Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10-23-07 Web AGENDA #2721 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBER – CITY HALL MODULAR BUILDING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007 5:00 P.M. 3:00-3:30 P.M. DISCUSS: Over-65 Property Tax Freeze Alternatives – City Hall, Fire Department Training Room 3:30-4:00 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION: FOR CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY UNDER SECTION 551.071(2), GOVERNMENT CODE REGARDING PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY ON ZONING MATTERS AND APPEAL OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CASE. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN – City Hall, Fire Department Training Room 4:00-5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW – City Hall, Fire Department Training Room PUBLIC COMMENTS Questions and comments regarding Main Agenda items should be made when that item is addressed by the City Council. Please be advised that under the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Council may not discuss or act at this meeting on a matter not listed on the Agenda. Other questions or private comments for the City Council or Staff should be directed to that individual immediately following the meeting. I.CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION– Councilmember Syd Carter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Councilmember Syd Carter/Boy Scouts – INTRODUCTION OF COUNCILMayor James H. Holmes, III INTRODUCTION OF STAFF– City Manager Bob Livingston II.AWARDS AND RECOGNITION DEPARTMENT PINS: Police Sergeant John Ball, 15 years; Fleet Supervisor Les Jackson, 25 years; Sr. Utility Specialist/Cashier Inez Lee, 10 years III.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an Ordinance for two-hour parking in the 2900 block of Fondren B.CONSIDER AND ACT: On a contract for re-striping on Lovers Lane C.CONSIDER AND ACT: On a Resolution to appoint VantageTrust Company as successor trustee for the Retirement Health Savings Program D.CONSIDER AND ACT: On the Cooperative Purchase of a Side Loading Refuse Vehicle E.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for a School Resource Officer F.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for a D.A.R.E. Officer G.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an Interlocal Agreement with NCTCOG for Regional Storm Water Management H.CONSIDER AND ACT: On Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2007 IV.MAIN AGENDA A.CONSIDER AND ACT: On a Resolution naming the Plaza and Fountain east of the Goar Park Gazebo the Don M. Houseman Fountain and Plaza B.CONSIDER AND ACT: On a Resolution naming the Track at Germany Park the John G. Roach Track C.CONSIDER AND ACT: On a Resolution naming the Overlook and Waterfall in Goar Park the F.B. “Pete” Goldman Falls and Overlook D.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, by amending Section 40 to delete the definition of family; amending Sections 21-100 (1) to provide for uses and occupancy standard in single family dwelling districts; amending Sections 22-100 and 22-101 (1) to provide for uses and occupancy standard in duplex and multiple- family dwelling districts E.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an Ordinance approving an amendment to Planned Development District PD-24 for a tract of land more particularly described as Lots 1, 2, 3A, 11 and 12, Block B, St Andrews Place Addition, and more commonly known as 4015 Normandy, University Park, Texas F.PUBLIC HEARING: On an Ordinance approving an amended detailed site plan for PD-32 being a tract of land approx. 6.236 acres located at 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard G.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an Ordinance approving an amended detailed site plan for PD-32 being a tract of land approx. 6.236 acres located at 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard H.DISCUSS: A request to change the name of the 3200-3300 block of Northwest Parkway to "Northwestern" I.CONSIDER AND ACT: On an amendment to the contract with Leo A. Daly for architectural services related to City Hall Renovation J.CONSIDER AND ACT: On providing staff direction to file a rehearing motion on the PUC Order for University Park Ordinance No. 06/35 regarding 138kV Transmission Line K.CONSIDER AND ACT: On a request for the addition of two Crossing Guards at Hyer Elementary School L.CONSIDER AND ACT: On additional appointments to the Builders Committee M.CONSIDER AND ACT: On a Pilot Program for Holiday Tree Lighting in Snider Plaza V. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda should do so at this time. 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 items listed herein. AGENDA MEMO (10-23-07 AGENDA) DATE: October 16, 2007 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider Ordinance No ___ designating a 2-Hour parking restriction along the north and south curb lines of the 2900 block of Fondren and along the east curb line of Dublin, between University and McFarlin. Background. Pursuant to a request from a majority of the abutting property owners, staff requested that the City Attorney develop an ordinance establishing a 2- hour parking restriction along the following streets: Fondren, from Boedeker west to Dublin (north curb line); Fondren, from Boedeker west to Dublin (south curb line); Dublin, from University south to McFarlin; Consideration. Staff recommends City Council approval of the 2-HOUR PARKING ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. __________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF FONDREN AND ON DUBLIN FROM THE POINT OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH UNIVERSITY SOUTH TO THE POINT OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH MCFARLIN; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That it shall be unlawful and an offense for any person to leave, stand or park any motor vehicle in the 2900 block of Fondren, or on Dublin from the point of its intersection with University south to the point of its intersection with McFarlin, for more than two (2) hours at any time. SECTION 2 . That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. 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 decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. That any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed the sum of two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each offense. 15388 SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. The parking restrictions set out herein shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice thereof shall have been erected as provided by the Code of Ordinances. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 23rd day of October 2007. APPROVED: ____________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ KATE SMITH, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/10-16-07/21269) 15388 AGENDA MEMO (10/23/07 AGENDA) DATE: October 18, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jacob Speer, Assistant Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider Contract for Striping of Continuous Left-turn Lane on Lovers Lane ITEM: Following the recommendation of the Public Safety Committee and Council’s subsequent direction to staff, we solicited bids for the installation of a continuous left-turn lane on Lovers Lane between Boedeker and Hillcrest. Proper notification of the request for proposals was published in the Park Cities News. The bid packets were also placed on the RFP Depot website and staff contacted several area businesses that perform this type of work to notify them of the project. Four (4) companies obtained bid packets. Sealed bids were received on 10/11/2007. Two (2) companies submitted bids. Bids were submitted in the form of a base bid and a bid alternate. The bid alternate specifies that the project will not exceed seven (7) working days and that work will take place on Saturday and Sunday to minimize traffic impacts. The low bidder’s price for the bid alternate was $2,000 greater than their price for the base bid. Given the minimal price difference, staff recommends approval of a contract based on the bid alternate to reduce the negative impact this work will have on traffic. A bid tabulation is attached. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends awarding a contract to Striping Plus in the amount of $13,220.85 for the installation of a continuous left-turn lane. ATTACHMENTS: Bid tabulation AGENDA MEMO (12/05/06 AGENDA) DATE: October 17, 2007 TO: City Council FROM: Luanne Hanford SUBJECT: Resolution to appoint new trustee for Retiree Health Savings Plan As background, several years ago the City adopted a Retiree Health Savings Plan (RHSP) through ICMA Retirement Corporation. This plan allowed employees to deposit money on a tax-free basis to pay for health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health expenses after retirement. Since the plan was adopted, IRS regulations governing these plans have changed and the City is no longer permitted to offer this benefit to employees. However, there are a number of employees who have money in the plan; therefore, we must maintain the plan to protect their benefits. When the plan was adopted, Investors Bank & Trust Company was named trustee of the City’s trust (RHSP). The service agreement between ICMA-RC and Investors Bank & Trust Company (since re-named State Street Bank and Trust Company) will no longer be in effect after December 31, 2007. Therefore, the City needs to appoint another trustee for this plan. This must be done by resolution. This resolution appoints VantageTrust Company as successor trustee for the RHSP. Attached is an explanatory letter from ICMA-RC. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution appointing VantageTrust Company as trustee for the City’s Retiree Health Savings Plan. RESOLUTION NO.________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF VANTAGETRUST COMPANY AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS (RHS) PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS , the City (“Employer”) has established a retiree health savings plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligible employees and has established a trust in connection with the Plan (the “Trust”); and, WHEREAS , the Employer has been notified that the State Street Bank and Trust Company (successor by merger with Investors Bank & Trust Company) will resign as trustee of the Trust effective as of January 1, 2008; and WHEREAS , the Employer desires to appoint the VantageTrust Company to serve as NOW, THEREFORE successor trustee, effective as of January 1, 2008; , BE IT RESOLVED OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Employer hereby appoints VantageTrust Company to serve as successor trustee of the Trust, effective as of January 1, 2008. SECTION 2. That the Employer hereby authorizes the City Manager or his designee to take any and all actions required to implement the foregoing resolution. Duly passed by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 23 day of October 2007. APPROVED: ____________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________ KATE SMITH, CITY SECRETARY AGENDA MEMO (10/23/07 AGENDA) DATE: October 17, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Christine Green, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: Cooperative Purchase of Side Loading Refuse Vehicle The Sanitation Division budgeted to purchase a new Side Loading Refuse Vehicle. The attached memo from Jim Gau, Fleet Manager, describes the specific chassis and body that were selected for this vehicle. This combination vehicle is available for purchase through the BuyBoard as follows: 2007 American LaFrance Condor quoted by Duncan Freightliner (Waco, TX) = $103,519.00 Champion 32 Yd. Commercial Sideloader quoted by Heil of Texas (Irving, TX) = $82,831.00 BuyBoard Fee = $400 TOTAL COST = $186,750 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends purchase of the Side Loading Refuse Vehicle in the amount of $186,750. Purchases made through the BuyBoard satisfy all competitive bidding requirements. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 City of University Park 4420 Worcola Dallas, Texas 75206 Equipment Services October 17, 2007 Kent Austin, Finance Director Bob Livingston, City Manager Christine Green, Purchasing Agent Attached are the Buyboard Quotes to purchase a new Side Loading Refuse Vehicle for the Sanitation Division. This purchase was approved in the 2007-2008 Budget. Kenneth Chance, Les Jackson, and I visited Southwestern Equipment Company on th Wednesday September 26 and inspected a completed Champion Side Loader unit that was about to be delivered to a customer. We were all impressed with the construction and features of the unit we looked at. We went to this vendor on the advice of several commercial haulers we met at the Mack Truck show in Irving last month. Everyone running Heil and Packmore equipment has had difficulty with reliability and parts availability and has been searching for an alternative unit. Heil which was our last unit purchased, no longer builds their unit due to poor performance and lack of sales since the units have been very poor on reliability. Packmore, has changed hands and there are concerns of longevity in the market and slow delivery complaints have been frequent. While we were there, we spotted a chassis that was what we had been discussing as a possible replacement for our unit. The unit was also built with a pre-emissions engine that does not have the latest complex particulate system. The Particulate system adds a significant cost to the chassis when so equipped. This system also requires more maintenance and has a higher cost of operation. We inspected the unit and were surprised that it was exactly what we were planning to specify for our needs. We inquired as to who the intended recipient of the chassis was and were told it was not yet spoken for. We inquired if it was available through Buyboard or HGAC and were told that it was. We purchased our last Side Loader in August of 2004 and that unit cost us $ 162,955.00. The attached bid is for a total of $ 186,750.00 which is an increase of $ 23,795.00 in three years. The major increase is due to steel price increases over the period which has affected us in all such purchases. The new truck is also bigger with two yards additional capacity. Keep in mind that the cost difference would be even more if the chassis had the new emissions system on it which would add as much as another $ 7,000.00 to the cost. Page 2 October 17, 2007 Southwestern Equipment Company will be installing the body on this chassis if approved, and has requested us to install our logos and markings and have it put on display at the upcoming TML convention to be held here in Dallas in November prior to placing it in service. This will benefit us from a manufacturing standpoint as the paint and workmanship should be better since they will be displaying it to potential customers at the show. Since the next Council Meeting is not scheduled until October and that the unit is available on a first come first serve basis, I request that we provide the vendor a letter of intent to purchase to assure the unit is not sold to someone else prior to our be able to issue a purchase order. Sincerely, Jim Gau Jr Fleet Manager AGENDA MEMO (10/23/2007 AGENDA) DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Gary W. Adams, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for School Resource Officer Background/Analysis In an effort to provide for the well being of students and faculty of the Highland Park High School, as well as to provide for continued education on the abuse of drugs and alcohol, and in an effort to establish a good rapport between students, faculty, parents, and the University Park Police Department, the City of University Park, the Town of Highland Park and the Highland Park Independent School District have reached an agreement for the placement of a full time School Resource Officer in the Highland Park High School. Said officer will be a sworn police officer of the University Park Police Department. Further, said officer will work directly for the University Park Police Department and under the Police Department’s policies and procedures. The salary and benefits of said officer will be shared by the City of University Park and the Town of Highland Park, with the City of University Park providing for 75% of such cost and the Town of Highland Park providing for 25% of such cost. The City will advance and pay all such costs as they accrue and the Town of Highland Park will reimburse the City of University park for its 25% share upon receipt of a statement from the city as outlined in the Interlocal Agreement. Said costs for the school year to begin in January of 2007 and ending with the current school year. Recommendation Staff recommends the City of University Park enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Highland Park in order to provide a School Resource Officer for Highland Park Independent School District High School. Attachments: Interlocal Agreement provided by Rob Dillard III, City Attorney THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PROVISION OF POLICE SERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this ______ day of _________ 2007, by and between the City of University Park, Texas (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”), acting by and through its Mayor or his designee, and the Town of Highland Park, Texas (hereinafter referred to as “TOWN”), and acting by and through its Mayor or his designee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS , the Texas State Legislature has authorized the use of interlocal cooperation agreements between and among governmental entities for the provision of governmental services and functions; and WHEREAS , this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is made under the authority granted by and pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, and as otherwise provided herein, relative to the joint authorization by CITY and TOWN to provide certain police services. WHEREAS , the governing bodies find that the performance of this agreement is in the common public interest of both parties, and that the services provided pursuant hereto benefit the citizens of the CITY and the TOWN; and WHEREAS , the parties, in expending funds in the performance of the governmental functions or in performing such governmental functions under this Agreement, shall make payments therefore only from current revenues legally available to such party; NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual agreements contained herein, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: I AGREEMENT A. The CITY and TOWN agree, under the terms and conditions provided herein, and with consent of the Highland Park Independent School District, to share the cost of provision of the police personnel, salary and benefits, equipment and supplies, necessary for implementation of the School Resource Officer (SRO) program at the Highland Park High School for the period of the school year beginning in August, 2007. 20214/70520 B. The CITY will employ and furnish an appropriately trained and experienced police officer of its Department for the SRO position during the term hereof. The total estimated cost for provision of the program during the current term of this Agreement is $70,864, plus incidental expenses such as travel expense, promotional items, and materials. The parties agree that the CITY will pay 75% of such cost and the TOWN will pay 25% of such cost for the term hereof. The CITY will advance and pay all such costs as they accrue and the TOWN will reimburse the CITY for its 25 % share upon receipt of a statement from the CITY therefor, which statement will be rendered by the CITY and payable in full on or before June 30, 2008. II GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOWN AND CITY The following subparagraphs shall apply to this Agreement: A. (1) IMMUNITY: Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to affect, alter, or modify the sovereign immunity of either party under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§101.001 et seq. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this Agreement, neither CITY nor TOWN waives, nor shall be deemed to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to each against claims arising in the exercise of its governmental powers and functions. (2) INSURANCE: During the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, CITY agrees to obtain and maintain, as part of the cost of providing the services described herein, general liability insurance naming TOWN as an additional insured to protect against potential claims arising out of the CITY’s provision of the service. The CITY shall furnish TOWN with a certificate of insurance in accordance with this paragraph within sixty (60) days from the date of execution of this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to grant any third party rights or waive the governmental and/or public purpose of the provision of the police service described in this Agreement. TOWN may also have its own insurance, at its own expense, for any liability for such services, if it so chooses. B. THIRD PARTIES: This Agreement does not create any third-party beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create, expand or form a basis for liability to any third party under any theory of law against either the CITY or TOWN unless such a basis exists independent of this Agreement under State or federal law. C. NOTICE: Each notice or other communication which may be or is required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given when delivered personally during the normal business hours of the party to whom such communication is directed, or upon receipt when sent by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the appropriate one of the following addresses as may be designated by the appropriate party; however, each party 20214/70520 has a right to designate a different address by giving the other party fifteen (15) days prior written notice of such designation: If to TOWN: Mayor Town of Highland Park If to CITY: Mayor City of University Park D.MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY During the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, CITY agrees to provide adequate supervision and training of the police officer assigned to be the SRO. The CITY shall perform and exercise all rights, duties and functions and services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. E. CLAIMS AGAINST PARTIES: Each party shall be responsible for defending and/or disposing of all causes arising against the respective party as a result of this program. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this contract, neither CITY nor TOWN waives, nor shall be deemed to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to each against claims arising in the exercise of governmental powers and functions. F. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall be for the school year commencing on the first day of the school year, 2007. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed for successive renewal terms of one school year each at the beginning of each school year, with appropriate cost adjustments, unless one of the parties shall give notice to the other and to the Highland Park Independent School District at least 60 days before the beginning of the next school year of its intent to terminate the Agreement as of such date. G. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto, and no other oral or written commitments shall have any force or effect if not contained herein. H. SEVERABILITY: In case any one (1) or more of the provisions contained herein 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 thereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalidity, illegality or unenforceable provision had never been contain herein. I. AUTHORITY: The undersigned officers and/or agents are authorized to execute this contract on behalf of the parties hereto, and each party hereto certifies to the other that 20214/70520 any necessary resolutions extending such authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. III TERMINATION Either party, or the Highland Park Independent School District, may terminate this Agreement with or without cause, by giving prior written notice of the date of termination to the other party, as provided herein. IV REMEDIES No right or remedy granted or reserved to the parties is exclusive of any other right or remedy herein by law or equity provided or permitted; but each shall be cumulative of every other right or remedy given hereunder. No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived without written consent of the parties. Forbearance or indulgence by either party shall not constitute a waiver of any covenant or condition to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. V APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Texas and venue of any action brought to enforce the terms hereof shall lie exclusively in Dallas County, Texas. VI RECITALS The recitals to this Agreement are incorporated herein for all purposes. VII EXECUTION This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and constitute one and the same instrument. Duplicate originals executed by the parties to be effective on the date first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 20214/70520 By: ____________________________________ By: ________________________________ City Secretary James H. Holmes III, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ City Attorney ATTEST: TOWN OF HIGHLAND PARK, TEXAS By: ____________________________________ By: ________________________________ Town Secretary Bill White, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ Town Attorney THE STATE OF TEXAS § § City Acknowledgment COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME , the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared James H. Holmes, III known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of the City of University Park, a municipal corporation of Dallas County, Texas, and as the Mayor thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the ________ day of _______________ 2007. ____________________________ ____________________________ My Commission Expires: Notary Public In and For The State of Texas ____________________________ Notary’s Printed Name 20214/70520 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § Town Acknowledgment COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME , the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Bill White known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of the Town of Highland, a municipal corporation of Dallas County, Texas, and as the Mayor thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the ________ day of ____________ 2007. ____________________________ ____________________________ My Commission Expires: Notary Public In and For The State of Texas ____________________________ Notary’s Printed Name 20214/70520 AGENDA MEMO (10/23/2007 AGENDA) DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Gary W. Adams, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for D.A.R.E.Officer Background/Analysis Under the terms and conditions of the current Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Joint Provision of a DARE officer in the Highland Park Independent School District between the City of University Park and The Town of Highland Park, both parties are to review the agreement annually for renewal. Further, as there have been salary increases for the position of DARE officer, it is necessary to review and approve a new agreement Under the agreement the salary and benefits for the DARE officer are shared by the City of University Park and the Town of Highland Park, with the City of University Park providing for 75% of such cost and the Town of Highland Park providing for 25% of such cost. The City will advance and pay all such costs as they accrue and the Town of Highland Park will reimburse the City of University park for its 25% share upon receipt of a statement from the city as outlined in the Interlocal Agreement. Recommendation Staff recommends the City of University Park enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Highland Park in order to continue to provide a D.A.R.E. Officer for Highland Park Independent School District Middle School. Attachments: Interlocal Agreement provided by Rob Dillard III, City Attorney THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PROVISION OF POLICE SERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this ______ day of _________ 2007, by and between the City of University Park, Texas (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”), acting by and through its Mayor or his designee, and the Town of Highland Park, Texas (hereinafter referred to as “TOWN”), and acting by and through its Mayor or his designee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS , the Texas State Legislature has authorized the use of interlocal cooperation agreements between and among governmental entities for the provision of governmental services and functions; and WHEREAS , this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is made under the authority granted by and pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, and as otherwise provided herein, relative to the joint authorization by CITY and TOWN to provide certain police services. WHEREAS , the governing bodies find that the performance of this agreement is in the common public interest of both parties, and that the services provided pursuant hereto benefit the citizens of the CITY and the TOWN; and WHEREAS , the parties, in expending funds in the performance of the governmental functions or in performing such governmental functions under this Agreement, shall make payments therefore only from current revenues legally available to such party; NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual agreements contained herein, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: I AGREEMENT A. The CITY and TOWN agree, under the terms and conditions provided herein, and with consent of the Highland Park Independent School District, to share the cost of provision of the police personnel, salary and benefits, equipment and supplies, necessary for presentation of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program at the Highland Park Intermediate School/McCulloch Middle School for the 2007-2008 school year. 20213/70494 B. The CITY will employ and furnish an appropriately trained and experienced police officer of its Department to conduct the D.A.R.E. program during the term hereof. The total estimated cost for provision of the program during the term of the 2007-2008 school year is $83,049.00, plus incidental expenses such as travel expense, promotional items, and materials. The parties agree that the CITY will pay 75% of such cost and the TOWN will pay 25% of such cost for the term hereof. The CITY will advance and pay all such costs as they accrue and the TOWN will reimburse the CITY for its 25 % share upon receipt of a statement from the CITY therefor, which statement will be rendered by CITY and payable in full on or before June 30, 2008. II GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOWN AND CITY A. (1) IMMUNITY: Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to affect, alter, or modify the sovereign immunity of either party under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§101.001 et seq. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this Agreement, neither CITY nor TOWN waives, nor shall be deemed to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to each against claims arising in the exercise of its governmental powers and functions. (2) INSURANCE: During the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, CITY agrees to obtain and maintain, as part of the cost of providing the services described herein, general liability insurance naming TOWN as an additional insured to protect against potential claims arising out of the CITY’s provision of the service. The CITY shall furnish TOWN with a certificate of insurance in accordance with this paragraph within sixty (60) days from the date of execution of this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to grant any third party rights or waive the governmental and/or public purpose of the provision of the police service described in this Agreement. TOWN may also have its own insurance, at its own expense, for any liability for such services, if it so chooses. B. THIRD PARTIES: This Agreement does not create any third-party beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create, expand or form a basis for liability to any third party under any theory of law against either the CITY or TOWN unless such a basis exists independent of this Agreement under State or federal law. C. NOTICE: Each notice or other communication which may be or is required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given when delivered personally during the normal business hours of the party to whom such communication is directed, or upon receipt when sent by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the appropriate one of the following addresses as may be designated by the appropriate party; however, each party has a right to designate a different address by giving the other party fifteen (15) days prior written notice of such designation: 20213/70494 If to TOWN: Mayor Town of Highland Park If to CITY: Mayor City of University Park D.MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY During the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, CITY agrees to provide adequate supervision and training of the police officer assigned to provide the DARE program. The CITY shall perform and exercise all rights, duties and functions and services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. E. CLAIMS AGAINST PARTIES: Each party shall be responsible for defending and/or disposing of all causes arising against the respective party as a result of this program. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this contract, neither CITY nor TOWN waives, nor shall be deemed to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to each against claims arising in the exercise of governmental powers and functions. F. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall be for the 2007-2008 school year commencing on the first day of the school year, 2007. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed for successive renewal terms of one school year each at the beginning of each school year, with appropriate cost adjustments, unless one of the parties shall give notice to the other and to the Highland Park Independent School District at least 60 days before the beginning of the next school year of its intent to terminate the Agreement as of such date. G. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto, and no other oral or written commitments shall have any force or effect if not contained herein. H. SEVERABILITY: In case any one (1) or more of the provisions contained herein 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 thereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalidity, illegality or unenforceable provision had never been contain herein. I. AUTHORITY: The undersigned officers and/or agents are authorized to execute this contract on behalf of the parties hereto, and each party hereto certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions extending such authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. 20213/70494 III TERMINATION Either party, or the Highland Park Independent School District, may terminate this Agreement with or without cause, by giving prior written notice of the date of termination to the other party, as provided herein. IV REMEDIES No right or remedy granted or reserved to the parties is exclusive of any other right or remedy herein by law or equity provided or permitted; but each shall be cumulative of every other right or remedy given hereunder. No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived without written consent of the parties. Forbearance or indulgence by either party shall not constitute a waiver of any covenant or condition to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. V APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Texas and venue of any action brought to enforce the terms hereof shall lie exclusively in Dallas County, Texas. VI RECITALS The recitals to this Agreement are incorporated herein for all purposes. VII EXECUTION This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and constitute one and the same instrument. Duplicate originals executed by the parties to be effective on the date first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS By: ____________________________________ By: ________________________________ City Secretary James H. Holmes III, Mayor 20213/70494 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ City Attorney ATTEST: TOWN OF HIGHLAND PARK, TEXAS By: ____________________________________ By: ________________________________ Town Secretary Bill White, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ Town Attorney THE STATE OF TEXAS § § City Acknowledgment COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME , the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared James H. Holmes, III known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of the City of University Park, a municipal corporation of Dallas County, Texas, and as the Mayor thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the ________ day of _______________ 2007. ____________________________ ____________________________ My Commission Expires: Notary Public In and For The State of Texas ____________________________ Notary’s Printed Name 20213/70494 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § Town Acknowledgment COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME , the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Bill White known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of the Town of Highland, a municipal corporation of Dallas County, Texas, and as the Mayor thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the ________ day of ____________ 2007. ____________________________ ____________________________ My Commission Expires: Notary Public In and For The State of Texas ____________________________ Notary’s Printed Name 20213/70494 AGENDA MEMO (10/23/07 AGENDA) DATE: October 18, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Robbie Corder, Assistant to the Director of Public Works SUBJECT: NCTCOG Regional Storm Water Program ITEM: The City of University Park has participated it the regional storm water program established by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), which addresses storm water quality issues throughout the region. Participation in the program provides municipalities with resources for staff and developer training, public education, and other technical resources to meet state and federal regulations for storm water runoff. th On August 13, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued the Small MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Water System) Phase II final permit. The City of University Park falls under the permit requirements for Phase II, and the City will forward its Storm Water Management Program to TCEQ by February 11, 2008 as part of the permit application. The regional storm water program developed by NCTCOG will greatly enhance the best management practices (BMP’s) developed in the City’s Storm Water Management Program. The existing interlocal agreement between the City and NCTCOG has expired, and staff requests Council to consider approving another five-year interlocal agreement as well as the authorization letter for FY 2008 participation. Participation in the program will cost the City of University Park $2,720. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the interlocal agreement and authorization letter for participation in the regional storm water program with NCTCOG. ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement Authorization Letter MINUTES #2720 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS COUNCIL CHAMBER – CITY HALL MODULAR BUILDING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007, 5:00 P.M. Mayor Holmes opened the regular City Council Meeting at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber in the City Hall Modular Building. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Harry Shawver and Councilmembers Syd Carter, Jerry Grable and Kelly Walker. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston, Acting City Attorney David Dodd and City Secretary Kate Smith. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION DEPARTMENT PIN: City Manager Bob Livingston presented Right-Of-Way Inspector Randy Fleming with a 15 year pin. Councilmember Walker moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Grable seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following: CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For September 18, 2007. MAIN AGENDA PRESENTATION BY LEON BENNETT, SMU VICE PRESIDENT FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS: SMU Vice President for Legal Affairs and Government Relations Leon Bennett addressed the City Council about the student population demographics and plans for increased University housing. Mr. Bennett stated that there are 6,176 undergraduate students and 4,653 graduate students currently enrolled at the University. There are 1,645 students living in sororities and fraternities. There are 2,908 undergraduates living on campus. Mr. Bennett stated that plans for the University to increase student housing on campus have been public for sometime now. The University’s goal is to house an additional 1,200 to 1,400 students on campus and for construction of these facilities to begin in the next 2 to 5 years. Mr. Bennett stated that the University strives to be a good neighbor and that they are prepared to work with citizens and the City Council. Following Mr. Bennett’s remarks, the Mayor stated that the City has arranged a meeting with SMU officials including President Turner and Mr. th Bennett on Friday, October 19 at 10:30 a.m. to discuss off-campus student behavior issues and further the cooperative effort involving SMU and the City. PRESENTATION REGARDING NOISE ABATEMENT ISSUES CITYWIDE: Police Chief Gary Adams gave a presentation regarding noise abatement. The Police Department conducted a study over a twelve-month period to determine where noise complaints are generated in the community, whether complaints are isolated to any specific area and how the Department handles these complaints. Chief Adams gave the following recommendations: The Police Department will issue only one warning. A follow-up call at the same location on the same date will result in a citation being filed by the officers. If the officers respond to an address with a history of noise disturbances, a citation will be issued first call – no warnings. If the residence is that of a SMU student, the SMU Police will be notified and asked to make a report for their files. Mayor Holmes noted that resident Mary Graves provided him information on what Middlebury College in Vermont has done to address similar noise issues and that this information had also been provided to SMU. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, BY AMENDING SECTION 40 TO DELETE THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY; AMENDING SECTIONS 21-100 (1) TO PROVIDE FOR USES AND OCCUPANCY STANDARD IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTIONS 22-100 AND 22-101 (1) TO PROVIDE FOR USES AND OCCUPANCY STANDARD IN DUPLEX AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICTS: Dan Sefko addressed the City Council on June 5, 2007 on issues relating to the definition of Family, maximum building height and maximum plate line heights in the multi- family districts. The City Council provided direction for staff to proceed to amend the Zoning Ordinance. On July 16, 2007 the Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing and considered an ordinance to change the definition of Family so that “not more than three (3) individuals unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption” may occupy a dwelling unit. At that meeting, P&Z voted 3-2 to deny the proposed amendment to change the definition of family from two to three unrelated individuals. The comment was made that the current definition to include "not more than two individuals unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption" should remain in the single family districts but may be changed as it relates to multi-family districts. On August 7, 2007, the City Council held a Public Hearing and considered the proposed ordinance and provided directions to staff and the Consultant to work through P&Z to change the occupancy requirements to not more than three individuals in the multi-family districts and preserve the existing occupancy standards in the single-family districts. On September 18, 2007 the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and considered another draft ordinance to provide an occupancy standard of not more than three individuals unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption in the duplex and multi-family districts and not more than two individuals unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption in the single-family and single-family attached districts. P&Z voted 3-2 on a motion to deny the proposed ordinance. Mayor Holmes opened the Public Hearing and stated that 10 people per side would be allowed to speak and that each person would have 3 minutes. The first side to speak were those in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Steve Dawson, 8440 Tulane, spoke first in support of the ordinance and stated that the City should reject any code prevision tied to a definition of family. Ms. Georgia Marshall, 3340 Amherst, spoke in support of the ordinance stating that there is currently a negative environment toward SMU students and that the community should engage with the University to see what could be done. Ms. Mashall stated that property owners could put clauses in their leases to foster good behavior. Mr. Don Gale, 3712 Binkley, spoke in favor of the ordinance and stated he was concerned with parking in the MF-2 area and that Council has passed laws in the MF-2 area that have worked against property owners. Mr. Richard Means, Jr., 3400 Harvard, Dallas, spoke in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Means, who owns several rental properties in University Park, asked why create an ordinance that requires 1 parking spot per bedroom and then not change this ordinance? Mr. Means stated that property values and taxes could be impacted if the ordinance is not changed. Mr. Will Fulton, 3231-3233 Rosedale, spoke in favor of the ordinance and stated that construction of 3 bedroom units have had no impact on parking. Ms. Nancy Fulton, 3330-3328 Rosedale, asked Council to give property owners an ordinance with “teeth” and that landlords could work with the Council to enforce. She said that the problem is behavior, not occupancy. Mr. Brian O’Boyle, 3809 Caruth, spoke in favor of the ordinance asking Council not to punish landlords and that occupancy is not the problem. He stated that there are large vacancies in the 3 bedroom condominium market. Dr. Joe Ellen Bogart, 3220 Rosedale, spoke in favor of the ordinance, stating that SMU students desire to live close to campus. Mr. George Cramer, 6 St. Laurent, Dallas, spoke in favor of the ordinance, stating that the MF-2 areas are a transition zone between the University and single-family residences. Mr. Darrell Stuck, 4618 Beverly Drive, spoke in favor of the ordinance stating that the current ordinance discriminates on lifestyle choices and suggested to remove the current ordinance in its entirety. Matt Dixon, 3448 Rosedale, was the last to speak in favor of the ordinance. He presented the Council with petition results that indicated 32 property owners in the area were in support of the ordinance change. He continued that the current noise ordinance is insufficient and ineffective and ended by stating that the parking issue can be controlled by other means, not occupancy. Mayor Holmes then opened the floor to those speaking in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Frank McIntyre, 3439 Westminster was the first to speak in opposition and stated that those speaking in favor of the proposed ordinance live outside of the high density areas. He continued that Mr. Dixon’s information only showed the people who own properties in the area, not those who live there. Mr. Michael Haines, 4024 Marquette, spoke in opposition to the ordinance, stating that he was opposed to the change because it negatively impacts residents and that a good deal of the people who spoke in support of the ordinance do not live in University Park. Mr. Robert Lett, 2713 Rosedale, spoke in opposition to the ordinance, stating that he was concerned about single family property values if the ordinance is changed as he has 3 rental homes near his property. Ms. Carolyn Marks, 6714 Hursey, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. She stated that it is logical to assume that if more people are allowed to live in the properties together that there will be more cars. Mr. James Garner, 3120 Milton, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and stated that there is no compelling reason to change the ordinance because it only benefits SMU students and landowners, not the residents. Mr. Alan Wasserman, 3132 Westminster, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. He noted that P&Z voted against the change and that Highland Park is not changing their ordinance. He continued that the majority of the community is single family residences and that SMU stated that they would be constructing new housing so there is no need to change the ordinance. Mr. Ben Black, 3041 Rosedale, spoke in opposition to the ordinance stating that he has considered moving from University Park because of these issues. Mr. Thomas Hoyt, 3113 Milton, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and noted that he was not speaking in opposition to SMU students, but was concerned with density and quality of life. He said that the city does not have a responsibility to house SMU students. Lillian Sills, 3328 Westminster, spoke in opposition to the ordinance, stating she was worried this would impact the feel of her single-family neighborhood adjacent to the University. Mary Graves, 6716 Hursey, spoke in opposition to the ordinance stating that density is the issue, not the fact that many are SMU students. Ms. Graves indicated that the quality of life in her neighborhood improved in June when the ordinance was to be enforced. Following Ms. Graves remarks, Mayor Holmes noted that a number of people filled out request-to-speak forms on the issue who did not wish to speak, but wanted their position entered in the record. Mayor Holmes asked for those who were in support of the ordinance to raise their hands. 10 people raised their hands in support of the ordinance. Mayor Homes then asked those who were in opposition to the proposed ordinance to raise their hands. 10 people raised their hands in opposition to the ordinance. Mayor Holmes stated that he had received a letter from Ms. Jo Lynn James suggesting that the streets west of Snider Plaza be changed to alternating one-way streets. Mayor Holmes requested that City Manager Bob Livingston look into this suggestion. Mayor Holmes said that the Council had heard a great deal of information for the first time this evening from developers and that the Council was aware of the P&Z vote on this issue. Mayor Holmes closed the Public Hearing. CONSIDER AND ACT ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, BY AMENDING SECTION 40 TO DELETE THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY; AMENDING SECTIONS 21-100 (1) TO PROVIDE FOR USES AND OCCUPANCY STANDARD IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTIONS 22-100 AND 22-101 (1) TO PROVIDE FOR USES AND OCCUPANCY STANDARD IN DUPLEX AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICTS: Mayor Holmes motioned to move the vote on the proposed ordinance to the next City Council Meeting on October 23, 2007. Mayor Pro-Tempore Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to move the vote on the proposed ordinance to October 23, 2007. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD-24 FOR A TRACT OF LAND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 3A, 11 AND 12, BLOCK B, ST ANDREWS PLACE ADDITION, AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4015 NORMANDY, UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: Architexas, representing the First Unitarian Church of Dallas requested an amendment to the existing Planned Development District PD-24 to include an additional residential lot located at 4008 St. Andrews Drive and situated in the SF-2 zoning district. The proposed PD amendment would incorporate lots 1, 2, 3A 11, and 12, Block B, St Andrews Place Addition, City of University Park and provides for 2.25 acres more or less. The existing church buildings located in PD-24 on the southeast corner of Normandy and Preston Road are approx. 31,134 sq. ft with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The church proposes to add approx. 17,552 sq. ft. with a maximum building height of 35 feet for the new additions and renovations. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 - 1 to recommend approval of the PD conceptual site plan and recognized the following items be resolved: Dumpsters to be relocated to an internal part of the site; Restrictions on rentals to take place within certain hours with no more than 3 consecutive days in a calendar year; and restrictions to school use. Mr. John Allender with Architexas reviewed the plans for the City Council and revisions that had been made to satisfy the PD Conditions. He stated that the church directed Architexas to be respectful to the neighborhood and that they are following Green LEED building strategies. Regarding parking, Mayor Holmes said that he saw the letter from North Texas Trust, but did not see any formal agreements for use of the Highland Park Village Parking or the adjacent bank. Church representatives indicated they had these agreements in place and would send the letters to the City. Councilmember Grable asked church representatives how many members park in the Highland Park Village Parking Lot. Ms. Janet Thorp, First Unitarian Church President, replied that the lot is regularly used by church members on Sunday. Councilmember Grable inquired as to whether a day school was planned. Mr. Allender replied that the church will not have a school in the facility. Mr. Allender then addressed PD Condition #15 with respect to privacy issues. He stated they had received a request that doors or glass not be installed on the new second and third floors along Preston Road. Mr. Allender indicated that instead, in an effort to still allow natural light, they would like to use smoked glass on the second and third floors and that they had submitted samples for review. Mayor Holmes asked about the 90 degree parking proposed on Normandy and stated that changing it from the angled configuration presented a hazard. Mr. Allender indicated this was done to provide more spaces. Mayor Holmes stated that it provided minimal new spaces and for safety reasons, should be kept angled parking. Mayor Holmes then addressed PD Condition #8 with respect to the rental of church facilities. He noted that this condition prohibits the rental of the facility to any party unaffiliated with the Church and that rentals to the Park Cities YMCA are also prohibited. The Mayor indicated this was the same condition placed on the Baptist and Methodist churches during their expansions. Councilmember Grable noted that the YMCA was currently using the church facility some evenings for classes and requested that, because of this condition, they discontinue use of the facility to the YMCA. Mayor Holmes also requested that the terms of the special use permit in PD Condition #6 be stricken. Mayor Holmes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Clyde Jackson, 6001 St. Andrews, spoke in opposition to the ordinance stating that something should be added to the PD Conditions stipulating that a 4 foot setback be maintained for the wall. He stated that if this was maintained, he would support the building addition. Mr. Andrew Campbell indicated he was a property owner adjacent to the church and that he was fine with the 4 foot setback. Ms. Nancy Seay, 6007 St. Andrews, spoke in opposition to the ordinance stating that she would like to keep the “neighborhood character” of the area. She stated that there is a gate on St. Andrews and she would like for the gate to be closed, except for emergencies. She also requested that a gate be installed on the new parking lot as it could be a gathering place and asked that all parking lots be closed at night. Mayor Holmes asked Community Development Manager Harry Persaud to look at the ordinance governing the gate currently in place on St. Andrews. Mr. Clyde Jackson, 6001 St. Andrews, spoke in opposition to the ordinance noting that the larger church adds density and that there will be additional traffic. Ms. Gail Schoellkopf, 4006 Shenandoah, requested clarification on the 3 stories and informed the City Council that the YMCA has considered opening on Sunday. The City Council directed staff to verify if the YMCA hours of operation are restricted. Mr. Allender indicated that the church would install a gate on the proposed parking lot on St. Andrews. City Council directed staff to add to the PD Conditions a provision requiring the new parking lot on St. Andrews have a gate. Mr. Allender continued that there would be green space on the third floor of the building, and that it would be accessible to people. However, this space was primarily designed to meet LEED goals and certification, and was not intended as a gathering place. Mr. Gill Brown, 4007 Normandy, spoke in favor of the PD, but indicated he did not know that people would be allowed out onto the green space on the third floor. Mr. Allender indicated there would be plantings to screen the area. Mayor Holmes closed the Public Hearing. CONSIDER AND ACT ON AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD-24 FOR A TRACT OF LAND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 3A, 11 AND 12, BLOCK B, ST ANDREWS PLACE ADDITION, AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4015 NORMANDY, UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: Mayor Holmes stated this item would appear on the October 23, 2007 Meeting Agenda and would be acted upon at that time. CONSIDER AND ACT ON A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING ATMOS ENERGY RATE INCREASE REQUEST: This resolution would suspend a rate increase request by Atmos Energy Mid-Tex Division. This action was recommended by the Atmos Cities Steering Committee (ACSC) and is separate from the September 4 resolution that denied the Atmos GRIP 4 increase. The Steering Committee now numbers 141 cities. The latest filing by Atmos seeks a $52 million increase, which would raise rates for average residential customers by nearly $20 per year. The filing would increase residential rates 8.27%, commercial rates 22.72%, and industrial and transportation rates 38.95%. According to legal counsel for ACSC, the filing amounts to a re-litigation of the Atmos rate case concluded earlier this year. In that case, Atmos sought a $62 million increase; the Railroad Commission (RRC) judges concluded Atmos should decrease rates by $23 million; and the Railroad Commissioners ultimately approved a $10 million rate increase. ACSC attorneys also believe that the filing is an attempt to establish an annual profit guarantee, which is a concept rejected by the RRC in the earlier case. Approval of the attached resolution would suspend the effective date of the Atmos request by up to 90 days. Councilmember Carter moved approval of the resolution suspending the Atmos Energy Rate increase request. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the resolution suspending the Atmos Energy Rate increase request. RESOLUTION NO. 07-19 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, SUSPENDING THE OCTOBER 25, 2007, EFFECTIVE DATE OF ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX DIVISION REQUESTED RATE CHANGE TO PERMIT THE CITY TIME TO STUDY THE REQUEST AND TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE RATES; APPROVING COOPERATION WITH ATMOS CITIES STEERING COMMITTEE AND OTHER CITIES IN THE ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX DIVISION SERVICE AREA TO HIRE LEGAL AND CONSULTING SERVICES AND TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE COMPANY AND DIRECT ANY NECESSARY LITIGATION AND APPEALS; REQUIRING REIMBURSEMENT OF CITIES’ RATE CASE EXPENSES; FINDING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REQUIRING NOTICE OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE COMPANY AND LEGAL COUNSEL There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. rd PASSED AND APPROVED this 23 day of October 2007. James H. Holmes, III, Mayor ATTEST: Kate Smith, City Secretary AGENDA MEMO (10/23/2007 AGENDA) DATE: October 17, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks SUBJECT: Public Facilities Naming Committee Recommendations BACKGROUND: In September 2006, the City of University Park City Council appointed a Public Facilities Naming Committee to review nominees/applications for the potential naming of public facilities and properties within our community. Nominees for facility naming have traditionally demonstrated an outstanding contribution through leadership and civic pride in support of the overall “quality of life” within University Park. During the September 2007 meeting of the Public Facilities Naming Committee, the Committee reviewed supporting documentation for recent nominees. These nominations include the following individuals and locations. Name: Location/Facility RECOMMENDATION: Based on the nomination request and the numerous letters of support review by to the Public Facilities Naming Committee, the Committee is requesting City Council consider the approval, through resolution, of the above mentioned individuals and locations for facility naming. ATTACHMENTS: Individual Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 07-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, NAMING THE PLAZA AND FOUNTAIN IN GOAR PARK THE DON M. HOUSEMAN PLAZA AND FOUNTAIN FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Don M. Housemen served as a City Commissioner for the City of University Park from 1982 to 1986; and as Mayor from 1986 to 1988; and, WHEREAS , during his tenure as a City Commissioner the City created a separate Park Department to further focus efforts on improving the quality of the City’s parks; and, WHEREAS , during his tenure as Mayor, the City began the Master Plan process, which resulted in creation of a number of park improvement projects; and, WHEREAS , during that time the first efforts toward creation of the City’s Capital Improvement Program, which is instrumental in funding many of the park improvement projects we now see in the City, were begun; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, THAT: In recognition of his service and vision to the City of University Park, and particularly his commitment to the improvement of the City’s park system, the Plaza and Fountain east of the Goar Park Gazebo shall be known as the: DON M. HOUSEMAN FOUNTAIN AND PLAZA Section 1. This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, and it is, accordingly, so resolved. Section 2. That appropriate recognition shall be erected prominently in this area. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas on the rd 23 day of October 2007. APPROVED: __________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES, III, MAYOR ATTEST: __________________________________ KATE SMITH, CITY SECRETARY RESOLUTION NO. 07-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, NAMING THE TRACK AT GERMANY PARK THE JOHN G. ROACH TRACK FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS , John G. Roach served as a member of the University Park City Commission from 1984 to 1988 and as Mayor from 1988 to 1992; and, WHEREAS , during his tenure as Mayor the City’s Master Plan was completed and adopted, which created the vision for many of the park improvements we enjoy today; and, WHEREAS , his leadership as Mayor was essential in the acquisition of land for the creation of the linear park and wall along North Central Expressway; and, WHEREAS, John G. Roach is an honored graduate of Highland Park High School, where he was a prominent athlete and captain of the track team; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, THAT: In recognition of his service and vision to the City of University Park, and particularly his commitment to the improvement of the City’s parks, the track at Germany Park shall be known as the: JOHN G. ROACH TRACK Section 1. This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, and it is, accordingly, so resolved. Section 2. That appropriate recognition shall be erected at a prominently in this area. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the rd 23 day of October 2007. APPROVED: __________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES, III, MAYOR ATTEST: __________________________________ KATE SMITH, CITY SECRETARY RESOLUTION NO. 07-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, NAMING THE OVERLOOK AND WATERFALL IN GOAR PARK THE F.B. “PETE” GOLDMAN OVERLOOK AND WATERFALL FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS , F.B. “Pete” Goldman served as a member of the University Park City Council from 1988 to 1994 and as Mayor from 1994 to 1998; and, WHEREAS , during his service as Council member and Mayor, implementation of the City’s Capital Improvement Program began in earnest, resulting in many park and other infrastructure improvements; and, WHEREAS , during his tenure as Mayor, he specifically guided the acquisition of the land that became Elena’s Children Park; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, THAT: In recognition of his service to the community as Mayor, Council member, and Planning Commissioner, and his commitment to adding to the City’s park system, the Overlook and Falls adjacent to Turtle Creek shall be known as the: F.B. “PETE” GOLDMAN FALLS AND OVERLOOK Section 1. This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, and it is, accordingly, so resolved. Section 2. That appropriate recognition shall be erected prominently in this area. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on rd the 23 day of October 2007. APPROVED: __________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES, III, MAYOR ATTEST: __________________________________ KATE SMITH, CITY SECRETARY AGENDA MEMO (10/23/2007 AGENDA) DATE: October 23, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, by amending Section 40 to delete the definition of family; amending Sections 21-100 (1) to provide for uses and occupancy standard in single family dwelling districts; amending Sections 22-100 and 22-101 (1) to provide for uses and occupancy standard in duplex and multiple-family dwelling . districts Background/Analysis: Dan Sefko addressed the City Council on June 5, 2007 on issues relating to the definition of Family, maximum building height and maximum plate line heights in the multi family districts. City Council provided directions for staff to proceed to amend the Zoning ordinance. On July 16, 2007 the Planning and Zoning commission held a public hearing and considered an ordinance to change the definition of “Family” so that “not more than three (3) individuals unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption” may occupy a dwelling unit. At that meeting, P&Z voted 3-2 to deny the proposed amendment to change the definition of "family" from two to three unrelated individuals. The comment was made that the current definition to include "not more than two individuals unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption" should remain in the single family districts but may be changed as it relates to multi family districts. On August 7, 2007, City Council held a public hearing, considered the proposed ordinance and provided directions to staff and the Consultant to work through P&Z to change the occupancy requirements to not more than three individuals in the multi family districts and preserve the existing occupancy standards in the single family districts. On September 18, 2007 the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and considered another draft ordinance to provide an occupancy standard of not more than three individuals unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption in the Duplex and Multi family districts and not more than two individuals unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption in the single family and single family attached districts. City Council conducted a public hearing on October 2, 2007 and received comments from residents, builders and property owners. The public hearing was closed and the item was tabled for consideration on October 23, 2007. Recommendation P&Z voted 3-2 on a motion to deny the proposed ordinance. Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. P&Z minutes for September 18, 2007. MEMORANDUM Sefko Planning Group To: The City of University Park – Mayor and City Council From: Dan Sefko, AICP Subject: Family Size Date: October 23, 2007 As per direction and input received by the Planning and Zoning Commission (7-16-07) and the City Council (8-7-07), please find attached the revised ordinance reflecting the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Based on meetings with the City Staff, City Attorney and Consultants the proposed amendments establish occupancy standards by zoning district. In the SF-1 through SF-4 districts the occupancy standard remains “…not more than two (2) individuals…” In the Duplex and MF-1 through MF-4 districts the standard has been changed to “…not more than three (3) individuals…” It is our opinion these changes reflect the policy direction as desired by the City on this issue. ORDINANCE NO. _____________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 40 TO DELETE THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY; AMENDING SECTIONS 21-100 (1) TO PROVIDE FOR USES AND OCCUPANCY STANDARD IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTIONS 22-100 AND 22-101 (1) TO PROVIDE FOR USES AND OCCUPANCY STANDARD IN DUPLEX AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR 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 Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park and the City Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas with reference to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and have held due hearings and have forwarded a full and fair hearing to all property owners generally, and City Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and finds that said zoning changes should be granted and that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance should be amended; Now, Therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Section 21-100 (1) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended in part as follows: “21-100 Single-Family Dwelling Districts (1) Uses and Occupancy Standard In the Single-Family Dwelling Districts (SF-1 through SF-4 and SF-A) land shall not hereafter be used … Occupancy of structures in the Single-Family Dwelling Districts shall be limited to a single individual or any number of individuals who live together as a single housekeeping unit, provided not more than two (2) of the individuals are unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption.” SECTION 2. That Sections 22-100 and 22-101 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, are hereby amended in part as follows: 22-100 Duplex Dwelling Districts “ (1) Uses and Occupancy Standard In the Duplex Dwelling Districts (D-1 and D-2) land shall not hereafter be used… Occupancy of structures in the Duplex Dwelling Districts shall be limited to a single individual or any number of individuals who live together as a single housekeeping unit, provided not more than three (3) of the individuals are unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption.” … 22-101 Multiple-Family Dwelling Districts (1) Uses and Occupancy Standard In the Multiple-Family Dwelling Districts (MF-1 through MF-4) land shall not hereafter be used… Occupancy of structures in the Multiple-Family Dwelling Districts shall be limited to a single individual or any number of individuals who live together as a single housekeeping unit, provided not more than three (3) of the individuals are unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption.” SECTION 3. That Section 40 “General Definitions” of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended by deleting the definition of “Family” contained therein. SECTION 4. All ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. Should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance, or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, 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 declared to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a whole. SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be punished by a fine 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. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the _______ day of _______________________ 2007. APPROVED: ____________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ KATE SMITH, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/08/15/07)(19151) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS MINUTES August 20, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 5:10 P.M. in the City Hall Modular Building, 3800 University Blvd., University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members AttendingStaff Members Attending Robert H. West – Chairman Harry Persaud – Community Dev. Mgr Reed Shawver, III Lorna Balser – Planning Assistant Doug Roach Rob Dillard, City Attorney Randy Biddle Ed Freeman Present and Seated Bea Humann Jerry Jordan Absent Bill Foose Mr. West opened the meeting, welcomed everyone in attendance and then read the specifics of the case. 1.Hold a public hearing and consideration of an ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of University Park, as heretofore amended, by amending Section 40 to delete the definition of family; amending Sections 21-100 (1) to provide for uses and occupancy standard in single family dwelling districts; amending Sections 22-100 and 22-101 (1) to provide for uses and occupancy standard in duplex and multiple-family dwelling districts. Mr. West introduced Mr. Dan Sefko, Sefko Planning Group-Dallas, TX, the consultant hired by the City of University Park to review the definition of family and to make a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission on his findings. Mr. Sefko began his presentation through the use of a PowerPoint presentation in which he gave an overview of the current and proposed standards. His recommendation was stated to continue with the present definition of “no more than two (2) unrelated individuals…” in the SFA and SF-1 through SF-4 districts but to change the MF-1 through MF-3 districts to state that “no more than three (3) unrelated individuals…” Mr. Sefko asked the board for questions. With none noted, Bob West opened the public hearing for discussion. He asked for any residents in favor to approach the podium. George Cramer who owns 3 units on Hursey and Hillcrest stated that he was in favor of the ordinance. With no one else wanting to speak in favor, Bob West asked for anyone in opposition to make themselves known. James Garner who resides at 3120 Milton approached the podium. He stated that there are issues with the existing structures and that there is no good public policy in place to benefit the citizens with this change. By creating higher density with multi-family, he feels like the city would be creating more problems. Frank McEntire who resides at 3439 Westminster approached the podium. He stated that the parking is already severe and with all of the duplex being torn down and replaced with multi- family, there is not enough parking spaces to hold many of the cars. Mary Graves who resides at 6716 Hursey approached the podium and stated that the multi- family areas are already problematic. In school hours, it is hard to get down Hillcrest and it creates traffic in both the multi-family area and the Snider Plaza area. She stated that the streets are too narrow with random parking all over the place. The biggest concern for the neighbors is keeping the streets safe for the kids, pedestrians and the drivers. Mary Graves said that the noise level is up and there has not been any enforcement change. She asked that the P&Z members keep the occupancy rates where they are and to enforce the present ordinance. Mike Haines who resides at 2024 Marquette approached the podium and stated that there are other college towns which restrict the number of occupants and this city wants to increase. He asked that the big question to ask oneself is “why”. He stated that the residents don’t want more traffic and/or people. He feels that it is the “transients” which will be served by this increase. Mr. Haines feels that if passed; the council and P&Z do not stand with the residents. He feels that the definition of family in University Park is too narrow and requested that P&Z oppose the proposed amendment and show the desires of the residents by enforcing the codes which presently exist. Michael Korman who resides at 3100 Milton approached the podium and stated that he had checked the P&Z member’s home addresses to determine their proximity to the Hursey St. multi- family area. He felt like P&Z is not listening to everyone. He stated that he has to walk the dog on the street because there are so many cars. He then asked for Dan Sefko’s qualifications. Dan Sefko approached the podium so as to advise every one of his qualifications and that he was approached by the City of University Park to address this issue for the city. Tom Hoyt who resides at 3113 Milton approached the podium and stated that he was in opposition to the zoning ordinance amendment. He stated that it is important that the City of University Park has created a sub committee for the Snider Plaza area. He asked that the P&Z members ask themselves one question. That question is, “how will increasing the density of cars and people improve the life for the people”. Kitty Holloman who resides at 3039 Marquette approached the podium and stated that the city must keep its little town. She recommends that one way streets around Snider Plaza would help. Ms. Holloman also said that it is distressing that the town cannot be kept the way it should be. Dot Gruber who resides at 2905 approached the podium and stated that she feels that the entire area will be affected by the Bush library. She stated that the traffic is increasing all the time. Bob West advised her that the P&Z members would not be talking about the library and that she could talk about that at a council meeting. Jill Lynn James who resides at 6712 Hursey approached the podium and stated that she has lived at her address for 22 years. She said that where there should be 2 residents per unit, there are 4 per unit and it is never enforced. She said that employees from Snider Plaza wait for parking spaces to open. She challenged P&Z members to drive down Hursey and that they would find that there is not room for anymore cars. Susan Wilson who resides at 3312 Westminster approached the podium and stated that she opposes increasing the population density for the safety of the neighborhood. Due to the lack of enforcement and with additional residents moving into the block, a situation has arisen where no one can park in front of their homes. Ms. Wilson stated that the residents want the city to keep the laws that are on the books and to enforce them. She then asked Dan Sefko when his contract will end and when it is that he should have a recommendation made to the council. Dan Sefko advised her that a set of amendments to the zoning ordinance and a subdivision ordinance will be presented to the council around the beginning of next year. Benny Parish who resides at 3325 Westminster approached the podium and stated that it is really difficult to park now and that it is really bad when 3 residents live together and have 3 boyfriends or girlfriends plus friends over. He said that there is no place for guests to park. He urged the members to please listen to the residents. Lillian Hills who resides at 3328 Westminster approached the podium and stated that she has compiled a list of residents on her block of the number of residing occupants which reside in each unit as well as the number of cars they park there. With no further comments, Bob West closed the public hearing. Ed Freeman motioned to deny the change. Bob West asked if there was a second motion. Doug Roach stated that without rigorous enforcement, everyone seems fearful of automobiles and that he does not understand how traffic could get much worse than now. He stated that P&Z has passed an amendment for a 1 car per bedroom, therefore; “what is the difference between me and my buddy or me and my brother residing there?” Reed Shawver said, “no I don’t think it can get much worse”. He stated that he lives in the affected zone and has been living with it for years. Bob West stated that the issue is hard to enforce. He said that he understands what Reed Shawver and Doug Roach had stated. He also said that he feels that because other cities make certain choices, it doesn’t mean that it applies to University Park. Doug Roach stated that his feelings on this issue are that 3 unrelated are acceptable to live in a unit together but because the residents present had been loud enough, he was moving to the other side. Reed Shawver questioned that if the city wanted to keep the multi-family district size regulation as is, then how can the city hold up their requirement for 1 car per bedroom? He stated that he thinks it feels better to have 3 car spaces. Randy Biddle made the comment that perhaps the city could make do with 1 additional off street parking space required with current zoning. Ed Freeman made the motion to deny the proposed zoning ordinance amendment as stated. Bob West seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the motion to deny was passed with a 3-2 vote. Reed Shawver and Randy Biddle opposed. Mr. West then asked for approval of the minutes from the August 20, 2007 meeting with any comments or changes. With no comments or changes Ed Freeman made a motion to approve the minutes. Randy Biddle seconded the motion and the motion was passed with a 5-0 vote. With there being no further business before the Board, Mr. West adjourned the meeting. _________________________ Robert H. West, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission _________________________ Date AGENDA MEMO (10/23/2007 AGENDA) DATE: October 23, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of an ordinance approving an amendment to Planned Development District PD-24 by approving a conceptual site plan for a tract of land more particularly described as Lots 1, 2, 3A, 11 and 12, Block B, St Andrews Place Addition, and more commonly known as 4015 Normandy, University Park, Texas. Background/Analysis: Architexas, representing the First Unitarian Church of Dallas is requesting an amendment to the existing Planned Development District PD-24 to include an additional residential lot located at 4008 St. Andrews Drive and situated in the Single family SF-2 zoning district. The proposed PD amendment will incorporate lots 1, 2, 3A 11, and 12, Block B, St Andrews Place Addition, City of University Park and provides for 2.25 acres more or less. The existing Church buildings located in PD-24 on the southeast corner of Normandy and Preston Road is approx. 31,134 sq. ft with a maximum building height of 35’. The Church proposes to add approx. 17,552 sq. ft. with a maximum building height of 35’ for the new additions and renovations. Building details to be presented at the public hearing are shown on the conceptual site plan, building elevations, conceptual site mitigation plan and the conceptual site planting plan which are attached. A Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by DeShazo, Tang & Associates on behalf of the First Unitarian Church is also attached. City Council conducted a public hearing and received comments from the Church and neighborhood residents on October 2, 2007. The public hearing was closed and the item was tabled for consideration on October 23, 2007. Council provided directions to the Church and staff regarding changes to the proposed PD conditions. Recommendation Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 - 1 to recommend approval of the PD conceptual site plan recognizing the following items to be resolved before the item is considered by City Council. 1.The sanitation issue: Dumpsters to be relocated to an internal part of the site. 2.Restrictions on rentals to take place within certain hours with no more than 3 consecutive days in a calendar year. 3.Restrictions to the school use. Attachments: 1. P&Z minutes of August 20, 2007 2. Draft PD ordinance with PD conditions 3. Conceptual Site Plan and other supporting documents City Council Report DATE: October 23, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Harry Persaud, Community Development Manager RE: PZ-07-015 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT:Architexas, Representing First Unitarian Church of Dallas LOCATION: 4015 Normandy, PD-24, the same beingLots 1, 2, 3A, 11 and 12, Block B, St. Andrews Place Addition, being an Addition of the City of University Park,Dallas County , Texas. REQUEST: Requesting a zoning change from SF-2 to PD-24 zoning district classification for a tract of land situated East of Preston and North of and abutting St. Andrews Dr., and described as lot 3A, St. Andrews Place Addition ,in the City of University Park; and consideration of a conceptual site plan for the amended PD-24 zoning district. EXISTING ZONING: PD-24 and SF2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: : NorthPD-12 YMCA : South Dallas Country Club : East SF-2 (Residential) : West SF-4, D-2 STAFF COMMENTS: Architexas, representing the First Unitarian Church has submitted an application for a zoning change for lot 3A and consideration of a conceptual site plan for PD-24. First Unitarian Church of Dallas proposes to rezone a portion of land situated north of and abutting St. Andrews Dr. and described as lot 3A, located in the St. Andrews Place Addition currently zoned SF-2. Section 20 “Use Table” of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires a Specific Use Permit for a church in the SF-2 zoning district. The maximum building height in the SF-2 district is 35 feet. The existing church buildings located in PD-24 on the southeast corner of Normandy and Preston Road is approx. 31,134 sq. ft with a maximum building height of 35’. The church proposes to add approx. 17,552 sq. ft. with a maximum building height of 35’ for the new additions and renovations. In addition to a traffic study, the applicants have submitted a conceptual site plan showing the existing and the proposed building sites, building elevations, site planting plan and parking analysis. The parking analysis shows the need for 143 parking spaces for an estimated 427 seats in the Sanctuary. The site plan shows 57 spaces provided on site and 18 additional spaces located in the public Right-of- Way on Normandy Avenue. Overall, the proposed development is short of meeting the parking requirement by 68 parking spaces. However, the Church has current written agreements with the Northern Trust Bank (71 spaces) and Highland Park Village Shopping Center (317 spaces) for use of approx. 442 spaces. Architexas will present the conceptual site plan at the public hearing and respond to questions and comments. A public notice was published in the Park Cities News on August 9, 2007 and September 13, 2007. Property owner notices were mailed to owners within 200 feet of the subject tract. RESPONSES: At the time of this staff report, five responses were received from property owners with in 200 feet with 3 opposed and 2 in favor. ATTACHMENTS: 1. P&Z minutes of August 20, 2007 2. Draft PD ordinance with PD conditions 3. Conceptual Site Plan and other supporting documents PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS MINUTES August 20, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 5:10 P.M. in the City Hall Modular Building, 3800 University Blvd., University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members AttendingStaff Members Attending Robert H. West – Chairman Harry Persaud – Community Dev. Mgr Reed Shawver, III Lorna Balser – Planning Assistant Bea Humann Rob Dillard, City Attorney Jerry Jordan Bill Foose Present and Seated Ed Freeman Randy Biddle Abstained Doug Roach Mr. West opened the meeting, welcomed everyone in attendance and then read the specifics of the case. PZ 07-015 – Architexas, representing First Unitarian Church of Dallas, requesting a zoning change from SF-2 to Planned Development District “PD-24” zoning district classification for a tract of land situated East of Preston and North of and abutting St. Andrews Dr., and described as lot 3A, St. Andrews Place Addition, in the City of University Park; and consideration of an amended conceptual site plan for PD-24 zoning district. The subject tract is zoned Single Family SF-2 and PD-24 and owned by the First Unitarian Church of Dallas. Mr. West then asked for Harry Persaud to review the case. Mr. Persaud stated that the submittal was a Planned Development concept plan for the subject property. He reviewed the zoning for the area, and displayed the 200 ft. buffer area for which letters were mailed . Harry Persaud then introduced James Snell from the First Unitarian Church of Dallas and John Allender from Architexas. James Snell is a University Park resident who resides at 4017 Stanford, and is a past president of the church from 2003-2006. Mr. Snell approached the podium and spoke of the proposed project which began in 2003. He reviewed the churches values and the churches desire to be integrated into the community. At the present time, church members feel that their current space does not meet their needs. They have attempted to construct their design and architecture to be sensitive to the surroundings. James Snell then introduced John Allender with Architexas. Mr. Allender reviewed the plans for more classrooms, offices and a fellowship hall. With their building designs, he stated that protection of the trees is very important while also increasing their on site parking while maintaining a residential feel of the church grounds. Mr. Allender then reviewed the church plans with the help of a PowerPoint presentation. He emphasized the reinforcement of the fire lane with the new fire hydrant that will be placed onsite. He said that the planting plan was being developed with the building plans so as to maintain the trees. The arbor court outlines a vehicle drop off within the colonnade into the campus. Mr. Allender reviewed the green building goals proposed by the church such as using native plant materials which are sustainable in the Texas heat. He assured the committee that there are no building heights which will exceed 35’ in height. Mr. Allender addressed the parking proposed for the subject property. There are 427 proposed seats in the sanctuary with 142 on site parking spaces required. The church has proposed 75 on site parking spaces. With the additional Sunday spaces available at Highland Park Village of 317 and other spaces available in an adjacent bank and retail, there are plenty of parking spaces available around the church to park. Bob West asked for any questions or comments. Bob West asked Mr. Allender if the church will run a school. Mr. Allender responded that the church will not run a school. Janet Tharp, President of the Congregation outlined the number one goal in the church’s plan. This goal is for the church to provide community outreach which would be run by the church board and church staff. They would invite people to speak at their church for education. Jerry Jordan asked if the church would be considered a 503 C1 organization. Ms. Tharp responded that it is not right now but that the church is exploring that possibility. James Snell added that it is an extension of what is already done at the church. Jerry Jordan questioned the classrooms and education. John Allender stated that they can add restrictions on education and use of the facilities to the PD requirements. Bill Foose asked about the drive off of Preston Road. John Allender stated that there is a marker for the front entry of the church, for inclement weather as well as older members of the congregation. Bob West asked Mr. Allender how many cars the front entry of the church would accommodate. John Allender responded that it would accommodate 3-4 cars. Bill Foose asked Mr. Allender about the car circulation out of the front entry of the church. John Allender responded that people would take a right out of the exit. Bob West advised everyone in attendance that the plan currently being considered is a conceptual site plan. First Unitarian Church will come back later with the details. Clyde Jackson who resides at 6001 St. Andrews asked about the dumpster situation. John Allender responded that there will be a gate enclosure which is being reviewed by the city staff. Mr. Jackson expressed a possibility for placing it further back toward Preston Rd. John Allender stated that the design requirements would make it difficult. Bea Humann asked if parking spaces would be lost if the dumpsters were placed toward the parking lot. John Allender stated that they would. Andrew Campbell who resides at 4004 St. Andrews corrected John Allender that trees would be lost if the dumpster location were moved further back. Bea Humann stated that any spillage though would be on their own lot. John Allender agreed. Bob West advised John Allender to re-visit with the Jacob Speer again regarding sanitation. Andrew Campbell stated that there are many things that he does not like about the plans but that it sounds like the church is working out the details. Clyde Jackson noted that the YMCA next door has their trash accommodated and contained within an enclosed area and that the church might consider looking at that. Bob West added that the YMCA’s faces Shenandoah. Mr. West again asked for any further questions or opposition. Dr. James Huth who resides at 4005 Normandy commended the church on their growth but added that the church is land locked. Any increase in size will increase traffic and noise. Although the sanctuary is not changed for now, he questioned what will happen in 10 years, considering what has happened in the past. He recalled a previous week’s function in which many people were picking up kids and provided the members of P&Z with photos he had taken. He felt that the commission should consider more than the one piece of property in their decision. Bob West asked Clyde Jackson to expand on his letter and recommendations to the Planning & Zoning Commission dated August 20, 2007. Clyde Jackson responded that he (1) wants language outlining the uses of the school, (2) would like restrictions placed on the YMCA uses in reference to the church, (3) would like to see the dumpster located where it is proposed. Bob West again asked for any further questions or opposition. John Roach who resides at 4101 San Carlos approached the podium and stated that the church is good neighbors and that parking is generally not a problem. He feels though that the parking has reached its maximum potential though. He feels that to ask neighbors to accept any more is not acceptable and he is against any expansion. Bob West questioned the church about their growth. Janet Tharp responded that while they have grown through the years, it has been really slow. John Allender added that the largest problem for the church has been with their educational classrooms. He stated that they have had to double their age groups for classes and stagger the schedules. They would really like to break up the student according to their age groups. Gil Brown who resides at 4007 Normandy approached the podium and questioned the church’s rental uses. Bill Foose asked about the types of services held at the church. Janet Tharp responded that there are 2 services held on Sunday along with 2 sessions of Sunday School. There are 2-3 groups which meet once during the week. Bill Foose asked if it was on Wednesday nights that groups meet. Ms. Tharp responded that it was not. Some groups meet on Wednesday nights but no services are held. She added that during the summer, they hold “Sun Fun” which is equivalent to Vacation Bible School with approximately 45 kids. Jerry Jordan asked if the pick up of kids loops through the St. Andrews parking lot. Janet Tharp responded that having the bank across the street provides a security issue for the kids. Rob Dillard noted that renting to non affiliated groups presents a question of the facility having a accessory use. Jerry Jordan suggested that the proposed draft show facilities which cannot be rented unless the church can provide parking. Harry Persaud recommended that the PD amendment be worded to say “only affiliated”. Art Anderson, Attorney for the church stated that he would like to work with Rob Dillard on the PD language. Bob West asked Rob Dillard about possibly tabling the item until the next meeting. Rob Dillard stated that tabling was a possibility. John Allender quickly added that the church wanted to move onto the detailed design of the development. Bob West reviewed the items of concern which had been brought before the commission. 1. The sanitation issue: to relocate to an internal part of the site. 2. Restrictions on rentals to take place within certain hours with no more than 3 consecutive days in a calendar year. 3. Restrictions to the school use, with cones being put out, etc. Rob Dillard stated that the city could place all items into motion and still proceed to Council. Bill Foose stated that he still had concern about the parking lot and the pick up of children. Bob West asked Harry Persaud about the Preston Road drive through and the stacking distance required. Harry Persaud stated that he did have concern for the stacking of automobiles. A representative with the traffic consultant approached the podium and stated that there would be minimum impact for Preston Road on Sunday mornings according to their observations and calculations. Gil Brown who resides at 4007 Normandy asked the church representatives about the detailed landscape plan and what trees would be coming down and what would be saved. She asked that there be sensitivity to the neighbors. Bill Foose asked the direction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic through the site. John Allender responded that it will be East to West access. Janet Tharp added again that the church has a great deal of concern for the trees and will continue to do so as the plans are completed. As to the dumpster, she stated that the church would be happy to work with the city and the sanitation department. Bob West closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the P&Z members. Bill Foose made a motion to table until the next meeting so that specific issues would be studied and worked out. Bob West added that the council could then look at it and they would then come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the detailed site plan. Bob West asked for a second. There was none provided. Reed Shawver motioned to approve the conceptual site plan with the restrictions earlier provided by Bob West along with resolutions to the rental of the facility and for the church to work with the neighbors on the screening of the dumpsters. He recommended that a restricted use be outlined in the PD requirements and to move forward to rezone the SF-2 lot as PD-24. Jerry Jordan questioned the two parts to motion. Harry Persaud recommended approval of the rezoning and conceptual plan with restrictions prior to going to council. Bea Humann seconded the motion for approval with the rezoning from SF-2 to PD-24, and amending the concept site plan of PD-24 with the requirements for rental uses, school restriction and sanitation satisfied prior to proceeding to City Council. Harry Persaud recommended that the church submit copies of the parking agreements with surrounding lots to the city. Reed Shawver stated that he did not wish to amend the motion further. Bill Foose stated that he continued to question the on site circulation. John Allender stated that the church can place a chain or sign on the lot when the spaces are full. Reed Shawver stated again that he wanted to leave the motion as previously stated. The motion was passed in favor 4-1 with opposition from Bill Foose. Mr. West then asked for approval of the minutes from the July 16, 2007 meeting with any comments or changes. With no comments or changes other than to change Bill Foose’s comment on page 3 to read that “University Park cannot really accommodate University apartments”. Bill Foose made a motion to approve the minutes with the change. Bea Humann seconded the motion and the motion was passed with a 5-0 vote. With there being no further business before the Board, Mr. West adjourned the meeting. _________________________ Robert H. West, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission _________________________ Date ORDINANCE NO. _________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 24; APPROVING A NEW CONCEPT SITE PLAN FOR THE FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH AT 4015 NORMANDY, UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, TO ADD THE PROPERTY MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3A, BLOCK B, ST. ANDREWS PLACE ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR 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 Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park and the City Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas with reference to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and have held due hearings and afforded 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, and the City Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and finds that a zoning change should be granted and that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map should be amended; Now, Therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of University Park, Texas, as heretofore amended, are hereby amended by amending Planned Development District No. 24 for the First Unitarian Church of Dallas (“Church”), to add the property described as Lot 3A, Block B, St. Andrews Place Addition, an addition to the City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas, and hereafter, PD-24 shall include Lots 1, 2, 3A, 11, and 12, all of which is more commonly known as 4015 Normandy, University Park, Texas. SECTION 2. That the new concept site plan setting forth the land uses proposed for the amended PD-24 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof for all GW26987 TM20555 purposes, the same as if fully copied herein. That such site plan contains the data required by Section 17-101(1) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and is hereby approved in all respects. SECTION 3. That the granting of the amended Planned Development District No. 24 is subject to the following special conditions: A. Development of the property shall be in accordance with the detailed site plan to be submitted and approved in accordance with Section 17-101(2) and all other provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, as amended hereby, and, unless otherwise defined herein, all terms used shall have the respective definitions assigned to them in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; B. The Church will limit use of the office space to Church offices only; C. The buildings and property may be used as set out below and are subject to the conditions listed as follows (maximum square footages): 1. Sanctuary of 4,475 square feet for worship services, congregational gatherings, and other church-related events; 2. Chapel of 868 square feet for worship, receptions, congregational gatherings, and other church-related events; 3. Offices of 5,572 square feet for offices and classrooms; 4. Fellowship Hall of 5,594 square feet for fellowship, receptions, congregational gatherings, and other church-related events; 5. Library use of 1,198 square feet; 6. Education use of 17,373 square feet for Sunday School classrooms and offices, provided that no public or private school shall be permitted. 7. The Parking spaces on the north side of the Church on Normandy shall remain striped for angle parking. GW26987 TM20555 8. The parking lot on the southeast corner of the site may not be used for gatherings of people, nor shall any tent or canopy be erected thereon for any purpose; the Church will install gates to this parking lot at the St. Andrews entry, to be approved by the City Fire Department. 9. Dumpsters: The Church will be responsible for opening the gates to the dumpster site on St. Andrews Drive on pick up days and closing the gates after the dumpsters have been emptied; if the gates are not open when the sanitation truck arrives, the dumpsters will not be emptied except by request for special service at another time, which will require an additional charge; 10. Any activities held on the Campus as defined by the boundaries of this Planned Development District will be those of the First Unitarian Church only. 11. Proposed maximum building heights. The Existing Sanctuary shall remain at 35’-0” to the top of parapet; the Existing Chapel shall remain at 17’-3” to the top of the ridge; the Renovated Office Building shall remain at 29’-0” to the top of ridge; the Renovated Choir Room shall have a maximum height of 28’-0” at the top of parapet. The Proposed Office and Sunday School Building shall have a maximum height of 35’-0” to the top of parapet; the Proposed Fellowship Hall shall have a maximum height of 29’-0” to the top of parapet. 12. Yard, lot and space regulations. Maximum yard, lot, space and height regulations are shown on the attached Conceptual Site Plan. 13. Landscaping. All existing trees shown on the Conceptual Site Mitigation Plan shall be maintained as far as possible. Development of the landscaping must be in substantial conformance with the attached Concept Site Planting Plan. A Detailed Site Planting Plan must be approved prior to development. The Detailed Site Planting Plan must be in substantial conformance with the attached Conceptual Site Planting Plan. 14. Screening. A minimum 8' screening wall will be constructed adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property at the location shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. A tubular steel fence will also be constructed on the eastern boundary at the location shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. Additional bushes, shrubs and other vegetation shown on the Concept Site Planting Plan will be located adjacent to the tubular fence. All screening structures will be maintained by the Church. Plant material integral to the screen along the tubular fence will be maintained by the Church. 15. St. Andrews Gate. The Church will, with the prior approval of the City Council or its designee, either (i) relocate the existing gate on St. Andrews Drive to the location shown on the Concept Plan, or (ii) remove the existing gate and install a new gate with similar appearance and materials at the location shown on the Concept Plan, provided that the Gate will not, during construction of the GW26987 TM20555 improvements or at any other time, be removed for more than 24 hours at any one time unless the Church secures permission from the Director of Public Works and provides and erects temporary traffic barricades to prevent traffic from entering St. Andrews from the West. 16. Site Lighting. Lighting standards for the new parking lot on the eastern portion of the Property shall not exceed 8' in height (except for tree-mounted illumination). Lighting fixtures shall be equipped with a cut-off luminaire so that lighting is contained on the subject site. 17. Preston Road Façade. The materials of the new construction facing Preston Road may include stone, cast stone, masonry, stucco, concrete, wood, metal or glass. The second and third floors of the new construction facing Preston Road shall be designed and constructed to prevent views into the residential properties west of Preston Road. The detail design to be shown and approved with the Detailed Site Plan may include the use of frosted glass, shade structure, or clerestory windows. ò 18The roof top of the Sunday School building on St. Andrews will not be used for any social activity of the Church. ò 19Except for a distance of approx. twenty seven (27) feet as shown on the conceptual site plan, the eight feet masonry wall along the east property line shall be setback four feet from the property line. 20. Construction Standards. No parking of construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted on City streets, except for streets that are closed for construction. All parking shall be in the space provided on the site or in the employee parking lot. If additional parking is required, the contractor shall provide off premises parking and shuttle workers to the site. 21. In order to minimize disruptions caused by construction, the Church will be limited in time for completion of the work allowed by this ordinance. All phases of construction will be completed no later than 48 months from issuance of the initial building permit. 22. Primary entry to the construction site for all activities and delivery of materials shall be from Preston Road and St. Andrews Drive, provided that construction traffic, including equipment, materials, personnel, deliveries, etc. not be routed to the site by Normandy-St. Andrews through the adjacent residential area to the east, and that any such traffic on St. Andrews come off of Preston Road and not go east of the St. Andrews Gate. 23. No parking of construction vehicles or contractors' employees' vehicles shall be allowed on City streets. 24. No explosives shall be used in the construction activities. GW26987 TM20555 25. The Church shall provide a full-time liaison during the construction to respond to questions and complaints from citizens on a 24/7 basis. A phone number for this contact will be provided to all adjacent property owners and posted at the Church and job site where it can be found by interested parties. 26. Background checks will be performed by the contractor for all construction workers prior to their working on the site. The information will be provided to the Church and a file of all background checks will be kept by the Church. A convicted felon or pedophile will be barred from working on the project. 27. Badges with photo ID's will be worn by construction workers at all times. SECTION 4. That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. 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 decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and the same shall not affect the validity of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a whole. SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms of this ordinance or of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, shall be subject to the same penalty as provided for in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, 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 a violation is continued shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 7. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. GW26987 TM20555 DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 23rd day of October 2007. APPROVED: ____________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ KATE SMITH, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/8-21-07;20555) GW26987 TM20555 AGENDA MEMO (10/23/2007 AGENDA) DATE: October 23, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consideration of an ordinance approving an amended detailed site plan for PD-32 being a tract of land approx. 6.236 acres located at 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard. Background/Analysis: Larry Boerder, representing property owner Gerald Ford of 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard, is requesting consideration of an amended detailed site plan for PD-32 the same being a tract of land approx. 6.236 acres and described as 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard. A land use statement submitted by the applicant (attached) proposes to build a detached garage/guardhouse with a motor court structure on the northern side of the subject tract. The proposed garage/guardhouse has been relocated from the original approved site plan dated April 2006. In addition, the applicant seeks to build a pool pavilion on the eastern end of the pool deck and the eastern side of the subject tract. The location and construction details for the garage/guardhouse structure is subject to engineering review and approval in accordance with Section 3:400 “Flood Damage Prevention Regulations” of the Code of Ordinances before the issue of a building permit. Recommendation: Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and considered this item at its regular meeting on October 16, 2007 and voted unanimously to recommend approval subject to the following stipulations. 1. The property owner must submit a detailed landscape plan for the areas to the northwest and northeast of the Motor Court. 2. That the outside lighting for the Motor Court area shall be limited to fixtures inset in the 3’ landscape planter boxes around the Motor Court and shall be pointed inward and downward. Attachments: 1. P &Z minutes for October 16, 2007 2. Draft Ordinance with detailed site plan and landscape plans 3. Application and land use statement. 4. Responses from property owners City Council Staff Report DATE: October 23, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Harry Persaud, Community Development Manager RE: PZ -07-017 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Larry Boerder,representing property owner Gerald Ford of 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard. LOCATION: Site is located at 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard. REQUEST: To amend the detailed site plan for Planned Development District PD-32 to (1) provide for a detached garage/guardhouse with a Motorcourt which will span over Turtle Creek on the northern edge of the property and (2) to add a pool pavilion in the backyard. EXISTING ZONING: PD-32 SURROUNDING LAND USE: Single Family SF-1 STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting to amend the detailed site plan for Planned Development District PD-32 located at 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard. A land use statement submitted by the applicant (attached) proposes to build a detached garage/guardhouse structure on the northern side of the subject tract. The motorcourt structure will span over Turtle Creek, will be supported by concrete piers. This site for the Motorcourt has been relocated from the original approved site plan dated April 2006. In addition, the applicant seeks to build a pool pavilion on the eastern end of the pool deck and the eastern side of the subject tract. The location and construction details for the garage/guardhouse structure is subject to engineering review and approval in accordance with Section 3:400 “Flood Damage Prevention Regulations” of the Code of Ordinances before the issue of a building permit. A notice was published in the Park Cities News on September 27, 2007 and notices were mailed to property owners with in 200 feet of the subject tract. Staff will provide an update at the meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Site plan and elevation drawings for the proposed development of a detached garage/guardhouse structure and a pool pavilion at 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard. RESPONSES: At the time of this staff report, three responses have been received from property owners with in 200 feet of the subject tract, two in favor and one opposed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planned Development Site Plan application 2. Supporting Documents 3. Copy of current PD-32 Conditions PD-32 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of University Park, Texas, are hereby amended so as to grant Planned Development District No. 32 for the property described as Lot 7, Block 7, University Park Estates Addition to the City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas, being a 6.236 acre tract commonly known as 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard. The detailed site plan for PD No. 32, consisting of eight (8) sheets, attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “A”, is hereby approved as the detailed site plan for said Planned Development District 32, as required by Section 17-101(2) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the detailed site plan. The granting of this Planned Development District No. 23 [sic.] is subject to the following special conditions: a. Improvements in this Planned Development District will be constructed in accordance with the detailed site plan attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, including the architectural elevations, site plan, landscape plan, and height elevations included therein; b. There shall be a maximum building height of 40 feet; c. There shall be a maximum top plate line height of 30 feet; d. There shall be a secondary roof pitch of no less than 1 in 12; and, e. There shall be a minimum front yard setback of 130 feet. (Ordinance No. 06/16 of June 20, 2006) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS MINUTES October 16, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 5:15 P.M. in the City Hall Modular Building, 3800 University Blvd., University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members AttendingStaff Members Attending Robert H. West – Chairman Lorna Balser – Planning Assistant Reed Shawver, III Jennifer Deaver – Administrative Secretary Doug Roach Rob Dillard – City Attorney Randy Biddle Bill Foose Present and Seated Bea Humann Jerry Jordan Ed Freeman Mr. West opened the meeting, welcomed everyone in attendance and then read the specifics of the case. PZ 07-016: Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Analytical Surveys, Inc., representing the property owner 3616 Binkley, LLC. ,and requesting a replat of Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block D, Mt. Vernon Annex Addition, being an Addition of the City of University Park, more commonly known as 3616 and 3620 Binkley Avenue. The replat will subdivide the lots into four single family attached lots located in Planned Development District PD-6 zoning district classification. A variance is not required for the approval of this replat. Mr. West inquired if there were any parties that wish to speak in favor of the replat; none came forward. He then inquired if there were any opposing parties. A neighboring resident stated that she opposed and wanted to speak. Mr. West then reminded her that if the replat meets all of the legal requirements then it would be approved. The resident then inquired if there would be any change in density and Mr. West stated there was not. The resident then refrained from her opposing position. Mr. West inquired if the replat had in fact met all city requirements and Ms. Balser stated yes. Randy Biddle made the motion to approve the replat. Reed Shawver seconded the motion which carried, 5-0. Mr. West read the specifics of the next case. PZ 07-017: Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Larry E. Boerder, Architect, representing property owner Gerald Ford, to amend the detailed site plan for Planned Development District PD-32 to (1) provide for a detached garage/guardhouse with a Motor court which will span over Turtle Creek on the northern edge of the property and (2) to add a pool pavilion in the backyard. The subject tract is located in the University Park Estates Addition and situated at 6601 Turtle Creek Blvd., City of University Park. Mr. West inquired if Ms. Balser would briefly clarify the details of this case. Ms. Balser explained this was approved as a PD in June of 2006 and what was required for that approval. She then gave a power point presentation illustrating first the 200 foot buffer, the mailing list for legal notification according to that buffer map, and showed the detailed site plan including location of the motor court and height of the garage. She then invited Mr. Boerder to elucidate the details and drawings in the presentation. Mr. Larry E. Boerder, resident of 3505 Greenbrier and architect representing property owner Gerald Ford, came forward. He stated that the property was changed from a SF-1 to a PD in June of 2006 and the property owner is now requesting an amendment to the original PD. He stated that a landscaping plan has not yet been completed and that Lamberts Landscaping would be working on that. The Corp of Engineers has however required some bank improvements and is underway. He then showed the locations of the motor court, garage, and pool pavilion. Mr. West inquired if there were living quarters within the garage structure and Mr. Boerder stated yes. Mr. West inquired what would be gained by moving the garage structure over the creek instead of where the original PD allows. Mr. Boerder stated that he hopes for a better visibility. Mr. West then asked how many vehicles would fit on the motor court and if there were plans to screen Mr. Bass’ property, north of the site. Mr. Boerder stated there can be screening and he then spoke of the extensive cost involved in erosion control. Mr. Biddle inquired if there were also plans screen the Finney’s property, located at 6700 Hunters Glen, northwest of the site. Mr. Boerder stated that there were discussions of adding an 8 foot fence, 3 feet above grade, along that side of the property but could not go any higher due to city ordinance. Mr. Dick Bass, owner / resident of 6905 Vassar, came forward. He inquired if the proposed plan would have any effect on the flow of Turtle Creek possibly causing a problem with rising water. Mr. Boerder stated that the plan would actually improve the low of the creek. Bill Foose inquired if the structure would face away from the property line and Mr. Boerder stated yes. Mr. Dillard suggested that it may be a good idea to wait until the landscaping plan is completed and then take to council on October 23, 2007. Mr. West then inquired if there were any more opposing parties that would like to speak. Mr. Van Oliver, representing the property owners at 6700 Hunters Glen, came forward. He expressed concerns of the lighting on the motor court and noise and then stated that the Finney’s would have appreciated being notified of these issues prior and that they would oppose the proposed plan until further discussion could take place. Mr. Boerder stated that there would be no large lights and that there will be a great deal of density to the north side of the property. He added that if the proposed plan was not approved then the garage would be placed where it was approved in the original PD. Mr. Dillard inquired what kind of fencing there would be on that north side and Mr. Boerder stated that it would be constructed of wrought iron and would be picket stylewith a great deal of natural vegetation as well as replacing some of the existing landscaping. He added that it would be very well covered. Mr. Bass again raised questions concerning the lighting but Mr. Boerder reassured him that the lighting would be directed down and inward. Mr. West inquires if there were any more opposing parties that wish to speak. None came forward and he closed the public hearing. Mr. Roach stated that having discussions with the Finney’s was a fair request of Mr. Oliver. Mr. Foose made a motion to approve the request with the stipulation that a detailed landscape plan for the areas to the northwest and northeast of the Motor Court is submitted and that that the outside lighting for the Motor Court area shall be limited to fixtures inset in the 3’ landscape planter boxes around the Motor Court and shall be pointed inward and downward. Mr. Shawver seconded the motion which carried, 5-0. Mr. West then asked for approval of the minutes from the September 17, 2007 meeting with any comments or changes. With no comments or changes Doug Roach made a motion to approve the minutes. With a second from Randy Biddle the motion carried 5-0. With there being no further business before the Board, Mr. West adjourned the meeting. _________________________ Robert H. West, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission _________________________ Date ORDINANCE NO. ___________________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 06/16 GRANTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 32 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, BLOCK 7, UNIVERSITY PARK ESTATES ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A 6.236 ACRE TRACT COMMONLY KNOWN AS 6601 TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD; APPROVING AN AMENDED DETAILED SITE PLAN; PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR 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 Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park and the City Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas with reference to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and have held due hearings and afforded 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, and the City Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and finds that said zoning change should be NOW, granted and that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map should be amended; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 06/16 granting Planned Development District No. 32 for the property described as Lot 7, Block 7, University Park Estates Addition to the City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas, being a 6.236 acre tract commonly known as 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard is hereby amended in part by approving an amended detailed site plan, subject to additional special conditions. SECTION 2 . That the amended detailed site plan for PD No. 32, attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “A”, is hereby approved as the detailed site plan for said Planned Development District 32, as required by Section 17-101 (2) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the amended detailed site plan. SECTION 3 . That the amendment of this Planned Development District No. 32 is subject to the following special conditions: a. Improvements in this Planned Development District will be constructed in accordance with the amended detailed site plan attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, including the architectural elevations, site plan, landscape plan, and height elevations included therein; b. A detailed landscape plan for the areas to the northwest and northeast of the Motor Court is attached as Exhibit “B”; c. That the outside lighting for the Motor Court area shall be limited to fixtures inset in the 3’ landscape planter boxes around the Motor Court and shall be pointed inward and downward; and, d. That except as amended hereby, the special conditions of Ordinance No. 06/16 shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4 . That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. 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 declared to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map as a whole. SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, 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 any such violation shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 7. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 23rd day of October 2007. APPROVED: ____________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY KATE SMITH, CITY SECRETARY (RLD/10/17/07) AGENDA MEMO (10-23-07 AGENDA) DATE: October 16, 2007 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider a request to change the name of the 32-3300 block of Northwest Parkway to Northwestern Street. Background. Staff recently received a near unanimous request from the abutting property owners to change the name of Northwest Parkway, between Airline and Hillcrest, to NORTHWESTERN STREET. If Council is amenable to the request, the City Attorney will develop the enabling ordinance for consideration at their first meeting in November. A neighborhood representative will attend the meeting to discuss the issue. Consideration. Staff would solicit Council direction on this issue. AGENDA MEMO (10/23/07) AGENDA) DATE: October 17, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Livingston, City Manager SUBJECT: Revision of City Hall Plans to Deal with Structural Issues Uncovered During the Asbestos Abatement/Demolition Process Request History Structural issues were uncovered during the course of the asbestos abatement on the existing portion of City Hall. Because of this, if the floor plans as originally drawn were constructed, a number of significant structural alterations would be needed. The most expensive of these was the recommendation to totally remove the floor of the Council Chamber. Our construction manager, Gallagher Construction, expressed concern as to the cost of this and other changes. There would be significant costs for removing and reinstalling wood molding and the exterior walls of the building would need to be shored during the floor replacement from both the outside and inside. As a result of this dilemma, staff began working with Gallagher to develop alternatives. We believe the suggested modifications are actually improvements to the original design. The floor plan for the majority of the building has not changed. We are recommending modifications in several key areas: First Floor The first floor conference room is reduced in size to that of the conference room in the old building. Additional space is proposed for the dispatch computer room and dispatch console area. We did this because, after completing the backup dispatch facility at the Peek Center, we realized the 3 console dispatch center at City Hall would need more room. The proposed lobby/entrance remains the same. The executive office area is rearranged, but total space is approximately the same. A Council office and executive restroom have been added in the Administrative suite. Second Floor Space in the second floor lobby was assimilated into the counter areas for Utility Billing and Municipal Court. These areas were small in the original design, but we could not see a way enlarge them at that time. The size of the large second floor conference room is increased by eliminating a hallway. The west wall between the Council Chamber and the conference room was modified to allow access to the immediately adjacent conference room. This will increase the overall capacity of the Council Chamber by almost twofold. It will eliminate the need to move large meetings from the building in the future. The floor in the large conference room was removed and lowered to the same level as the Council Chamber so when the doors are opened between the two spaces, the rooms will be on the same level. Gallagher assures us that the cost of this modification is relatively minor compared to the other alternative. A set of drawings is attached. The red is as originally designed. The green is the proposed modifications to the plans. Financial Impacts As part of the process we asked the project architect, Leo A Daly (LAD), to provide costs for revising the plans. They have requested additional fees for both scenarios, i.e. building the original concept and the redesign of the new concept. We also asked Gallagher to prepare a best estimate as to construction costs of the two alternatives. The costs are consolidated on the attached spreadsheets. They indicate that the combined architectural and building costs of the original building design (shown as Scenario 1 – Current Design on the spreadsheet) totals $757,299 to $786,199. The estimated cost of the alternative (shown as Scenario 2 – Modified Design on the spreadsheet) is $350,625. The estimated cost to build the original plan completely eliminates any remaining contingency and will probably put the final cost of the building over $13 million. The alternative will leave us with approximately $400,000 in contingency funds with the hope of completing the building for under $13 million. Oversight Committee Recommendation On October 2, 2007 we reviewed the alternatives with the City Hall Oversight Committee. After considerable discussion, the Committee voted 3 to 1 for the staff recommended alternative. Members Walsh, Harrison, and Lane voted in favor and member Peek against. Recommendation and Next Steps For the reasons outlined above, staff recommends the revised plans. This will increase LAD’s architectural fees by $157,500. If Council gives the authority to proceed, LAD indicates it will be approximately the first of the year before revised plans can be issued. New bids will be required on some of the job packages which will most likely delay start of construction until March of 2008. Estimated completion of the entire complex will be the end of 2008. If you have questions, please let me know. Attachments Spreadsheets of both alternatives Proposed architectural plan modifications Additional Service Request Letter from Leo A. Daly AGENDA MEMO (10/23/07 AGENDA) DATE: October 18, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Robbie Corder, Assistant to the Director of Public Works SUBJECT: PUC Order for University Park Ordinance No. 06/35 regarding 138kV Transmission Line ITEM: th During its October 17 open meeting the Public Utility Commission approved an order determining University Park Ordinance No. 06/35 invalid. To start the appeal process, the City must first file a rehearing motion (jurisdictional prerequisite) with the PUC within 20 days from the issuance of the order. Once the case has been reheard by the PUC, the City can then appeal to the Travis County District Court. Pursuant to previous discussions, staff requests Council approval to file a motion for a rehearing with the PUC regarding Ordinance No. 06/35 RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Council direction to begin the appeal process of the PUC decision. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 06/35 Draft Order AGENDA MEMO (10/23/07 AGENDA) DATE: October 5, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Gary W. Adams, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Addition of Two Crossing Guards at Hyer Elementary ITEM: The police department received a request form concerned parents to provide a school crossing guard at the intersection of Colgate and Tulane shortly after school started this year. After watching the activity at that intersection, the police department requested a traffic study be conducted by C & P Engineering to determine the need for a crossing guard. Upon the completion of the study, C & P Engineering made the recommendation to add a crossing guard at the intersection of Colgate and Tulane, as well as at the intersection of Caruth and Tulane. Other recommendations were made concerning the location of cross walks and those were forwarded to Public Works. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that two additional crossing guards are hired for the intersections of Tulane and Colgate and Tulane and Caruth. This recommendation is made based on the findings of the traffic study and to provide safer crossing for those students walking to school and crossing at those intersections. ATTACHMENTS: P & C Engineering Firm’s traffic study with findings and recommendations. AGENDA MEMO (10/23/2007 AGENDA) DATE: October 23, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager SUBJECT: Consider appointing three additional members to Builders Committee to work with the Consultant in reviewing development issues in the Single and Multi Family Districts. Background/Analysis: On April 3, 2007, City Council approved the Scope of Services for Dan Sefko and Associates to review and make recommendations for updating the current building and development standards in the Single Family and Multi Family Zoning Districts. As part of that review process, staff is proposing to incorporate the participation and input from a Builders Steering Committee. In addition to this Committee, the consultant will also work with the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) and the Planning and Zoning Commission before final recommendations are forwarded to City Council. On August 28, 2007 City Council appointed the following builders to the Committee. : Single Family Construction (1) Gage Pritchard (2) George Lewis (3) Rusty Golf Multi Family Construction (1) Richard Means (2) Don Gale (3) Matt Franklin Recommendation: Staff is now recommending the appointment of the following residents to the Committee. (1)Margaret DiFrancesco (2)Neil Harris (3)James Cali AGENDA MEMO (10/23/2007 AGENDA) DATE: October 17, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks SUBJECT: Pilot Program - Holiday Tree Lighting at Snider Plaza BACKGROUND: Staff has recently been approached by business and property owners regarding the possibility of supporting a Holiday Tree Lighting Event at Snider Plaza. The request involves the Parks Department continuing the installation of the Holiday Tree, seasonal banners and decorative garland on light posts. The business owners would install white lighting which would highlight the buildings on each corner of the fountain intersection. The lighting of additional buildings will expand as the program develops in future years. The programming aspects of the event would include holiday music, hot drinks and entertainment, culminating in the lighting of the Holiday tree simultaneously with other decorative lights. Exact details will be addressed in future meetings with staff and members of the Snider Plaza business and property owners. The tree lighting event is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, November 27, 2007 from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting City Council’s approval to support Snider Plaza representatives on the tree lighting event for 2007. ATTACHMENTS: Map of Snider Plaza