The purpose of this contract is to provide Microsoft licensing, server maintenance, anti-virus support, and software support renewal for Garland Power & Light's IT system.  GP&L has historically managed seven (7) separate support contracts for these services, but this will be a combined Term Contract with four (4) optional renewals.  Funding for this project was approved in the 2016-17 Operating Budget.

1. The applicant proposes the development of a 64,607 square-foot, 129-bed Nursing/Convalescent Care Facility. The facility provides extended full-time care for those in need of convalescent or chronic care; Canyon Creek will contract physicians to provide the required oversight of the care given. The facility provides support services such as meals, laundry, housekeeping, transportation, social/recreational activities, and hairdressing either on-site or through contracted service. Also, the facility provides on-site hospice services through third-party hospice providers.
    
2. Building Design. Canyon Creek consists of one single-story building. The proposed building meets the horizontal and vertical articulation requirements by utilizing mixed roof heights, and varying degrees of recesses and projections including alcoves and covered entries. The Building Elevation Plan reflects the incorporation of approved architectural design elements (e.g. distinct lighting features, transoms, awnings and canopies) as set forth in Chapter 4, Article 6 of the Garland Development Code.
   
   Each external building elevation contains a 100 percent masonry façade that incorporates a predominantly stucco face with distinctive stone trims. The applicant utilizes variations in masonry color and material textures to complete an architecturally attractive aesthetic.
    
3. Site Design. Section 2.52 (A) (12) requires that indoor common or recreation areas must be provided at a rate of at least 100 square feet of gross floor area per dwelling unit; accordingly the site must provide 8,800 square feet of common area to accommodate the eighty-eight (88) units. The Detail Plan reflects a ratio of approximately eighty-six (86) square feet per dwelling unit for a total of 7,586 square feet. The applicant indicates that the common area provided is more than three times the State minimum of twenty (20) square feet per bed. The applicant also states that this standard is “more related to an assisted living or independent living facilities.” However, to mitigate the reduced indoor area, the facility will provide nearly 7,000 square feet of outdoor common area within enclosed courtyard spaces. The total common area provided between the indoor and outdoor spaces is 14,586 square feet and is provided at a ratio of 165.75 square feet per dwelling unit.
    
   GDC Section 2.52 (A) (12) also requires the facility to provide a six-foot perimeter fence. The Detail Plan reflects development without the perimeter fencing. Typically, the perimeter fencing element of a senior living facility is a safety feature. The applicant has indicated that the facility will “ensure the safety and minimize unauthorized elopement from the facility with the use of delayed egress door hardware and audible alarms.” Staff recognizes that there are few “unauthorized elopement” deterrents that are fail proof, and those that are may not be desirable in all development settings. Also, staff recognizes that under most conditions, the perimeter fencing may be the most effective. However, the site is within a mostly interconnected suburban and campus setting where perimeter fencing may be less desirable. Staff and the Plan Commission have no objection to the development of the facility without the perimeter fencing.
    
4. Landscape and Screening. The GDC Section 2.52 (A) (12) requires senior living facilities to dedicate a minimum of forty (40) percent of the total site to landscaping, open space areas, pools and similar outdoor recreation activities. The Landscape Plan reflects the appropriate quantity of tree plantings and landscaping materials within the landscape buffers along Walnut Street, Peggy Lane and Marie Curie Boulevard. The parking area landscaping is designed in accordance with the standards of Chapter 4, Article 3 but also with a thirty-eight (38) percent increase in planting material. The development is compliant with the Landscape and Screening standards of Chapter 4 Article 3.
    
5. Parking.  The GDC requires that Nursing/Convalescent Care facilities provide parking at a rate of 0.5 parking spaces per bed, which yields approximately sixty-five (65) parking spaces. The applicant states that “during a shift change, the facility would need close to 100 parking spots just to accommodate staff.” The applicant also states that “during a shift change, the incoming shift must be in the building and physically take over the care of the residents before the outgoing shift is able to leave.” The applicant proposes a minimum parking ratio of approximately 0.8 parking spaces for each bed for a total of 109 spaces. In accordance with the parking provisions in Section 4.20, the applicant has provided a certified parking study to support the additional parking demand. The study concluded that the increase in parking is justified and is in response to the patient care demands. The parking study recommends the site provide at least 109 spaces when accounting for alternate transportation modes (e.g. car pooling and public transit). Staff finds the parking ratio of 0.8 parking spaces as proposed is appropriate for the development. 

1. Detail Plan and Specific Use Provision: The applicant requests a Detail Plan and Specific Use Provision to develop 0.84 acres with a 2,609 square-foot Burger King restaurant with drive-through. The restaurant is part of a larger development established in PD 12-56. The Burger King is proposed with both drive-through service as well as indoor sit-down dining.
    
2. Screening and Landscape: The proposed Landscape Plan reflects 21.9% of the site dedicated to landscaping, including a thirty (30) foot wide buffer along Garland Avenue proposed with three (3) large canopy trees and a preserved 30-inch caliper Pecan tree which qualifies as two (2) large canopy trees. In order to achieve the desired parking, a minor encroachment of approximately 200 square feet into the drip line of the tree is necessitated. In accordance with the Garland Development Code, permeable pavers which will allow root zone filtration of air and water are allowed under the drip line.  The new canopy trees are spaced no less than twenty-five (25) feet between trees.  The landscaping buffer includes decorative grass and lawn. Additionally, 15.8% of the parking area is dedicated to landscaping within islands and planters flanking drive aisles and along the building. Along Garland Avenue the parking lot is screened with shrubs integrated into the landscape buffer. The site complies with the PD 12-56.
    
3. Exterior Elevations: The proposed facades consist of primarily masonry materials (brick) consisting of two colors: brown and tan. A red accent band and wraps nearly all of the building at the roof line. That red band is not lighted. Mechanical elements, store fronts and doors consist of brown painted color to complement the brown and tan brick. Roof mounted mechanical equipment will be screened by a parapet. The front façade of the building is offset two feet, four inches (2’4”), consistent with the required two (2)-foot offset.
    
4. Signage: The applicant is proposing to install attached signage and a menu board sign. An existing monument sign, which was approved with the Academy Sports + Outdoors, is located at the south of the site along Garland Avenue. This project may add signage to that monument sign. All signs will be in conformance with the PD 12-56.
    
5. Parking. The overall PD 12-56 development establishes a physical design and layout that is recognized as a unified development, functioning as a unit including parking. The approval of PD 12-56 demonstrates an acceptable parking arrangement, which the private agreement narrates as a parking ratio of thirteen (13) spaces per 1,000 square feet for restaurants not serving alcohol and without full sit-down table service. The proposal provides thirty-four (34) parking spaces in alignment with this parking ratio.The applicant requests a Specific Use Provision for a period of 20 years.

1. Detail Plan and Specific Use Provision: The applicant requests a Detail Plan and Specific Use Provision to develop 0.84 acres with a 2,179 square-foot Arby’s restaurant with drive-through. The restaurant is part of a larger development established in PD 12-56. The Arby’s is proposed with both drive-through service as well as indoor sit-down dining.
    
2. Screening and Landscape: The proposed Landscape Plan reflects 24.8% of the site dedicated to landscaping, including a thirty (30) foot wide buffer along Garland Avenue proposed with four (4) large canopy trees [limited to no less than twenty-five (25) feet spacing between trees, and restricted by access and sign easements, only four (4) trees can be achieved in the buffer along the 143-foot property frontage], turf and ground cover, a meandering sidewalk flanked with decorative grass and lawn. Additionally, 25% of the parking area is dedicated to landscaping within islands and planters flanking drive aisles and the building. Along Garland Avenue the parking lot is screened with shrubs integrated into the landscape buffer. The site complies with PD 12-56.
    
3. Exterior Elevations: The proposed facades consist of primarily masonry materials (brick) consisting of two colors: brown and white.  A red lighted accent band and canopy wraps nearly all of the building. The canopy portion of the accent band is anchored to the ground with black painted metal posts. Mechanical elements, store fronts and doors consist of brown painted color to complement the brown brick. HVAC equipment is roof-mounted and screened by the façade parapet. The front façade of the building is offset fourteen and one-half (14.5) feet which is greater than the required two (2)-foot offset.
    
4. Signage: The applicant is proposing to install attached signage and a menu board sign.  An existing monument sign, which was approved with the Academy Sports + Outdoors, is located at the south of the site along Garland Avenue. This project may add signage to that monument sign. All signs will be in conformance with PD 12-56.
    
5. Parking. The overall PD 12-56 development establishes a physical design and layout that is recognized as a unified development, functioning as a unit including parking.  The approval of PD 12-56 demonstrates an acceptable parking arrangement, which the private agreement narrates as parking ratio of thirteen (13) spaces per 1,000 square feet for restaurants not serving alcohol and without full sit-down table service. The proposal provides twenty-nine (29) parking spaces in alignment with this parking ratio.The applicant requests a Specific Use Provision for a period of 20 years.
    
6. The applicant requests a Specific Use Provision for a period of 20 years.

• All building elevations are required to consist of at least eighty percent masonry per Section 4.83(A)(1).  
• At least two different exterior construction materials must be applied on facades visible from the streets per Section 4.83(A)(2).  
• At least six of the twelve architectural elements listed in Section 4.83(B) must be incorporated into the design of the building.

1. Staff recommends a zoning emphasis on the four (4) parcels along Little Lane currently zoned PD 77-88 for Retail Uses, as outlined in the attached map. There are existing single-family structures on the privately-owned properties. The westernmost property’s structure is currently inhabited, while the easternmost houses remain vacant.
    
2. As previously mentioned, PD 77-88 requires commercial development and does not allow for the rehabilitation of the existing residential structures. Staff believes that retail zoning is inappropriate for these parcels, as they have no frontage on a thoroughfare or arterial roadway and do not have the vehicular nor pedestrian traffic necessary for a retail area. These particular parcels should remain with a residential character. Establishing SF-7 zoning will allow these parcels to redevelop according to market demand and under an appropriate zoning district.
    
3. The proposal is for a traditional zoning change without the creation of a Planned Development (PD) District.Traditional zoning does not require Concept Plan or Detail Plan approval. A change in zoning is not intended to restrict uses or secure development performances beyond what is permitted within the proposed zoning district and the GDC.

1. Impact fees are a one-time fee assessed to recover infrastructure costs required to serve new development. The City of Garland currently assesses impact fees for roadways and water. The purpose of this impact fee study is, per the Texas Local Government Code, to provide an analysis which formulates land use assumptions from which to base any needed impact fee changes, and to recommend a maximum water and roadway impact fee to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) and the City Council.
    
2. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires a Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) be appointed to provide comments on proposed amendments to the impact fees, land use assumptions and capital improvements plan upon which calculation of the impact fee is based. Per the current impact fee ordinance, the Plan Commission serves as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC). It is common for municipalities to appoint their Planning Commissions as the acting CIAC.
    
3. The CIAC has reviewed the impact fee study. Comments can be reviewed in by viewing the October 24, 2016 Plan Commission meeting video on the City of Garland website. To summarize, however, the Committee unanimously voted to pass along the study for Council consideration. One comment included concern about pursuing a blanket city-wide fee that may not be appropriate in certain areas needing redevelopment, and possibly to consider incentives for certain areas such as downtown. Another comment was that an appropriate balance is needed in the fee structure in order to stay competitive and avoid an overly high rate. Committee comments have also been recorded in the meeting minutes.
    
4. The maximum proposed water impact fee per the study equates to $593 per service unit for a 5/8” meter equilvalent and would generally remain on the lower end of water impact fee rates in comparison to other cities within the Dallas/Fort Worth region. The current water impact fee for a 5/8” meter size is $25.
    
5. The draft ordinance reflects the collection option for 60% of the maximum roadway impact fee for Residential, 15% for Industrial, and 45% for other Non-residential, based on Service Area A. This rate reflects a moderate increase in roadway impact fees from the current rates. This proposed rates are generally in line with other cities in the Dallas/Fort Worth region charging roadway impact fees, in that they are neither on the extreme high end or extreme low end of roadway impact fees regionally. Included as an attachment are fee comparison charts.
    
6. Per Council request, the Director of Economic Development was consulted and has reviewed the proposed fee structure and has stated that he is comfortable with continuing the use of impact fees as a development tool, and defers to the analysis that substantiates the need for impact fees. That said, it is recommended that we revise our processing and analysis protocols to have all requests for non-residential impact fee reductions and/or waivers run through the established incentive review protocol currently facilitated by the City's Department of Economic Development. The draft ordinance reflects this change.
    
7. The Council is requested to adopt the collection rates as stated above; however, it should be noted that the Council has the ability in the future to modify the collection rates provided that they remain at or below the maximum rates identified in the study. This would not necessitate a further impact fee study provided it occurs within the next five years per Section 395.052 of the Texas Local Government Code.

1. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Matrix in Chapter 2, Section 2.51 would no longer allow Self-Storage Uses by right in the Light Commercial (LC) zoning district and instead require consideration of such uses in the LC zoning district through a Specific Use Provision (SUP). The Community Retail (CR) District currently requires a Specific Use Provision (SUP) for Self-Storage Facilities, while the use is permitted by right in Heavy Commercial (HC) and Industrial (I), in addition to Light Commercial.
    
2. The majority of the concentration of existing straight Light Commercial (LC) zoning is along IH-30 and along Centerville Road along and near its intersection with South First Street/Duck Creek Drive. The Light Commercial areas along IH-30 were previously zoned Freeway (FW) and IH-30 Overlay which required a Specific Use Provision (SUP) for Self-Storage Facilities. The Light Commercial areas along Centerville were previously zoned Commercial-1 (C-1) which allowed Self-Storage Facilities by right. While staff recognizes that the storage industry has evolved to more commonly locate near residential areas and in less intensive zoning districts given its higher aesthetic standards, a Specific Use Provision (SUP) process is appropriate in certain less intensive zoning districts to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a Self-Storage Facility is appropriate for a particular location. In addition, there may be development and redevelopment opportunities for other uses along IH-30, which is a catalyst area as identified in the Envision Garland Plan, that could be better realized by requiring a vetting process (SUP) for Self-Storage Facilities rather than allowing them by right.
    
3. Should the Council approve the proposed GDC amendment, staff will bring forward the subsequent ordinance.
    
4. Staff will bring forward future amendments to the GDC as they continue to be vetted. As mentioned above, staff recommends particular amendments to Section 2.51 at this time due to the needed consistency with previous zoning regulations.