CP 2006-02-14
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND AGENDA
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
DOUG STOVER, TIM BRANCHEAU, Place 1
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem
JAYNE PETERS, Place 2 BILLY FAUGHT, Place 5
BRIANNA HINOJOSA-FLORES, Place 3 THOM SUHY, Place 6
MARSHA TUNNELL, Place 4 BILL YORK, Place 7
JIM WITT, City Manager
MEETING TIME AND PLACE:
Call to Order 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers (Open to the Public)
Executive Session Immediately Following 1st Fl. Conf. Room (Closed to the Public)
Work Session Immediately Following 1st Fl. Conf. Room (Open to the Public)
Regular Session 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers (Open to the Public)
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas will
meet in Regular Called Session on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. for
Executive Session, Work Session will follow immediately thereafter, and Regular
Session will begin at 7:00 p.m., to be held at Town Center, 255 Parkway
Boulevard, Coppell, Texas.
As authorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this
meeting may be convened into closed Executive Session for the purpose of
seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any agenda item
listed herein.
The City of Coppell reserves the right to reconvene, recess or realign the Work
Session or called Executive Session or order of business at any time prior to
adjournment.
The purpose of the meeting is to consider the following items:
ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION
1. Call to order.
ag021406
Page 1 of 6
ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed to the Public)
2. Convene Executive Session
A. Section 551.071, Texas Government Code - Consultation with City
Attorney.
1. Peter David Winegarner vs. City of Coppell, et al.
2. The City of Coppell and Coppell Independent School District
opposition to a change of zoning request of the Billingsley
Corporation in the City of Dallas, Zoning Case Number Z045-
107 and City of Coppell vs. CB Parkway Business Center VI, et
al in the County Court at Law No. 3.
3. Western Rim Investors (Mansions by The Lake) vs. The City of
Coppell and Michael J. Hodge.
B. Section 551.072, Texas Government Code - Deliberation regarding
Real Property.
1. Discussion regarding property west of Park and south of
Bethel.
C. Section 551.087, Texas Government Code - Deliberation regarding
Economic Development Negotiations.
1. Economic Development Prospect in Old Coppell.
WORK SESSION (Open to the Public)
3. Convene Work Session
A. Discussion regarding direction on the Strategic Plan.
B. Discussion regarding Town Center site plans.
C. Discussion regarding installation of hooded left at Wendy’s/
Goodyear intersection with Denton Tap Road.
D. Discussion regarding overhead utilities on Bethel Road.
E. Discussion regarding first Council Meeting in May and early voting.
F. Discussion of Agenda Items.
Adjourn Work Session.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
Public Service Announcements concerning local civic events and no Council
action is required or permitted.
REGULAR SESSION (Open to the Public)
4. Convene Regular Session.
ag021406
Page 2 of 6
ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION
5. Invocation.
6. Pledge of Allegiance.
7. Citizens' Appearances.
CONSENT AGENDA
8. Consider approval of the following consent agenda items:
A. Consider approval of minutes: January 24, 2006.
B. Consider approval of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Coppell, Texas, Dallas, County, Texas, designating the City Secretary
to serve as the Public Information Coordinator and authorizing the
Mayor to sign.
C. Consider approval of a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to
execute a lease or rental agreement for the rental of one or more
ADA Ivotronic V. 8.0.1.0 or other approved Accessible Voting
System from the County of Dallas or other qualified providers to be
provided in each polling place in every location used to conduct
any General or Special Election ordered on or after January 1, 2006,
and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
D. Consider approval of a grant between the city of Coppell, the
Coppell Education Development Corporation, and the Lewisville
Independent School District in the amount of $29,693.36 and
authorizing the City Manager to sign.
E. Consider approval of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of
Coppell and the County of Denton for the sale and exchange of
Surplus Emergency Equipment, and authorizing the City Manager to
sign.
F. Consider approval of an interlocal agreement with Dallas County
for road widening on Sandy Lake Road at Whispering Hills Drive in a
cost share amount of $26,472.17; and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
G. Consider approval of an interlocal agreement between the City of
Coppell and the City of Grapevine to provide for joint bidding of
the construction of Bethel Road and Bass Pro Drive, between S. H.
121 and Freeport Parkway, and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
ag021406
Page 3 of 6
ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION
H. Consider approval to utilize the City of Richardson's contract with
Uretek USA, Inc., as authorized by the Texas Local Government
Code, Section 271.102, Subchapter F, to perform our yearly street
repair/mud jacking program, in an amount of $50,000 as provided
for in the Infrastructure Maintenance Fund.
I. Consider approval of an Ordinance for Case No. ZC-619, St. Ann
Catholic Parish, changing the zoning from C (Commercial) to SF-9
(Single Family-9) on approximately 5.3 acres of property located at
700 E. Sandy Lake Road, to expand church uses into an existing
building, and amending the Land Use Plan of the 1996
Comprehensive Plan, changing the land use from Neighborhood
Retail to Public Institutional, and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
END OF CONSENT
9. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of Case No. S-1232-C, Value Place Hotel, zoning
change request from LI and C (Light Industrial and Commercial) to S-1232-
C (Special Use Permit-1232-Commercial), to allow the construction of a
four-story, limited service/extended stay hotel, with 121 studio rooms, on
2.076 acres of property located at the northeast corner of S.H. 121 and
Northpoint Drive.
10. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of Case No. PD-212-LI, Freeport North, northern portion
of Lot 1, Block 1, (CitiFinancial), zoning change request from LI (Light
Industrial) to PD-212-LI (Planned Development-212-Light Industrial), to
amend the approved Site Plan to allow an expansion to the off-street
parking areas; to allow deficits in parking and landscaping, and to allow
additional site modifications on 12.28 acres of property located at 1111
Northpoint Drive (southwest corner of Northpoint Drive and Royal Lane).
11. Consider approval of the Northlake 635 Business Park, Lot 2R, Block C
(Coppell Business Center III), Site Plan, to allow the construction of a
14,545-square-foot office building on 1.51 acres of property located along
the west side of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 677 feet south of Wrangler
Drive.
12. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of the Northlake 635 Business Park, Lot 2R, Block C
(Coppell Business Center III), Replat, to allow the construction of a 14,545-
ag021406
Page 4 of 6
ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION
square-foot office building on 1.51 acres of property located along the
west side of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 677 feet south of Wrangler
Drive.
13. Consider approval of the Coppell Town Center Addition, Lot 1, Block 1,
(Justice Center) Site Plan Amendment, to allow a 4,028-square-foot
expansion to the existing Justice Center and a revised parking layout
located at 130 Town Center Boulevard.
14. Consider approval of the Coppell Town Center Addition, Lot 1, Block 1,
(Fire Station No. 3) Site Plan Amendment, to allow a 3,546-square-foot
expansion to the existing Fire Station located at 133 Parkway Boulevard.
15. Discussion and consideration of compensating TXU Electric Delivery
Company for up to six underground crossings along Bethel Road, from
Coppell Rd. to the west city limits, in an estimated cost of $250,000; and
authorizing the Director of Engineering to execute the right-of-way use
permit application.
16. Necessary action resulting from Work Session.
17. City Manager's Report.
A. 121 Construction Update.
B. East Sandy Lake Road Update.
18. Mayor and Council Reports.
A. Report by Mayor Stover regarding the Father/Daughter and
Mother/Son Valentine’s Dance.
19. Necessary Action Resulting from Executive Session.
Adjournment.
____________________________________
Douglas N. Stover, Mayor
ag021406
Page 5 of 6
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the bulletin board at
the City Hall of the City of Coppell, Texas on this 10th day of February, 2006, at
__________________.
____________________________________
Libby Ball, City Secretary
DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING THIS AGENDA IS AVAILABLE ON
THE CITY'S WEBSITE (www.ci.coppell.tx.us) UNDER PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS, COUNCIL PACKETS.
PUBLIC NOTICES
STATEMENT FOR ADA COMPLIANCE
The City of Coppell acknowledges its responsibility to comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990. Thus, in order to assist individuals with disabilities who require
special services (i.e. sign interpretative services, alternative audio/visual devices, and
amanuenses) for participation in or access to the City of Coppell sponsored public
programs, services and/or meetings, the City requests that individuals make requests for
these services forty-eight (48) hours ahead of the scheduled program, service and/or
meeting. To make arrangements, contact Vivyon V. Bowman, ADA Coordinator or
other designated official at (972) 462-0022, or (TDD 1-800-RELAY, TX 1-800-735-2989).
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF COPPELL ORDINANCE NO. 95724
Carrying of a concealed handgun on these premises or at any official political meeting
in the City of Coppell is illegal.
Es ilegal llevar consigo un arma de fuego oculta, adentro de este edificio, o en
cualquier junta oficial de politica en la ciudad de Coppell.
ag021406
Page 6 of 6
KEY TO COUNCIL GOALS ICONS
2006
Economic Development
• Aggressively pursue development partnership on Lesley tract
• Analyze large tract development opportunities
• Continue “hot spot” focus
• Develop strategy for use/sale of city-owned property
• Study revenue enhancements
• Continue focus on vacant retail revitalization
Quality Public Facilities & Infrastructure
• Examine funding opportunities for IMF
• Study continued use of ½-cent sales tax for parks
• Continue focus on local and regional transportation efforts
• Provide quality park and recreation facilities for all
Excellent City Services & High Citizen Satisfaction
• Continue strategic planning for future costs of service delivery
• Timely response with quality service delivery
• Initiate review and revisions of Code of Ordinances
• Develop methods to enhance communication efforts
• Promote citizen involvement
• Examine our effectiveness at participating in state/federal legislative process
Sense of Community
• Develop and support community special events
• Develop and support activities for teens
• Embark on a “Coppell 2025” vision effort
• Continue to evaluate cemetery issue
• Evaluate services and programs for our senior adult community
• Continue to partner with taxing entities serving our community, particularly our ISD’s
Fiscal Stability
• Continue and refine financial planning and forecasting
• Continue systematic management and reduction of debt and expenditures
• Balance expenditures with ability to maintain over time
• Perform cost analysis on all approved projects and programs prior to implementation
• Protect the sales tax base from Streamlined Sales Tax initiative
• Remain aware of external factors and developments that potentially impact the financial
condition of the city
Neighborhood Integrity & Code Enforcement
• Maintain communication with neighborhoods and the community
• Update the Master Plan and Zoning as required
• Continue proactive neighborhood integrity programs
• Access HOA common area maintenance expectations and obligations
Safe Community
• Maintain and improve existing excellent level of service
• Continue focus on Homeland Security
• Provide quality public education programs
• Continue traffic/speed control efforts
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: ES-2
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. Section 551.071, Texas Government Code – Consultation with City Attorney.
1. Peter David Winegarner vs. City of Coppell, et al.
2. The City of Coppell and Coppell Independent School District opposition to a change of
zoning request of the Billingsley Corporation in the City of Dallas, Zoning Case Number
Z045-107 and City of Coppell vs. CB Parkway Business Center VI, et al in the County
Court at Law No. 3.
3. Western Rim Investors (Mansions by The Lake) vs. The City of Coppell and Michael J.
Hodge.
B. Section 551.072, Texas Government Code – Deliberation regarding Real Property.
1. Discussion regarding property west of Park and south of Bethel.
C. Section 551.087, Texas Government Code – Deliberation regarding Economic Development
Negotiations.
1. Economic Development Prospect in Old Coppell.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/04 Document Name: %executivesession
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: WS-3
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
WORK SESSION
A. Discussion regarding direction on the Strategic Plan.
B. Discussion regarding Town Center Site Plans.
C. Discussion regarding installation of hooded left and Wendy’s/Goodyear
intersection with Denton Tap Road.
D. Discussion regarding overhead utilities on Bethel Road.
E. Discussion regarding first Council Meeting in May and early voting.
F. Discussion of Agenda Items.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/04 Document Name:
%worksession
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 7
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
CITIZENS' APPEARANCES
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-964
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, ESTABLISHING RULES, TIMES AND
PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, THE
FOLLOWING ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AS THE RULES, TIMES AND PROCEDURES FOR
CONDUCTING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL,
TEXAS:
The City of Coppell Code of Ordinances, Article 1-10 "Rules, Times and Procedures for Conducting City
Council Meetings," be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:
"ARTICLE 1-10
RULES, TIMES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
". . .
1-10-6.2.1 CITIZENS APPEARANCE
Persons wishing to speak on any matter other than an item scheduled for a public hearing on the agenda, must sign
a register and list their residence address, provided by the City Secretary on a table outside the Council Chambers,
and such persons may be heard only at the "Citizens Appearance" portion of a regular meeting or special meeting.
Each speaker must state his or her name and address of residence. Presentations by individuals during the
"Citizens Appearance" shall be limited to two (2) minutes each. An individual speaker's time may be extended for
an additional two (2) minutes with the approval of a majority of the Council members present. There shall be a
cumulative limit of twenty (20) minutes allotted of any regular or special Council meeting. Those persons who
signed up to speak at the "Citizens Appearance" shall be called upon in the order that they have signed the
provided register. No personal attacks by any speaker shall be made against any member of the Council, Mayor,
individual, group or corporation (Charter Article 3, Section 3.12).
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/02 Document Name: %citapp.doc
DEPT: City Secretary
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 8/A
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of minutes: January 24, 2006
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/04 Document Name: %minutes
cm012406
Page 1 of 7
MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2006
The City Council of the City of Coppell met in Regular Called Session on
Tuesday, January 24, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of
Town Center, 255 Parkway Boulevard, Coppell, Texas. The following members
were present:
Doug Stover, Mayor
Tim Brancheau, Mayor Pro Tem (absent)
Jayne Peters, Councilmember
Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember
Marsha Tunnell, Councilmember (early departure)
Billy Faught, Councilmember
Thom Suhy, Councilmember
Bill York, Councilmember
Also present were City Manager Jim Witt, City Secretary Libby Ball and City
Attorney Robert Hager.
1. Call to order.
Mayor Stover called the meeting to order, determined that a quorum was
present and convened into Executive Session.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed to the Public)
2. Convene Executive Session
A. Section 551.071, Texas Government Code - Consultation
with City Attorney.
1. The City of Coppell and Coppell Independent School
District opposition to a change of zoning request of
the Billingsley Corporation in the City of Dallas,
Zoning Case Number Z045-107 and City of Coppell
vs. CB Parkway Business Center VI, et al in the
County Court at Law No. 3.
Mayor Stover convened into Executive Session at 5:43 p.m. as allowed
under the above-stated article. Mayor Stover adjourned the Executive
Session at 6:27 p.m. and opened the Regular Session.
cm012406
Page 2 of 7
WORK SESSION (Open to the Public)
3. Convene Work Session
A. Discussion regarding the 2006-2007 Budget Calendar.
B. Financial Planning Update.
C. Natural Gas Drilling Update.
D. Discussion regarding Open Government Training.
E. Discussion regarding Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for FY2005.
F. Discussion of Agenda Items.
Councilmember Tunnell departed at the end of the Work Session.
REGULAR SESSION (Open to the Public)
4. Convene Regular Session.
5. Invocation.
Wayne McDonald of Metrocrest Community Church led those present in
the Invocation.
6. Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Stover led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Stover recognized Eagle Scouts from North Hills High School and
Coppell High School who were present for the meeting.
7A. Report by Library Board.
Tom Trahan, Library Board Chairman, made a report to the Council.
7B. Consider approval of a proclamation naming January SCHOOL
BOARD RECOGNITION MONTH, and authorizing the Mayor to
sign.
cm012406
Page 3 of 7
Presentation:
Mayor Stover read the Proclamation and presented the same to School
Board members present from CISD and CFBISD.
Action:
Councilmember Peters moved to approve a proclamation naming
January School Board Recognition Month, and authorizing the Mayor to
sign. Councilmember Faught seconded the motion; the motion carried 5-
0 with Councilmembers Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Faught, Suhy and York
voting in favor of the motion.
8. Citizens' Appearances.
Scott Orr, 300 W. Bethel Road, spoke about the fundraiser breakfast for
Metrocrest Social Services and invited all present to attend.
CONSENT AGENDA
9. Consider approval of the following consent agenda items:
A. Consider approval of minutes: January 10, 2006.
B. Consider approval of canceling the regular City Council
Meeting scheduled for March 14, 2006 and calling a
Special Meeting to be held on March 9, 2006.
C. Consider approval of a resolution adopting the approved
preferred alignment of Sandy Lake Road (SH 121 to
Coppell Road N) as described in Attachment 'A' - Design
and Construction Criteria, together with Attachment 'B' -
Memorandum of Agreement, and authorizing the Mayor to
sign; and consider approval of the Project Supplemental
Agreement to the Master Agreement Governing
Transportation Major Capital Improvement Projects
between the City of Coppell and Dallas County, and
authorizing the City Manager to sign.
D. Consider approval of an Ordinance amending Ordinance
No. 2005-1109 to impose the additional collection
cm012406
Page 4 of 7
penalty in April for business personal property taxes that
become delinquent on February 1, 2006, according to the
Texas Property Tax Code Section 33.11, and authorizing
the Mayor to sign.
E. Consider approval of an amendment to the existing
contract for collection of delinquent taxes between the
City of Coppell and Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager &
Smith, LLP and Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson,
LLP, and authorizing the City Manager to sign.
Action:
Councilmember Faught moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A, B, C
carrying Resolution No. 2006-0124.1, D carrying Ordinance No.
2006-1120 and E. Coucilmember York seconded the motion; the motion
carried 5-0 with Councilmembers Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Faught, Suhy
and York voting in favor of the motion.
10. Consider approval of the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005.
Presentation:
Jennifer Armstrong, Finance Director, introduced Ben Kohnle and Nicole
Blythe of the Grant Thornton audit firm, to present the results of the
City’s Financial Audit to the Council.
Action:
Councilmember Suhy moved to approve the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005.
Councilmember Hinojosa-Flores seconded the motion; the motion carried
5-0 with Councilmembers Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Faught, Suhy and
York voting in favor of the motion.
11. Consider approval of a Resolution approving a Tax Abatement
Agreement between the City of Coppell and Historic Coppell
Properties, Ltd., and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
cm012406
Page 5 of 7
Presentation:
Mindi Hurley, Economic Development Coordinator, made a presentation
to the Council.
Action:
Councilmember York moved to approve Resolution No. 2006-0124.2, a
Tax Abatement Agreement between the City of Coppell and Historic
Coppell Properties, Ltd., and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
Councilmember Peters seconded the motion; the motion carried 5-0 with
Councilmembers Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Faught, Suhy and York voting
in favor of the motion.
12. Consider approval of an Economic Development Incentive
Agreement between the City of Coppell and Historic Coppell
Properties, Ltd., and authorizing the City Manager to sign.
Presentation:
Mindi Hurley, Economic Development Coordinator, made a presentation
to the Council.
Action:
Councilmember Suhy moved to approve an Economic Development
Incentive Agreement between the City of Coppell and Historic Coppell
Properties, Ltd., and authorizing the City Manager to sign.
Councilmember York seconded the motion; the motion carried 5-0 with
Councilmembers Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Faught, Suhy and York voting
in favor of the motion.
13. Consider approval to purchase from Philpott Motors, Inc. one
(1) 2006 Ford F250 CC Pick-up Truck in the amount of
$24,952.00 for the Parks Department and a 2006 Ford F450
Cab/Chassis Truck in the amount of $36,884.00 for the Streets
Department through an Inter-local agreement with HGAC, and
requiring the City Manager to sign all related documentation.
Presentation:
City Manager Jim Witt made a presentation to the Council.
cm012406
Page 6 of 7
Action:
Councilmember York moved to approve a purchase from Philpott Motors,
Inc. of one (1) 2006 Ford F250 CC Pick-up Truck in the amount of
$24,952.00 for the Parks Department and a 2006 Ford F450
Cab/Chassis Truck in the amount of $36,884.00 for the Streets
Department through an Inter-local agreement with HGAC, and requiring
the City Manager to sign all related documentation. Councilmember
Hinojosa-Flores seconded the motion; the motion carried 5-0 with
Councilmembers Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Faught, Suhy and York voting
in favor of the motion.
14. Necessary action resulting from Work Session.
There was no action necessary under this item.
15. Council Committee Reports.
A. Carrollton/Farmers Branch ISD/Lewisville ISD –
Councilmember Tunnell.
B. Coppell ISD – Councilmembers Faught and Suhy.
C. Coppell Seniors – Mayor Pro Tem Brancheau and
Councilmember Peters.
D. Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition - Councilmember
Peters.
E. Economic Development Committee - Councilmembers
Suhy and York.
F. Metrocrest Hospital Authority - Councilmember Tunnell.
G. Metrocrest Medical Foundation - Councilmember
Hinojosa-Flores.
H. Metrocrest Medical Services – Councilmember Hinojosa-
Flores.
I. Metrocrest Social Service Center – Mayor Pro Tem
Brancheau.
J. North Texas Council of Governments - Councilmember
Tunnell.
K. NTCOG/Regional Emergency Management -
Councilmember Suhy
L. North Texas Commission - Councilmember Peters.
M. Senior Adult Services - Councilmember Faught.
cm012406
Page 7 of 7
A. There was nothing to report on this item.
B. CISD is expanding their Gifted and Talented program with
Northlake College to provide dual credit for both high school and
college.
C. All present were invited to attend the Coppell Seniors monthly
luncheon.
D. There was nothing to report on this item.
E. There was nothing to report on this item.
F. There was nothing to report on this item.
G. There was nothing to report on this item.
H. There was nothing to report on this item.
I. There was nothing to report on this item.
J. There was nothing to report on this item.
K. There was nothing to report on this item.
L. There was nothing to report on this item.
M. Senior Adult Services is helping seniors navigate the Medicaid
Prescription Drug Plan website.
16. Necessary Action Resulting from Executive Session.
There was no action necessary under this item.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting
was adjourned.
____________________________________
Douglas N. Stover, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Libby Ball, City Secretary
DEPT: City Secretary
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 8/B
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas, Dallas, County, Texas,
designating the City Secretary to serve as the Public Information Coordinator and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: %citysec
RESOLUTION NO. ___________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL,
TEXAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, DESIGNATING THE CITY
SECRETARY TO SERVE AS THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
COORDINATOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 552.012 of the Texas Government Code, as added by Texas Senate
Bill 286, in the Texas 79th Regular Legislative Session, effective January 1, 2006, requires public
officials and/or the public information coordinator to complete one (1) to two (2) hours of training on
the Public Information Act; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to appoint the City Secretary as the public
information coordinator pursuant to Section 552.012 of the Texas Government Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COPPELL, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby designates the City Secretary of the City of Coppell,
Texas as the public information coordinator for the purposes of receiving training on the Public
Information Act.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage.
DULY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL,
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, ON THIS THE ____ DAY OF _____________, 2006.
APPROVED:
___________________________________
Doug Stover, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Libby Ball, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Robert E. Hager, City Attorney
(JJG/kjb 2/02/06) (63425)
DEPT: City Secretary
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 8/C
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a lease or rental agreement for the
rental of one or more ADA Ivotronic V. 8.0.1.0 or other approved Accessible Voting System from the County of
Dallas or other qualified providers to be provided in each polling place in every location used to conduct any
General or Special Election ordered on or after January 1, 2006, and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
New State Law requires that every polling place have at least one Approved Accessible Voting System. Our
contract with Dallas County includes one of these machines. However the City needs to have this resolution in
place and it must accompany the Prelearance to the Justice Department.
FINANCIAL COMMENTS: This cost is included in the contract with Dallas County and is budgeted in the City
Secretary Department Elections Account.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: %voting
RESOLUTION NO. ________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE OR RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE
RENTAL OF ONE OR MORE ADA iVOTRONIC V. 8.0.1.0 OR OTHER APPROVED
ACCESSIBLE VOTING SYSTEM FROM THE COUNTY OF DALLAS OR OTHER
QUALIFIED PROVIDERS TO BE PROVIDED IN EACH POLLING PLACE IN EVERY
LOCATION USED TO CONDUCT ANY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ELECTION
ORDERED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2006; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 61.012 of the Texas Election Code requires that the City must provide
at least one accessible voting system in each polling place used in a Texas election on or after
January 1, 2006; and
WHEREAS, said system must comply with state and federal laws setting the requirements
for voting systems that permit voters with physical disabilities to cast a secret ballot; and
WHEREAS, the Office of the Texas Secretary of State has certified that the ADA iVotronic
v. 8.0.1.0 provided by Election Systems and Software is an accessible voting system (hereinafter
“AVS”) that may legally be used in Texas elections; and
WHEREAS, Sections 123.032 and 123.035 of the Texas Election Code authorized the
acquisition of voting systems by local political subdivisions and further mandate certain minimum
requirements for contracts relating to the acquisition of such voting systems; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the City of Coppell shall lease or rent
from the County of Dallas at least one ADA iVotronic v. 8.0.1.0 to be placed in each polling place
in every location used to conduct its election;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COPPELL, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Coppell hereby authorizes the City Manager
to execute a lease or rental agreement for the rental of one or more ADA iVotronic v. 8.0.1.0 or
other approved AVS from the County of Dallas or other qualified providers to be provided in each
polling place in every location used to conduct any general or special election ordered on or after
January 1, 2006 by the City, as required in accordance with State law.
Page 1
63596
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately from and after its
passage.
DULY RESOLVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas,
on this the ______ day of ________________, 2006.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
____________________________________
DOUGLAS N. STOVER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
LIBBY BALL, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
ROBERT E. HAGER, CITY ATTORNEY (REH/cdb 02/08/06)
Page 2
63596
DEPT: City Manager
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 8/D
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION: Consider approval of a grant between the city of Coppell, the Coppell Education Development
Corporation, and the Lewisville Independent School District in the amount of $29,693.36 and authorizing the City
Manager to sign.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS: Funds are available from the CEDC ½ cent sales tax for this grant.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: !CEDC
_______________________________________________
COPPELL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT GRANT
Page 1
STATE OF TEXAS § COPPELL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS § GRANT AGREEMENT
This Educational Development Grant Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between
the city of Coppell, Texas (“CITY”), Coppell Education Development Corporation (“CEDC”)
and the Lewisville Independent School District (the “LISD”), acting by and through their
respective authorized officers.
W I T N E S S E T H :
WHEREAS, the CITY is authorized by TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 379A to provide
educational development grants to publicly funded institutions through the CEDC for the
promotion of literacy, foreign language and career technology for a skilled workforce; and
WHEREAS, the CITY seeks to support programs for promoting literacy, foreign
language and career technology for a skilled workforce; and
WHEREAS, the LISD has submitted a grant application No. 2006-L01 to provide
funding for literacy and foreign language at Rockbrook Elementary and career technology at
Durham Middle School (the PROJECT); and
WHEREAS, the LISD has developed the PROJECT in order to purchase books and
videos for the Rockbrook Elementary Library in the amount of Fourteen Thousand Dollars and
no cents ($14,000.00) and to purchase hardware, software, literature and other Spanish teaching
supplies in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-seven Dollars and Thirty-six
Cents ($1,997.36). The PROJECT also includes purchase of a digital projector and replacement
bulb for Durham Middle School in the amount of Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-six
Dollars and no cents ($13,696.00); and
WHEREAS, LISD is in need of funding for the videos, books, computer programs,
teaching supplies, digital projector and bulb, and seeks the assistance of the CEDC; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that making an education development grant to
the LISD in accordance with this Agreement will further the objectives of the CITY, will benefit
the CITY and the CITY’s inhabitants and will promote literacy in the CITY;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and other valuable
consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged on the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:
_______________________________________________
COPPELL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT GRANT
Page 2
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Subject to availability of funds collected from the 379A sales tax, the CITY agrees to
provide the LISD an education development grant (the “GRANT”) in an amount not to exceed
Twenty-nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-three Dollars and Thirty-six Cents ($29,693.36).
2.LISD agrees to utilize the GRANT to fund books, videos, hardware, software, and other
Spanish teaching supplies for Rockbrook Elementary and a digital projector and bulb for
Durham Middle School within the LISD.
3.CITY agrees to provide the GRANT of Twenty-nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-
three Dollars and Thirty-six Cents ($29,693.36) funds payable on a quarterly basis with the first
payment due in February 2006. Funds to be expended in accordance with the budget categories
set forth in the GRANT application.
4. No later than May 15, 2006 the LISD shall submit the receipts for purchases for this
GRANT to the CEDC. The detailed expenditures shall include, but not be limited to, copies of
invoices.
5. In the event the LISD breaches any of the terms of this AGREEMENT or fails to use the
GRANT for the purposes set forth herein, then the LISD, after expiration of the notice and cure
period described herein, shall be in default of this AGREEMENT. As liquidated damages in the
event of such default, the LISD shall, within thirty (30) days after demand, repay to the CITY,
the GRANT with interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum from the date of receipt of
the GRANT until paid. The parties acknowledge that actual damages in the event of default
would be speculative and difficult to determine. Upon breach by LISD of any obligations under
this AGREEMENT, the CITY shall notify the LISD in writing, who shall have thirty (30) days
from receipt of the notice in which to cure such default. If LISD fails to cure the default within
the time provided herein, or, as such time period may be extended, then the CITY at its sole
option, shall have the right to terminate this AGREEMENT without further notice to the LISD.
6. The terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT are binding upon the successors and
assigns of all parties hereto. This AGREEMENT may not be assigned without the express
written consent of CITY and CEDC.
7. It is understood and agreed between the parties that LISD, in the use of the GRANT and
in satisfying the conditions of this AGREEMENT, is acting independently, and that the CITY
and/or the CEDC assumes no responsibilities or liabilities to third parties in connection with
these actions. LISD agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and the CEDC from all
such claims, suits, and causes of action, liabilities and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s
fees, of any nature whatsoever arising out of the LISD’S performance of the conditions under
this AGREEMENT.
8. Any notice required or permitted to be delivered hereunder shall be deemed received
when sent by United States mail, postage pre-paid, certified mail, return receipt requested,
addressed to the party at the address set forth opposite the signature of the party.
_______________________________________________
COPPELL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT GRANT
Page 3
9. This AGREEMENT shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas; and venue for
any action concerning this AGREEMENT shall be in the State District Court of Dallas County,
Texas.
10. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this AGREEMENT shall for
any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity,
illegality, or unenforceability shall not effect the other provisions, and the AGREEMENT shall
be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in it.
EXECUTED this _______ day of _____________________, 2006.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
By: ______________________________________
JIM WITT, CITY MANAGER
255 Parkway Boulevard
P.O. Box 9478
Coppell, Texas 75019
ATTEST:
By: ______________________________________
EXECUTED this _______ day of _____________________, 2006.
COPPELL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
By: ______________________________________
ANTONIO ALTEMUS, PRESIDENT
255 Parkway Boulevard
P.O. Box 9478
Coppell, Texas 75019
ATTEST:
By: ______________________________________
_______________________________________________
COPPELL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT GRANT
Page 4
SIGNED this ______ day of ________________, 2006.
LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: ______________________________________
DR. JERRY ROY, SUPERINTENDENT
Lewisville Independent School District
1800 Timbercreek Road
Lewisville, Texas 75067
ATTEST:
By: ______________________________________
CITY’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the _____ day of _______________,
2006, by Jim Witt, City Manager of the City of Coppell, Texas, a Texas municipality, on behalf of
said municipality.
___________________________________
Notary Public, State of Texas
My Commission Expires:
_________________________
_______________________________________________
COPPELL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT GRANT
Page 5
COPPELL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the _______ day of ___________,
2006, by Antonio Altemus, President of Coppell Education Development Corporation, on behalf
of said corporation.
Notary Public, State of Texas
My Commission expires:
________________________
LEWISVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the _______ day of ___________,
2006, by Dr. Jerry Roy, Superintendent of Lewisville Independent School District, on behalf of
said district.
Notary Public, State of Texas
My Commission expires:
_______________________
DEPT: City Manager
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 8/E
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION: Consider approval of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Coppell and the County of
Denton for the sale and exchange of Surplus Emergency Equipment, and authorizing the City Manager to sign.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: !Interlocal
____________________________________
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT – Page 1 63040
THE COUNTY OF DALLAS §
AND DENTON § INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
§ THE SALE AND EXCHANGE OF
§ SURPLUS EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City of Coppell, Texas, which lies within Dallas and Denton Counties,
hereinafter called “City”, and the County of Denton, Texas, hereinafter called “County”, desire
to enter into an interlocal agreement for the purpose of a sale and exchange of surplus emergency
vehicles, as further described in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 791 of the TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, as amended, provides
authorization for local governments to enter into interlocal contracts;
WHEREAS, the City has applied and received a homeland security grant in the amount
for three hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($325,000.00) to purchase an emergency response
vehicle; and,
WHEREAS, County agreed and did support such application to receive the City’s current
emergency response vehicle; and
WHEREAS, the City’s current emergency response vehicle is no longer needed as a result
of acquiring a new emergency vehicle under said grant; and, such vehicle is deemed surplus and
no longer needed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, conditions, and
agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follow:
I. AGREEMENT
1.01. City hereby agrees, in exchange for support and receipt of the homeland security
grant recited herein, to transfer to the County the emergency response vehicle, more particularly
as described by the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein as set forth in full.
1.02. City hereby agrees to execute the Certificates of Title, as set forth in Exhibit A,
upon approval and as authorized by the governing body.
1.03 The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution of this Agreement
until the execution of the necessary documents.
____________________________________
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT – Page 2 63040
II. EXCLUSION OF ALL EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES
2.01 All understanding and agreements heretofore had between the parties hereto are
merged in this Agreement, which alone fully and completely expresses this Agreement. The
County represents that the County is purchasing the emergency response vehicle which is the
subject of this Agreement “as is”. In particular, THE CITY MAKES NO WARRANTY,
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, OR REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE
ABILITY OF THE VEHICLE, ABOUT ITS PRESENT STATE OF REPAIR, ABOUT ITS
CONDITION OR MAINTENANCE, OR ABOUT ITS ABILITY TO FUNCTION IN ANY
RESPECT. In the making and execution of this Agreement, the County has not relied upon or
been induced by any statements or representations, other than those expressly set forth in this
Agreement, of any person in respect of the title to or the physical condition of the vehicle or any
other matter affecting the vehicle that might be pertinent in considering the purchase of said
vehicle or the execution of this Agreement. The County expressly acknowledges that no such
representations not embodied herein have been made. The County has, on the contrary, relied
solely on the representations expressly made herein and on such investigations, examinations and
inspections, financial and otherwise, as the County has chosen to make or have made. The City
has afforded the County the opportunity for full and complete investigations, examinations and
inspections.
2.02 The County hereby agrees to be responsible for any liability or damages the
County may suffer as a result of claims, demands, costs or judgments, including all reasonable
attorneys fees, against the County arising out of its performance under this Agreement or to the
property of any person(s) or corporation(s) occurring during the performance of this Agreement
and caused by the sole negligence of the County, its agents, officers and/or employees.
2.03 City and County agree that any liability or damages as stated above occurring
during the performance of this Agreement caused by the joint or comparative negligence of their
employees, agents and officers shall be determined in accordance with the comparative
responsibility laws of the State of Texas.
III. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
3.01 This Agreement shall be expressly subject to the sovereign immunity of County
and the governmental immunity of the City, Title 5 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, as amended, and all applicable federal and state law.
3.02 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
and case decisions of the State of Texas. Exclusive venue for any legal action regarding this
Agreement filed by either City or County shall be in Dallas County, Texas.
3.03 This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs,
successors, affiliates, administrators, executors, and assigns of the respective parties.
3.04 Each party represents that it has full capacity and authority to grant all rights and
assume all obligations that is granted and assumed under this Agreement.
____________________________________
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT – Page 3 63040
EXECUTED this ____ day of _____________________, 2006 by and between the
County of Denton and the City of Coppell.
COUNTY OF DENTON: CITY OF COPPELL
By: By:
County Judge City Manager
ATTEST:
By:
Libby Ball, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: By:
Assistant District Attorney/Civil Division Robert E. Hager
City Attorney
DEPT: Engineering
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 8/F
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of an interlocal agreement with Dallas County for road widening on Sandy Lake Road at Whispering
Hills Drive in a cost share amount of $26,472.17; and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of this interlocal agreement will allow the city to partner with Dallas County to have the necessary street
work performed at fifty percent of the actual cost.
Staff recommends approval of the interlocal agreement and will be available for any questions at the Council
meeting
FINANCIAL COMMENTS: Funds for this project would need to come from General Fund Fund Balance.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: #Dallas Co Agreement
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Ken Griffin, P.E., Director of Engineering/Public Works
DATE:February 14, 2006
REF:Consider approval of an interlocal agreement with Dallas County for road widening on
Sandy Lake Road at Whispering Hills Drive in a cost share amount of $26,472.17; and
authorizing the Mayor to sign.
Periodically, the city has received complaints from citizens concerning the lack of safe access off of
Whispering Hills Dr. onto Sandy Lake Rd. and a safe westbound left turn movement off Sandy Lake
Rd. onto Whispering Hills Dr. There have been several accidents at this intersection, the most
prevalent being rear-end accidents.
Utilizing criteria in the Manual of Traffic Control Devices, to evaluate the intersection, several
warrants are met that show the need for a traffic signal at this intersection. The preliminary
construction plans for Sandy Lake Rd. show a traffic signal installation for this intersection. Our
thought was that we could wait until the reconstruction of West Sandy Lake Rd. to install the traffic
signal. However, given the accident count, the increase in traffic on Sandy Lake Rd. and the fact that
we are not scheduled to begin construction on this section of Sandy Lake Rd. until late 2008 or early
2009, it is my opinion that we should address the safety of the intersection at this time.
To accomplish the installation of the traffic signal, the first step that needs to be performed is to widen
Sandy Lake Rd. at Whispering Hills Dr. to provide for a westbound left turn lane. A left turn lane
would allow us to operate an interim traffic light in a more efficient manner causing the least delay on
eastbound and westbound Sandy Lake Rd.
Sandy Lake Rd. is classified as a county type 'B' roadway by Dallas County and as such is eligible for
a cost share agreement with the county. In this case, the county would be cost sharing in the amount of
50% of the total street work.
Along both edges of Sandy Lake Rd. a borrow ditch currently exists. To widen the roadway, it is
necessary to include piping so that the borrow ditch can be enclosed and then the road widened over
the top of the pipes. This work would be very similar to the work performed by Dallas County in early
2005 at the intersection of Sandy Lake Rd. and Denton Tap Rd., by the 7-11 Convenience Store.
Dallas County estimates that the total cost to widen the roadway is $52,944.33. Therefore, Dallas
County is asking the City of Coppell to participate in an amount of $26,472.17 or 50% of the cost.
If this agreement is approved by City Council, then at a later date staff will bring back an agenda item
to enter into a contract with a contractor to install a temporary traffic signal at the intersection. The
temporary traffic signal would be what is commonly referred to as a 'span wire' traffic signal. Several
utility poles would be placed at the corners of the intersection and wire strung between the utility poles
and a traffic signal head placed on the wire. This is very similar to the temporary traffic signal that we
installed at the intersection of Heartz Rd. and Sandy Lake Rd. prior to the reconstruction of Sandy
Lake Rd. (Denton Tap to MacArthur). It is anticipated that the temporary traffic signal will cost in the
range of $25,000. Again, that will come back at a later date if Council approves the road widening by
Dallas County.
Staff recommends approval of this agenda item and will be available to answer any questions at the
Council meeting.
1 INCH = FT.
0 100
100
50
Proposed Left Turn Lane
Whispering Hills Drive
at Sandy Lake Road
Created in LDDTS:\CAD\In_Design\MISC EXHIBITS\dwg\EXHIBITS.dwg\SLR LEFT TURN
Created on: 03 February 2006 by Scott Latta
PROPOSED BOX
CULVERT
PROPOSED PAVING
PROPOSED THROUGH
LANE STRIPING
PROPOSED TURN
LANE STRIPING
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN DALLAS COUNTY AND COPPELL
FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT OF SANDY LAKE ROAD
WHERE AS, the City of Coppell, Texas, hereinafter called "City", and the County of Dallas,
Texas, hereinafter called "County", desire to enter into an interlocal agreement for the purpose of
intersection improvement as further described by exhibit "A"; and,
WHERE AS, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, provides
authorization for local governments to enter into interlocal contracts;
NOW THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT is hereby made and entered into by City and
County for the mutual consideration stated herein:
W I T N E S S E T H
I.
City has requested and County agrees to intersection improvement on Sandy Lake Road at
Whispering Hills, hereinafter called the "Project", as further described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein for all purposes. The Project is classified as a County Type "B" road
project.
II.
County agrees to furnish materials, labor and equipment necessary and to perform the
Project construction at a cost not to exceed $52,944.33, hereinafter called the "Not to Exceed
Amount".
III.
City agrees to pay to County the sum of $26,472.17 as City's portion of the cost of the
Project. Such amount will be paid to County prior to the commencement of construction. Such
amount will be deposited with County prior to the commencement of construction and County is
authorized to expend such amount for periodic payments of Project cost.
Road & Bridge District ILA (AM11-1997) 1
IV.
City agrees to accomplish the following items, if required by the project, in a timely manner
to insure that such items will not delay the County construction schedule; (1) inform the public of
the proposed reconstruction of the Project; (2) locate all manholes, water valves, and other utilities
within the Project; and (3) make or cause to be made all utility relocations or adjustments necessary
for the Project at no cost to County.
V.
In the event that the cost of the Project shall exceed the Not to Exceed Amount, City and
County agree to either reduce the scope of construction or seek additional funding to complete the
project. At the termination of the Project, County will do a final cost accounting of the Project. In
the event that the amount paid by City exceeds the actual cost, the difference will be remitted to
City. In the event that additional funds are due, County will bill City who agrees to pay such funds
within thirty (30) days of receipt of such billing.
VI.
The term of this agreement shall be from the date of the last signature approving the
agreement until the completion of the Project and final payment as provided herein.
VII.
The City agrees that County shall have the right to enter upon the Project area for the time
period necessary for the completion of the Project. City agrees to furnish such police personnel as
requested by County for traffic control or other public safety matters at no cost to County.
VIII.
The County agrees to be responsible for any liability or damages the County may suffer as
a result of claims, demands, costs or judgments, including all reasonable attorneys fees, against the
County, including workers compensation claims, arising out of the performance of the construction
and services under this agreement, or arising from any accident, injury or damage, whatsoever, to
any person or persons, or to the property of any person(s) or corporation(s) occurring during the
performance of this agreement and caused by the sole negligence of the County, its agents, officers
and/or employees.
IX.
The City agrees to be responsible for any liability or damages the City may suffer as a result
of claims, demands, costs or judgments, including reasonable attorneys fees, against the City,
including workers compensation claims, arising out of the performance of the construction and
services under this agreement, or arising from any accident, injury or damage, whatsoever, to any
person or persons, or to the property of any person(s) or corporations(s) occurring during the
performance of the agreement and caused by the sole negligence of the City, its agents, officers
and/or employees.
Road & Bridge District ILA (AM11-1997) 2
X.
City and County agree that any liability or damages as stated above occurring during the
performance of this agreement caused by the joint or comparative negligence of their employees,
agents and officers shall be determined in accordance with the comparative responsibility laws of
the State of Texas.
XI.
City and County agree that County's obligation to perform the Project construction is
contingent upon the receipt of City's payment of $26,472.17 and no construction on the Project will
commence prior to the receipt by County of such payment.
XII.
This Agreement shall be expressly subject to the sovereign immunity of County and the
governmental immunity of City, Title 5 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended,
and all applicable federal and state law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws and case decisions of the State of Texas. Exclusive venue for any local
action regarding this Agreement filed by either City or County shall be in Dallas County, Texas.
The City of Coppell, State of Texas, has executed the Agreement pursuant to duly authorized
City Council Resolution _________, Minutes__________Dated the _______day of ________, 2006.
The County of Dallas, State of Texas, has executed this agreement pursuant to
Commissioners Court Order Number ________ and passed on the ______day of __________, 2006.
CITY OF COPPELL COUNTY OF DALLAS
BY________________________________ BY_________________________________
DOUGLAS N. STOVER, MAYOR MARGARET KELIHER, COUNTY JUDGE
ATTEST____________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LIBBY BALL, CITY SECRETARY
_________________________________
Robert Schell, Chief
Civil Section
Dallas County District Attorney
Road & Bridge District ILA (AM11-1997) 3
DEPT: Engineering
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 8/G
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of an interlocal agreement between the City of Coppell and the City of Grapevine to provide
for joint bidding of the construction of Bethel Road and Bass Pro Drive, between S. H. 121 and Freeport
Parkway, and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of this interlocal agreement will allow for the joint bidding of the Bethel Road and Bass Pro Drive
projects to obtain a common contractor for the work in both cities.
Staff recommends approval of the interlocal agreement with the City of Grapevine and will be available for any
questions at the Council meeting
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: #Grapevine Interlocal
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Ken Griffin, P.E., Director of Engineering/Public Works
DATE:February 14, 2006
REF:Consider approval of an interlocal agreement between the City of Coppell and the City of
Grapevine to provide for joint bidding of the construction of Bethel Road and Bass Pro
Drive, between S. H. 121 and Freeport Parkway, and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
In February 2001, City Council approved a design contract with TranSystems to design Bethel Rd.
within the City of Coppell, from Freeport Pkwy. to our west city limits. Subsequent to that, we worked
closely with the City of Grapevine to insure that Bass Pro Dr., from the City of Coppell's west city
limits to S.H. 121, would be designed and constructed in a similar time frame. The City of Grapevine
then hired TranSystems to design Bass Pro Dr. in the City of Grapevine. The design of both Bethel
Rd. and Bass Pro Dr. is complete, right-of-way has been acquired and utility relocations have begun.
One concern that both cities have had during this process is that to bid the project separately could
mean that different contractors would be working on basically the same roadway in the same
timeframe, and there may be lack of coordination between the two contractors.
Since early 2004, the cities of Coppell and Grapevine have been working to draft an interlocal
agreement that would allow both Bethel Rd. and Bass Pro Dr. to be bid at one time, as one project,
with both cities financially responsible for the portion of the roadway within their respective city.
Over the past two years, the interlocal agreement has taken on various forms. However, the sole
purpose for the interlocal agreement was to allow for joint bidding so that one contractor was working
on both projects. The agreement with this agenda item does accomplish that goal. In the fourth
"Whereas" on the 1st page, it states that the "sole purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the joint
bidding of the project by the Cities to obtain a common contractor for the work in both cities".
Section 2.02 states that each city will cause the construction of the portion of the roadway within their
respective city.
Section 2.07 states that the award will be to the successful low bidder on the total project. It is
conceivable that there could be a low bidder on the section in Coppell that would not be the overall
low bidder considering both Coppell and Grapevine. However, it is the opinion of both cities, that
while that may occur, the overriding benefit of having one contractor on the project outweighs what
could be an additional cost to either Coppell or Grapevine, by going with the overall bidder (see
example).
"EXAMPLE"
Bidder 'A' Coppell Section $5,000,000. Bidder 'B' Coppell Section $4,900,000.
Bidder 'A' Grapevine Section $6,000,000. Bidder 'B' Grapevine Section $6,200,000.
Total Bid for Bidder 'A' is $11,000,000. Total Bid for Bidder 'B' is $11,100,000.
In this example, the overall low bidder for the project is Bidder 'A' and per the interlocal that would be
the contractor that both Grapevine and Coppell would award the bid to. However, in the example, the
overall low bidder for the City of Coppell was actually Bidder 'B', but because they were not the
overall low bidder, their bid would not be awarded.
Section 2.10 states that after the bid opening, each city will enter into a separate contract with the
contractor for the portion of the project within their respective city. This is important so that we do not
get involved in any issue that may arise on the section of Bass Pro within the City of Grapevine. By
the same token, we would not want Grapevine interjecting themselves in any issue that may arise in the
City of Coppell on Bethel Rd. So, it is important for each city to enter into and maintain a separate
contract with the common contractor.
As previously stated, it is staff's opinion that having one contractor on the entire project is
advantageous to both Coppell and Grapevine. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council
approve the interlocal agreement between the City of Coppell and the City of Grapevine. Staff will be
available to answer any questions at the Council meeting.
Interlocal Agreement – Bass Pro/Bethel Road Page 1
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
COUNTIES OF DALLAS AND TARRANT §
This Interlocal Agreement (“Agreement”) for the Construction of Paving and Drainage
on Bass Pro Drive and Bethel Road from State Highway 121 to Freeport Parkway (the
“Project”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Coppell, Texas, a municipal
corporation located in Dallas County, Texas (“Coppell”), and the City of Grapevine, Texas, a
municipal corporation located in Tarrant County, Texas (“Grapevine”). (Grapevine and Coppell
shall hereafter be collectively referred to as “the Cities”).
WHEREAS, the Cities mutually desire to enter into an interlocal agreement to provide
competitive bidding and construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 791, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, as amended (the “Act”), provides
authorization for municipalities to contract with one another for the performance of
governmental functions and services under the terms of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Cities shall provide financing for the portion of the Project within their
respective cities as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, it is mutually understood that the sole purpose of this Agreement is to
provide for the joint bidding of the project by the Cities to obtain a common contractor for the
work in both cities; and
WHEREAS, the Cities are local governments in the State of Texas, and as such are
empowered by the Texas Local Government Code, Section 271.101-271.102 to enter into a
cooperative purchasing program agreement with other qualified entities in the State of Texas;
and
WHEREAS, the Cities wish to utilize established contracts meeting all State of Texas
bidding requirements for various goods and services.
WHEREAS, it is mutually advantageous to both parties to enter into this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms and
conditions set forth herein, and the mutual benefits to each party, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the Cities hereby contract, covenant, warrant and agree as
follows:
Interlocal Agreement – Bass Pro/Bethel Road Page 2
I
ADOPTION OF PREAMBLE
All of the matters stated in the preamble of this Agreement are true and correct and are
hereby incorporated into the body of the Agreement as though fully set forth in their entirety
herein.
II
OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES
2.01 The Cities have independently contracted and paid for Consulting Engineering
Services related to the design of the Project.
2.02 The Cities agree that the construction of Bass Pro Drive in Grapevine and Bethel
Road in Coppell will be jointly bid as one project. Coppell shall cause the construction of
Bethel Road from the Coppell/Grapevine city limits to Freeport Parkway solely at Coppell’s cost
and Grapevine shall cause the construction of Bass Pro Drive from the Coppell/Grapevine city
limits to S.H. 121 solely at Grapevine’s cost.
2.03 The Cities agree that each respective city shall review and approve all
construction plans and specifications within their city for the Project.
2.04 The Cities agree that each respective city will be responsible for pursuing the
relocation of public utilities within their city and each city will acquire the necessary rights-of-
way and easements for the construction of the Project.
2.05 The Cities agree that one set of bid documents and specifications shall be
prepared by Coppell for bidding purposes.
2.06 The Cities agree that each City shall prepare and include a bid list with a subtotal
cost in the joint bid documents.
2.07 The Cities agree that the contract shall be awarded to the successful bidder on the
total Project cost comprised of the total cost of each City’s bid list and subtotal cost. For all
work included in or associated with the Project, the Cities hereby enter into a cooperative
purchasing program with one another, pursuant to Section 271.102 of the Local Government
Code. All payments made pursuant to this cooperative purchasing agreement shall be made
directly to the contractor or vendor, and each of the respective Cities shall be responsible for
ensuring compliance and quality.
2.08 The Cities agree that unit costs bid for the same item in each City’s bid list shall
be the same. No deviation shall be allowed in the bid unless approved by both Cities.
2.09 The Cities agree that after the bid opening, neither city will unnecessarily
withhold the award of the bid for the construction of the Project.
Interlocal Agreement – Bass Pro/Bethel Road Page 3
2.10 The Cities agree that the award of the bid by each respective City shall be
comprised of separate contracts between the successful bidder and each respective City for the
portion of the Project constructed within their respective city.
2.11 The Cities agree that the construction within each city shall be in accordance with
each City’s respective design standards and Code of Ordinances including, but not necessarily
limited to, providing proper barricades, traffic control during construction, detours and project
clean up after the Project is complete.
III
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
3.01 GRAPEVINE AGREES TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD COPPELL HARMLESS FROM ANY
CLAIM BY A THIRD PARTY FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RESULTING FROM THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROJECT LYING IN GRAPEVINE.
3.02 COPPELL AGREES TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD GRAPEVINE HARMLESS FROM ANY
CLAIM BY A THIRD PARTY FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RESULTING FROM THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROJECT LYING IN COPPELL.
3.03 HOWEVER, THE INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONTAINED HEREIN
SHALL NOT BE DEEMED A WAIVER OF ANY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ALLOWED PURSUANT TO TEX.
CIV. PROC. & REM. CODE, SECTION 101.001 ET SEQ., OR OTHERWISE.
IV
NOTICES
Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been
adequately given if deposited in the United States mail in an envelope with sufficient postage
and properly addressed to the other party as follows:
If to Grapevine: If to Coppell:
City of Grapevine City of Coppell
P.O. Box 95104 P. O. Box 9478
Grapevine, Texas 76099 Coppell, Texas 75019
Attention: City Manager Attention: City Manager
A change of address may be made by either party upon the giving of ten (10) days prior
written notice.
Interlocal Agreement – Bass Pro/Bethel Road Page 4
V
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
5.01 This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties
hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
5.02 This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement of the parties hereto and
supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements between the parties respecting
the subject matter hereof.
5.03 No amendment, modification or alteration of the terms hereof shall be binding
unless the same be in writing, dated subsequent to the date hereof and duly executed by the
parties.
5.04 All payments made hereunder shall be payable from funds currently available to
the respective Cities.
5.05 This Agreement may be executed concurrently in one or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
5.06 If, in case anyone or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for
any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity,
illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof and this Agreement
shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained
herein.
5.07 The obligations and undertakings of each of the parties to this Agreement are and
shall be performable in Dallas County, Texas.
5.08 Each party hereto warrants that it has received authority from its governing body
to enter into this Agreement.
EXECUTED this ____ day of ______________________, 2006.
CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS
By:
William D. Tate, MAYOR
ATTEST:
By:
Linda Huff, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
CITY ATTORNEY
Interlocal Agreement – Bass Pro/Bethel Road Page 5
EXECUTED this ____ day of ______________________, 2006.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
By:
Douglas N. Stover, MAYOR
ATTEST:
By:
Libby Ball, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Robert E. Hager, CITY ATTORNEY
DEPT: Engineering
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 8/H
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval to utilize the City of Richardson's contract with Uretek USA, Inc., as authorized by the Texas
Local Government Code, Section 271.102, Subchapter F, to perform our yearly street repair/mud jacking
program, in an amount of $50,000 as provided for in the Infrastructure Maintenance Fund.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of this agenda item will allow funding to continue with the street repairs generated from citizen requests
and city initialed repairs.
Staff recommends approval and will be available for any questions at the Council meeting
FINANCIAL COMMENTS: Funds are available in the Infrastructure Maintenance Fund for this contract.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: #Uretek Contract
DEPT: Planning
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 8/I
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of an Ordinance for Case No. ZC-619, St. Ann Catholic Parish, changing the zoning from C
(Commercial) to SF-9 (Single Family-9) on approximately 5.3 acres of property located at 700 E. Sandy Lake
Road, to expand church uses into an existing building, and amending the Land Use Plan of the 1996
Comprehensive Plan, changing the land use from Neighborhood Retail to Public Institutional, and authorizing the
Mayor to sign.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Date of P&Z Meeting: N/A
Decision of P&Z Commission: N/A
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this zoning change and land use amendment on
December 5, 2005 (6-0).
Council unanimously approved this zoning change and land use amendment on January 10, 2006 (7-0).
Staff recommends approval.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: @ZC-619, St.Ann ORD 1-AR(Con)
1
63335
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF
COPPELL, TEXAS, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY GRANTING A CHANGE IN
ZONING FROM C (COMMERCIAL) TO SF-9 (SINGLE FAMILY-9), ON
APPROXIMATELY 5.3 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 700 E. SANDY
LAKE ROAD AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A”
ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN; AND FURTHER
AMENDING, IN PART, THE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL TO A
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNATION ON THE TRACT OF LAND AS
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO
AMEND THE LAND USE MAP IN ACCORDANCE THE EXHIBIT “B”;
PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO
EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH
OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the governing body of the City of
Coppell, Texas, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas and pursuant to the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Coppell, have given requisite notices by publication and otherwise,
and after holding due hearings and affording a full and fair hearing to all property owners generally,
and to all persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof, the said
governing body is of the opinion that Zoning Application No. ZC-619 should be approved, and in the
exercise of legislative discretion have concluded that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map
should be amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COPPELL, TEXAS:
SECTION 1.That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Coppell,
Texas, duly passed by the governing body of the City of Coppell, Texas, as heretofore amended, be and
the same is hereby amended to grant a change in zoning from C (Commercial) to SF-9 (Single
Family-9), on approximately 5.3 acres of property located at 700 E. Sandy Lake Road and being
more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. Amending, in part, the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan changing the
designation from a Neighborhood Retail to a Public Institutional designation on the tract of land as
2
63335
described herein, and authorizing the Director of Planning to amend the Land Use map in accordance
the Exhibit “B”;
SECTION 3.That the above property shall be used only in the manner and for the purpose
provided for by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Coppell, as heretofore amended,
and as amended herein.
SECTION 4.That the development of the property herein shall be in accordance with
building regulations, zoning ordinances, and any applicable ordinances except as may be specifically
altered or amended herein.
SECTION 5. That all provisions of the Ordinances of the City of Coppell, Texas, in conflict
with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and all other provisions not
in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of
this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the
validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof other than the part so decided to
be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, and shall not affect the validity of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance as a whole.
SECTION 7. An offense committed before the effective date of this ordinance is governed by
prior law and the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended, in effect when the
offense was committed and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose.
SECTION 8.That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms of
this ordinance shall be subject to the same penalty as provided for in the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Coppell, as heretofore amended, and upon conviction shall be punished by a
fine not to exceed the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense; and each and every
day such violation shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense.
3
63335
SECTION 9.That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and
the publication of its caption, as the law and charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas, this the _______ day of
___________________, 2006.
APPROVED:
_____________________________________
DOUGLAS N. STOVER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
LIBBY BALL, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
ROBERT E. HAGER, CITY ATTORNEY
(REH/cdb 1/31/06)
PARKW AY BOULEVARD
PARR STRWELL
S
T
R
E
E
T CT.BRIARWOOD CTGREENMEADOW RUNWISLASHOR EW OOD DRIV EC
MEADOWGLEN CIRCLE
MEADOWGLEN CIR
D
R
COV
ROADWE
CYPRESS WESTWIND DRDEANN DRMEADOW RUNLANSDOWNE CIRCLE W E ST
LESLIE LN MEADOWGLEN CIRCLELOCKHAVEN LN
WOODMOOR DRIVE
MARLEE
CIRCLEALENDALE DR
SAMUEL BLVD.AUSTIN C T
INDIAN ROCK D R
INDIAN ROCK DRHOME W OOD DR HOMEWOOD DRNIXON STR
EAGLE DRIVE
SWALLOW DR
SPARROW DR
RAV EN LANEQUAIL LANEPHEASANT LN
FINCH LNROBIN LN
CARDINAL LN MOCKINBIRD LANEMAPLEL
SUGARBERRY DRIVE
HILL DRIVEMESQUITEWOOD STCHERRYBARK DRIVECREEKSIDE LANEAUTUMN LN
ELMVALE BITTERNUT DRROL
SANDY LAKE ROADCounty Line
City Limit
Flood Plain
Historic Overlay
Light Industrial Showroom
Freeway Commercial
Freeway Office
Mixed Use
Regional Retail
Neighborhood Retail
Residential High Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential Low Density
Public Institutional
Park Open Space
Legend
N
EW
S
Land Use Map Amendment
500 0 500 Feet From Neighborhood Retail to Public/Institutional
DEPT: Planning
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 9
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of Case No. S-1232-C, Value Place Hotel, zoning change request from LI and C (Light
Industrial and Commercial) to S-1232-C (Special Use Permit-1232-Commercial), to allow the construction of a
four-story, limited service/extended stay hotel, with 121 studio rooms, on 2.076 acres of property located at the
northeast corner of S.H. 121 and Northpoint Drive.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Date of P&Z Meeting: January 19, 2006
Decision of P&Z Commission: Denial (6-1) with Commissioners Borchgardt, Hall, McCaffrey, Haas,
Kittrell and Reese voting in favor of denial. Commissioner Foreman opposed.
The basis for denial is as follows:
• Inappropriateness of a residential use under the DFW flight path and being
in close proximity to the freeway.
• Insufficient parking being provided for residents, guests and employees and
the potential impact on surrounding streets.
• Incompatible with the uses envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Uncertainty as to the affect that the widening of S.H. 121 will have on this property.
• Non-compliant signs.
• Potential impact on CISD.
Please see letter dated January 25, 2006, from Charles B. McKinney, ASLA, Jones & Boyd, Inc., appealing the
Commission’s recommendation of denial.
A ¾ vote of Council (6 out of 7) is necessary to overturn the Planning Commission’s vote of denial.
Staff recommends denial.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: @1S-1232-C, VPH 1-AR
Item # 4
Page 1 of 6
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: S-1232-C, Value Place Hotel
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 19, 2006
C.C. HEARING DATE: February 14, 2006
STAFF REP.: Marcie Diamond, Assistant Planning Director
LOCATION: Northeast corner of S.H. 121 and Northpoint Drive
SIZE OF AREA: 2.076 acres of property.
CURRENT ZONING: LI and C (Light Industrial and Commercial)
REQUEST: To change the current Light Industrial and Commercial zoning
classifications to Special Use Permit 1232-Commercial to allow for a
42,640-square-foot, four-story limited-service/extended-stay hotel,
with 121 studio rooms.
APPLICANT: Quanah Properties, LP Engineer/Planner
16610 Dallas Parkway Jones and Boyd, Inc.
Suite 1300 Chuck McKinney, ASLA
Dallas, TX. 75248 17090 Dallas Parkway, #200
(214) 368-8780 Dallas, TX. 75248
Fax (214) 368-8796 (972) 248-7676
Fax (972) 248-1414
HISTORY: There has been no recent history on the subject property although a
mini-warehouse facility has been constructed immediately east and
north of this parcel. At the time of that development, it was noted on
the approved Site Plan that this two-plus acres was a “potential
restaurant site.”
Item # 4
Page 2 of 6
TRANSPORTATION: Northpoint Drive is a C4U four-lane, undivided concrete street
constructed to standard within a 90-foot right-of-way; State Highway
121 is a variable width six-lane, concrete State Highway constructed
to standard.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North – mini-warehouse; LI (Light Industrial) and C (Commercial) zoning
South – vacant; LI (Light Industrial) zoning
East – mini-warehouse; LI (Light Industrial) zoning
West – State Highway 121; City of Grapevine, CC (Community Commercial)
zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property as
suitable for light industrial/showroom uses.
DISCUSSION: This request is for a 121-room, four-story hotel, which, at first blush,
might appear desirable; however, upon closer evaluation, this proposal is
troublesome to staff.
DEFINITION OF USE
Value Place is a relatively new franchise “hotel” chain being developed
nationwide. This type of facility is known as a “limited-service” hotel,
meaning, the amenities typically found in a hotel, such as restaurants,
workout facilities, spas, pools, gift shops, etc., do not exist. The only
service (common area) is a self-service laundry for the guests, provided on
the first floor. Consequently, this is not a hotel as typically envisioned.
Although the name of this facility is Value Place Hotel, per their own
marketing materials, this use is defined as “a hotel and apartment hybrid
intended for ‘short-term residential lodging.’” Their web site
(www.myvalueplace.com) also describes this facility as “a short term
residential product that blends the best of extended-stay lodging and
furnished apartments.” Each room is equipped with a full-size refrigerator
with freezer, microwave oven and a two-burner stove.
Value Place further markets their product as “Our rates are priced for a
minimum one week stay. While many people decide to stay with us for
months, many people staying less than one week find us cheaper than
traditional hotels.” This property is also within CISD. Our neighboring
community has documented that occupants of an extended-stay hotel
reside long enough to send children to public school. An extended-stay
residential facility was never envisioned for this area of the City.
Item # 4
Page 3 of 6
In sum, given the characteristics of this development, its use could be
classified as an apartment development (at 58-du/ac) instead of a hotel and
needs to be evaluated as such.
PARKING
Per the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, parking for a hotel is
required at a ratio of “One parking space for each one sleeping rooms or
suites plus one space for each 200 square feet of commercial floor area
contained therein.” For this project, given that the “commercial floor
area” is limited to 96-sq. ft. of public area (guest laundromat), only 122
parking spaces are required for an 121-room facility.
However, given that it is defined as a “hybrid” apartment–hotel, the
parking requirement for apartments was also reviewed. Apartment
developments require “two spaces for every one and two bedroom
units”…. plus “one-half space…per unit is required for guest parking.”
Therefore, if this were classified as an apartment, 303-parking spaces
would be required. Although all of these units are one bedroom, almost
40% of them are either doubles (two beds) or studio sleeper (one bed, one
fold-out couch). Different than hotel facilities for vacationing families,
with generally one car, this is a “business-oriented” facility where it is
safe to assume that most of the occupants will have their own vehicle.
There is also no provision for employee or visitor parking. In addition,
studies have been conducted on these uses and if contractors, construction
managers, etc., are target occupants of these units, large pick-ups and
construction trucks are generally the vehicle of choice. Parking may
become problematic. The applicant has stated that they do not permit
(provide larger parking spaces) for these types of vehicles on the property.
At full occupancy, if only 122 spaces are provided, it appears that
overflow parking, of all types of vehicles, will be on Northpoint Drive.
Therefore, it is recommended that, at minimum, two-parking spaces
should be provided for each double and sleeper room, increasing the
number of parking spaces from 122 to 169, plus one space per employee.
AIRPORT/FREEWAY NOISE
This property is located within the flight path of the DFW Airport. This
proposed facility is located within the 75 DNL noise contour, which is an
area that experiences regular and routine aircraft over flights from the
airport. Our own airport noise study and the FAA have consistently
opposed any type of residential use in areas that exceed 65 LDN, let alone
75 LDN. This noise factor will be further compounded by the proximity
to S.H. 121, which is currently carrying approximately 73,000 vehicles per
day. Once improved to a full freeway, the ambient noise level will
Item # 4
Page 4 of 6
increase. Again, staff cannot support these residential units being this
close to the freeway and within the noise levels indicated by our studies.
SIGNAGE
Two signs are being proposed for this project, one attached and one
monument, neither of which is in compliance with the Sign Ordinance.
The attached sign, while in compliance with size, is not in compliance
with color. The lettering of the attached sign are proposed to be black;
however, they will be illuminated with red neon. Therefore, they will
have a red-halo effect when lit. Section 12-29-4.3(A)1 of the Sign
Ordinance specifically states… “All illumination shall be limited to white
or off-white..” The placement of the attached sign is also in question, in
that it appears to be placed over an air vent in the front façade of the
building.
The monument sign is proposed to be a 60-square-foot, red, yellow and
black metal sign. Although not specifically stated as to internal or
external illumination, there is a UL – Electric Sign stamp on the plans.
The metal materials are not in compliance with the Sign Ordinance, as
provided for in the definition of a monument sign in Section 12-29-1.
Further, Section 12-29-3.3(N) prohibits “can signs” which are defined as
“a sign constructed of a frame, usually steel, surrounded by sheet goods,
usually sheet metal and/or plastic, within which light fixtures may be
placed.” Therefore, typical of the commercial/retail areas in Coppell,
monument signs are constructed with the same masonry materials as the
main structure on the lot, with individually pin-mounted letters or similar
with external illumination.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
office/showroom/industrial uses. As previously stated, when the abutting
property was zoned, this area was to be targeted for restaurant uses. A
hybrid apartment-hotel, specifically a residential use, is not what was
envisioned for under either of those development scenarios.
ECONOMIC BENEFIT
Included in the marketing materials provided by the applicant was a chart
of the economic benefits of this project to the City of Coppell. This data
was analyzed by the City’s Finance Department, and it appears that the
applicant has overstated the annual economic impact to the City of
Coppell by over $300,000. Assuming full occupancy of the facility, the
following financial impact to the City of Coppell is estimated as follows:
Item # 4
Page 5 of 6
Annual Tax Applicant City Staff Difference
Sales Tax* $116,300 $20,000 -$96,300
Bed Tax (Hotel/Motel)** $183,300 $98,000 -$85,300
Property Tax*** $161,200 $36,000 -$125,200
$460,800 $154,000 -$306,800
*Only collected on ancillary retail uses within the hotel, staff questions if
the self-service laundry facility and other services provided for an
additional fee by the hotel (coffee and internet access) will generate a
significant amount of tax revenue.
** Based on 7% to the City of Coppell
*** Based on $0.6486 to the City of Coppell
S.H. 121 R.O.W.
State Highway 121 is scheduled to be improved to a full freeway within
the next few years. At this point in time, there is not a final determination
if additional R.O.W. will be needed from this property. This site is so
tight, any additional R.O.W. could adversely affect the development of the
property.
DRAFTING ISSUES
There are several drafting issues with the plans as submitted. There is a
discrepancy on the Landscape Plan between the number of trees indicated
on the Plant List (45 overstory trees) and the Landscape Data Table (43
overstory trees). There is one landscape island missing at the southeast
corner of the property. The color of metal gates on dumpster needs to be
indicated and the air conditioning units also need to be defined by color.
The fire hydrant needs to be relocated to the east side of the fire lane at the
southern driveway.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending DENIAL of S-1232-C, Value Place Hotel based on:
• Inappropriateness of a residential use under the DFW flight path and being in
close proximity to the freeway.
• Insufficient parking being provided for residents, guests and employees and the
potential impact on surrounding streets.
• Incompatible with the uses envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Uncertainty as to the affect that the widening of S.H. 121 will have on this
property.
• Non-compliant signs.
• Potential impact on CISD.
Item # 4
Page 6 of 6
ALTERNATIVES
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Site Plan
2) Landscape Plan
3) Floor Plan ( 2 sheets)
4) Elevation
5) Sign Package (4 sheets)
6) Marketing Brochure provided by Value Place
Affordable ? Clean ? Safe ? SimpleThe Nation’s Fastest Growing Brand
Value PlaceAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
Jack P. DeBoerChairman & FounderSecond largest apartment developer in theUnited States in the 1970sCreated the extended-stay segment of thehotel industryFounded Residence Inn, Summerfield Suitesand Candlewood SuitesAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
What is Value Place?A hybrid product, The Value Place concept takesthe basics of a business hotel, and makes itaffordable for the self-employed or small businessowner.Value Place is the product of an 18-month designprocess.The Value Place executive team has over 150 years’experience to their credit.Value Place is on pace to have 40 new propertiesunder construction by the end of 2005, and another70 by the end of 2006.Affordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
Why Value Place? Why Now?“When I looked at the lodging industry, it was obvious thatwith so many good products, the mid-priced segment of thebusiness had become a commodity competing simply onprice. In the upper end of the business, you have to spend alot of money on fancy swimming pools and extravagantlobbies to ‘wow’ people and then hope you can recover yourcosts. I looked to the economy segment of the industry andrealized how under-served it really is for the extended-staytraveler.”Jack DeBoerAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
AFFORDABLEStrives to be the cost effective, quality provider of cleaner, safer lodging inthe marketCLEANComprehensive QA Programs and TrainingWeekly room inspectionsDurable, High Quality FurnishingsSAFENew Construction with Electronic Locking SystemInterior Corridor with Key Required for EntryAbility to Evict when NecessaryOn-Site Studio Officer and Security Cameras Required at all EntrancesSIMPLEStandardized Design and Construction, No Food ServiceLimited Number of Daily Check-Ins/Move OutsProfessionally managedFour Key Concepts DefineValue Place and Drive the BrandAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
Think Extended-Stay HotelValue Place’s weekly rate includes servicesfound in higher priced hotels:Utilities: Electricity, Gas, Water & TrashExpanded Cable/Satellite TV with a Premium MovieChannelBi-Weekly HousekeepingFully Furnished with Kitchen, Towels and LinensNo Lease Obligations, 24-Hour Departure NoticeAdditional services for a nominal fee:Local & Long Distance CallsHigh Speed Internet accessOn-Site Laundry and VendingCoffee MakerLinen Exchange ServiceAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
The Value Place RoomStudio Suite264 sq. ft.Studio Sleeper319 sq. ft.Studio Double319 sq. ft.Affordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
Who is the Customer?81% are male73% are from out of town27% are local and temporarily displaced86% respond that price is the primary reason forinitial check-inFollow-up surveys indicate they return because:Customers feel safeProperty is cleanIt’s Affordable on a limited budgetAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
What do they do for a living?Small Business Owners Completing Short-Term ProjectsInstallation CrewsIndependent ConsultantsIndividuals or Families in TransitionGeneral Extended-Stay TravelersEmployees with Temporary WorkAssignmentsAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
What do they do for a living?(continued…)Individuals Conducting or Participating inTrainingPeople in the Process of RelocatingCollege Students, TeachersNursesMilitary and Vendors Servicing MilitaryAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
Other Reasons for Staying…Families and Friends of HospitalizedIndividualsThose Visiting Friends or FamilyTemporary Housing for Disaster VictimsAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
How long do they stay?Typical stay is three to five weeksAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
A Good Business Partner forCoppell1.25 miles from nearest residential areaNo traffic or school impactsNo negative impacts on local businessesNo liquor salesIncreases value of adjacent land and spursadditional developmentIncreases collections of local property, sales andbed taxes (Taken mostly from Grapevine)Professionally managed by the Brand20-year Franchise CommitmentUpgraded exterior for more curb appealAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
A Good Business Partner forCoppellAnnual Gross Rooms Revenue of $1,410,000Annual Sales Tax @ 8.5% = $116,300Annual Bed Tax @ 13% = $183,300Estimated Property Tax on a Value of$5,500,000 @ 2.932% = $ 161,200Estimated Total Tax Contributions =$ 460,800Estimated Property Payroll of Approximately$100,000Affordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
Training Programs & ProcessesExtensive Property Manager TrainingPrograms for Property Manager and EntireValue Place Team: XTremeClean XTremeSafe XTremePrepThese programs were developed utilizing principlesfrom the Harvard School of Business “AchievingBreakthrough Service” ProgramAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? Simple
Value Place PropertiesOpen or Under DevelopmentJanuary 1, 2006Includes Properties that were Open, Under Construction,Under Contract and Franchise CommitmentsAffordable ? Clean ? Safe ? SimpleTotal = 310
DEPT: Planning
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 10
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of Case No. PD-212-LI, Freeport North, northern portion of Lot 1, Block 1, (CitiFinancial),
zoning change request from LI (Light Industrial) to PD-212-LI (Planned Development-212-Light Industrial), to
amend the approved Site Plan to allow an expansion to the off-street parking areas; to allow deficits in parking and
landscaping, and to allow additional site modifications on 12.28 acres of property located at 1111 Northpoint Drive
(southwest corner of Northpoint Drive and Royal Lane).
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Date of P&Z Meeting: January 19, 2006
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approval and Denial (7-0) with Commissioners Borchgardt, Hall,
McCaffrey, Foreman, Haas, Kittrell and Reese voting in favor of both approval and denial, as follows:
1) APPROVAL of the parking spaces in the former loading area, subject to the area being brought
into compliance with either Section 12-34-8(A) (areas exempt from landscaping) or provision of
the required landscaping. (Neither condition met by applicant.)
2) APPROVAL of the provision of the 35 parking spaces along the western property line, subject
to confirmation from TU Electric Delivery Company, allowing for the relocation of the 12 Cedar Elm
trees into their easement. (Condition partially met – need to verify in the field at the time of
transplanting.)
3) DENIAL of the variance to the parking requirements, to allow a 264-parking space deficit.
(See parking study submitted 2/1/06.)
A ¾ vote of Council (6 out of 7) is necessary to overturn the Planning Commission’s vote of denial of
Condition No. 3, above.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of four requests and DENIAL of the variance regarding a parking variance of
24%.
ON FEBRUARY 7, 2006, STAFF RECEIVED A LETTER FROM JEFFREY NEAL, DUKE
CONSTRUCTION, REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL TABLE CONSIDERATION TO ITS MEETING OF
MARCH 9, 2006.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: @2PD-212-LI, FN 1-AR
Item # 6
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: PD-212-LI, Freeport North,
northern portion of Lot 1, Block 1, (CitiFinancial)_
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 19, 2006
C.C. HEARING DATE: February 14, 2006
STAFF REP.: Marcie Diamond, Assistant Planning Director
LOCATION: 1111 Northpoint Drive (southwest corner of Northpoint Drive and
Royal Lane)
SIZE OF AREA: 12.28 acres of property
CURRENT ZONING: LI (Light Industrial)
REQUEST: Zoning change request from LI (Light Industrial) to PD-212-LI
(Planned Development-212-Light Industrial), to amend the approved
Site Plan to allow an expansion to the off-street parking areas; to
allow deficits in parking and landscaping, and to allow additional site
modifications.
APPLICANT: Duke Realty Corporation Engineer:
Jeff Neal Chad Jackson
5495 Beltline Road Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers
Suite 360 8350 N. Central Expressway, #100
Dallas, TX 75254 Dallas, TX 75206
(972) 361-6709 (972) 235-3031
Fax (972) 361-6800 Fax (972) 235-9544
HISTORY: This property was developed with a one-story, 125,000-square-foot
tilt-wall building in 1998. It is currently occupied by CitiFinancial, a
mortgage services center.
Item # 6
Page 2 of 4
TRANSPORTATION: Royal Lane is a C4D/6, four-lane divided thoroughfare in a right-of-
way containing 110 feet of dedication (adequate for a six-lane
divided thoroughfare). Northpoint Drive is a C4D four-lane divided
roadway contained within 80-feet of right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North –warehouse/distribution facility; LI (Light Industrial) zoning
South – office/warehouse building; LI (Light Industrial) zoning
East – office/warehouse; LI (Light Industrial) zoning
West – small, vacant parcel; LI (Light Industrial) zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property as
suitable for light industrial/showroom uses.
DISCUSSION: This request was originally submitted as a Site Plan Amendment to allow
for the addition of 35-parking spaces along the western property line to
serve the existing tenant of the building, CitiFinancial. However, upon
review of the as-built conditions in relation to the Site Plan approved in
1999, major discrepancies became apparent. Also, during this review
process, a Building Permit was applied for to allow a relocation of an
existing generator and the addition of a patio on the east side of the
building, adjacent to Royal Lane. Therefore, it was determined that
rezoning was necessary.
Existing Conditions
As mentioned in the HISTORY section of this report, this building was
constructed in 1998. The approved Site and Landscape Plans indicated
that 30% of the building was to be used for office and the remaining 70%
for warehousing uses. Based on this ratio, 213 parking spaces were
required, and 596 parking spaces were originally provided. As indicated
on the attached letter dated January 10, 2006, from Jeffrey Neal of Duke
Construction, The Associates were the first occupants of this building,
employing 600 employees (with 596 parking spaces). However, since that
time, additional portions of the building were finished-out for a call center
use (from warehousing), increasing the employee count by 185 in 2000
and 300 employees in 2003, for a total of 1,085 employees. There are
currently 160 vacant positions in this company.
At some point in time, the loading dock area, which was originally
designed to serve the warehouse function, was re-striped to accommodate
employee parking. Approximately 180 spaces were added; however, the
required landscaped areas and trees were not installed. There are currently
780 parking spaces for the existing 925 employees.
Item # 6
Page 3 of 4
The purpose of this PD is to allow:
• deficits in total number of parking spaces provided;
• deficits in landscaping areas and number of trees;
• a revision to the Site Plan to add 35 parking spaces, and
• the relocation of a generator with screening wall and the addition of a
patio area.
Deficit in number of parking spaces
The Zoning Ordinance requires parking to be provided at a ratio of “one
parking space for each employee on the maximum working shift, plus
space to accommodate all trucks and other vehicles.” Per information
provided by the applicant, the maximum number of employees at this
facility is projected to be 1,085, thus requiring 1,085 parking spaces. Only
821 spaces are being provided, resulting in a deficit of 264 parking spaces.
Staff cannot support this 24% deficit. It is reasonable to assume that the
overflow parking will end up on the street, which could potentially cause
unsafe conditions.
Deficit in landscaping
All parking areas are required to have 10% of the area devoted to
landscaping, including planting islands with trees, one tree per 400-square
feet, etc. The former loading area, which was striped for additional 180
parking spaces, does not meet any landscape requirements. The applicant
is requesting a PD condition, which waives all of these requirements.
Staff would prefer, as provided for in the Landscape Ordinance, that this
parking be legally exempted from the Ordinance as permitted in Section
12-34-8. This provision allows parking lot areas not to be landscaped if
they are visually screened with masonry walls at least six-feet high, have
limited access, etc.
Additional parking along the western property line
As mentioned, the original request was simply to add 35 parking spaces
along the western property line. This would require the relocation of 12
existing 6- to 8-caliper inch Cedar Elm trees into an existing 10-foot-wide
TU Electric easement. Assurances need to be provided from TU that they
will permit the planting of trees in their easement. Historically, there has
been an issue with over-story trees in this type of easement, and it is
assumed that is why they were originally planted 10 feet off of the
property line.
Replacement of a generator with screening and addition of a patio area
The applicant is also requesting additional Site Plan modifications that
include the replacement of an existing generator on the south side of the
building. It appears from the documents submitted with the Building
Item # 6
Page 4 of 4
Permit, that the new generator will be screened with an approximate 12’-
tall screening wall. Elevations of this wall, with materials and colors, etc.,
need to be included in this PD Site Plan, with assurances that the new wall
will match the existing structure.
Also being requested is a new patio area at the southeast corner of the
building. There are no structures being proposed; however, this will
necessitate the relocation of an existing tree. Where this tree will be
relocated needs to be specified.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending:
1) APPROVAL of the parking spaces in the former loading area, subject
to the area being brought into compliance with either Section 12-34-
8(A) (areas exempt from landscaping) or provision of the required
landscaping.
2) APPROVAL of the provision of the 35 parking spaces along the
western property line, subject to confirmation from TU Electric
Delivery Company, allowing for the relocation of the 12 Cedar Elm
trees into their easement.
3) APPROVAL of the relocation of the generator, subject to the
submission of elevations of the screening wall and assurance that the
wall will match the existing building.
4) APPROVAL of the patio area, subject to specification of the location
of the relocated tree.
5) DENIAL of the variance to the parking requirements, to allow a 264-
parking space deficit.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Detail Site Plan
2) Landscape Plan
Consulting Engineers
8350 N. CENTRAL EXPWY., SUITE 1000
DALLAS, TEXAS 75206
PH. 972.235.3031
FAX 972.235.9544
ISSUESREVISIONSSOUTHGENERATORWALLELEVATIONJOB: 05176.0000DATE: 2.3.2006SHEET:11246 3 February 2006 G:\CAD\05176\0000\SP0.01 SOUTH GENERATOR WALL ELEVATION.dwg
CORGANCITIGROUP
1111 NORTHPOINT DR.
COPPELL, TXSP0.01METAL COPINGLINE OF GENERATORBEYOND CMU SCREEN WALL SHALL RECEIVE STUCCO AND BE PAINTED TO MATCHCOLOR OF PRE-CAST CONC. PANELS10'-10"1'-6"
9'-4"
'8"SCREEN ELEV. SOUTH1SCREEN ELEV. EAST2SCREEN ELEV. WEST3
DEPT: Planning
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 11
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of the Northlake 635 Business Park, Lot 2R, Block C (Coppell Business Center III), Site Plan,
to allow the construction of a 14,545-square-foot office building on 1.51 acres of property located along the west
side of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 677 feet south of Wrangler Drive.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Date of P&Z Meeting: January 19, 2006
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approval (7-0) with Commissioners Borchgardt, Hall, McCaffrey,
Foreman, Haas, Kittrell and Reese voting in favor. None opposed.
Approval is recommended, subject to the following condition:
1) Include more monument sign details on the elevations to ensure it complies with the Ordinance.
Staff recommends APPROVAL.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: @5NL635BP SP 1-AR
Item # 9
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: Northlake 635 Business Park, Lot 2R, Block C,
(Coppell Business Center III), Site Plan
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 19, 2006
C.C. HEARING DATE: February 14, 2006
STAFF REP.: Matt Steer, City Planner
LOCATION: Along the west side of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 677 feet
south of Wrangler Drive.
SIZE OF AREA: 1.51 acres of property.
CURRENT ZONING: LI (Light Industrial)
REQUEST: Site Plan approval to allow a 14,545-square-foot office building.
APPLICANT: Architect Engineer
Carroll Architects Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers
17770 Preston Rd., Suite 200 8350 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75252 Dallas, Texas 75206
Phone: (972) 732-6085 Phone: (972) 235-3031
Fax: (972) 732-8058 Fax: (972) 235-9544
HISTORY: The plat for this property (Lots 1 & 2, Block C) was approved in
April 2000. A Site Plan was also approved for Lot 1 and has since
been developed. There has been no development activity on Lot 2.
Item # 9
Page 2 of 3
TRANSPORTATION: Lakeshore Drive is a C2U, two-lane undivided road built in a 60’
right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North – Office/Warehouse facility; LI (Light Industrial)
South – Office/Warehouse facility; LI (Light Industrial)
East – Office/Warehouse facility; LI (Light Industrial)
West – Office/Warehouse facility; LI (Light Industrial)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property as
suitable for light industrial and showroom type uses.
DISCUSSION: The applicant is proposing to build a 14,545-square-foot office/warehouse
on a 1.51-acre site fronting Lakeshore Drive. The applicant is proposing
to meet the parking requirements for 100% office use. There are 49
parking spaces required at one space per 300-square feet; 50 spaces are
proposed. At this time, MDI Construction Company will occupy 50% as
office/warehouse and the other 50% will be speculative office or
office/warehouse space. A 6’ masonry wall is proposed to screen the
loading area and will be secured with a wrought iron fence/gate. More
detail is needed on the elevations (i.e., proposed colors, material, spacing
between columns, etc.) Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure the
landscaping area calculations are in accordance with the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance. There are 22 (3” cal.) Cedar Elm and 9 (3” cal.)
Little Gem Magnolia trees proposed. A 20” Dwarf Burford Holly hedge
will screen the parking area from Lakeshore Drive. The building
elevations show an “earl grey” and “camel” color painted tilt-wall
structure with brown stone, clear glass and aluminum colored standing
seam awnings at the entries. Accent squares and reveals are blue. There
are four sign areas shown. Staff recommends removing the one in the
middle of the structure and leaving only those above the entries. A two-
tenant monument sign is shown to be constructed of the same tilt-wall
used on the building. More information is required for the sign panels and
lighting of the sign, as indicated in staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the Site Plan for Northlake 635 Business Park,
Lot 2R, Block C, (Coppell Business Center III), subject to the following conditions:
1) Include more monument sign, screening wall and gate details on the
elevations (i.e., proposed sign panels, lighting, colors, material, spacing
between columns on wall and gate, etc.). Columns to match the brown stone
shown on the entries.
Item # 9
Page 3 of 3
2) Relabel “23 Cedar Elms” to “22 Cedar Elms” within Landscape Plan.
3) Remove the proposed sign area in center of structure.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Site Plan
2) Landscape Plan
3) Elevations (2 pages)
NORTHLAKE 635 BUSINESS PARKLOT 2R, BLOCK CCOPPELL BUSINESS CENTER IIINORTHLAKE 635 BUSINESS PARK / LOT 2R, BLOCK C , COPPELL BUSINESS CENTER III MAPSCO 11DALLAS COUNTYConsulting Engineers
DEPT: Planning
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 12
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of the Northlake 635 Business Park, Lot 2R, Block C (Coppell Business Center III), Replat, to
allow the construction of a 14,545-square-foot office building on 1.51 acres of property located along the west side
of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 677 feet south of Wrangler Drive.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Date of P&Z Meeting: January 19, 2006
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approval (7-0) with Commissioners Borchgardt, Hall, McCaffrey,
Foreman, Haas, Kittrell and Reese voting in favor. None opposed.
Approval is recommended, subject to the following condition:
1) Comply with attached Engineering comment sheet.
Staff recommends APPROVAL.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: @6NL635BP Replat 1-AR
Item # 10
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: Northlake 635 Business Park, Lot 2R, Block C,
(Coppell Business Center III) Replat
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 19, 2006
C.C. HEARING DATE: February 14, 2006
STAFF REP.: Matt Steer, City Planner
LOCATION: Along the west side of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 677 feet
south of Wrangler Drive.
SIZE OF AREA: 1.51 acres of property
CURRENT ZONING: LI (Light Industrial)
REQUEST: Replat approval to allow the construction of a 14,545-square-foot
office building.
APPLICANT: Architect Engineer
Carroll Architects Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers
17770 Preston Rd., Suite 200 8350 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75252 Dallas, Texas 75206
Phone: (972) 732-6085 Phone: (972) 235-3031
Fax: (972) 732-8058 Fax: (972) 235-9544
HISTORY: The plat for this property (Lots 1 & 2, Block C) was approved in
April 2000. A Site Plan was also approved for Lot 1 and has since
been developed. There has been no development activity on Lot 2.
Item # 10
Page 2 of 2
TRANSPORTATION: Lakeshore Drive is a C2U, two-lane undivided road built in a 60’
right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North – Office/Warehouse facility; LI (Light Industrial)
South – Office/Warehouse facility; LI (Light Industrial)
East – Office/Warehouse facility; LI (Light Industrial)
West – Office/Warehouse facility; LI (Light Industrial)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property as
suitable for light industrial and showroom type uses.
DISCUSSION: This is the companion request to the Site Plan just heard. A 20’ Utility
Easement along Lakeshore, a 24’ Fire Lane and Mutual Access Easement
in front of and to the side of the proposed structure and a 20’ Drainage
Easement along the west property line are proposed to be dedicated by this
plat. The existing 7.5’ Drainage Easement and 10’ Sanitary Sewer
Easement along the northern property line will remain. All and all, the
Replat is in good order and appears suitable for staff support, provided
certain conditions elaborated on below are followed.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the Replat for Northlake 635 Business Park, Lot
2R, Block C, (Coppell Business Center III), subject to the following conditions:
1) Contact Larry Redick at (972) 323-8917 to discuss easement requirements.
2) Change reference to plat within signature blocks to read “Northlake 635
Business Park, Lot 2R, Block C (Coppell Business Center III).
3) Comply with attached Engineering comment sheet.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Plat
2) Engineering Comment Sheet
LOT 2R, BLOCK C, COPPELL BUSINESS CENTER III-REPLAT MAPSCO 11DALLAS COUNTYConsulting Engineers
DEPT: Planning
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 13
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of the Coppell Town Center Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, (Justice Center) Site Plan Amendment, to
allow a 4,028-square-foot expansion to the existing Justice Center and a revised parking layout located at 130
Town Center Boulevard.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Date of P&Z Meeting: January 19, 2006
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approval (7-0) with Commissioners Borchgardt, Hall, McCaffrey,
Foreman, Haas, Kittrell and Reese voting in favor. None opposed.
Approval is recommended, subject to the following conditions:
1) Continue to coordinate all plans with the Parks and Recreation Department, as they are responsible for
the Plaza Project surrounding this site.
2) Comply with attached Engineering comment sheet.
Staff recommends APPROVAL.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: @3CTC Add.-Justice 1-AR
Item # 7
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: Coppell Town Center Addition, Lot 1, Block 1,
(Justice Center) Site Plan Amendment
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 19, 2006
C.C. HEARING DATE: February 14, 2006
STAFF REP.: Matt Steer, City Planner
LOCATION: 130 Town Center Boulevard
SIZE OF AREA: 4,028-square-foot expansion.
CURRENT ZONING: TC (Town Center)
REQUEST: Site Plan amendment approval to allow a 4,028-square-foot
expansion to the 22,640-square-foot Justice Center and a revised
parking layout.
APPLICANT: Sheri Moino Stuart Everett & Randall Daniel
City of Coppell Brinkley Sargent Architects
255 Parkway Blvd. 5000 Quorum Dr., Suite 600
Coppell, Texas 75019 Dallas, Texas 75254
Phone: (972) 304-5152 Phone: (972) 960-9970
Fax: (972) 960-9751 Fax: (972) 960-9751
HISTORY: The Site Plan and Final Plat for the Coppell Justice Center was
approved in 1996. In 1999, a Site Plan Amendment was approved
which permitted the construction of a 47-space parking lot just north
of the Justice Center site to be jointly used by the Coppell Justice
Center and the YMCA. In 2001, a Site Plan Amendment was
Item # 7
Page 2 of 4
approved which allowed for a 775-square-foot building addition and
a 734-square-foot covered patio.
TRANSPORTATION: Town Center Boulevard has 37’-wide pavement within a variable
right-of-way. Adjacent to the Coppell Justice Center, there is 37’ of
right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North – Fire Station and City Hall; TC (Town Center) zoning
South – Coppell Family YMCA; TC (Town Center) zoning
East – Town Center Elementary School; TC (Town Center) zoning
West – Village at Town Center retail strip; TC (Town Center) zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property as
suitable for Public and Institutional uses.
DISCUSSION: This request is to amend the existing Site Plan to allow a 4,028-square-
foot expansion of the Coppell Justice Center. As indicated on the Site
Plan, two 390-square-foot recesses are now being enclosed and a 3,250-
square-foot addition to the south is being proposed. This expansion area
will provide more office space for the Police Department. The building
materials on this expansion will match the existing building, including red
and reddish brown brick, buff color cast stone and CMU veneer, and green
metal.
The addition/renovation will impact the existing parking configuration.
There are 11 spaces on the east side of the existing building that will need
to be relocated within the existing parking area. In coordinating with the
Parks Department and the conceptual Plaza Plans (east of this site), it was
determined that four spaces on the far east side of the parking lot will also
need to be eliminated and provided for elsewhere within the existing
parking lot. There are a few changes needed to the proposed parking
configuration currently shown on the Site Plan. The proposed parking
spaces just east of Town Center Boulevard will need to be moved to the
existing paving area on the east side of the parking lot, adjacent to where
the dumpster is currently shown. There will be nine 9’x 17’ potential
spaces in this location. The dumpster will also need to be relocated on-
site.
An additional parking lot (33 spaces) is shown on the Fire Department
expansion plans to mirror the existing parking lot. It will serve the Justice
Center, Fire Department, Town Center building and the proposed Plaza
area.
Item # 7
Page 3 of 4
The Landscaping Plan will be modified in places where building
renovation/expansion or infill parking is proposed. Trees will be provided
at the end of each parking row and a landscaping screen of the parking
area will be provided as a part of the Plaza project. A replat will be needed
for the abandonment of various easements. This will be considered as an
Amending Plat and will be submitted for Administrative Approval in the
near future.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the Amended Site Plan for the Coppell Justice
Center, subject to the following conditions:
1) Contact Larry Redick at (972) 323-8917 to discuss electrical requirements and
potential conflict with existing TXU Electric Delivery facilities.
2) Reflect the most recent proposed parking configuration on all plans (attached).
3) Review parking information on chart and revise according to plan.
4) Include all existing and proposed easements with dimensions on Site Plan.
5) Coordinate the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Tree Survey with the Parks and
Recreation Department, as they are responsible for the Plaza Project
surrounding this site.
6) Modify Landscape Plan to reflect all changes made to the Site Plan.
7) Include a tree at the end of each parking row if there is adequate area for tree
survival.
8) Change the trees labeled as “3 Live Oak” to “3 Chinese Pistache”, as indicated
on the Plant Chart.
9) Revise landscaping on the east side of the building, and ensure it will not
interfere with security cameras.
10) On Tree Survey, indicate that the 9” Oak will be relocated to the end of the
parking row.
11) Reduce Crape Myrtle size from 65-gallon to 30-gallon.
12) Comply with attached Engineering comment sheet.
ALTERNATIVES
Item # 7
Page 4 of 4
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Site Plan
2) Landscape Plan/Tree Survey
3) Elevations
4) Engineering comments
Tree Survey Location Diameter Species 1 - 20 5" Crape Myrtle 21 5" Red Oak 22-24 5" Sweet Gum 25 9" Red Oak 26 4" Red Oak 27 4" Wax Myrtles (8) 28-30 4" Cedar Elm No protected trees are removed.
DEPT: Planning
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 14
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of the Coppell Town Center Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, (Fire Station No. 3) Site Plan
Amendment, to allow a 3,546-square-foot expansion to the existing Fire Station located at 133 Parkway
Boulevard.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Date of P&Z Meeting: January 19, 2006
Decision of P&Z Commission: Approval (7-0) with Commissioners Borchgardt, Hall, McCaffrey,
Foreman, Haas, Kittrell and Reese voting in favor. None opposed.
Approval is recommended, subject to the following conditions:
1) Continue to coordinate all plans with the Parks and Recreation Department, as they are responsible for
the Plaza project surrounding this site.
2) Comply with attached Engineering comment sheet.
Staff recommends APPROVAL.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: @4CTC Add.-Fire 1-AR
Item # 8
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE: Coppell Town Center Addition, Lot 1, Block 1,
(Fire Station No. 3) Site Plan Amendment
P & Z HEARING DATE: January 19, 2006
C.C. HEARING DATE: February 14, 2006
STAFF REP.: Matt Steer, City Planner
LOCATION: 133 Parkway Boulevard
SIZE OF AREA: 3,546-square-foot expansion.
CURRENT ZONING: TC (Town Center)
REQUEST: Site Plan amendment approval to allow a 3,546-square-foot
expansion to the existing 7,728-square-foot Fire Station.
APPLICANT: Sheri Moino Stuart Everett & Randall Daniel
City of Coppell Brinkley Sargent Architects
255 Parkway Blvd. 5000 Quorum Dr., Suite 600
Coppell, Texas 75019 Dallas, Texas 75254
Phone: (972) 304-5152 Phone: (972) 960-9970
Fax: (972) 960-9751 Fax: (972) 960-9751
HISTORY: The Site Plan and Final Plat for Fire Station #3 were approved in
1996. In 1999, a Site Plan Amendment was approved which
permitted the construction of a 47-space parking lot just north of the
Justice Center site to be jointly used by the Coppell Justice Center
and the YMCA. In 2001, a Site Plan Amendment was approved
which allowed for a 775-square-foot addition and a 734-square-foot
covered patio to the Coppell Justice Center.
Item # 8
Page 2 of 3
TRANSPORTATION: Parkway Boulevard is a developed C4D, four-lane divided collector
in an 88’-wide right-of-way. The right-of-way of Town Center
Boulevard along the frontage of the proposed Fire Station #3
expansion is 66’-wide with 66’-wide pavement width (including a
16’-wide median).
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North – Developed residential; SF-7 (Single Family – 7) zoning
South – Coppell Justice Center; TC (Town Center) zoning
East – City Hall, TC (Town Center) zoning
West – CVS Pharmacy; TC (Town Center) zoning
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan of May 1996 shows the property as
suitable for Public and Institutional uses.
DISCUSSION: This request is to amend the existing Site Plan to allow for the expansion
of Fire Station #3. As indicated on the Site Plan, the 3,546-square-foot
expansion area is on the south side of the existing building. This will
house a state-of-the-art conference/training facility capable of
accommodating 80-100 people. An additional parking lot (30 spaces) is
shown on the plans to mirror the existing parking lot, meeting the parking
requirement of 20-25 spaces (1 space per 4 seats). It will also serve the
Justice Center, Town Center building and the proposed Plaza area.
The building materials on this expansion will match the existing building,
including red and reddish brown brick and buff color CMU veneer. An
attached sign with 8” brushed aluminum lettering is proposed to read
“City of Coppell Training Center.” The 14-square-foot sign will match
the existing signage along Town Center Boulevard and will not exceed the
maximum area allowed.
The Landscaping Plan will be modified in places where building
renovation/expansion or parking is proposed. Trees will be provided at
the end of each parking row and adjacent to the proposed conference
center. The mechanical equipment will be screened with a 4’-tall hedge of
Nellie R. Stevens Holly.
A replat will be needed for the abandonment of various easements. Given
these minor platting issues, this will be considered as an Amending Plat
and will be submitted for Administrative Approval in the near future.
Item # 8
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the Amended Site Plan for Coppell Fire Station #3,
subject to the following conditions:
1) Contact Larry Redick at (972) 323-8917 to discuss electrical requirements and potential
conflict with existing TXU Electric Delivery facilities.
2) Reflect the most recent proposed parking configuration on all plans (attached).
3) Review parking information on chart and revise according to plan.
4) Include all existing and proposed easements with dimensions on the Site Plan.
5) Coordinate the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Tree Survey with the Parks and Recreation
Department, as they are responsible for the Plaza project surrounding this site.
6) Modify all plans to reflect all changes made to the Site Plan.
7) Include a tree at the end of each parking row if there is adequate area for tree survival.
8) Note that the Parks Department will transplant Cedar Elms currently depicted as “to be
removed.”
9) Comply with attached Engineering comment sheet.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Site Plan
2) Landscape Plan/Tree Survey
3) Elevations
4) Engineering comments
DEPT: Engineering
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 15
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
Discussion and consideration of compensating TXU Electric Delivery Company for up to six underground
crossings along Bethel Road, from Coppell Rd. to the west city limits, in an estimated cost of $250,000; and
authorizing the Director of Engineering to execute the right-of-way use permit application.
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of this funding will eliminate up to six aerial crossings along Bethel Road.
Staff will be available for any questions at the Council meeting
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/04 Document Name: #Bethel Road
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Ken Griffin, P.E., Director of Engineering/Public Works
DATE:February 14, 2006
REF:Discussion and consideration of compensating TXU Electric Delivery Company for up to
six underground crossings along Bethel Road, from Coppell Rd. to the west city limits, in
an estimated cost of $250,000; and authorizing the Director of Engineering to execute the
right-of-way use permit application.
On January 6, 2006 TXU Electric Delivery Company submitted a permit to the City of Coppell to
relocate their existing utility lines along Bethel Rd. The relocation is necessary to allow the
reconstruction of Bethel Rd. After review of the information submitted with the permit, the City
denied the permit request because it showed numerous overhead utility lines to remain. Our
Subdivision Ordinance, in APPENDIX C, SECTION V, paragraph F, states "Overhead services will
not be permitted to cross public rights-of-ways."
Today there are six overhead lines crossing the right-of-way along the section of Bethel Road from
Coppell Rd. to the west city limits. Those locations are:
1) near Loch Ln.;
2) west side of the intersection of Freeport/Bethel;
3) across Freeport on the south side of the intersection of Freeport/Bethel;
4) near the west side of the existing Minyard's facility;
5) east side of the Royal/Bethel intersection; and
6) west side of Gulf Bearing.
The permit application submitted by TXU shows the overhead crossings to remain across the right-of-
way when their facilities are relocated. The relocated overhead crossings will generally correspond to
the existing ones, with the following exceptions:
1) TXU will need to relocate their powerlines to the north side of the right-of-way because of the
drainage structures associated with Bethel Rd., along the south side of the right-of-way. This
will require the aerial crossing at Freeport to be moved from the south side of Bethel Rd. to the
north side of Bethel Rd.
2) The aerial crossing near the west end of the Minyards facility will be relocated further west to
approximately the common property line between the USPS Bulk Postal Facility and the
Minyards property.
After the permit was denied, I met with Jerry Bates and Richard Brewster of TXU to discuss the permit
application. Subsequent to that meeting, Mr. Bates provided me with a copy of a 2005 lawsuit
between the City of Allen and the Public Utility Commission. I have provided the information
concerning that lawsuit with this agenda item.
In essence, the courts found that the City of Allen could not require TXU to place their facilities
underground unless the city was willing to compensate TXU for that cost. This was based on the
court's assertion that the tariff for TXU Electric Delivery Company requires it to relocate its facilities
in the most efficient manner for all its customers. The courts ruled that the requirement for
underground facilities was deemed a non-standard facility and as such the city would need to
compensate TXU for the cost increase from overhead to underground.
The above is a brief overview of the 29 pages of information provided concerning the court case. You
may also like to review the Tariff for TXU Delivery Company. Because it is 148 pages I did not
include it with this agenda item, but it can be found at www.puc.state.tx.us/electric/rates/Trans/txu.pdf.
The purpose of this agenda item is to seek direction on how to proceed with the permit submitted by
TXU for the relocation of their facilities along Bethel Rd. The two options are 1) approve the permit
as submitted by TXU and allow the overhead crossings of the public right-of-way of Bethel Rd. and
Freeport Pkwy; or 2) compensate TXU for providing underground installation of those crossings at an
estimated cost of $30,000 to $40,000 per crossing or about $200,000 to $250,000.
Staff will be available to answer any questions at the Council meeting.
1 INCH = FT.
0 600
600
300
Proposed Electric Utility
Relocation for ST99-05
Bethel Road Reconstruction
Created in LDDTS:\CAD\In_Design\MISC EXHIBITS\dwg\EXHIBITS.dwg\BETHEL RD TXU
Created on: 07 February 2006 by Scott Latta
EXISTING UTILITY
LINE ROUTING
PROPOSED UTILITY
LINE ROUTING
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-04-00282-CV
City of Allen and Coalition of Cities, Appellant
v.
Public Utility Commission of Texas,;Oncor Electric Delivery Company;
and Centerpoint Energy, Inc., Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. GV3-02966, HONORABLE MARGARET COOPER, JUDGE PRESIDING
O P I N I O N
In this appeal, we must decide whether the Public Utility Commission has
jurisdiction under the Public Utilities Regulatory Act (PURA) to review certain ordinances that a
city claims to have enacted based on its police power. The City of Allen and a coalition of cities1
appeal from a district court judgment partially dismissing the Cities’ appeal and partially affirming
the Commission’s summary decision that invalidated four municipal ordinances because of their
conflict with Oncor Electric Delivery Company’s2 tariffs, PURA, and the Commission’s rules. For
the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court’s order.
1 The coalition members are the cities of Addision, Austin, Bedford, Colleyville, Denton,
El Paso, Farmers Branch, Grapevine, Hurst, Keller, Missouri City, North Richland Hills, Pasadena,
Tyler, Westlake, West University Place, and Wharton. We will refer to the coalition and Allen
collectively as “Cities.”
2 Oncor Electric Delivery Company is now known as TXU Electric Delivery Company.
Oncor and Centerpoint Energy, Inc. will be referred to collectively as the “Utilities.”
2
BACKGROUND
In 1999, the legislature began dismantling Texas’s electric utility regulation.3 The
legislature revised PURA to allow determination of retail electric rates by competition. See City of
Corpus Christi v. Public Util. Comm’n, 51 S.W.3d 231, 235 (Tex. 2001). Oncor is a transmission
and distribution company created as part of TXU Electric Company’s unbundling4 during the
electricity deregulation process. Because electric transmission and distribution has not phased into
the competitive market, the Commission continues to govern Oncor, including analysis and approval
of Oncor’s tariff. See Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 39.201 (West Supp. 2004-05); 16 Tex. Admin. Code
§ 25.214(c) (2004) (Public Util. Comm’n, Terms and Conditions of Retail Delivery Service Provided
3 The legislature found that the production and sale of electricity was not a monopoly
warranting regulation of rates, operations, and services and that the public interest in competitive
electric markets required that, except for transmission and distribution services and for the recovery
of stranded costs, electric services and their prices should be determined by customer choices and
the normal forces of competition. The legislature enacted [PURA] to protect the public interest
during the transition and establishment of a fully competitive electric power industry. Tex. Util.
Code § 39.001(a) (West Supp. 2004-05).
4 “Unbundling” required each electric utility to separate its business activities from one
another into the following units: (1) a power generation company, (2) a retail electric provider, and
(3) a transmission and distribution utility. Tex. Util. Code § 39.051(b) (West Supp. 2004-05).
3
by Investor Owned Transmission and Distribution Utilities). Oncor is certificated to distribute
electric service in Allen, Texas.
Allen is a home rule city under the Texas Constitution’s home rule amendment. Tex.
Const. art. XI, § 5 (amended 1912). The home rule amendment altered the longstanding practice
of having special charters individually granted and amended by the legislature for the State’s larger
cities. City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, 26 & n.5 (Tex. 2003). Cities adopting
a home rule charter have the full power of self government and look to the legislature only for
limitations on their power. Id. Beginning in 2000, Allen enacted “zoning development standards”
in its land development code that required utilities to: (1) place certain electric distribution5 lines
underground, (2) screen electric meters and other electric distribution facilities from view, and (3)
substitute metal or concrete distribution line poles for wooden poles—all at the utility’s expense.6
After enacting these ordinances, Allen denied two of Oncor’s construction permits for failure to
comply with the electrical undergrounding specifications.
5 A “distribution” line is a power line operated below 60,000 volts, when measured
phase-to-phase. See 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.5 (31) (2004) (Public Util. Comm’n, Definitions).
6 Developers are responsible for the cost of extending utility services with underground
installation to new subdivisions. See Allen, Tex., Land Development Code, art. VII, §§ 7.03.5.5,
7.07.3e, 8.10.4e (2002). No developer was associated with Oncor’s projects.
4
Oncor challenged the ordinances in an appeal to the Commission. The
Commission’s preliminary order stated that the Commission had jurisdiction to consider Oncor’s
appeal, and that Allen exceeded its authority when it passed the ordinances in question. The
Commission referred the matter to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH),7 to analyze
the applicability of an analogous decision concerning the Commission’s jurisdiction to review
municipal ordinances that required undergrounding utility lines and screening facilities. See Tex.
Pub. Util. Comm’n, Application of Texas Utilities Electric Company to Obtain a CCN for the
Trophy Club-Coppell-Euless 138 kV Transmission Line; Appeals of Brazos Electric Power
Cooperative, Inc., Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Texas Utilities Electric Company of
an Ordinance of the Town of Westlake, Texas; Appeals of Texas Utilities Electric Company and
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. of an Ordinance of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas,
Docket Nos. 6117, 6170-72; 1986 Tex. P.U.C. LEXIS 292, at *5.
While the case was before SOAH, the Commission’s staff moved for summary
decision, arguing that there were not any issues of material fact to be resolved at the evidentiary
hearing. In her proposal for decision, the administrative law judge recommended that the
Commission issue a summary decision for Oncor and invalidate the ordinances as a matter of law,
because the ordinances violated PURA and impaired the public interest by requiring that Oncor
install non-standard facilities at its own expense.
After the administrative law judge released the proposal for decision—but before the
Commission issued its order—Allen repealed the portions of the ordinances that required
7 The coalition of cities and Centerpoint Energy, Inc. intervened in the case while it was
before the State Office of Administrative Hearings.
5
undergrounding lines and wooden pole replacement.8 Applying exceptions to the mootness
doctrine,9 the Commission invalidated the sections of Allen’s ordinances that required
undergrounding, wooden pole replacement, and screening of facilities, to the extent that they
imposed the expense of installing non-standard electric distribution facilities on Oncor, in violation
of its tariff, PURA, and Commission rules.
8 The portions of the ordinances requiring screening of utility facilities were not repealed.
9 The Commission found two types of mootness exceptions applicable: the “capable of
repetition, yet evading review” and “public interest” exceptions. First, it noted that Allen could
repeat its actions and evade a ruling by reenacting ordinances like the ones at issue, waiting for the
proposal for decision—and if it is unfavorable to them—repealing the ordinances before the
Commission issues its order. Second, the Commission determined that addressing the ordinances’
invalidity served the public interest by preventing other cities from adopting similar ordinances, and
precluding negative impacts to the electric utilities’ transmission system and market competition.
6
On administrative appeal, the district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to
consider the Cities’ moot challenge to the Commission order invalidating the undergrounding and
pole replacement provisions of the ordinances. The court partially dismissed the Cities’ appeal and
ruled that the remainder of the Cities’ challenges lacked merit.10
In a single point of error, the Cities challenge the Commission’s appellate
jurisdiction over the ordinances in Allen’s land development code. They contend that Allen’s
ordinances were not promulgated to regulate Oncor, but to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
10 The district court’s final judgment, in relevant part, states:
The Court finds that the Court has no jurisdiction to consider the Cities’
challenges to the Commission’s order invalidating parts of the ordinances of
the City of Allen that were repealed by City of Allen Ordinance No. 2137-1-03
because Cities’ appeal to this Court is moot and no exception to the mootness
doctrine applies, and that the remainder of Cities’ challenges are without merit.
Accordingly it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Cities’
appeal is dismissed as to those portions of the Commission’s Order in Docket
No. 25429 concerning the ordinances repealed by City of Allen ordinance No.
2137-1-03, and in all other respects renders judgment that the Commission’s
order in Docket No. 25429 is affirmed, and that plaintiffs take nothing.
7
Allen’s citizens, that is, as an exercise of police power. The Cities ask this Court to “vacate the
Commission order and reverse the district court’s order as to its finding of Commission jurisdiction.”
ANALYSIS
Motion to Dismiss
The Utilities and the Commission moved to dismiss this appeal, asserting that we
cannot reach the question of the Commission’s jurisdiction over the undergrounding and pole
replacement provisions in the ordinances without addressing the district court’s refusal to rule on
them, and that the Cities waived this point of error due to inadequate briefing.
However, the question of jurisdiction is fundamental and can be raised at any time
in the trial of a case or on appeal. Public Util. Comm’n v. J.M. Huber Corp., 650 S.W.2d 951, 955
(Tex. App.—Austin 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Administrative agencies may exercise only those
powers the law confers upon them in clear and express statutory language and those
reasonably necessary to fulfill a function or perform a duty that the legislature has expressly
placed with the agency. In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 322 (Tex. 2004).
We liberally construe the points of error in order to obtain a just, fair and equitable
adjudication of the rights of the litigants. Holley v. Watts, 629 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex. 1982). We
look not only at the wording of the points of error, but also at the argument under each point to best
determine the intent of the party. Id. Read fairly, the Cities’ brief complains about the district
court’s failure to vacate11 the Commission’s order—after the court determined that the Cities’
11 We note that the district court lacked power to vacate the Commission’s order. The
Cities’ brief acknowledges that section 2001.174 of the government code applied to their suit for
judicial review. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.174 (West 2000). That section authorizes the
8
challenges to the repealed provisions were moot—because it allowed the Commission’s ruling,
which invalidated parts of the ordinances, to stand. The Cities also ask that “the district court’s
order be reversed as to its finding of Commission jurisdiction” over the screening portions of the
ordinances. The district court’s judgment did not alter the effect of the Commission’s order and the
Cities have not waived the issue of whether the Commission lacked jurisdiction to review Allen’s
four ordinances. Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss.
Scope and Standard of Review
The district court affirmed the Commission’s order concerning the non-repealed
screening requirements (“. . . in all other respects [the court] renders judgment that the
Commission’s order in Docket No. 25429 is affirmed, and that plaintiffs take nothing”). The court
did not rule on whether the Commission had appellate jurisdiction over the repealed provisions in
Allen’s ordinances; it dismissed that part of the Cities’ appeal as moot (“Accordingly it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Cities’ appeal is dismissed as to those portions
reviewing court to reverse or remand—but not vacate—an agency decision if the agency’s findings,
inferences, conclusions, or decisions exceeded its statutory authority. See Public Util. Comm’n v.
City Pub. Serv. Bd., 109 S.W.3d 130, 137-38 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.) (district court erred
in vacating void Commission order); BFI Waste Sys., Inc. v. Martinez Envtl. Group, 93 S.W.3d 570,
581 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied) (district court lacked authority to vacate Commission’s
order; appellate court construed judgment as reversal of Commission’s order); see also Tex. Gov’t
Code Ann. § 2001.174(2)(B) (West 2000) (court reviewing a state agency’s decision in a contested
case may either affirm, reverse, or remand case to agency for further proceedings). Thus, the Cities’
complaint that the district court “failed to vacate” the Commission’s order is erroneous, because the
district court lacked such authority.
9
of the Commission’s Order in Docket No. 25429 concerning the ordinances repealed by City of
Allen ordinance No. 2137-1-03 . . . .”). The court’s refusal to rule on the repealed provisions of the
ordinances (undergrounding and pole replacement) does not constitute a finding that the
Commission lacked jurisdiction to review these provisions. Accordingly, we will address the issue
of the Commission’s appellate jurisdiction over the repealed and non-repealed portions of the
municipal ordinances. The Commission’s appellate jurisdiction over Allen’s ordinances is a
question of law that we review de novo. See Public Util. Comm’n v. City Pub. Serv. Bd., 109
S.W.3d 130, 135 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.).
Allen’s Ordinances
Oncor sought construction permits for two new projects designed to meet peak
energy demands during the summer of 2002. The proposed projects called for installation of an
overhead distribution line located within Oncor-owned easements, Allen’s rights-of-way, and state
rights-of-way. Oncor’s projects were not associated with any particular development project. Allen
denied Oncor’s permits, based on the undergrounding requirements in its land development code.
The Cities appeal the Commission’s jurisdiction to review four ordinances in Allen’s
land development code. The first ordinance, passed June 15, 2000, stated:
1. All utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical, gas, and telephone shall be
placed underground, except that electrical transmission and main feeder lines
(12.5 or more Kilovolts) may be located overhead.
2. Utility meters and other utility apparatus, including, but not limited to
transformers, shall be located to the rear of the structure unless adequately
screened from view of public streets and adjoining properties. Adequately
screened from view shall include screening, as well as the utilization of
landscaping and other site elements.
3. All required screening shall meet clearances required by affected utility
companies. Wall-mounted equipment, including meters (such as banks of
electric meters on the rear or side wall of multi-tenant buildings), shall be
screened from public streets by one of the following methods.
a. Landscaping, including trees or evergreen shrubbery.
10
b. Masonry walls in conjunction with landscaping.
c. Wall-mounted screening devices, such as cabinets or partitions which are
architecturally compatible with the facade.
Allen, Tex., Land Development Code, art. VII, §§ 7.03.5, 7.07.3, 8.10.3c (2000).
The second ordinance, passed May 3, 2001, left the screening provisions unchanged,
but expanded the scope of the utilities included in the undergrounding provision, and added a new
subsection that required the utility to pay for the undergrounding:
1. All utilities, existing and proposed, adjacent to and within new development,
including, but not limited to, electrical, gas, television and
telephone/telecommunication shall be placed underground, except that electrical
transmission [(]59 or more Kilovolts) may be located overhead, providing that
this requirement does not conflict with existing utility service regulations.
2. New development shall assume responsibility for all expense related to the
underground placement of utilities. . . .
Id. §§ 7.03.5, 7.07.3, 8.10.3c (2001).
The third ordinance, passed September 6, 2001, made only one change, limiting the
undergrounding provision to new utility installations:
1. All new utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical, gas, television and
telephone/telecommunication shall be placed underground, except that electrical
transmission 59 or more Kilovolts may be located overhead, providing that this
requirement does not conflict with existing utility service regulations.
Id. §§ 7.03.5, 7.07.3, 8.10.3c (2001).
11
The fourth ordinance, passed January 17, 2002, left the screening provisions mostly
unchanged, but added several new sections, including one requiring replacement of wooden poles
with metal or concrete poles at the utility’s (service provider’s) expense:
1. All new residential utility installations, including, but not limited to, electrical,
gas, television and telephone/telecommunication shall be placed underground.
2. All new non-residential utility installations, including but not limited to,
electrical, gas, television and telephone/telecommunication shall be placed
underground where service is provided adjacent to public street or right-of-way.
Where electrical service is provided from an alley or rear easement not located
adjacent to a public street, primary electrical service may be provided overhead
along the property line. Primary and secondary service routed on the site shall
be placed underground.
3. All new construction within the public street rights-of-way shall be located
underground. Where a street is scheduled for reconstruction, new development
may be required to provide an escrow of the difference between overhead and
underground service.
4. Nothing herein shall prevent temporary service during construction from being
located overhead.
5. New development shall assume responsibility for all expense related to the
underground placement of utilities.
6. Any upgrade or reinforcement of facilities with existing overhead service by the
service provider shall require replacement of wooden poles with metal or
concrete poles at the expense of the service provider. An “upgrade” for
purposes of this section, shall mean any change that requires the installation, re-
installation or addition of a new pole. In-line poles necessary for service drops
will be reviewed by the City Engineer, and may be approved on a case-by-case
basis.
7. Any upgrade or reinforcement of facilities with underground service by the
service provider shall be placed underground at the expense of the service
provider.
8. Utility meters and other utility apparatus, including, but not limited to
transformers and switch boxes, shall be located to the rear of the structure unless
12
adequately screened from view from public streets and adjoining properties and
shall be suitable for access required for service and maintenance. Adequately
screened from view shall include screening walls, as well as the utilization of
landscaping and other site elements.
9. All required screening shall meet clearances required by affected utility
companies and shall be suitable for access required for service and maintenance.
Wall-mounted equipment, including meters (such as banks of electric meters
on the rear or side wall of multi-tenant buildings), shall be screened from public
streets by one of the following methods.
a. Landscaping, including trees or evergreen shrubbery.
b. Masonry walls in conjunction with landscaping.
c. Wall-mounted screening devices, such as cabinets or partitions which are
architecturally compatible with the facade.
10. Electrical transmission [(]59 or more Kilovolts) may be located overhead.
Id. §§ 7.03.5, 7.07.3, 8.10.4 (2002).
Allen’s Ordinances as Exercises of Authority over Rights-of-Way or Utility Regulation
The Cities contend that Allen’s zoning development standards were not promulgated
to regulate Oncor, but to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Allen’s citizens, that is, as an
exercise of police power. They defend Allen’s ordinances as conditions on Oncor’s use of city streets
and rights-of-way:
A home rule municipality has the following powers: (1) To prohibit the use of any
street . . . of the city by any telegraph, telephone, electric light . . . gas company, or
any other character of public utility without first obtaining the consent of the
governing authorities expressed by ordinance and upon paying such compensation
as may be prescribed and upon such condition as may be provided by any such
ordinance.
13
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1175, § 1 (West Supp. 2004-05).
The Cities acknowledge that an electric utility has the right to “construct, maintain,
and operate lines over, under, across, on, or along a state highway, a county road, a municipal street
or alley, or other public property in a municipality,” but emphasize that the utility may exercise that
authority “with the consent of and subject to the direction of the governing body of the
municipality.” See Tex. Util. Code Ann. §§ 181.042-.043 (West 1998). Thus, the Cities argue that
municipalities may designate the location of utility facilities that are to be placed in its rights-of-
way12 and the screening of those facilities, so long as these ordinances are not unreasonable or
arbitrary, and do not violate the constitution and laws of the state. See Dykes v. City of Houston, 406
S.W.2d 176, 181 (Tex. 1966). Additionally, the Cities claim that Allen’s zoning ordinances enjoy
a presumption of validity; courts cannot interfere unless it appears that:
the ordinance represents a clear abuse of municipal discretion, and the
“extraordinary” burden rests on one attacking the ordinance to show that no
conclusive, or even controversial or issuable fact or condition existed which would
authorize the governing board of the municipality to exercise the discretion confided
to it in the passage of that part of the zoning ordinance under attack.
City of Bellaire v. Lampkin, 317 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Tex. 1958).
Nevertheless, the Utilities and the Commission assert that the Cities rely on
authorities that pre-dated PURA, and that the ordinances were an exercise of Allen’s original
jurisdiction over Oncor’s rates, operations and services:
12 At oral argument, the Cities acknowledged that the application of these ordinances is not
limited to Allen’s rights-of-way. Thus, Allen’s ordinances do not merely condition the use of, or
control access to, its streets and rights-of-way.
14
To provide fair, just, and reasonable rates and adequate and efficient services, the
governing body of a municipality has exclusive original jurisdiction over the rates,
operations, and services of an electric utility in areas in the municipality, subject to
the limitations imposed by this title [PURA].
Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 33.001(West 1998). The Utilities and the Commission also assert that
Allen’s regulatory authority cannot exceed that of the Commission, and Allen may not regulate in
a manner different from the Commission. See Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 33.004(b) (West 1998).
Because Allen denies that its zoning development standards were an exercise of its
“exclusive original jurisdiction over the rates, operations, [or] services of an electric utility,” it
disputes the applicability of the statute authorizing the Commission’s appellate jurisdiction. Tex.
Util. Code Ann. § 32.001(b) (West 1998) (“The commission has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to
review an order or ordinance of a municipality exercising exclusive original jurisdiction under this
subtitle.”)
To determine whether Allen exercised its exclusive original jurisdiction over Oncor’s
“rates, operations, and services” by promulgating these ordinances, we examine the definitions of
these terms.
The Ordinances Regulate Oncor’s “Rates” as Defined by Oncor’s Tariff
A utility’s rates are set forth in its tariff, which contains all charges stated
separately by type of service, the rules and regulations of the utility, and any contracts that
affect rates, charges, terms or conditions of service. See 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.5 (131)
(2004) (Public Util. Comm’n, Definitions). Oncor was required to adopt a tariff and obtain the
15
Commission’s approval of it. See id. § 25.241 (West 2002); Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 39.201 (West
Supp. 2004-05). The tariff had to include terms from a Commission-approved, pro forma tariff. See
id. § 25.214 (c)-(d) (West 2002).
Allen’s ordinances conflict with the provisions in Oncor’s tariff that require
customer payment for installation of non-standard electrical distribution facilities:13
Company is responsible for the construction, extension, upgrade, or alteration of
Delivery System Facilities necessary to connect Retail Customer’s Point of Delivery
to Company’s Delivery System in conjunction with Section 5.7 FACILITIES
EXTENSION POLICY and the terms and conditions contained herein. Company
makes extension of Delivery System Facilities to Retail Customer’s electrical
installation so as to minimize the cost of such extension. Extension is normally made
at no cost to Retail Customer except in those instances where the cost of the
requested extension of Company’s facilities is in excess of the standard allowances
stated herein, or where the installation of non-standard facilities is requested. In
these instances, a contribution in aid of construction (“CIAC”) is required from
Retail Customer for all extensions where the estimated cost of the extension is in
excess of the standard allowances.
Oncor’s Tariff for Retail Delivery Services § 6.1.2.2.1 (emphasis added).
The tariff defines “standard distribution facilities” as those necessary to transport
electric power:
Company’s standard distribution facilities consist of the Delivery System facilities
necessary to transport electric power and energy from a single, single-phase or three
phase distribution source to Retail Customer at one Point of Delivery, with one
standard Company Meter, at one of Company’s available standard voltages.
13 “Facilities” means all of the plant and equipment of a public utility, and includes tangible
and intangible property, without limitation, owned, operated, leased, licensed, used, controlled, or
supplied for, by, or in connection with the business of the public utility. Tex. Util. Code Ann.
§ 11.003(10) (West Supp. 2004-05).
16
Id. § 6.1.2.2.1.1 (emphasis added). Conversely, “non-standard facilities” are those exceeding what
is normally required for service:
Non-standard facilities include but are not limited to a two-way feed, automatic and
manual transfer switches, service through more than one point of delivery, redundant
facilities, facilities in excess of those normally required for service, or facilities
necessary to provide service at a non-standard voltage. If Retail Customer desires
Delivery Service utilizing non-standard facilities, as described above, and not
covered elsewhere in these Service Regulations, then Company may construct such
facilities pursuant to Section 5.7.5, NON-STANDARD FACILITIES and Section
6.1.2.2.6, NON-STANDARD FACILITY EXTENSIONS.
Id. § 6.1.2.2.2 (emphasis added).
Undergrounding distribution lines, replacing wooden poles with metal or concrete
poles, and screening facilities with landscaping, walls, or cabinets does not “minimize the cost of
facility extension” as required by Oncor’s tariff. An Oncor electrical engineer, John C. Soward,
testified that installation of an underground feeder circuit in Allen’s project is twice as expensive
as overhead construction—a difference of about $1.1 million.14 He further testified that the cost of
using metal or concrete poles is about three times that of an equivalent feeder with wooden poles.15
14 Soward arrived at this figure by estimating the costs for one mile of total overhead circuit
and the cost for one mile of functionally equivalent underground circuit. He then calculated a cost
differential factor by dividing the underground circuit cost by the overhead circuit cost. He applied
this factor to the overhead components of Allen’s project and divided the total amount by the
original cost.
15 Soward arrived at this figure by calculating the cost of one mile of standard overhead
feeder on wooden poles. He then calculated the difference between a concrete or steel pole and a
wooden pole. After that, he multiplied the cost difference per pole by the number of poles in the
mile of line, and added that product to the base cost, yielding the cost for a line with concrete or steel
poles. He identified the cost differential factor as the cost of an overhead line with concrete or steel
poles, divided by the cost of the standard overhead line with wooden poles.
17
He also stated that screening facilities by use of landscaping, masonry walls, or mounted cabinets
introduces another set of unplanned costs.
Furthermore, the ordinances’ specifications are unnecessary “to transport electric
power” as referenced in the tariff. Nothing in the Commission’s rules concerning electrical service
reliability and continuity requires underground installation of distribution lines. See 16 Tex. Admin.
Code § 25.52 (2004) (Public Util. Comm’n, Reliability and Continuity of Service).
In fact, one concern of the Utilities and the Commission about undergrounding
distribution lines is the adverse affect it may have on continuity of electrical service. Soward
testified that special equipment is required to locate underground lines, and that buried lines
lengthen repair time. He also remarked that underground systems must be built with greater
precision, to avoid damage or contact with other underground utilities, and greater redundancy, to
achieve acceptable levels of reliability performance and to compensate for greater fault location and
repair times. Soward stated that repair times are only prolonged by hiding facilities from view.
Because electrical service may be delivered by overhead lines at minimum cost,
while underground systems require specialized equipment, greater redundancy, and higher expense,
underground facilities are “in excess of those normally required for service” as specified by the
tariff and thus, are “non-standard.” Similarly, utility construction that includes metal or concrete
poles and facility-concealing landscaping, walls, or cabinets exceeds what is “necessary to transport
electric power” and does not “minimize the cost of extension.” Such installations are also “non-
standard.”
Design considerations sometimes require the use of non-standard facilities. Soward
testified that underground feeders are used in congested areas where overhead lines would not be
18
technically or economically feasible—such as downtown Dallas and Fort Worth—and in locations
adjacent to large substations. He also stated that Oncor uses concrete and steel poles when the
stresses on wooden poles would be excessive, for example, around sharp street curves or for
abnormally lengthy line spans. He observed that parts of Allen’s project already have underground
lines or concrete and steel poles as a result of such electrical design considerations.
But if Allen requests non-standard facilities—for reasons unrelated to design
necessity16—the tariff requires that Allen is responsible for the increased cost:
If Retail Customer desires Delivery System service which involves non-standard
facilities as described in Section 6.1.2.2.1.2 of this Tariff, in addition to the cost in
excess of the standard allowance in described in Section 6.1.2.2.5.3 for construction
of standard facilities, if any, Retail Customer pays Company prior to Company’s
construction of non-standard facilities the total estimated cost of all non-standard
facilities to meet Retail Customer’s request. Company may terminate the provision
of any Delivery Service utilizing non-standard facilities at the end of the contract
term, or in the absence of a contract term, on reasonable notice to Retail Customer’s
Competitive Retailer.
16 “Aesthetically less obtrusive” and “increased property values” were two of three “pros”
that John Baumgartner, Allen’s city engineer, offered to support the use of underground utility
facilities. His presentation to the Allen city council about the “pros and cons” of underground utility
facilities also listed “protection from wind and ice-related weather” as a third benefit. The five
“cons” that Baumgartner identified were: “significantly more expensive to install,” “more difficult
to repair,” “insufficient room in the rights-of-way to locate all providers easily,” “subject to damage
from other construction,” and “difficult to locate horizontally and vertically.”
19
Oncor’s Tariff for Retail Delivery Services § 6.1.2.2.6. The Commission’s pro forma tariff, section
5.75, echoes this principle:
If the entity requesting Construction Service desires Delivery Service utilizing non-
standard Delivery System facilities . . . Company shall construct such facilities
unless, in the reasonable judgment of Company, such construction would impair
Company’s facilities or facilities with which Company is interconnected, impair the
proper operation of such facilities, impair service to retail customers, or there are
other appropriate concerns that the entity requesting service is unable or unwilling
to correct. The entity requesting Construction Service shall pay to Company the
estimated cost of all non-standard facilities, offset by any applicable allowance.
See 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.214(d). Similar provisions appear in Centerpoint Energy, Inc.’s
tariff.
Overhead distribution facilities are Oncor’s standard extension of service to a
customer, according to one Oncor senior electrical engineer, Rudy D. Garza, because overhead
facilities provide service at the lowest reasonable cost, in accordance with Oncor’s tariff, section
6.1.2.2.1. Garza testified that placing facilities underground is considered non-standard installation
for which an up-front contribution in aid of construction is required, per section 6.1.2.2.6. He
observed that
it is important to provide for equitable treatment among all customers throughout
Oncor’s service area. By defining overhead service as standard, Oncor prevents a
customer in one area of the system with overhead facilities, from helping to pay for
the underground installation in other areas of the system. The goal is to require those
who cause the Company to incur unnecessary costs to pay for those costs, rather than
pass them on to the entire customer base in the future. Basic cost causation
principles call for this methodology so that subsidization between customer classes
is minimized.
20
To recoup the additional expense imposed by Allen’s ordinances, Oncor would have
to shift the extra cost to its customers in the next rate case. Meanwhile, Oncor would bear all costs
that were not contemplated when its tariff rates were set. When the new rate takes effect, all
customers in Oncor’s service area will have to pay the price of compliance with the ordinances, but
only Allen’s citizens will realize any benefit for the extra charge.
Although the Cities propose that Oncor collect the ordinances’ extra costs through
rate increases restricted to Allen’s residents (“geographic ratemaking”), the ordinances still regulate
electric utility rates by altering the terms of Oncor’s tariff.17 Moreover, the Texas Supreme Court
recognized “the contemporary reality that the assets of an integrated utility simultaneously serve all
its customers rendering the allocation of cost on a territorial basis an inappropriate method of rate-
setting in the context of present-day technology.” City of Corpus Christi v. Public Util. Comm’n,
572 S.W.2d 290, 296 (Tex. 1978). Because Allen’s ordinances obliterate the portion of the tariff
that held Allen financially responsible for the non-standard distribution facilities that were installed
at its request, Allen is regulating Oncor’s tariff rates, and the Commission has jurisdiction to review
the ordinances.
The Ordinances Regulate Oncor’s “Rates,” “Operations” and “Services” as Defined by PURA
17 Rudy Garza testified that geographic ratemaking is disfavored because it can increase
rates and stifle competition. He explained that use of systemwide rates benefits competition by
standardizing the rates for a service area, thereby minimizing the barriers to market entry for new
retail electric providers. Matthew A. Troxle, a senior retail market analyst in the Commission’s
electric division, agreed that increased rates harm competition by reducing or eliminating the
potential electric competitors’ margin to undercut the regulated price-to-beat rate. See Tex. Util.
Code Ann. § 39.202(a) (West Supp. 2004-05).
21
The Commission has appellate jurisdiction over Allen’s ordinances because they
regulate Oncor’s rates, operations, and services, as those terms are defined by PURA. According
to PURA, a “rate”
includes a compensation, tariff, charge, fare, toll, rental, or classification that is
directly or indirectly demanded, observed, charged, or collected by an electric utility
for a service, product, or commodity described in the definition of electric utility in
this section and a rule, practice, or contract affecting the compensation, tariff, charge,
fare, toll, rental, or classification that must be approved by a regulatory authority.
Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 31.002(15) (West Supp. 2004-05).
Allen’s ordinances regulate the compensation that Oncor would typically collect
from Allen for non-standard facilities by reducing Oncor’s receivable amount to zero. Oncor would
otherwise receive prepayment of the “total estimated cost of all non-standard facilities.” The
ordinances also regulate rates because they change the terms of Oncor’s tariff—mandating non-
standard distribution facilities, free of charge to Allen—without the Commission’s approval.
PURA also defines “service,” which
has its broadest and most inclusive meaning. The term includes any act performed,
anything supplied, and any facilities used or supplied by a public utility in the
performance of the utility's duties under this title to its patrons, employees, other
public utilities, an electric cooperative, and the public. The term also includes the
interchange of facilities between two or more public utilities. The term does not
include the printing, distribution, or sale of advertising in a telephone directory.
Id. § 11.003(19) (West Supp. 2004-05). By directing line placement, pole type, and screening of
electric facilities (such as meters), Allen’s ordinances regulate Oncor’s work performance and
materials. Thus, Allen’s ordinances regulate Oncor’s service to its customers.
22
While PURA does not define “operations,” it has been observed that “[t]he
jurisdiction of the commission extends not only to rates . . .but to every aspect of an electric utility’s
operation.” Robert A. Webb, The 1975 Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act: Revolution or
Reaffirmation?, 13 Hous. L. Rev. 1, 14 (1975). Ordinances such as Allen’s—which direct the
location of electric facility installation, specify the devices used for utility pole upgrades, and carve
payment exemptions out of the tariff—control Oncor’s work and constitute exercises of municipal
jurisdiction over a utility’s operations. By PURA’s definition, the Commission has appellate
jurisdiction to review these types of municipal ordinances.
Allen’s Ordinances Conflict with PURA’s Comprehensive Regulatory Scheme
Another basis for the Commission’s jurisdiction is that the ordinances’ utility
regulations conflict with PURA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme. Prior to PURA’s enactment
in 1975, each individual city could regulate the utilities within its boundaries. PURA altered that
piecemeal oversight by providing a comprehensive regulatory system for utilities. Tex. Util. Code
§ 11.002(a) (West Supp. 2004-05) (“The purpose of this title [PURA] is to establish a
comprehensive and adequate regulatory system for public utilities to assure rates, operations, and
services that are just and reasonable to the consumers and to the utilities.”). Empowering the
Commission with jurisdiction to review certain municipal orders furthers the goal of regulatory
uniformity. Dan Pleitz, et al., Municipalities and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, 28 Baylor L.
Rev. 977, 978 (1976).
A recent ruling from the Texas Supreme Court illustrates PURA’s broad scope. See
In re Entergy, 142 S.W.3d at 323. In re Entergy concerned a dispute over settlement proceeds from
23
a utility merger. Id. at 319. Two corporate utilities agreed that savings realized from their merger
would be incorporated into three post-merger rate proceedings before the Commission, to benefit
their customers. Id. The agreement was placed in a Commission order. Id. With the advent of
deregulation, and while the second rate case was pending, the Commission staff and the corporations
entered into a settlement that postponed retail competition in their service area. Id. at 320. A group
of ratepayers sued the corporations for breach of contract in district court. Id. The corporations
moved to dismiss, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the suit because of the
Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction under PURA. Id. at 321-22. The ratepayers responded that
they were not directly challenging a Commission order and that the Commission lacked jurisdiction
to settle a dispute over a private contract. Id. at 323. Finding that the Commission had exclusive
jurisdiction, the court stated:
[T]he statutory definition of PURA as “comprehensive” demonstrates the
Legislature’s belief that PURA would comprehend all or virtually all pertinent
considerations involving electric utilities operating in Texas. That is, PURA is
intended to serve as a “pervasive regulatory scheme” of the kind contemplated in
David McDavid Nissan.
Id. (citing Subaru v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc. 84 S.W.3d 212, 221 (Tex. 2002)).
The Cities argue that the Commission’s authority did not allow it to impair Allen’s
home rule and police power authority by voiding Allen’s zoning development standards. The Cities
generally cite this Court’s decision in Sexton v. Mount Olivet Cemetery Association to support the
proposition that the Commission may not assert a new and additional power, regardless of whether
the new power is viewed as being expedient for administrative purposes. See Sexton, 720 S.W.2d
129, 137-38 (Tex. App.—Austin 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
24
But the Commission’s appellate review of ordinances that regulate an electric
utility’s rates, operations, and services, is not a “new” or “additional” power—it is an enumerated
power in section 32.001(b) of the utility code. See Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 32.001(b) (West 1998).
Significantly, the Cities omit the language immediately preceding their cited excerpt, which states
that an agency generally has all power necessary to fulfill its specifically delegated duties:
It is axiomatic that such agencies are creatures of statute and have no inherent
authority. They may, therefore, exercise only those specific powers conferred upon
them by law in clear and express language, and no additional authority will be
implied by judicial construction. However, with respect to a power specifically
granted the agency, the full extent of that power must be ascertained with due regard
for the rule that the Legislature generally intends that an agency should have by
implication such authority as may be necessary to carry out the specific power
delegated, in order that the statutory purpose might be achieved. Moreover, the
Legislature impliedly intends, as a general rule, that an agency should have whatever
power is necessary to fulfill a function or perform a duty placed expressly in the
agency by the Legislature. The Legislature does not intend that agency functions be
an exercise in futility.
Sexton, 720 S.W.2d at 137. Allen’s power to legislate for its own benefit is limited by the
Commission’s regulatory authority under PURA, which is itself an exercise of police power in the
interest of all Texas citizens. See City of Corpus Christi, 51 S.W.3d at 241 & n.33 (“The United
States Supreme Court has said that ‘the regulation of utilities is one of the most important of the
functions traditionally associated with the police power of the States.’”) (quoting Arkansas Elec.
Coop. Corp. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 375, 377 (1983); Munn v. Illinois, 94
U.S.113, 125 (1877)).
One commentator has concluded that there is no power in the municipality to
supervise and regulate utilities where the purpose of the state law creating the commission is to
25
establish a complete and uniform system throughout the state for the supervision and regulation of
public utility rates and service. See 12 Eugene McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 34.146 (3d ed.
1995). A municipality may, under its police power, prescribe reasonable regulations as a protection
to the health, life, and safety of its inhabitants, even as applied to public service corporations, but
these regulations are incident to the state’s sovereign police power, and must be so restricted. Id.
(emphasis added). Under the guise of a police regulation the municipality cannot undertake to
prescribe service, rates, or charges containing inequalities, unjust discriminations, undue preference
or advantages, contrary to the state law and free from state investigation or regulation by the state
commission. Id. Allen’s ordinances cannot be reconciled with PURA’s comprehensive regulatory
function.
Other states have found their utility commission’s jurisdiction broad enough to
address the reasonableness and equity issues that arise when a municipality makes a policy decision
to require underground relocation of utilities. See, e.g., Homer Elec. Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Kenai,
816 P.2d 182, 187 (Alaska 1991) (commission had jurisdiction to decide reasonableness of
conditions imposed on utilities’ permit to use municipal rights-of-way; commission previously found
it was unreasonable for city to direct unreimbursed relocations of utilities laid in municipal rights-of-
way); City of Anaheim v. Pacific Bell Tel. Co., 14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725, 729-30 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist.
2004), pet. denied, 2004 Cal. LEXIS 9685 (Cal. Oct. 13, 2004) (commission had exclusive
jurisdiction to decide whether city’s undergrounding ordinance interfered with commission’s utility
regulation, and to address the equitable statewide issue about the order in which communities
throughout California should have their overhead facilities moved underground); Glen View Dev.
Co. v. Public Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 271 A.2d 903, 904 (N.J. 1970) (commission had jurisdiction
26
to decide who pays for cost of undergrounding utilities when an ordinance mandates such relocation;
state statutes requiring municipal consent for use of its streets by utilities did not authorize local
government to legislate upon subject of who should be responsible for payment).
Courts that have ruled in favor of the municipalities had distinct legal grounds for
upholding the ordinances. For example, a Minnesota court affirmed a municipal ordinance
mandating underground utility lines based on a Minnesota statute that specifically authorized cities
to direct utility line placement. See Northern States Power Co. v. City of Oakdale, 588 N.W.2d 534,
538-39 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). No such statute exists in Texas to support Allen’s ordinances. In
Colorado, a court found that a municipal ordinance’s conflict with a utility’s tariff would not prevent
a city from requiring the utilities to place lines underground, since the tariff did not rise to the level
of a statute. See U. S. W. Communications, Inc. v. Longmont, 948 P.2d 509, 517 (Colo. 1997). In
this case, Allen’s ordinances conflict with PURA, as well as Oncor’s tariff. See, e.g., Tex. Util.
Code Ann. § 33.004(b) (West 1998).
Although these out-of-state cases parallel certain concerns in this appeal, the
Commission’s decision in Trophy Club bears the strongest resemblance to the present jurisdictional
question. See 1986 Tex. P.U.C. LEXIS 292, at *21, *64, *67.
Commission had Appellate Jurisdiction over Similar Ordinances in Trophy Club
In Trophy Club, the Commission found it had jurisdiction over ordinances similar to
the four at issue. See id. The Texas Utilities Electric Company sought Commission approval to
rebuild, aboveground, a distribution feeder line that ran through the towns of Trophy Club and
27
Westlake. Id. at *14. Trophy Club wanted the utility line placed underground, but declined to pay
for the cost difference between underground and overhead construction, based on this ordinance:
After the effective date of this ordinance, no electric or communication utility,
whether privately or publicly owned, shall install or reconstruct, or cause to be
installed or reconstructed, any overhead electric or communication transmission or
distribution facility within the corporate limits of the Town of Trophy Club unless
a showing is made before the Town Council and a finding made by the Town
Council that undergrounding such facility would not be feasible or would be
inconsistent with sound environmental planning.
Id. at *20-21, 28. However, Texas Utilities’ tariff specified that
[u]nderground service is provided to a Customer who meets Company requirements
set out herein and pays to Company an amount based on the cost difference between
overhead and underground service as estimated by Company.
Id. at *27-28. On administrative appeal, Trophy Club argued that the Commission lacked
jurisdiction because the ordinance was enacted in accordance with the municipality’s police power,
while the Texas Utilities Electric Company and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. asserted
that PURA authorized the Commission’s appellate review. Id. at *19-20.
Agreeing with the electricity providers, the hearing examiner asked to the
Commission to consider
how very unlikely it is that the Legislature would create this agency to administer a
“comprehensive regulatory system” over “utility rates, operations, and services,”
PURA section 2, but deny it the authority to review municipal ordinances such as
these, which drastically affect such operations and services. The examiner cannot
believe that the Legislature intended substantive municipal regulation of utility
services and operations to be unfettered by Commission appellate review.
28
Id. at *24. He invited the Commission to reflect upon the consequences, if municipalities had the
authority to issue ordinances such as these:
If utilities were not notified of the ordinances or for some other reason failed to
appeal to the Commission, the “comprehensive regulatory system” of PURA Section
2 would be transformed into a patchwork of conflicting state and municipal
regulations and requirements. Utilities’ ability to construct facilities and to provide
continuous and adequate service would depend upon the judgment of local officials
rather than that of the Commission. That result is not what the Legislature intended
when it vested jurisdiction over public utilities in this agency.
Id. at *33. The examiner also cited the Commission’s 1981 order in Magic Valley Electric
Cooperative, which rejected the theory that ordinances passed pursuant to a city’s police powers are
beyond the Commission’s appellate jurisdiction. Id. at *21 (citing Petition of Magic Valley Electric
Cooperative, Inc. and Central Power and Light Company for Review of an Ordinance Passed by
City of Brownsville, Docket Nos. 2864, 2882; 1981 Tex. P.U.C. LEXIS 332, at *17) (invalidating
a Brownsville ordinance that conflicted with a Commission rule and PURA by requiring public
utilities to file maps with the city, at least seven days before beginning construction, showing the
location of proposed utility facilities)). The examiner concluded that the Commission had
jurisdiction, under PURA, to consider the appeal of Trophy Club’s ordinance.
The Commission adopted the examiner’s report, finding that the Trophy Club
ordinance affected the operations and services rendered by electric companies within municipal
limits, regardless of whether the ordinance was enacted pursuant to the town’s police powers. Thus,
the Commission had jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the Trophy Club ordinance. Id. at *21, *67-
68. As in Trophy Club, the Commission had appellate jurisdiction in this case based on
the ordinances’ conflict between municipal and state utility regulations. The Cities have not shown
29
that Oncor may comply with its tariff, PURA, and Commission rules without simultaneously
violating the ordinances in Allen’s land development code.
CONCLUSION
The Cities’ sole point of error challenges the Commission’s jurisdiction to review
ordinances in Allen’s land development code that Allen claims to have enacted based on its police
power. We find that the Commission had appellate jurisdiction to review Allen’s ordinances under
section 32.001(b). See Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 32.001(b) (West 1998). Requiring Oncor to place
utility distribution lines underground, replace wooden poles with metal or concrete poles, and screen
utility facilities—without charging Allen—constitutes municipal regulation of Oncor’s “rates,”
“operations,” and “services,” within the definitions of the Public Utilities Regulatory Act.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed: March 17, 2005
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 16
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
NECESSARY ACTION RESULTING FROM WORK SESSION
Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/04 Document Name: %necessaryactionwork
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 17
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. 121 Construction Update.
B. East Sandy Lake Road Update.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/02 Document Name: %necessaryactionwork
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 18
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Report by Mayor Stover regarding the Father/Daughter and Mother/Son
Valentine’s Dance.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/02 Document Name: %mayorreport
DATE: February 14, 2006
ITEM #: 19
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
NECESSARY ACTION RESULTING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/02 Document Name: %necessaryactionexec
CERTIFICATE OF AGENDA ITEM SUBMISSION
Council Meeting Date: February 14, 2006
Department Submissions:
Item Nos. 8/F, 8/G, 8/H and 15 were placed on the Agenda for the
above-referenced City Council meeting by the Engineering Department. I
have reviewed the Agenda Requests (and any backup if applicable) and
hereby submit these items to the City Council for consideration.
____________________
Engineering Department
Item Nos. 8/I, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 were placed on the Agenda for
the above-referenced City Council meeting by the Planning Department. I
have reviewed the Agenda Requests (and any backup if applicable) and
hereby submit these items to the City Council for consideration.
____________________
Planning Department
Financial Review:
I certify that I have reviewed all the items submitted for consideration on
the Agenda for the above-referenced City Council Meeting and have inserted
any financial comments where appropriate.
____________________
Finance Department
I certify that I have reviewed the complete Agenda and Packet for the
above-referenced City Council Meeting and hereby submit the same to the
City Council for consideration.
____________________
City Manager
(or Deputy City Manager)