FEES (JULY 1999) TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE: (Appendix D, Zoning, Section 52) The purpose of this ordinance is to: • Establish rules and regulations governing the protection of trees within the City of Grapevine, • To encourage the protection of healthy trees • To provide for the replacement and replanting of trees that are necessarily removed during construction, development or redevelopment. Contact the Development Services Department for further information. O: \FORMS \DEV_FEES.DOC DEVELOPMENT FEES (JULY 1999) FROM : SOUTHLAKE PUBLIC b1ORKS PHONE NO. : 8174215782 Sep. 27 1999 04: 53PM P1 Comparison of Impact Fees for a Single Family Home / _ ` Q % 70 tio ` 3/4" meter 1 ' z Traffic Impact Fees , }. C t.id Water Sewer Total Roadway Totals Grand Prairie! 1 212.00 ' 145.00 357.00 14.00 _ $ 371.00 Burleson 372.00 454.00 826.00 NA $ 826.00 3 Kennedale 937.50 12.00 949.50 NA $ 949.50 Euless 592.00 746.00 1,338.00 NA $ 1,338.00 Fort Worth 621.32 757.51 '1,378.83 NA $ 1,378.83 3 Grapevine -+ 1,147.90 478.10 1,626.00 - NA $ 1,626.00 3 Cedar Hill 769.00 231.00 1,000.00 606.00 $ 1 ,606.00 Arlington 383.00 315.00 698.00 536.00 $ 1 ,234.00 Lewisville 993.00 1,217.00 2,210.00 NA $ 2,210.00 Mansfield 1,807.00 757.00 2,564.00 iVA i $ 2,564.00 Coffeyville 816.00 51.00 867.00 j 1,600.00 i $ 2,467.00 coppeil , 450.00 450.00 900.00 855.00 ! $ 1,755.00 Keller r 750.00 750.00 1,500.00 ' 1,500.01 1 $ 3,000.01 Southlake 1,450.00 900.00 I 2,350.00 1,200.00 $ 3,550.00 . Nets: ' Fees are besed on a S (e water meter which is the most prevailing meter size used for new single family homes in Grand Prairie. The water and sewer impact tees for a 3 meter ere $318 and $217, respectively z Fees are based on a 1' crater meter Yrhich is true most prevailing meter size used Mr new single family homes in For! 'North. The water and sewer impact tees for a 3/4. meter are $356 end $580.20. respectively. 3 Totals may not include Park Fees clue to market specific calculations. Comparison of impact Fees for a Light Industrial Facility 2" meter Traffic impact Fees for a 50,000 sq. ft_ Water Sewer Total facility on 5 acres Totals Burleson 1,983.00 ' 2,418.00 4,401.00 NA $ 4,401.00 Grapevine 2,969.67 1,636.93 4,606.60 NA $ 4,606.60 Fort Worth 1,897,00 3,092.00 4,989.00 NA $ 4,989.00 Kennedale 5,000.00 64.00 5,064.00 NA $ 5,064.00 Euless 3,155.00 3,976.00 7,131.00 NA $ 7,131.00 Grand Prairie 1,696.00 . 1,156.00 2,852.00 4,500.00 $ 7,352.00 Mansfield 9,631.31 4,034.81 13,666.12 NA $ 13,666.12 Lewisvile 6,653.00 8,153.00 14,806.00 NA $ 14,806.00 Colleyville 2,611.00 163.00 2.774.00 15,000.00 $ 17,774.00 Arlington 4,725.00 3,899.00 8,624.00 10,200.00 $ 18,824.00 Keller 6,000.00 3,375.00 9,375.00 10,657.98 '$ 20,032.98 Southlake 4,640.00 2,880.00 7,520.00 14,105.28 $ 21,625.28 Copped 3,600. 3,600.00 7,200.00 15.900.00 $ 23,100.00 Cedar Hill 2,460.00 740.00 3,200.00 29,400.00 _ 1 $ 32,600.00 I City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM February 11, 2000 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shawn Poe, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) projects for the 1999- 2000 Fiscal Year Action Requested: Approve the projects for the FY99 -00 CIP. Background Information: Each year, staff proposes projects to be included in the City's Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The projects recommended by staff were discussed in detail at the January 24, 2000 City Council Work Session. Staff, at the direction of City Council, explored several alternatives to the projects recommended at the work session. Financial Considerations: At the January 18, 2000 City Council meeting, City Council approved and authorized publication of notice of intent to issue Certificates of Obligation (C.O.'s) to fund the FY 1999 -00 CIP projects. The C.O.'s debt service payments are paid from the following four sources: property taxes (general fund), impact fees collected, utility fund revenues (water /sewer fund), and tax increment financing (TIF) for improvements constructed in the tax increment reinvestment zone (TIRZ). The CIP projects for this fiscal year have been divided into the following two categories: continuation projects and new initiative projects. Continuation projects have been previously approved by City Council and have been partially funded in prior years of the CIP budget. Most of the continuation projects have been designed and/or are under construction. New initiative projects have not been approved by City Council. Subsequently, funds have not been appropriated for these projects in the CIP budget. CONTINUATION PROJECT FUNDING Since the continuation projects are either designed or are under construction, staff placed funding for these projects a priority. Exhibit 1 tabulates the continuation projects, the proposed cost to be budgeted in the FY99 -00 CIP budget, the amount previously budgeted in prior years of the CIP budget, and the total cost of the project. The funding sources are summarized for the continuation projects beginning with line A47 on Exhibit 1. The project costs (lines B49 -B51) are grouped according to the funding source utilized to pay the corresponding C.O.'s dept service 10A - 1 City of Southlake, Texas payment. The proposed issuance of C.O.'s for each corresponding funding source is listed on lines C49 -051. The remaining balance for each funding source will be utilized to fund the proposed new initiative projects. However, in the case with the property tax or general fund source, there is a negative balance. Consequently, all the projects funded with property taxes listed in Exhibit 1 (lines A28 -A40) cannot be funded. City Council will be required to prioritize these projects. Exhibit 2 is the staff recommendation for the project priority for the property tax funded projects. As shown on Exhibit 2, once the recommended projects are budgeted, there is a balance of $1,057,545. This balance will be used to fund new initiative projects. NEW INITIATIVE PROJECT FUNDING The new initiative projects proposed to be funded are listed on Exhibit 3. The project description and estimated cost for each project is summarized. The funding sources are summarized for the new initiative projects beginning with line A38 on Exhibit 3. The project costs (lines B40 -B42) are grouped according to the funding source utilized to pay the corresponding C.O.'s dept service payment. The balance from the proposed issuance of C.O.'s (after funding the continuation projects) for each corresponding funding source is listed on lines C40 -C42. As shown on Exhibit 3 (line D40), there is a negative balance for the property tax funded projects. In other words, not all of the proposed projects can be funded utilizing the proposed debt to be issued. In order to fund the property tax funded new initiative projects, staff recommends using funds remaining from the following sources: previously funded and constructed projects (FY 1996 -98) and projects previously funded that have not been constructed due to Council direction or a change in priority. These remaining funds total approximately $2,733,500. Exhibit 4 outlines the proposed property tax funded new initiative projects to be budgeted for the FY99 -00. Utilizing the $2,733,500 in remaining funds, all the proposed new initiative property tax funded projects can be budgeted. The balance for the TIF funded projects on line D42 of Exhibit 3 is a negative balance. The balance is for projects associated with the construction of new Carroll Independent School District (CISD) facilities along S. Kimball, i.e. S. Kimball reconstruction and sanitary sewer to serve the CISD Kimball site. It is the City's intent to fund these projects using TIF funds. The City plans to issue future debt near the end of the FY99 -00 or early FY00 -01 to fund this balance. However, if the property values within the TIRZ are not sufficient to support the issuance of debt required to fund these projects, the projects will be included in the City's CIP budget. Thus, the projects will be constructed using funds from sources such as the water /sewer fund, general fund, and impact fees. If these projects are funded using other sources than TIF funds, due to the 10A - 2 City of Southlake, Texas amount of funding required to fund these projects ($3,398,887), reprioritization of the CIP projects will have to occur by Council. The CISD has budgeted to construct the north half of S. Kimball (two - lanes and half of median) along the frontage of the stadium site from Heritage Business Park. The City can reimburse CISD once the debt has been issued to cover the expense of the projects. Citizen Input/ Board Review: Citizens have inquired on nearly all of the CIP projects (continuation and new initiative projects). Staff has recommended the previously discussed CIP projects based on factors such as cost, need, and justification. Legal Review: Not applicable Alternatives: City Council may add, delete, and/or prioritize the projects discussed, as they deem necessary. It was suggested at the work session that additional funds could be obtained to fund other projects by revising the scope of the N. Peytonville reconstruction (item A22 on Exhibit 3). Currently, the estimated cost ($1,625,000) is for the reconstruction of N. Peytonville. By reducing the scope of the project, the estimated cost can be reduced. For instance, instead of budgeting for a complete reconstruction, budget for an asphalt overlay. Staff estimated the cost to construct a 3" overlay for N. Peytonville from Dove to Raven Bend. The scope of the project would include repairing the roadbase failures and applying a 3" asphalt overlay. The estimated cost for this project scope is $750,000. Therefore, if Council chooses this option, approximately $875,000 could be used to fund other projects. Some of the other possible projects mentioned at the work session along with the estimated cost for each are tabulated below: Project Description Estimated Cost S. Carroll from 1000' south of FM $400,000 1709 to south property line of Oak Tree Estates (complete half of ultimate roadL Remove hill along Continental west of $375,000 Carroll and cul -de -sac Old Brumlow Supporting Documents: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 CIP Project Map 10A -3 City of Southlake, Texas Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council chooses and prioritizes the continuation and new initiative CIP projects as discussed and approve the CIP projects for the FY99 -00. Please place this item on the February 15, 2000 Regular City Council Meeting for review and consideration. a. SEP/sep 10A -4 EXHIBIT 1 FY1999 -00 CIP CONTINUATION PROJECTS A B C D PROPOSED BUDGETED PREVIOUSLY TOTAL PROJECT 1 PROJECT COST FOR FY99 -00 BUDGETED IN CIP COST 2 SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE (IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE) R 3 DOVE ESTATES LIFT STATION $300,000 $0 $300,000 4 DOVE STREET FORCE MAIN PHASE 1 (LONESOME DOVE TO KIRKWOOD) $627,200 $1,119,800 $1,747,000 5 DOVE STREET FORCE MAIN PHASE 2 (SHADY LANE TO DOVE) $1,287,200 $712,800 $2,000,000 6 LIFT STATION AT SHADY LANE $182,500 $467,500 $650,000 7 N. KIMBALL SEWER FROM MESCO TO SHADY LANE $55,500 $250,000 $305,500 8 N -5 SEWER (FM 1709 TO SHADY LANE) $165,500 $352,000 $517,500 9 TOTAL SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE $2,617,900 $2,902,100 $5,520,000 10 gil WATER INFRASTRUCTURE (IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE) >:.°V 20" OVERSIZE THROUGH TOWN CENTER $130,000 $0 $130,000 24" TRANSMISSION LINE FROM TROPHY CLUB $600,000 $911,000 $1,511,000 12" WATER LINE ALONG DOVE FROM WHITE CHAPEL TO CARROLL $277,200 $22,800 $300,000 30736' WATER LINE TO SH 114 $500,000 $5,233,516 $5,733,516 16 TOTAL WATER INFRASTRUCTURE $1,507,200 $6,167,316 $7,674,516 17 18 NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER PROGRAM / MISC. INFRASTRUCTURE ATER/SEWER FUND) tg:::.s . '` r %:; ::•" i : " -:"'f` " 19 HERITAGE PARK INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (PAYBACK R DEVELOPER AGREEMEN .._.. w ,y , $111,500 $0 � $111,500 20 UTILITY RELOCATION FOR SH 114 RECONSTRUCTION $700,000 $0 $700,000 21 CROSS TIMBER SEWER $580,000 $1,320,000 $1,900,000 22 TIMBERLINE WOODSEY SEWER $288,600 $43,290 $331 890 23 RANDOL MILL ESTATES SEWER $250,000 $37,500 $287,500 24 HILLSIDE ESTATES SEWER $130,800 $19,620 $150,420 25 TOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER PROGRAM $2,060,900 $1,420,410 $3,481,310 26 '7 NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS/DRAINAGE PROJECTS (GENERAL FUND) - . Irecionn Ilmossolt4 28 W. HIGHLAND FROM SHADY OAKS TO N. WHITE CHAPEL $94,260 $301,480 $395,740 29 W. DOVE ST. RECONSTRUCTION - SH 114 TO WHITE CHAPEL $254,260 $150,000 $404,260 30 W. JONES CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS $350,000 $650,000 $1,000,000 31 W. CONTINENTAL BLVD. RECONSTRUCTION $1,100,000 $0 $1,100,000 32 BURNEY LANE RECONSTRUCTION FROM N. CARROLL TO LONESOME DOVE $453,000 $147,000 $600,000 33 PINE RECONSTRUCTION $200,000 $0 $200,000 34 DOVE ACRES STREETS ( MOCKINGBIRD & ROBIN) $218,592 $19,008 $237,600 35 UNION CHURCH /S. PEARSON RECONSTRUCTION (includes 12" waterline) $800,000 $88,528 $888,528 36 W. BOB JONES RECONSTRUCTION (a) $17,640 $202,860 $220,500 37 E. BOB JONES RECONSTRUCTION (a) $34,703 $399,087 $433,790 38 SHADY OAKS REALIGNMENT Q DOVE $700,000 $350,000 $1,050,000 39 T. W. KING REHAB. $581,532 $50,568 $632,100 40 N. PEARSON LN. RECONSTRUCTION $104,800 $335,200 $440,000 I TOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS $4,908,787 $2,693,731 $7,602,518 TIF DISTRICT PROJECTS yr;Il • ; :: S -7 SEWER EXTENSION $450,000 $550,000 $1,000,000 45 TOTAL TIF FUND $450,000 $550,000 $1,000,000 46 47 FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY 48 PROJECT TOTAL � C.O.'s ISSUED BALANCE 49 PROPERTY TAX (GENERAL FUND) $4,908,787 $3,780,000 ($1,128,787) 50 UTILITY FUND REVENUE (WATER / SEWER FUND) & IMPACT FEES $6,186,000 $9,000,000 $2,814,000 51 TIF FUNDS $450,000 $11,600,000 $11,150,000 AS OF 2/10/00 10A -5 exhibit 1A.xls EXHIBIT 2 FY 1999 -2000 PROPERTY TAX FUNDED CONTINUATION PROJECTS PRIORITY PROPOSED PREVIOUSLY BUDGETED COST BUDGETED IN TOTAL PRIORITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR FY99 -00 CIP PROJECT COST STATUS Contract awarded; Project 1 W. Highland from Shady Oaks to White Chapel $94,260 $301,480 $395,740 under construction Contract awarded; Project 2 , W_Dove from SH 114 to White Chapel $254,260 $150,000 I $404,260 !under construction `Contract awarded; Begin 3 W. Jones Channel Improvements $350,000 $650,000 $1,000,000 construction Feb. 2000 Project designed; begin 4 W. Continental from Peytonville to White Chapel $1,100,000 $0 $1,100,000 construction March 2000 Project designed; begin 5 J Bumey Lane from Carroll to Lonesome Dove 1 $453,000 $147,000 $600,000 construction March 2000 Project being designed; Begin construction April 6 Pine Drive Reconstruction $200,000 $0 $200,000 2000 Design proposal being obtained; Begin 7 Dove Acres Street Recon. (Mockingbird and Robin) $218,592 $19,008 $237,600 construction April 2000 8 W. Bob Jones Reconstruction (engineering only) _ $17,640 $202,860 _ $220,500 Project not designed 9 E. Bob Jones Reconstruction (engineering only) $34,703 $399,087 $433,79C Project not designed - TOTAL $2,722,455 $1,889,435 $4,591,890 Certificates of Obligations issued for FY99- 00 $3,780,000 Remaining Balance $1,057,545 - I PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS Delay Reimbursement to 10 Shady Oaks Realignment (Reimburse TxDOT) $700,000 $350,000 $1,050,000 TxDOT until FY00-01 Project not designed. Road T.W. King Reconstruction (Trophy Wood Drive to is not proposed to be 11 SH 114) $581,532 $50,568 $632,100 closed until 2001 Project being designed; I Begin construction I following substantial 12 Union Church/S. Pearson Reconstruction $800,000 $88,528 I $888,528 development of area Project not designed. Keller will participate with 13 N. Pearson Reconstruction $104,800 $335,200 $440,000 funding in 2001 TOTAL TO BE FUNDED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS $2,186,332 $824,296 $3,010,628 exhibit 2A.xls 2/10/00 1 0A-6 EXHIBIT 3 FY1999 -00 PROPOSED CIP NEW INITIATIVE PROJECTS A B C D COST INCURRED FOR TOTAL PROJECT 1 PROJECT FY99-00 COST 2 WATER INFRASTRUCTURE (IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE 3 „ . 000 12 " WATER LINE ALONG N. PEYTONVILLE FROM DOVE TO RAVEN BEND $390,000 $390 $390,000 4 12" WATER LINE ALONG N. PEYTONVILLE FROM FM 1709 TO RAVEN BEND (ENGINEERING ONLY) 545,000 $495,000 5 JOHNSON 12' WATERLINE $ 000 5300 000 6 TOTAL WATER INFRASTRUCTURE 5735,000 $1,185,000 7 8 ROADWAY PROJECTS (IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE) z s.' ; ays e::NQ;: j , i y e.: <e Ej m ""••' 9 DAVIS / CONTINENTAL TRAFFIC LIGHT 5150,000 5150,000 10 JOHNSON ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 51,200,000 51 200000 11 TOTAL ROADWAY PROJECTS 51,350,000 51,350,000 12 13 NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER PROGRAM & MISC. INFRASTRUCTURE (WATERISEWER FUND) t:`' f :: �' , : `. " % "'' ?>< s� : 14 CDBG PROJECT (OAK LANE MOBILE HOME PARK) 5300000 $300,000 15 MAGUIRE THOMAS PARTNERS INFRASTRUCTURE REIMBURSEMENT 560,000 $60,000 16 PEARSON LANE/PECAN ACRES (ENGINEERING ONLY) $43200 5331,890 17 HUNTERS RIDGE SEWER $ 000 5200 000 18 TOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER PROGRAM 5603 200 5891,890 19 20 NEIGHBORHOOD STREETSIDRAINAGE PROJECTS & MISC. PROJECTS ( GENERAL FUND) y 21 FM 1709 TRAFFIC MmGATION PROJECTS 5200 000 5200 000 22 N. PEYTONVILLE RECONSTRUCTION FROM SOUTHRIDGE LAKES TO DOVE 51,625,000 51,625,000 23 STREET FAILURE REHAB - TIMARRON, TIMBERLAKE, SR LAKES, ETC. 5800000 5600 000 24 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 5300,000 5300,000 25 MISSION HILLS/CHAPEL DOWNS CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 5600,000 $600,000 26 VISTA TRAILS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (WALL PROPERTY) 5100,000 $100000 27 SLURRY SEAL IN VARIOUS SUBDIVISIONS (PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS) 5100,000 5100,000 28 SHOEMAKER DRIVE CONSTRUCTION (ENGINEERING AND A PORTION OF CONSTRUCTION) 5111,250 5222 500 29 TOTAL ROADWAY/DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS $3436250 $3,547,500 30 31 TIF DISTRICT PROJECTS 32 S. KIMBALL FROM FM 1709 TO CROOKED LN (ENGINEERING ONLY) +' $2 00,000 54,472,282 33 SEWER TO KIMBALL SCHOOL SITE $370,000 5370,000 34 S. KIMBALL EXTENSION FROM CROOKED LN. TO HERITAGE BUS. PARK $ 1,978,887 51,978,887 35 TOWN CENTER 512000 000 512000 000 $14,548,887 518,821,169 • TOTAL TIF FUND FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY 39 40 41 42 ;... "' ' -' "•' ' ..:fi's ::!.L�'::. ;isk",sva:x �3�`•g/�:. PROJECT TOTAL C.O.'s ISSUED * BALANCE PROPERTY TAX (GENERAL FUND) $3,436,250 $1,057,545 ($2,378,705) UTILITY FUND REVENUE (WATER / SEWER FUND) & IMPACT FEES $2,688,200 $2,814,000 $125,800 43 TIF FUNDS $14,548,887 $11,150,000 ($3,398,887) ' REMAINING FUNDS AFTER CONTINUATION PROJECTS ARE FUNDED 4 46 AS OF 2/10/00 1 OA-1 exhibit 3A.xls U O O - O Q > c0 . O o ` O C O .- al a -ii Q vg v2 a)O-°'7 2 �Q 1 N c o c o c o c m N a) c c o c m o o . � o m o v) o 'o c .bo .o o b . o Q v in v 'F) i Eh 5 a) o v U r) Th r) N CC C O C O C O C N p N 2 cn 4 0 C 0 co co -Deco e- C C O V U V U° V o +• +• o o + C + o z a) . (1) = 0 a) . p 0 . O O y N .0 O . O N . O O C N aO co 0 0 CD 0 0 o- CD O co p O N co >" 0= 0.. m N a CO N O. 00 N d o O. m N m N d m N F-- ~ y O O O O O O O O Co 2 0 O O O O O O O Lo kw O o O N O O O O O N IY V NEf3 co o M c0 0 0 N a W b9 E9 d9 69 EE? 69 (1) 0 Y} vi H W a -) J Ce 0 O. F CU I- ° U) 0 o ° ° o ° o ° o o ° o ° U) o 1.0 0 0 O O O O O O O N in o Q) 1— N In ti Q V O N O O O O O co el m' CO 0 7 !f1 1) 1n H LL 23, E co ER ER GH to /4, (O 0 re.. em Z W M v N Q Os V! M! V! 1— W n u- CO Z p = 0 W u_ W 0 a Z Q LL a X Q I .. I f ~ u) N a) H Y N (� O 0 ea D 0 U CC 3 a) a > 2 m 'vv m w '5 (0 a a 7 7 o O p n c E m w co H e O. a 1- m ai c c c ° a o.- E o CD E a) E o O a , w a x N _i IZL a) a) U a) • o d 'Q E in c o ° o > N p J c 0 7 w w H p a) C. 3 n ° Q LL as 0 CO o t o E CO n f' .a 0 - 0 0) = c ›- Q _z cer c a as LL a 0 r j > 0) co .. 0 ` c 0 0) c = oo = — c x t6 o cc N. ai v o I- E d a 2 76 (o O tL z (n d f 5 in 0) u) I- x re Q �- N ch sr U) CO 1� CO 0 2 O.. X 1 a) 1 nd -R . o c o QJQ) o �o�t. a� W�� ... E 1 V ' o 3 c .. ::%0■4 ft:3 h CO V• \& -It, w 5 m v Q L°v MINIM) killiMMI =IC O ism rn3 oto U .1..) ' o L 11.1 0,_ "1::3 O (D 0 (n ..0 J 0 ( a u i ,] ,< \ �,. it •?=" -' r., E ..{ 1 , 'T r 4 � , U U r > x a . .t" ... • O , 1 +„� t - r a C: , 11 I FT :' '444 t il iiiAE '. : : o f tv i i . , . „' . ' .w „- T.F. t . .J y� _''•� fi S " ° ` �` H. A� f � • 1.- ),'1.1...1i1:> j J�, { � • f, , -.1 : f t .i l: ...11 r _ •[ :: � ' .✓. :gy F 4k..1-7 "% g d., 0 a ... ... ^ � ; T .. �.- \ j , x.. 1a...• ; .r_ . 'i ir' y ' s • s �' r _�'° \.. \\ l ', :.•,., 1 t / . a. �' .... .c 1� •' " _ a ' Q, ,s• � FP rill , i ;. ` l i i > : 1 �. Fs - lam, ..,,..� t �:,;'�'�' )[ `: 1 : 0 t i.. t"i- ` :s - � a r':�.3 t l r r ✓�, I } C• 7 - A , ^ t .. ,. '':iri'' t3 .A 7 `:- 1 ` ^.t'. ..r..y' i...:.....;' [' • `T 1 1...!4,. F. V4 " ` I 'Q F L .:, 1 d........- _........._. . f : i. l' l: � V ..... k3j ' IY ��� :�; � ' ¢� r ' � l s h L { : ::.,:..... ir"" �� >.... 1 !'^ i!� :.. >"'. .e, y,i ✓`';ykx� 1?- -17TS f E _ : , 1 i ( - _ ` . .• c -' �:+'d; ... . _ . r . .:` Li_. ,�}`. ...... l.. , I r— TA) ( \ . iii/i 9 t Y , . ... ._.;� .....E If ( ��� �i5 , ' ,i; "iS. • 1� l % E t {{ > 1 �t ,... C 4 a ♦ .t 1 : > t ! t S� \ - pfi + I7TH ' � ':filir: , e-r-r . '-.*-1 ,<'1,) ) i-z-• $11 . r .M, ; - r f •may .>.../.....i.„:_. s .. A l Lt 7 •I. - ..;!:-.-41---1.. u} '� is . ... _ " "' ... :: r ,- _ �'' -,,,, ,7 '.. '.`E i?-'r, '—.�' s � ^; • , i vt . N ' `. ,.[ a ll } . .. . r J r fi -u ' Y .. ' F : =•:1 : I i ., ....�: r fin„. , -,-- -, L. . " -r • /PI Z ,; •' w 1 1. c 71-7 co E 76' E -c N E: • - `� N a C c Q 0 -0 UJ O CD c c H J a , ,o U N N _ c .T,- ( U U) • U= o >. U J b fry (73 c ro _ ' u a � a v) �S 3 5 8 . FL - a LL * s Z Z Z ''Z--- • • *:' ' '''1‘. ' > Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 3 A. Problem Definition 3 B. Goal of Study 3 II. ANALYSIS 4 A. Existing Conditions 4 1. Topography/Drainage 4 2. Existing Land Use 5 3. Future Land Use 5 4. Vegetation 6 5. Ownership 6 B. Regulatory Impacts 8 1. Master Thoroughfare Plan 8 2. Driveway Limitations 8 3. TxDOT Impacts 9 M. CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CIRCULATION ROUTES 11 A. Western Section of Village Center East 11 B. Eastern Section of Village Center East 13 C. Additional Discussion Points 14 W. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 VILLAGE CENTER EAST - CIRCULATION STUDY: 9,1998) Pace 2 of 15 I. INTRODUCTION On November 18, 1997, S s� — the S outhlake City ^ Council asked the staff to look at potential �!;" collector -level streets "` and other internal 46 '" E- w �, � _, ,� circulation systems that *1117NW. ■ might impact the area , , ��� called Village Center 1 East, as defined by the Southlake Corridor � Study adopted in August — cos of 1995. This area is �— rh - � �� 1.� bounded by SH 114 on •u—�1� 1 the north, FM 1709 On Figure 1: Area known as Village Center East the south, and Kimball Avenue on the west. A. Problem Definition There are several developments underway or proposed in this area for which a comprehensive circulation plan is not currently in place. There are also a number of tracts in this area which are very deep and for which more adequate public road frontage might improve their access. B. Goal of Study The intent of the analysis is to try to determine appropriate locations, if any, for collector - level roadways through the area and how they might align with potential roadways south of FM 1709. An evaluation will be performed based on topography, tract locations, land ownership patterns, and potential development scenarios in compliance with the Land Use Plan. VILLAGE CENTER EAST - CnecuLAnop STUDY: r • -- °' (k1 • ems" U 1998) Page 3 of 15 II. ANALYSIS A. Existing Conditions To follow are various existing conditions in and around the Village Center East area which may impact the locations of future vehicular circulation patterns. Topography/Drainage The basis for the topographical portion of : , z ita this study is the City of _ I-. . ' J -. . Soutiilake topography ---'_ -- ' `,., �, x 1 jr • map based on the USGS ' - - �- i , �� Aggaw ` ' topographical _ -\61- = ` quadrangle sheets, set at � � � � ' � 10 -foot contours. As ` - - -- -;' �.� supplements to the - - -.- - -- - I � , t'.11 in USGS topographical - -- maps, as-built Texas ; , ` <► "'rte► , . ; ,,! ! ; 1q�� -' Department of U'" ' �„ • r � +� ; . Park Transport l: - - - -- 1 i �a ! '°' topographical elevation 1 :�„ ; , . -` .:2 = - - _ : _ �; _ _ _ for F.M. 1709 and site- — _ - - _- -. - - -- .. - . .. ` -.- _ - � � .._._ spec spot elevations -- > , -- -- • - -- - j , k from development Figure 2: Topography in Village Center East (10' contours shown) projects were also used. The main topographical issue with the location of any vehicular circulation in the Village Center East area is the minimization of the impact of vertical curves for traffic safety purposes. A secondary issue related to topography is the minimization of the grading cuts and fills necessary to accommodate a future road bed. As noted in Figure 2, the general area centered roughly between Georgetown Park and "Drainage Channel A" near the intersection of Crooked Lane and F.M. 1709 has adequate topography to accommodate a north -south R.O.W. without too compromising of a grade change. It is therefore recommended that any north -south R.O.W. west of the drainage channel be located roughly along that area to minimize sight line hazards for traffic on F.M. 1709 approaching a proposed intersection. The southerly end of Drainage Channel A, as well as the entirety of Drainage Channels B and C, pose moderate, yet not overwhelming, grading and drainage concerns which are preliminarily believed to be adequately traversed with minimal or moderate engineering costs. VILLAGE CENTER EAST - CIRCULATION STUDY: - - Page 4 of 15 Existing Land Use As noted in Figure 3, ! the property in this L 'NM area is largely undeveloped, E�' c g haracterized by n . R long -time existing I t residences with the I: Rstaiwaant sfc Z oning: C-3 Use: Vacant Us.: Residences \1 exceptions Of E. Zoning: AG Zoning: AG, SF -1A relatively new office 4 - : I Us.: Offices Us.: Bank Use: Residences Zoning: 0-1 (Georgetown Park) " � , �� zoning: C -2 Zoning: AG and light retail uses Use: Residences id (Liberty Bank, �`"' � zon >ng: AG, SF•1A McDonald's) at � 1111 varying points. 11111 zzoning Zoning in the area is : - - Agricultural, ! ,7 : y Fix with the exception of !� the retail zoning near MEM �- r11 and adjacent to Figure 3: Existing Uses and Zoning Kimball Avenue (existing McDonald's and proposed retail center uses on Hanover property adjacent and to the east). The Oak Knolls area to the far east is characterized by long -time residences, several of which are leased, and a small area of professional office buildings. Future Land Use The predominant future land use category in this area is Mixed Use. This area has long been recognized as a future site of some of the more substantial retail development in Southlake, due mainly to its location between two state highways. During the 1997 -1998 update of the Land Use Plan, existing retail zoning in the area was recognized as such and given the new designation of Retail Commercial, which prescribes a predominantly planned, retail development. The area of newly designated Retail Commercial which was taken out of the previous Mixed Use area is roughly that area around the "Retail/Vacant" label in Figure 3 above, from F.M. 1709 to S.H. 114. The southern portion of the above - described area is also with the 75 LDN zone of the Airport Overlay District, with a majority of the remainder of the area within the 65 LDN zone. VILLAGE CENTER EAST- Cmc -- " — "' -' 1, 1998) Page 5 of 15 Vegetation It is possible • -1 - „ ,_ r from the a - r .;;_ ,, • scanned aerial '- �7r► s • "` ,t- • °"' photograph to : - the right (Figure - ' ' 4 _ = 4) to get a rough idea of the limits of i I - ,j »' .. - t existing tree ' ■ s - \- cover and how a L b proposed I � R.O.W. would - � _ : u affect the area. ! :: .- ; The only B= ; �r , _'. significant it ..., _ , ar sr f I t change from the - _ r t NM time this aerial X+°' 4-- Z photograph was f { -- - - - � irkj , ,• -, - • • taken to the ' - Figure 4: Limits of existing tree cover present is the b addition of the Georgetown Park office /retail development, which is situated approximately one -third of the way east between the Kimball Avenue and Crooked Lane intersections on the south side of F.M. 1709. Note that the most dense concentration of trees exists on the north side of Crooked Lane on the opposite side of the entrance to the Cornerstone Business park development, and on the north side of F.M1. 1709 adjacent to the drainage channels. Ownership The Tarrant Appraisal District (TAD) records of ownership as of September 1, 1997 (see Figure 5, next page), indicate a varied record of ownership in the area. However, through conversations with varied interests in the area, it is necessary to provide a more recent description of property ownership changes as they may relate development. For example, there has been a recent development submittal received by the city for which an agglomeration of owners (Cavallino Properties, Four Bear Creek, Ltd., Conner Lam, Hanover Properties) has joined to promote a larger -scale development in the Kimball Avenue area. There were also several individuals present at the second property owner meeting ( eastem section) who stated that they are currently under contract to sell their property to a person who already owns several other substantial properties in the eastern section. Additionally, many of the current residents of Oak Knolls Lakeview stated that they would be interested in working together as a neighborhood to comprehensively plan the future use of their properties as one unit. Therefore, the prevailing expectation is that a large majority VILLAGE CENTER EAST - CIRCLLATION STUDY i93) Page 6 of 15 i 1 _ j , - 1 'tei ST FilVY Inv lb , ilif il -"gli Ni — ____ . ,.. � gip A � iii . �, 1 KP irt34 g jit T 1 ' ® I rA., F ., a= iillfiNgiu --_-..:.- imovia..., -II .. i . , --... � 1 111:Iii -tp, 11110""rJF4 �, e .,_ 1 Figure 5: TAD ownership records of Village Center East will develop, at some undetermined point in the future, as only a handful of mostly larger - scale, master - planned developments, if current patterns are realized. An initial meeting for property owners on the western portion of the area was held on Tuesday, January 27, 1998 to informally discuss this issue. The major result of that meeting was a general consensus among the participants that a future collector -level street would enhance property values and contribute to a more orderly development pattern. Some of the constructive comments from participants at that meeting included the attempt to locate a possible roadway on common lot lines in as many places as possible and the preference for a straighter alignment (and less associated cost). Soon after that meeting, a meeting for property owners in the eastern portion of this area was held on Tuesday, February 17, 1998 to informally discuss possible roadways through the eastem half of the area. Results of this meeting could be said to generally include favorable viewpoints on a comprehensively planned access system; general agreement with the location of a roadway from the new N.W. Hwy overpass to Commerce Street; the need to pay careful attention to where any east -west common access drive may be located; and the possible addition of a north/south road alignment roughly from the existing Crooked Lane VILLAGE CENTER EAST - CIRCULATION STUDY: DP 998) Page 7 of 15 to Austin Place only if it made sense from a unified ownership front in Oak Knolls Lakeview. A third meeting with all property owners was held on March 2, 1998, to solicit any additional feedback and to propose several more alternatives for the western portion of the study area due to the inflexibility of controlled access areas for roadways intersecting S.H. 114 frontage roads, as noted in the "TxDOT Impacts" paragraph below. The results of that meeting, as well as the discussion and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission for this study, are summarized in the "Conceptual Alternatives for Circulation Routes" section beginning on page 11. B. Regulatory Impacts All future roadway and development projects operate under various sets of standards which shape their physical design in many ways. Three of the more critical sets of standards that apply to a new Village Center East collector alignment are those of Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) implications, driveway limitations set forth in the City of Southlake Driveway Ordinance No. 634, and the standards TxDOT uses to regulate local thoroughfare interaction in the area of state highways. Master Thoroughfare Plan The MTP sets forth the planned future state of all major roadways in the city, and as such, is a policy instrument used by city officials to plan for adequate circulation of traffic by means of acquiring right -of -way dedications necessary to accomplish a majority of these future expansions. The Village Center East interior area has not been historically included in the roadways plans of past MTPs, due to a long - standing policy of designating only existing thoroughfares as arterials or collectors, with "the locations of (new) facilities (being) a function of the design of the individual developments," as stated in the MTP text. Bearing this in mind, staff was asked to take a proactive approach to planning for the rapidly approaching new development in the Village Center East area, and by gaining as much insight as possible into possible development scenarios, plan new collector routes and facilitate the right -of -way alignments as described in the MTP to accommodate the best patterns possible. Driveway Limitations A major impetus for locating proposed roadways and internal access drives within Village Center East comes from the City of Southlake's detailed requirements in Driveway Ordinance No. 634. These driveway regulations include stacking requirements, possible auxiliary lanes, minimum distances from an intersections, minimum driveway centerline spacings, and other criteria used to limit the proliferation of drive cuts and subsequent roadway hazards along city streets. With well - placed collector access and internal drives, many of the problems addressed by the Driveway Ordinance are eliminated. VILLAGE Cr EQER EAST - CIRCULATION STUDY: t 98) Page 8 of 15 Lots with sufficient frontage to safely meet the design requirements of the Driveway Ordinance may be permitted their own driveways without the necessity of variances being granted. A common access easement may be required between adjacent lots fronting on a major street facility or collector or local street in order to minimize the total number of access points along those streets and to facilitate traffic flow between lots. An existing common access easement on lots fronting on F.M. 1709 connects the Southlake Center at Kimball with Georgetown Park, for example. It is the intent of this Circulation Study to promote the use of common access drives internal to the development to gather and direct traffic to the new collector street location(s). At a minimum, the size of the common access easement must be twenty -six (26') feet wide and forty-two (42') feet deep for commercial and service driveways. When the center of the easement is offset from the common lot line, the easement must extend past the lot line a minimum distance of one (1) foot. As a condition of a Driveway Permit, the Applicant shall provide a deceleration lane for any driveway located on an arterial street (or the state highways, in this case) if the right turn ingress volume exceeds 40 right turn ingress vehicles occur in the design hour (100 vehicles if the design hour occurs on a Sunday). However, no driveway shall be permitted within the transition area of any dedicated right turn or deceleration lane. A continuous deceleration lane may be required as a condition of a driveway permit when two or more deceleration lanes are planned and their proximity necessitates that they be combined for proper traffic flow and safety. The transition taper for a continuous deceleration lane shall not extend into or beyond a public street intersection. The width of the properties in the Village Center East area fronting on F.M. 1709 could create an almost continuous deceleration lane, if drive access was granted for each parcel. The current scenario on F.M. 1709 consists of the following existing commercial driveways between Kimball Avenue and Commerce Street: Southlake Center at Kimball (full- in/right- out and shared full - access drive with Dynamic Travel), Georgetown Park (full- access) and Shur Guard (one full- access and one right - in/right -out) on the south side of F.M. 1709 and Liberty Bank (full- access) on the north. Within the parameters of the Driveway Ordinance, these conditions yield only two possible right - in/right -out drive cuts on the south, and either two right - in/right -out or one full - access drive cut on the north (assuming that Northwest Highway will extend from the planned bridge overpass to intersect F.M. 1709 at Commerce). There are currently no commercial drives on S.H. 114 in the study area other than those of Dr. Tate's office in Oak Knolls Business Park. Several of the tracts of land contained within the Village Center East area are land - locked. In addition, the majority of the parcels are two acres or greater in size, with a single owner on most tracts. Collector -level roads and internal circulation drives in this area would greatly reduce the need for drive access to F.M. 1709 and S.H. 114 frontage roads for individual parcels and encourage traffic patterns to flow through common access drives. TxDOT Impacts The main issues concerning proposed Village Center East roadways from the perspective of the Texas Department of Transportation is the manner in which these new roadways would VILLAGE CENTER EAST - CIRCULATION STUDY: DRAT Page 9 of 15 interface with existing and planned state highway facilities. In reality, the layout and design of these facilities undergoes rigorous study and must meet rather stringent design tolerances; there is little room for flexibility within these standards. The conceptual geometric design for the planned S.H. 114 expansion has been in place for nearly ten years. Based on this plan, TxDOT engineers are finishing the construction design in most parts of Southlake. These plans include the areas of "controlled access" where on- ramps and off-ramps from the freeway main lanes interface with the access roads. Based on recent discussions with TxDOT design engineers, these areas of controlled access are firmly in place and would allow only a few feet of leeway either direction, based mainly on the stringent engineering design standards mentioned above as well as the possibility of adversely affecting access to property resulting from their adjustment. City staff discussed with TxDOT the merits of allowing for a few hundred feet of westerly "shift" in the location of the eastbound off-ramp past Kimball Avenue to accommodate the Option "C" alignment in Figure 6 attached to this report, mainly because it followed common property lines in the most unconstrained alignment. However, again, due to geometric requirements necessary for safe and adequate "weave" area downstream of this off -ramp, the TxDOT staff has declined to allow this adjustment. Bearing this in mind, the northern connection of the north -south roadway in the westem section of Village Center East must fall in a location farther east than the preferred alternative discussed at the first property owner meeting. The TxDOT personnel expressed no concern for any of the other possible interface areas discussed in the property owner meetings. Vu.uGE Cox EAST - CIRCUM -- - - 1998) Page 10 of 15 III. CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CIRCULATION ROUTES The entirety of Village Center East was divided into two parts for study purposes: east and west of the major Drainage Channel "A" as previously discussed. Though divided for study purposes, there are interrelated items from both groups that will be mentioned as such. The first series of conceptual alternatives begins with the options discussed for the western portion (see Exhibit 6 following this report for a graphic depiction of the combined alternatives). A. Western Section of Village Center East Option "A" This alignment was originally proposed by Richard Myers as part of their Georgetown Park development. It was intended to provide a connection to Crooked Lane at the intersection with the proposed Nolan Drive (originally proposed as Graphics Drive) entering into the Comerstone Business Park. Benefits to this alignment are that we have receptive landowners offering immediate dedication of the ROW and construction of the roadway along their portion of the roadway. Detriments to this alignment include a difficulty in extending the roadway north of F.M. 1709 in a location that would benefit the most property, and the juxtaposition of the existing drive for the Liberty Bank site. Other considerations include difficulty with the southern extension of the roadway through the Williams and White tracts and the possibility that it might create some awkward geometry and lotting in order to complete the connection to Nolan Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation on March 5, 1998, omitted this alignment as a preferred alternative. Option "B" As discussion progressed and continued phases of Georgetown Park were processed, this alternative was proposed by Mr. Myers to try to address some of the issues noted in Option "A" above. Benefits to this alignment include better geometry through the Williams and White tracts north of:Crooked Lane. Detriments to this alignment include a lack of receptiveness from Ray Williams, the developer of the proposed Hilltop Country Plaza north of FM 1709 due to the fact that it bisected his property and would require a significant dedication of right -of -way from his property. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation on March 5, 1998, omitted this alignment south of F.M. 1709 as a preferred alternative. Option "C" This option is an alternative offered by staff during our first group meeting of the property owners on the west half of Village Center East. Benefits of this alignment were mainly that it would be aligned along the common lot lines of multiple property owners and appeared to be equitable in its alignment and need for right -of -way dedication. It also has the benefit of the best geometry on the Williams and White tracts just north of Crooked Lane in that it intersects Crooked Lane at a near perpendicular connection and provides for a satisfactory VILLAGE CENTER EAST - CIRCULATION STUDY: DRAFT' 111 • "•• o °°Q Page 11 of 15 lotting pattern on both sides of the proposed right -of -way. During the land owner meeting of January 28, 1998, there was general consensus that Option "C" would be the best alignment for all affected parties. An issue has arisen since the landowner meetings regarding the connection point of Option "C" to S.H. 114. Both Options `B" and "C" combined at the north -south midpoint of Village Center East along common property lines and continued north to the future south frontage road along S.H. 114. At the time of generation of this option, information regarding restricted access along S.H. 114 was not available. As a result of a recent meeting with TxDOT representatives, it has become apparent that the point of connection shown for both "B" and "C" is within a restricted access area of the frontage road due to an east -bound off - ramp alignment. Discussions with TxDOT regarding any flexibility in relocating ramps and therefore modifying the location of the restricted access zones concluded that there were too many geometric engineering prohibitions to modifying these alignments. This issue, as well as the additional alternatives noted below, were presented to landowners at the meeting on March 2, 1998, and to the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 5, 1998. The Option "C" alignment was omitted by the Commission as a preferred alternative. Option "II" As a result of the restricted access limitation along S.H. 114, new alternatives "H, I and J" were proposed. Alternative "H" is a minor alignment change shifting the far north end of the `B -C" options east to the point that it is outside of the restricted access area. This option was shifted east rather than west due to the fact that this location would be downstream of the east -bound off -ramp, thereby allowing better access to the Village Center East properties. Benefits of this option include anticipated support from the other property owners who are not affected by the new alignment and the enhanced access due to the location downstream of the off -ramp. The Vogels, the property owners most impacted by this shift across their property, indicated to staff immediately prior to the public hearing on March 5, 1998, that they were not receptive to any roadway alignments on their property at this time due to ongoing discussions with a prospective purchaser. The remainder of property owners in this area have stated no concern with this option. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation on March 5, 1998, omitted this alignment north of F.M. 1709 as a preferred alternative. Option "I" This is the second of the options resulting from the restricted access limitation. Benefits to this option include a more perpendicular intersection with F.M. 1709 and the fact that a significant portion of the alignment is along common property lines on the northern segment of the alignment. The bisecting of the Harrell property is seen as a negative impact to Mr. Harrell (see letter attached). Mr. Harrell stated in the third property owner meeting, as well as in the public hearing at P &Z on March 5, that he plans no immediate non - residential use of his property, and he also would be concerned about the loss of a significant portion of it to right -of -way in the event Option "I" was implemented in the future. The Planning and VILLAGE CENTER EAST - CIRCULATION STUDY: DR 3) Page 12 of 15 Zoning Commission's recommendation on March 5, 1998, omitted this alignment north of F.M. 1709 as a preferred alternative. Option "J" The final option addressing the restricted access limitation accommodates the significant benefit of Option "C" by providing that the majority of the alignment be located along common property lines. Another benefit includes the likelihood that a perpendicular intersection with FM 1709 could be accomplished. A potential detriment to this alignment is the geometry and resulting lotting pattern on the Williams and White tracts just north of Crooked Lane. The geometry may make it more difficult to obtain a perpendicular intersection at Crooked Lane and the lot(s) east of the proposed roadway would need to be evaluated for buildable area. Mrs. Gordon, whose property would share a common right -of way alignment with the Stevenson tract to the west, indicated in the third property owner meeting, as well as in the public hearing at P&Z on March 5, that she plans no immediate non - residential use of his property, and therefore would not be eager to participate in any accelerated right -of -way alignment on her property at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a recommendation supporting this conceptual alignment at the public hearing on March 5, 1998. B. Eastern Section of Village Center East Option "D" This alignment is one of the more easily defined options in the study. The purpose of this alignment is to connect the future Northwest Highway (Business 114) bridge over S.H. 114 from its connection with the south frontage road of S.H. 114 through the Village Center East property and connecting to Commerce Street at F.M. 1709. It is anticipated that there will be a traffic signal at Commerce Street in the near future. This alternative has received favorable review by the affected landowners. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a recommendation supporting this conceptual alignment at the public hearing on March 5, 1998. Option "E" This focus area is designated in order to recognize a need to improve the geometry for the intersection of Crooked Lane at F.M. 1709. During previous draft disseminations to landowners, a proposed roadway extension to the north of FM 1709 was located along the western line of the McCarty tract and provided for a generally perpendicular intersection geometry for Crooked Lane. Feedback received from the McCarty's reflected no desire to have this proposed alignment impact their property in any way so the north line was shifted to the east. The option "E" is remaining in order to recognize the fact that at some point in time, some consideration needs to be given to creating a safer intersection of Crooked Lane with F.M. 1709. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a recommendation supporting this conceptual alignment at the public hearing on March 5, 1998. VILLAGE CE47ER EAST - CIRCULATION STUDY: C' ' - "- " - , 1998) Page 13 of 15 Option "F" This option is the only option that reflects the possibility of an internal circulation drive not intersecting with F.M. 1709 or S.H. 114. This option is shown due to the depth of the properties which front along F.M. 1709. The general consensus is that these properties are so deep that there will likely be uses along FM 1709 as well as uses that access internal to the property. The loop connection between options "G" and "D" is provided conceptually to note that some connectivity would be beneficial here to allow movement to and from the more controlled intersections of Commerce Street and Crooked Lane. Mr. Yates (letter attached) expresses concern with this drive location only if his property were not to develop as part of the planned development for which his property is currently under contract. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a recommendation supporting this conceptual alignment at the public hearing on March 5, 1998. Option "G" This option initially did not connect from F.M. 1709 to the existing Austin Place in the Oak Knoll subdivision. During our first east -side landowner meeting it was discussed that this option might be shown and would most likely be pursued if the entire area, including Oak Knoll, were developed comprehensively rather than having each individual lot in Oak Knoll transition in uses over a long period of time. It is unlikely that this connection would be made should the Oak Knoll area retain its residential character. Benefits of this option include enhanced north -south access and an additional location to access S.H. 114 east- bound. The connection of Austin Place is upstream of the east -bound on -ramp for S.H. 114. This connection point could significantly reduce the congestion at the FM 1709 / S.H. 114 intersection, particularly for east -bound traffic. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a recommendation supporting this conceptual alignment at the public hearing on March 5, 1998. C. Additional Discussion Points East -West Creek Crossing There has been some discussion regarding the benefits of having an east -west connection between the eastern and western portions of Village Center East. We have been hesitant to draw a line and advocate this connection due to the breadth and depth of the valley / creek dividing the Village Center East area. Depending on the type of development to occur in this area, it may be possible to accommodate a lesser impact roadway or internal drive which could provide for greater intemal access. At this time it seemed prohibitive to advocate such a significant cost of crossing the creek via bridge structure or significant drainage structure. At the March 5, 1998, public hearing, Planning and Zoning Commissioner LeVrier discussed the feasibility of such an east -west connection. Staff indicated that the possibility of further study exists to accommodate some lower - intensity connection through this sensitive area, but it would perhaps be better evaluated at the time of user - specific development requests for that area. VILLAGE CENTER EAST - CIRCULATION STUDY: DR.A r if A • o O r °^O` Page 14 of 15 4 /lr. rig.' r i o . . . ' • R 4, 1 f.. 1 i i . co co iii= N I — E . a "te � .��� .. �e 412 CD c mU �- , I $ ; ..-1 3 1 8 ° 'ca ).-4.4 J I^ - 0 O • ) a. Z i <` I c < / IL m o I A lel!' I I i T m` 1 S N • / > - r .. 1 o 1 c° E i+ voonn L • .... '' ■ E° I I E -c v°°M �' o 0 I m e 1-3— , -� I W m 0 MI -1 1 19' I ¢ m Ez 1 . J•.ti a r aeyy,` ak • t c a , i -- I m frillp . 7,,c° r Altle-AR f. 5 72 _ G -1 ♦ \ a J $ 000 1 w i � �Ni ¢ " �► I I 2 : : ?S' �S I fn I 11 m i' I to 3 m i�l ' --- 1 - I1 •••• m \\ • • , �' / • = aw 0 rl I � ( ` • X y 1 1 Q � � I 1 2 � � � \ ' � . a o 1 1 , • m. al • a i 3, : I ■ 7 ,‘ a j: \ 0 1 \ :r }} \ ° o • a, • :1.•::g:•::: �� I \ a! o• r 1_7 ■ o ... ■ • 4% I S ''' ■ \ ■ • 6 ‘E SI c m m C�� � i , C r -- O C O aF I n Wp f g1 Z u i4! ^ I Q � m m � I (j W I _ .--) Ett e ... 6 �7 I % I i m 1 1 — —— 1 0D -21 1 i 1► a IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning and Zoning Commission, as indicated in the preceding section, recommended approval (5 -1, Creighton opposed) of conceptual Option "J" on the western portion of Village Center East and approval for the conceptual alignments as shown for the eastern section. The majority of the Commission indicated that the ability to share common right -of- way in the Option J" configuration to the satisfaction of all property owners except Mrs. Gordon to be a deciding factor. In summary, we believe at this time that there is fairly unified support from all landowners for the alignments "D, F and G" and a desire to accomplish the goals noted in Option "E" on the eastern portion, and varying interest from property owners for the alignments on the westem portion driven by the wide variety of expected timing issues as far as a transition of use from residential to non - residential is concerned. Obviously some of the alignments are also subject to a variety of anticipated patterns for development. (Please see Figure 7 for the conceptual roadway alignments recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 5, 1998.) Overall, this circulation study has been received well by the landowners who have recognized the potential benefits from working together comprehensively to develop these areas for the mutual benefit of the landowners, adjacent affected landowners, and ultimately for the benefit and long term value enhancement, both financially and socially, to the citizens of Southlake. VILLAGE CE TER EAST - CIRCULATION STUDY: DRAFT' o +coq) Page 15 of 15 • no-. nn Prudential LouNNI..pe. TOW* 203 Eau Northwest Nita/1m Grapevine 1X 78051 Bus 817 481-2573 Fax817481 -1113 Mr. Greg Last City of Southlake 667 N. Carroll Ave_ Southlake, Tans 76092 VIA FAX 488 -9370 March 3, 1998 RE: Village Center East Circulation Study Dear Greg: I appreciate your informative and well organized meeting of Monday, March 2nd, informing land owners and interested parties regarding potential roadways in Village Center East. I have been authorized to speak on behalf of the Harrell and Stevenson tracts, which are in the geographic center of Village Center East. Mr. Harrell does not look favorably on alternative 'T' which cuts diagonally through his property. Hop's', both Mr. Harrell and Mr. Satltre (Stevenson tract) would consider cooperating in right -of -way dedication for plan "7". The obvious benefits of plan "1" are that it is the most direct and cost effective route. It follows existing property lines and creates a definitive right angle road crossing as it intersects Southlake Boulevard. I will appreciate your conveyance of these issues to all relevant parties. Please feel free to contact me if 1 may be of any assistance. L AAIP Prudential Lou Tillman, REALTORS DUcb CC: () June Steverson ( ) Michael Sabre • ( ) Glenn Harrill RECD MAR 0 51998 • kar.** mei rdcwral ! weir errTMArdhrcN Rol EtaglMftlwuIre � nn-911 Mar -05 -98 09:28A BYK INC 972 242 5563 r.02 • 313I INC I iirirozi. 1410 CUNN OR. • CARROLLTON, TEXAS 75006 214124$ -5533 • • • Mah.c.h 5, 1994 Chti.s L. Ca.cpenten,AICP CompneheRs.ive. Ptannen City SouthLa.ke 667 ko.tth Caxnott Avenue Sau.thtaxe, Texas 76092 Subject: Vittage Centex East Ci eDtati.on Study Vn.as# 01 Feb 27, 1998 • Dean Sit: As the owner of the Yates pnopeit y ahoa>i on the a4tached exhibit, 7 would Like to go on n.ecand as to my op.i.ni.on 4e.gatdi.ng t!{e. Patentiat In.texnat Common Ux i.ve "F" nelietned to on the captioned study. My pxope.v y i4 eanxentty under cantnact to M4. Tenxy Wi.Y..ki.n4on who committed to me. on Match 2, 1998 that he has Ott intentions to close on the purchase o� my p'topenty. Shooed the closing oc.run, I obvs.ou4 4y have no paobtem with In.tertnaL Vn,ive "F ". In the event that W.. W.itki.nson does not acquire Pity ptopetty, I have s.igni.i.icant concenn,e about the need bax Intenna,L Ox,e.ve "F" and the negative impact it coati putentiatty have on the value o6 gay pxopen-ty. • I wilt not be abt a to attend the Mane.h 5th mettin4 06 the Nanning and Zoning Commasion as I wit/ be out og .town on bfcsine44. Sin Ze-e l l13-Z0 4 ` cetety, Cee t M. Yates • • • • • 10D -24 J �� — J _i i I o �- co —_1 -1 m co E$ i 1 _ � S O) 2 e O) E a o �a�.��-!rr_ i"...5 I $ o ,� (' $ q AIPH c 1 d! X0 0 0 1 I ma 1 I 1 • ■ 0.0.0m17, I a I IE (`4 �= I r 1 a _ - -- L1 0 § l -- Z I a , i o 0 m ' . • an <_i / < i LE D • _ ILL — E / i j a error • / 0 E • • _ m CL / I / I • /-- h • / — — a � - � ` , � /, h I • // .... -' f" g O e• I ppp � DAM I, 1 3 c o L __ , .... � . ____. , I l i lis) DO 1 ‚ 1!r at e Avexw I — if , — 8 to 00 • m ON • N — L y ' O 1 Fit I ° m� a 1 w 1 1 m i. I O 3 1 1 e`a co i • � y � 1 I� i -- ` C • _ ct m 11 x o l g ' E = 1 1 a 8 I -. / t - 'ros"o„ ' a • 1 c c UK—. I L a h 1 L S l— :•• Zm = is -+ L > i VI ' • .c..._ Arrramingins t.l. 0 _ L 7 • \si .................. ea a -8 :, Q 111 W : W lflu J • ,. p.. a. • � • ....".....: del ,n m / v- 1J �- I - c o A' I o u ___LN " Ma . 17, U To 3 � I � c - Ili JP! i; I o I .• o I C � — ' < ' `1 wsuvor • • , , J.., , • �t' a 8 i / • �— I. —, r ; ! Ar— t LI ' / • ,� < J..; R • / i _ ' ' / - -1 N rit � r = -- • • i i r I I P OOM DOO _ I m C 10 I i I C C U , f9 C J � t � I � i / • i 1 � 1 m ■ is • (I I $ � I I" i T A .... _ ...... ,. , • o ' `t Ml r . ��i � �.i wo w � . I E c .- I - c U - -G �T 1 ( I •C r p '• � I �w. 3 i I ___ l y y l = „ I L— _ i L- -- L 1 , 1 �9 p I ;21: - ' 1._ 1 d v 1 X2.1 -� N I co co I 1 1 tl i I ■ s iv a r 1 x o $ ::::::::::::: H airftlii - CO V- p C 1 ( I ■� ' • i E 11 Q V i z 1 = 1 uongna, ' • TO N 1 1 Q > I _ I ` c I I _ i 1 _ � ��• a I a C o 2 'J c L I L I R_ I o �. - • •• I • I W I I 1 II i I 4 R , �a 4111 I tt : ..toitti: • h ' • _ o ..-....,./ • W ° ▪ u E • o W u • O • G r�- {may/ a ir ---------1 ' d • vi ‘ O.. 1 nr, n City of Southlake, Texas MEMORANDUM February 11, 2000 TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager FROM: Shawn Poe, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Establish design parameters and authorization to advertise for bids for the reconstruction of Pine Drive from South White's Chapel to Lilac Lane Action Requested: Staff requests Council to establish design parameters and authorize staff to advertise for bids for the reconstruction of Pine Drive from S. White's Chapel to Lilac Ln. Background Information: The sanitary sewer along Pine Drive was installed and completed in November 1999. The reconstruction of Pine Drive was scheduled to begin following construction of the sanitary sewer. The reconstruction of Pine Dr. is budgeted in the FY99 -00 CIP budget (the FY99 -00 CIP budget is scheduled to be approved at the February 15, 2000 City Council meeting). The reconstruction of Pine Dr. will be bid following approval of the CIP budget and completion of the engineering plans. The reconstruction of Pine includes realigning Pine with S. White Chapel (see attached project map). The City purchased land in February 1999 to accommodate the realignment. Following the realignment, Pine Drive will intersect perpendicular to S. White Chapel, which will provide for an intersection that is improved over the one that exists today. Currently, the road width varies between 15' -18'. Trees line both sides of the road almost the entire length of Pine Dr. There is limited right -of -way in some areas if the roadway is widened. Before the engineering plans can be completed, the City Council must decide on the design parameters (more specifically, the roadway width to be constructed). The standard width for an asphalt roadway is 22' wide. If the road is widened to the standard width, additional right -of -way may be required in areas and several trees will be candidates for removal. Financial — Considerations: The estimated cost to reconstruct Pine Drive is $200,000. This amount is budgeted in the FY99 -00 CIP budget. This estimate includes reconstructing the existing roadway to a width of 22' and the realignment of Pine Dr. at S. White Chapel. This estimate does not include the cost for 10B - 1 City of Southlake, Texas additional right -of -way. This additional right -of -way cost was not included in the estimated cost because at the time of estimation, it was not known that more right -of -way might be required to construct the 22' wide roadway. Citizen Input / Board Review: A neighborhood SPIN meeting was held on February 8, 2000, to discuss the reconstruction of Pine Drive (see attached sign -in sheet). Four design alternatives were presented to the residents. The first design alternative was reconstructing the road to a 22' width; the second alternative was reconstructing the road to a 20' width; the third alternative was reconstructing the road to an 18' width; and the fourth alternative was repaving the existing roadway to the width that exists today, which varies between 15' -18'. The consensus from the residents was to reconstruct the roadway to the width that currently exists today (alternative four). This design alternative would eliminate the need for right -of -way and result in minimal tree removal. The residents also expressed concern with the potential increased speeds along Pine Drive following construction of Pine. The residents expressed a desire to explore installing speed humps along Pine and reducing the speed limit. There was obvious concerns related to tree removal along Pine Drive if the road is widened. Several residents inquired about installing a sidewalk along Pine. Legal Review: Not applicable Alternatives: Staff recommends reconstructing the roadway to the standard width of 22' for engineering and safety concerns. However, the City Council may direct staff to design Pine Drive to any width. Although not ideal in engineering standards, the 18' width would provide a minimum clearance for the passing of oncoming vehicles in opposing directions. Additionally, this width will minimize tree removal and acquisition of additional right - of -way for a roadway width greater than 18'. Lake Drive and the roads in the Shady Lane/Raintree area were reconstructed with an 18' width per Council direction. The estimated cost savings for reconstructing Pine Drive to widths smaller than 22' are tabulated below (estimated cost for 22' width is $200,000): Pavement Width Estimated Cost Estimated Project Savings Cost 20' $12,600 $187,400 18' $16,000 $184,000 10B -2 City of Southlake, Texas The savings for reconstructing Pine Drive to a width smaller than 22' would not result in an amount of money sufficient to construct a sidewalk along Pine Drive. The estimated construction cost to install a 4' sidewalk is $30,000. This amount does not include the cost for additional right -of- way or easements required constructing the sidewalk. There is not an existing sidewalk on Lilac or White Chapel to tie -into with a sidewalk on Pine Drive. Due to this factor as well as the factors of limited right -of- way width and cost for construction, a sidewalk along Pine Drive is not feasible at this time. Supporting Documents: Project map SPIN Meeting sign -in sheet Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council establish design parameters for Pine Drive so that the construction plans can be completed. Furthermore, staff recommends authorization for staff to advertise for bids for the reconstruction of Pine Drive. Please place this item on the February 15, 2000 Regular City Council Agenda for review and consideration. 4- SEP /sep 10B - 3 PINE DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION 1 It; --r211' ', 1111 ci 41?:// 1 • :SI/ \z • 1 I b n, y1 o An I e W U / i ' d0£Z1' w 1 to 1 1 K '•O — 1 Wry' I 660 '1SBY HS IOYNa ■ V n5 ' I maniac' f a INO 3r 1 W 4 � e 660 '1SNY ••OIYZOYNl IL Ste w 1 I VOO 3 N I d 1 Z N I � v s" _ C la 6 6 YI Z '111 0 E ►. 11 �II IZZ F Eli NI 1 I Na�ia�cir s a c az 5109 „ cc t 101 c MIN0 AIM a O O P � * n� >t i 1 ' _ ' 3 ti 1 0 ■II i 1 1s311S Id 604 1 Ci t / 1136Y • Zi 73 T LOON ° I 660 '1SOY 1OYN1 IVO 3HIa Of* I YZ33N4 '0 PLUM 3AIH0 31Id SU ' 5 Z 109 • I + NOlON 3 AIN0II d 1�� F. ti RO II 1 o I � ...1 � � 5 ' I 4 I _ 1 r < 4 1 Q I -- N -- y> N mo w, _ _ 40 , - ,,,,L,..afiliiiinammommonesnoms q G 1 ►s f Q. 1OB -4 $ ;1\07 ..T, A N O VD 00 ••.] O∎ In A W — - \ O 00 -1 v 1 .P W N , __.... gp :N-3.= 1, ': ‘..iiiii ,0 5 ''. Li: ‘.1 ^ , • t kaill: A AN -, • ,. ..----frg .:, V i 1 ? kir Z l'-■ tRipti *C/3V- "N )'. 1 • ,.14.. • . : :: . E" . A:::.:.0: . ',:!...:!!!!!!,: b' • © 0\ — , NMI 44 V C-7 I r v‘ii g ir* IX - c : 5 " . t. 5 . _ , . . L % E % , ,‘, • INS C � . , 1� a w 200.0:1 0 .1'1 ql ... 1:006 atet , V " fil\:j "X. ado: Ell d ` v ;:;;';fir;, ksj 1 . til 11 :::::.q.:4.0:: tll • = y E tki q 6 6 S a %E., E o ra f 5,0m..0.::::::: .-: 1 wa iiii c am iv oi :,,,, , .0.1., ;t E eo VV:Pil CM n . littl 1 OB -5