HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.07.19 City Council AgendaCITYOFUNIVERSITYPARK
REGULARCITYCOUNCILMEETING
LOCATION:CITYHALLCOUNCILCHAMBER
AGENDA#2817
JULY19,2011
CALLTOORDER:5:00P.M.
2:00-3:00P.M.EXECUTIVESESSION:UnderTexasGovernmentCode551.071theCouncilwill
conveneintoClosedExecutiveSessiontoreceivedconfidentiallegaladvicefromthe
CityAttorneyregardingpotentialelectionchangesduetoSB100andpotential
litigationregardingsewerbackup.Noactionwillbetaken.ExecutiveConference
Room,CityHall.
3:00-4:00P.M.DISCUSS:StaffwillpresentinformationtotheCouncilregardingpotentialprojects
forimprovementstovariouslocationsincludingCentralExpresswayoverpasses,
SniderPlazaandMiracleMileshoppingareas,McFarlinBlvd.,severalmedianareas,
thePeekServiceCenter,andtheCurtis Parkfootbridge.ExecutiveConference
Room,FirstFloor,CityHall.
4:00-5:00P.M.WORKSESSIONFORAGENDAREVIEW:ExecutiveConferenceRoom,First
Floor,CityHall.
TOSPEAKONANAGENDAITEM
AnyonewishingtoaddresstheCouncilonanyitemmustfilloutagreen“RequesttoSpeak”formand
returnittotheCitySecretary.WhencalledforwardbytheMayor,beforebeginningtheirremarks,speakers
areaskedtogotothepodiumandstatetheirnameandaddressfortherecord.
I.CALLTOORDER
A.INVOCATION:MayorW.RichardDavis
B.PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE:MayorW.RichardDavis/BoyScouts
C.INTRODUCTIONOFCOUNCIL:MayorW.RichardDavis
D.INTRODUCTIONOFSTAFF:CityManagerBobLivingston
II.AWARDSANDRECOGNITION
A.PROCLAMATION:inappreciationofcaststonemarkersdonatedbyRussandMelissa
Rieman - Howell Pg 3
III.CONSENTAGENDA
A.CONSIDERANDACT:onaresolutionapprovinganInterlocalAgreementfor
CooperativePurchasingwiththeCityofMcKinney - Green Pg 5
B.CONSIDERANDACT:onaresolutionapprovinganInterlocalAgreementwithTIPS
PurchasingCooperative - Green Pg 10
C.REPORT:receive3rdQuarter(06/30/2011)FY2011fundreport - Austin Pg 18
D.CONSIDERANDACT:onrenewalofacooperativeagreementwithDallasCounty
fortheCDBG/HOMEProgram - Spector Pg 32
Page 1 of 195
E.CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceregulatingconnectionstothesanitaryand
stormsewersystems - Speer Pg 38
F.CONSIDERANDACT:onaproposalfromDFWCommunicationsfortheinstallation
ofamonopoleatthePeekServiceCenter - Smallwood Pg 43
G.CONSIDERANDACT:toreviewbidsandawardacontractforin-placerecyclingof
asphaltpavementatvariouslocations - Smallwood Pg 65
H.CONSIDERANDACT:onarequesttoabandoncertainstreetrights-of-way - Smallwood Pg 70
I.CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceabandoningcertainpropertyadjacenttothe
McFarlinAvenueright-of-waytoSMU - Smallwood Pg 73
J.CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofminutesoftheJune21,2011CityCouncil
Meeting - Spector Pg 78
IV.MAINAGENDA
A.PUBLICHEARING:onarequestbyLegacyHillcrestInvestmentsforachangeof
zoningfromParking“P”andOffice“O-2”zoningdistrictclassificationtoPlanned
DevelopmentDistrict“PD-37”andconsiderationofaConceptualSitePlanforamixed-
usedevelopmenttoinclude,butnotlimitedto,Hotel,oneSingle-Familyunit,Offices,
RetailandParkingbelowgrade. - Persaud Pg 85
B.CONSIDERANDACT:on5-YearCapitalProjectsrecommendationsandresident
requestsandprovidedirectiontostaff - Bradley/Smallwood Pg 191
C.DISCUSS:fenceheightsinrearyards - Corder Pg 194
V.PUBLICCOMMENTS
AnyonewishingtoaddressanitemnotontheAgendashoulddosoatthistime.Pleasebe
advisedthatundertheTexasOpenMeetingsAct,theCouncilcannotdiscussoractatthis
meetingonamatterthatisnotlistedontheAgenda.However,inresponsetoaninquiry,a
Councilmembermayrespond withastatementofspecificfactualinformationora
recitationofexistingpolicy.ItistheCouncil’spolicytorequestthatcitizensnotaddress
itemsthatarecurrentlyscheduledforafutureagendaorpublichearing.Instead,theCouncil
requeststhatcitizensattendthatspecificmeetingtoexpresstheiropinions,orcommentto
theCouncilbye-mailatCity-Council@uptexas.orgorletteraddressedtotheMayorand
Councilat3800UniversityBlvd.,UniversityPark,Texas75205.Otherquestionsorprivate
commentsfortheCityCouncilorStaffshouldbedirectedtothatindividualimmediately
followingthemeeting.
AsauthorizedbySection551.071(2)oftheTexasGovernmentCode,thismeetingmaybeconvened
intoClosedExecutiveSessionforthepurposeofseekingconfidentiallegaladvicefromtheCity
AttorneyonanyAgendaitemslistedherein.
Page 2 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:RandyHowell,FireChief
SUBJECT:PROCLAMATION:inappreciationofcaststonemarkersdonatedbyRussand
MelissaRieman
BACKGROUND:
RussReimanandhiswifeMelissaprovidetheirtimeandtalentstoassistavarietyoflocal
organizationsincludingschools,churches,thelibraryandtheCity.Mr.Reiman'scompany,
RenaissanceCastStone,recentlydonatedacaststonemarkertodesignatethenewFireTraining
Center.ThecompanyhasalsodonatedseveralUniversityParkboundarymarkersthatassist
motorists.ThisproclamationistoextendtheCity'sappreciationfortheseacts.
ATTACHMENTS:
ReimanProclamation
Page 3 of 195
In Appreciation of In Appreciation of In Appreciation of In Appreciation of
Russ Russ Russ Russ & Melissa & Melissa & Melissa & Melissa RiemanRiemanRiemanRieman
July 19July 19July 19July 19, 201, 201, 201, 2011111
WHEREAS, The Rieman family moved to University Park in 2003; and
WHEREAS, Russ and his wife Melissa provide their time and talents to
assist a variety of local organizations including: Bradfield Elementary
School, Highland Park United Methodist Church, University Park Public
Library, and Children’s Medical Center; and
WHEREAS, Russ’s company, Renaissance Cast Stone, provides custom
and stock stone projects for commercial and residential use; and
WHEREAS, the company recently donated a cast stone sign valued at
$1,000 to mark the fire department’s new training tower, and the firm has
also donated several University Park boundary markers that assist
motorists;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mayor W. Richard Davis of the City of
University Park, do hereby extend, on behalf of the community, our
appreciation for these generous acts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
seal of the City of University Park to be affixed this 19th day of July 2011.
________________________
W. Richard Davis
Mayor
Page 4 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:ChristineGreen,PurchasingAgent
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onaresolutionapprovinganInterlocalAgreementfor
CooperativePurchasingwiththeCityofMcKinney
BACKGROUND:
TheattachedresolutionwillapproveaninterlocalagreementwiththeCityofMcKinneyforthe
purposeofcooperativepurchasing.
TheCityofMcKinneyrecentlyapprovedacontractforWorkritefirefighteruniformswithAdVision,
andtheUniversityParkFireDepartmentwouldliketobuytheiruniformsthroughthiscontract.This
interlocalagreementalsofacilitatesothercooperativepurchasingbetweenourtwocities.
ThistypeofcooperativepurchasingisallowedthroughtheInterlocalCooperationAct(Texas
GovernmentCode,Chapter791).TheCityparticipatesinsimilararrangementswithanumberof
otherpurchasingcooperativesandindividualmunicipalities.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsapprovaloftheattachedresolutiontoexecuteanInterlocalAgreementwiththe
CityofMcKinneyforcooperativepurchasing.
ATTACHMENTS:
ResolutionandInterlocalAgreement
Page 5 of 195
1
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,
TEXAS, APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT FOR A PURCHASING COOPERATIVE BETWEEN THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS AND THE CITY OF MC KINNEY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PURCHASING GOODS AND SERVICES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code (“Interlocal Cooperation Act”) ,
authorizes local government entities to enter into interlocal contracts for governmental purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Government Code 791.006 specifically authorizes interlocal
agreements for the purchase of goods and services; and
WHEREAS, upon full review and consideration of the attached Interlocal Agreement, the
City Council is of the opinion and finds that the terms and conditions of said Agreement should be
approved, and that the Mayor is authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of
University Park, Texas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mc Kinney to participate in a
purchasing cooperative, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference,
having been reviewed by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, and found to be
acceptable and in the best interest of the City and its citizens, is hereby in all things approved,
and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of
University Park, Texas.
SECTION 2. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute any other
documents or take any other administrative steps necessary to give effect to this Resolution.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, and
it is accordingly so resolved.
DULY RESOLVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of University Park,
Texas, this the 19th day of July 2011.
APPROVED:
Page 6 of 195
2
______________________________________
W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
(rld/6-30-11/50042)
EXHIBIT A
Page 7 of 195
3
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This agreement made and entered into this day of 2011, by and
between the City of University Park (hereinafter called "UNIVERSITY PARK") and the CITY OF
MCKINNEY, TEXAS (hereinafter called "MCKINNEY"), each acting by and through its duly
authorized officials:
WHEREAS, UNIVERSITY PARK and MCKINNEY are both governmental entities engaged in
the purchase of goods and services, which is a recognized governmental function;
WHEREAS, UNIVERSITY PARK and MCKINNEY wish to enter into an Interlocal Agreement
pursuant to Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code (hereinafter "Interlocal Cooperation
Act") to set forth the terms and conditions upon which UNIVERSITY PARK and MCKINNEY
may purchase various goods and services commonly utilized by each entity;
WHEREAS, participation in an interlocal agreement will be highly beneficial to the taxpayers of
UNIVERSITY PARK and MCKINNEY through the anticipated savings to be realized and is of
mutual concern to the contracting parties;
WHEREAS, UNIVERSITY PARK and MCKINNEY have current funds available to satisfy any
fees owed pursuant to this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises, covenants and
obligations as set forth herein; UNIVERSITY PARK and MCKINNEY agree as follows:
1. UNIVERSITY PARK and MCKINNEY may cooperate in the purchase of various goods
and services commonly utilized by the participants, where available and applicable, and may
purchase goods and services from vendors under present and future contracts;
2. UNIVERSITY PARK and MCKINNEY shall each be individually responsible for
payments directly to the vendor and for the vendor's compliance with all conditions of delivery
and quality of purchased items under such contracts. UNIVERSITY PARK and MCKINNEY shall
each make their respective payments from current revenues available to the paying party;
3. The Agreement shall be in full force and effect until terminated by either party;
4. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, participation in this Agreement may be
terminated by any party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other participating entity (ies);
5. The undersigned officer and/or agents of the party(ies) hereto are duly authorized
officials and possess the requisite authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties
hereto;
6. This Agreement may be executed separately by the participating entities, each of which
shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
Page 8 of 195
4
EXECUTED on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY OF MCKINNEY, TEXAS
Bob Livingston, City Manager Jason Gray, City Manager
ATTEST:
Liz Spector, City Secretary Sandy Hart, TRMC, MMC
City Secretary
BLANCA I. GARCIA
Assistant City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of 2011,
by Bob Livingston, City Manager of the CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, a home rule
municipal corporation, on behalf of such corporation.
Notary Public in and for the
State of Texas
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF COLLIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the day of 2011,
by of the CITY OF MCKINNEY, TEXAS, a home rule
municipal corporation, on behalf of such corporation.
Notary Public in and for the
State of Texas
Page 9 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:ChristineGreen,PurchasingAgent
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onaresolutionapprovinganInterlocalAgreementwith
TIPSPurchasingCooperative
BACKGROUND:
Theattachedresolutionwillapproveaninterlocalagreementwith“TheInterlocalPurchasing
System”(TIPS),apurchasingcooperativeadministeredbyRegionVIIIEducationServiceCenter.
TIPSrecentlyapprovedacooperativecontractfor“Trades,TemporaryLabor,andMaterials”with
GallagherConstructionServices.ByjoiningTIPS,theCitywillhaveaccesstothiscontractfor
Gallaghertoperformconstruction,maintenance,andrepairworkatestablishedhourlyrates.
TIPSalsohasamanyothercooperativecontractsavailableforusebyitsmembersasshownonthe
attachedbrochure.
ThistypeofcooperativepurchasingisallowedthroughtheInterlocalCooperationAct(Texas
GovernmentCode,Chapter791).TheCityparticipatesinsimilararrangementswithanumberof
otherpurchasingcooperativesandindividualmunicipalities.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsapprovaloftheattachedresolutiontoexecuteaninterlocalagreementwithTIPS
forcooperativepurchasing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution,InterlocalAgreement,andTIPSBrochure
Page 10 of 195
1
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,
TEXAS, APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT FOR A PURCHASING COOPERATIVE BETWEEN THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS AND OTHER PARTICIPATING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING
GOODS AND SERVICES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code (“Interlocal Cooperation Act”) ,
authorizes local government entities to enter into interlocal contracts for governmental purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Government Code 791.006 specifically authorizes interlocal
agreements for the purchase of goods and services; and
WHEREAS, upon full review and consideration of the Interlocal Agreement, the City
Council is of the opinion and finds that the terms and conditions of said Agreement should be
approved, and that the Mayor is authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of
University Park, Texas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The Interlocal Agreement to participate in a purchasing cooperative,
sponsored by Region VIII Education Service Center and known as “The Interlocal Purchasing
System” (“TIPS”), attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference, having
been reviewed by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, and found to be
acceptable and in the best interest of the City and its citizens, is hereby in all things approved,
and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of University
Park, Texas.
SECTION 2. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute any other
documents or take any other administrative steps necessary to give effect to this Resolution.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, and
it is accordingly so resolved.
DULY RESOLVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of University Park,
Texas, this the 19th day of July 2011.
Page 11 of 195
2
APPROVED:
______________________________________
W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
(rld/6-27-11/48950)
Page 12 of 195
3
EXHIBIT A
Page 13 of 195
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Region VIII Education Service Center
TEXAS PUBLIC AGENCY
(School, College, University, State, City or County Office)
________________________________________ _________ -________
TEXAS SCHOOL ENTITY OR PUBLIC AGENCY Control Number (TIPS will Assign)
Schools enter County-District Number
Region VIII Education Service Center 225 - 950
Mt. Pleasant, Texas County-District Number
Texas Education Code §8.002 permits regional education service centers, at the direction of the
Commissioner of Education, to provide services to assist school districts, colleges and universities
in improving student performance and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of school, college
and university operations. Authority for such services is granted under Texas Government Code §§
791.001 et seq as amended. Cooperative Purchasing Services are extended to all Texas State,
City and County Government Agencies.
This Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter the “Agreement”) is effective ____________________ and
shall be automatically renewed unless either party gives sixty (60) days prior written notice of non-
renewal. This Agreement may be terminated without cause by either party upon (60) days prior
written notice, or may also be determined for cause at anytime upon written notice stating the
reason for and effective date of such terminations and after giving the affected party a thirty (30)
day period to cure any breach.
Statement of Services to be Performed:
Region VIII Education Service Center, by this Agreement, agrees to provide cooperative purchasing
services to the above-named public agency through a Program known as the The Interlocal
Purchasing System (TIPS/TAPS) Program.
The purpose of the TIPS/TAPS Program shall be to obtain substantial savings for participating
school entities or public agencies through cooperative purchasing.
Role of the TIPS/TAPS Purchasing Cooperative:
1. Provide for the organizational and administrative structure of the program.
2. Provide staff necessary for efficient operation of the program.
3. Provide marketing of the program to expand membership, number of vendor awarded
contracts and commodity categories.
4. Initiate and implement activities required for competitive bidding and vendor award process
including posting, advertising, collecting proposals, scoring proposals, and award of contracts.
5. Provide members with procedures for ordering, delivery, and billing.
6. Maintain filing system for all bidding procedure requirements.
Page 14 of 195
Page 2 of 3
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, continued
Role of the Public Agency:
1. Commitment to participate in the program by an authorized signature on membership forms.
2. Designation of Primary Contact and Technology Contact for agency.
3. Commitment to purchase products and services from TIPS/TAPS Vendors when in the best
interest of the agency.
4. Prepare purchase orders issued to TIPS/TAPS Awarded Vendor and FAX to TIPS/TAPS.
5. Accept shipments of products ordered from Awarded Vendors in accordance with standard
purchasing procedures.
6. Pay Awarded Vendors in a timely manner for all goods and services received.
General Provisions:
The Parties agree to comply fully with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances,
rules, and regulations in connection with the programs contemplated under this Agreement. This
Agreement is subject to all applicable present and future valid laws governing such programs.
This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of Texas and venue shall be in the county
in which the administrative offices of RESC VIII are located which is Titus County, Texas.
This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties hereto with respect to the matters
covered by its terms, and it may not be modified in any manner without the express written consent
of the Parties.
If any term(s) or provision(s) of this Agreement are held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect
The Parties to this Agreement expressly acknowledge and agree that all monies paid pursuant to
this Agreement shall be paid from budgeted available funds for the current fiscal year of each such
entity.
Before any party may resort to litigation, any claims, disputes or other matters in question between
the Parties to this Agreement shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation
No Party to this Agreement waives or relinquishes any immunity or defense on behalf of
themselves, their directors, officers, employees, and agents as a result of its execution of this
Agreement and performance of the functions and obligations described herein.
This Agreement may be negotiated and transmitted between the Parties by means of a facsimile
machine and the terms and conditions agreed to are binding upon the Parties.
Authorization:
Region VIII Education Service Center and The Interlocal Purchasing System (TIPS/TAPS) Program
have entered into an Agreement to provide cooperative purchasing opportunities to public agencies.
Page 15 of 195
Page 3 of 3
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, continued
This Agreement was approved by the governing boards of the respective parties at meetings that
were posted and held in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code
ch. 551.
The individuals signing below are authorized to do so by the respective parties to this Agreement.
Public Agency Region VIII Education Service Center
By: ______________________________ By: ______________________________
Authorized Signature Authorized Signature
Title: _______________________________ Title: Executive Director Region VIII ESC
_________________________________ ___________________________________
Date Date
Public Agency Contact Information
_________________________________
Primary Purchasing Person Name
Street Address
City, State Zip
Telephone Number
Fax Number
_____________________________________
Primary Person Email Address
_____________________________________
Technology Person Name
_____________________________________
Technology Person Email Address
Please send two signed original Interlocal Agreements and one copy of Board Resolution (if required) to
TIPS/TAPS, Attn: Kim Thompson, C/O Region VIII Education Service Center, PO Box 1894, Mt. Pleasant, Texas
75456‐1894. Upon execution, a signed original will be returned to the Purchasing Contact listed above.
Page 16 of 195
Page 17 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:KentAustin,DirectorofFinance
SUBJECT:REPORT:receive3rdQuarter(06/30/2011)FY2011fundreport
BACKGROUND:
The3QFY2011(06/30/11)investmentreportisprovidedfortheCityCouncil'sreview.
RECOMMENDATION:
Acceptthereportasprovided.
ATTACHMENTS:
FundReport06.11
Page 18 of 195
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
S:\FINANCE\FUND REPORTS\Calendar 2011\FUND REPORT MEMO 0611.doc
1
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
July 13, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Finance Advisory Committee
City Manager
FROM: Tom Tvardzik, Controller
Kent Austin, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: June 30, 2011 Fund Reports Commentary
The testing and training necessary to successfully implement the Utility Billing module of
the New World Systems software continues. This is a singularly important module within
the enterprise software as it will directly affect every utility customer within the City from
“Day 1”. Although originally scheduled to “go live” in July, the start date has been pushed
back to early August to ensure all known and potential conversion and system interface
issues are addressed. The additional time will permit further testing of operability, as well as
allow Staff to work with new, refreshed data during the final training sessions.
As noted in prior commentary, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board requires all
cities to implement GASB 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type
Definitions for fiscal 2011. As a result, the fund balance section of the City financial
statements will look very different come September 30. The section will be more detailed
than in the past and will categorize fund balance into five, new categories:
1.Nonspendable;
2.Restricted;
3.Committed;
4.Assigned; and
5.Unassigned.
The implementation of this pronouncement will require the City Council to adopt expanded
fund balance policies before the end of the fiscal year. These policies will be prepared and
presented by staff in the coming weeks.
Notable items in the June 30, reports include:
General Fund Balance and Special Reserves
Total fund balance in the General Fund at month end was $10,046,294. During the month of
June the City received $375,000 from SMU, the third and final “payment in lieu of taxes”
related to a 2009 agreement. The $2.375 million PILOT payment (received in three unequal
yearly installments) is intended to replace lost property tax revenue on parcels purchased
from the City by SMU, as well as future sales tax revenues on SMU-owned commercial
Page 19 of 195
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
S:\FINANCE\FUND REPORTS\Calendar 2011\FUND REPORT MEMO 0611.doc
2
properties that may be converted to alternate (non tax generating) uses. Commensurate with
the 2009 agreement, City Council approved a resolution restricting the use of the SMU
PILOT Reserve money such that interest earnings will be allocated to the General Fund but
the Reserve’s principal will remain untouched.
Property tax revenue
While slowing considerably from prior quarters, property tax revenue continued to creep
upwards, ending the quarter at $15,827,917, which is 98% of the full year budget and
roughly even with the prior year.
Sales tax revenue
Sales and mixed beverage tax revenue of $2,647,100 (85% of full year budget, and 10%
higher than the prior year) benefitted during the quarter from a one-time sales tax allocation
adjustment in June of approximately $170,000. The adjustment was remitted to the City by
the State Comptroller, after it was determined that a local merchant had been erroneously
reporting sales tax collections to the wrong jurisdiction.
Franchise Fees
Year-to-date franchise fees of $1,666,275 stand at 87% of the full year budget, and are
$36,253 (3%) higher than last year.
Permit and license revenue
Permit and license revenue increased $239,886 during the quarter, ending the nine months at
$2,506,355, or 164% of budget. This is a 231% increase from the prior year. As noted last
quarter, approximately $1.67 million of that amount is directly attributable to the Bush
Presidential Center building permits. Even after excluding all Center activity, permits and
license revenues of $835,658 still managed a year-over-year increase of 10%.
Fines and fees
Fines and fees revenue of $1,411,087 is essentially even with prior year, but lags the year-to-
date budget by roughly 10%, a slight deterioration from the 8% deficit noted last quarter.
Bright spots in the category include Direct Alarm Monitoring revenue (at 82% of budget)
and wireless 911 service fees (at 96% of budget.)
Park and pool
Kicking in to high gear, revenues increased over $220,000 to end the quarter at $266,108.
This is 99% of the full-year budget, and almost even with this time last year. Interestingly,
the largest decrease from the prior year was noted in the resident pool permits line item,
which was effectively offset by increases in both non-resident permits and day-use receipts.
Interest earnings
Year to date interest earnings of $253,064 equal 84% of the total budget, and are $52,199
(26%) higher than this time last year. As noted in previous reports, $20,750,202 (comprised
of emergency funds, SMU land sales proceeds and the previously mentioned PILOT funds)
are held in restricted reserves and earn interest for the benefit of the General Fund.
Page 20 of 195
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
S:\FINANCE\FUND REPORTS\Calendar 2011\FUND REPORT MEMO 0611.doc
3
Auction/Other
The Auction/Other revenue category was the recipient of more good fiscal news from
Southern Methodist University, which compensated the City over $1.2 million dollars during
the month of April for the purchase of City rights-of-way on Airline, Dublin and Dyer
Streets. That brought the nine-month revenue total to $1,889,197, which is 78% higher than
the full year budget and 84% higher than the previous year.
General Fund expenditures
Aggregate departmental expenditures were held to 73% of total budget, and were 5% higher
than the previous year. No department was more than 1% above budget.
Utility Fund revenues
As of the nine months ended June 30, water sales revenue stands at $5,427,331, which is an
increase of $1,236,396 (30%) from the prior year. This is 66% of the full year budget, with
some of the traditionally highest water use months yet to come, in what has already been a
fairly hot, dry season. Wastewater and storm water fees are slightly (3%) below the year-to-
date budget, and only 2% below last year. As noted in the prior quarter, wastewater charges
are gaining ground on last year (up from a 10% deficit at March 31) as the April rollout of
higher rates take effect. Interest earnings of $310 are 98% lower than last year, owing to
very low levels of pooled investment holdings, rock-bottom interest rates and no securities
maturing during the period.
Utility Fund expenditures
Utility Fund expenditures of $7,698,512 (excluding budgeted transfers) ended the quarter at
68% of the full year budget and 15% higher than 2010. The net deficiency in the fund of
$264,068 is 34% lower than the $401,682 noted in June of last year. With the exception of
water purchases (which roll up in to the “Utility Office” line item), most expenditures in the
fund are fairly static, which should result in a far better bottom line by year-end given the
anticipated increase in water usage through the end of the fiscal year.
Sanitation Fund
Sanitation Fund revenues of $2,235,936 are only 2% below budget, but 4% higher than the
prior year. Expenditures of $2,020,137 are 8% below budget, and 4% above 2010. The fund
has $215,799 of net earnings year-to-date, an increase of 5% from the prior year and
$144,623 better than budget. Recycling revenues (including recycling rebates) continue to
outperform all other revenue categories within the fund and stand at 108% of budget, with
three months left in the fiscal year.
Self-Insurance Fund
Consistent with the prior quarter, Self-Insurance Fund revenues of $2,222,162 remain 12%
below the prior year. Expenditures are 4% higher than the previous year. The fund currently
is $120,157 “in the black”.
Equipment Services Fund
Page 21 of 195
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
S:\FINANCE\FUND REPORTS\Calendar 2011\FUND REPORT MEMO 0611.doc
4
Also consistent with the prior quarter, revenues within the ESF remain 7% below the prior
year, due to the planned decrease in the funding rate from various user departments, as well
as anemic interest earnings during the year. Expenditures of $1,688,899 are $444,286 (36%)
higher than the previous year, but the bulk of the spending ($411,136) is for items that will
be removed from expense and capitalized at year end.
Capital Project
Expenditures (including personnel) totaled $5,016,361 through June 30, or 47% of budget.
Significant expenditures during the quarter include:
3rd QTR Year-to-Date
Project 48100, Fondren Water Tank $441,600 $667,600
Project 47016, MPY Baltimore/Amherst $415,300 $1,361,400
Project 42996, Curb and Gutter Replacement $220,000 $565,900
Project 24600, Fire Training Tower $135,100 $334,800
Project 24600, Germany Park South $107,100 $221,400
Attachments:
General and Utility Fund End of Month Fund Balance Charts
Visual Executive Summary
Summary Fund Report
General Fund Report
Utility Fund/Sanitation Fund Report
Self-Insurance Report/Equipment Services Fund Report
Capital Projects Fund Report
Page 22 of 195
Page 23 of 195
Page 24 of 195
Page 25 of 195
Page 26 of 195
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FUND REPORT
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE
AS OF JUNE 30, 2011
GENERAL FUND BUDGET %
ACTUALAS AMENDEDYTD %PRIOR YEARCHANGE
Revenues
Property Taxes 15,827,917 16,100,653 98%15,851,998 0%
Interfund Transfers 450,000 600,000 75%450,000 0%
Sales/Mixed Bev. Tax 2,647,100 3,128,851 85%2,401,448 10%
Franchise Fees 1,666,275 1,910,000 87%1,630,022 2%
Permits and Licenses 2,506,355 1,530,800 164%757,850 231%
Fines and Fees 1,411,087 2,157,730 65%1,419,585 -1%
Park and Pool 266,108 269,000 99%268,342 -1%
Interest Earnings 253,064 300,000 84%200,865 26%
Auction/Other 1,889,197 1,061,077 178%1,024,594 84%
Total Revenues 26,917,103 27,058,111 99%24,004,704 12%
Expenditures
Executive 882,091 1,222,979 72%870,042 1%
Finance 840,184 1,100,850 76%808,785 4%
Human Resources 271,203 374,451 72%248,460 9%
Information Services 722,152 1,073,463 67%660,866 9%
Legal 234,519 319,960 73%226,004 4%
Community Development 770,638 1,048,745 73%713,217 8%
Engineering 564,183 830,729 68%626,830 -10%
Traffic Control 607,542 918,581 66%589,520 3%
Facilities Maintenance 640,607 840,923 76%493,111 30%
Fire 3,813,198 5,175,884 74%3,456,218 10%
Police 4,934,967 6,777,762 73%4,730,996 4%
Parks 2,081,649 2,837,499 73%2,049,086 2%
Swimming Pool 110,525 220,198 50%80,565 37%
Streets 1,323,958 1,796,571 74%1,349,565 -2%
Transfers, Budgeted 2,274,147 3,032,187 75%2,274,147 0%
Total Expenditures 20,071,564 27,570,782 73%19,177,413 5%
Excess/(deficiency) of revenues 6,845,539 (512,671)n/a 4,827,291 n/a
Working Capital - beginning 3,575,755 3,575,755 100%4,289,432 -17%
Committed Balance (PILOT Funds)(375,000) - (1,000,000)
Ending Working Capital 10,046,294 3,063,084 328%8,116,723 24%
Fund Report 06-2011.xlsxGEN 7/13/20113:57 PMPage 27 of 195
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FUND REPORT
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE
AS OF JUNE 30, 2011
UTILITY FUND BUDGET %
ACTUALAS AMENDEDYTD %PRIOR YEARCHANGE
Revenues
Water Sales 5,427,331 8,223,528 66%4,190,935 30%
Wastewater Fees 3,303,382 4,570,261 72%3,384,475 -2%
Storm Water Fees 332,036 444,700 75%332,096 0%
Interest Earnings 310 25,000 1%16,190 -98%
Auction/Other 17,953 5,600 321%3,863 365%
Total Revenues 9,081,012 13,269,089 68%7,927,559 15%
Expenditures
Utility Office 5,265,724 7,741,108 68%4,460,830 18%
Utilities 2,379,446 3,530,951 67%2,164,564 10%
Storm Water 53,341 86,950 61%57,278 -7%
Transfers, Budgeted 1,646,568 2,195,415 75%1,646,568 0%
Total Expenditures 9,345,080 13,554,424 69%8,329,240 12%
Excess/(deficiency) of revenues (264,068) (285,335)n/a (401,682)-34%
Working Capital - beginning 2,440,032 2,440,032 100%2,783,592 -12%
Working Capital - ending 2,175,964 2,154,697 101%2,381,910 -9%
SANITATION FUND BUDGET %
ACTUALAS AMENDEDYTD %PRIOR YEARCHANGE
Revenues
Refuse Collection 1,813,426 2,584,313 70%1,815,617 0%
Recycling Charges 314,510 291,060 108%235,680 33%
Yard Waste Bag Sales 50,282 84,700 59%53,901 -7%
Brush/Special Pickup Fee 57,307 82,500 69%47,190 21%
Interest 411 3,000 14%519 -21%
Auction/Other - 24,878 0%885 -100%
Total Revenues 2,235,936 3,070,451 73%2,153,792 4%
Expenditures
Sanitation Dept.2,020,137 2,999,275 67%1,948,400 4%
Total Expenditures 2,020,137 2,999,275 67%1,948,400 4%
Excess/(deficiency) of revenues 215,799 71,176 303%205,392 5%
Working Capital - beginning 969,054 969,054 100%870,520 11%
Working Capital - ending 1,184,853 1,040,230 114%1,075,912 10%
Fund Report 06-2011.xlsxUTIL_SAN7/13/20113:59 PM
Page 28 of 195
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FUND REPORT
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE
AS OF JUNE 30, 2011
SELF-INSURANCE FUND %
ACTUAL PRIOR YEAR CHANGE
Revenues
Interest Earnings 8,182 11,424 -28%
Interfund Contribution 2,213,980 2,504,171 -12%
Total Revenues 2,222,162 2,515,596 -12%
Expenditures
Employee Health 1,421,661 1,258,554 13%
Workers Compensation 90,508 93,018 -3%
Misc Claims 29,310 110,717 -74%
Premiums 436,313 448,437 -3%
Other/Administration 124,212 105,955 17%
Total Expenditures 2,102,005 2,016,681 4%
Excess/(deficiency) of revenues 120,157 498,915 -76%
Transfers - (2,000,000) n/a
Net change in fund balance 120,157 (1,501,085) 108%
Working Capital - beginning 8,009,694 9,281,470 -14%
Working Capital - ending 8,129,851 7,780,385 4%
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND %
ACTUAL PRIOR YEAR CHANGE
Revenues
Interfund Contribution 1,099,554 1,152,285 -5%
Interest Earnings 4,791 38,217 -87%
Auction/Other 48,707 54,535 -11%
Total Revenues 1,153,052 1,245,037 -7%
Expenditures
Garage 522,891 499,614 5%
Warehouse 193,929 184,057 5%
Capital Expenditures 972,079 560,943 73%
Total Expenditures 1,688,899 1,244,613 36%
Excess/(deficiency) of revenues (535,847) 424 -126566%
Working Capital - beginning 6,891,993 6,878,015 0%
Working Capital - ending 6,356,146 6,878,439 -8%
Fund Report 06-2011.xlsxINTERNAL SERVICE7/13/20114:00 PM
Page 29 of 195
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FUND REPORT
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE AS OF JUNE 30, 2011
CAPITAL PROJECTS
YTD ACTUALFY11 BUDGETYTD%
Revenues
Transfers from General Fund (budgeted)2,274,147 3,032,187 75%
Transfers from Utility Fund (budgeted)1,646,568 2,195,420 75%
Investment income 3,973 30,000 13%
Other -- UPCF donations 47,512 45,000 106%
Total Revenues 3,972,200 5,302,607 75%
Expenditures
Personnel (Civil Engineer) & other expenses 74,850 106,240 70%
Tot. Proj. Est.Budgeted Projects:
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
80,00011900Microsoft Server Platform - Fin/UB COMPLETE - - #DIV/0!
105,00011960Microsoft Server Platform - Public Safety COMPLETE 350 976 36%
59,03613120Enterprise GIS system upgrade - 47,020 0%
103,42813200Court software replacement 1,549 14,188 11%
358,54213300Finance/UB software upgrade-NewWorld Sys.138,271 201,502 69%
200,00013400Community Development software replacement - 200,000 0%
180,00013500City Web site enhancement/upgrade 4,521 55,000 8%
80,00013600Microsoft Exchange email upgrade - 80,000 0%
45,00013700Time & Attendance system replacement - 45,000 0%
1,211,007 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUBTOTAL 144,691 643,686 22%
PARKS
468,63823200Smith Park COMPLETE (395) - #DIV/0!
64,90323400University Blvd. medians 768 - #DIV/0!
1,358,02624500Swimming pool renovation - phase II COMPLETE 21,635 - #DIV/0!
402,00024600Germany Park South 221,416 314,500 70%
50,00024700Curtis Park bridge reconstruction 63 50,000 0%
40,00024900Germany Park tennis court resurfacing and lighting - 40,000 0%
50,00025000Walt Humann Park COMPLETE 52,156 50,000 104%
2,433,567 PARKS SUBTOTAL 295,644 454,500 65%
PUBLIC SAFETY
65,00032500Handheld Ticket Writing Project - 32,864 0%
620,00133000Fire training tower renovation 334,804 307,747 109%
100,00033500Microwave Radio Path/Tower Relocation - 100,000 0%
460,00033600Public Safety software upgrade-OSSI/Firehouse 117,708 123,017 96%
1,245,000 PUBLIC SAFETY SUBTOTAL 452,511 563,628 80%
PUBLIC WORKS
1,143,16542698Asphalt Overlay Program 2009-10 COMPLETE 11,154 - #DIV/0!
650,00042699Asphalt Overlay Program 2010-11 11,883 650,000 2%
3,219,97342996Curb & Gutter Replacement 2007-08 730,891 997,360 73%
48,00044401Hillcrest-Daniel intersection revision 7,709 48,000 16%
1,343,66047010MPY 4000 Hanover/Purdue & Other Alleys 60,287 60,000 100%
503,23447015MPY 4100-4200 Bryn Mawr/Hanover 21,108 21,200 100%
2,068,66047016MPY Baltimore/3800-3900 Amherst-Stanford & Other Alle 1,363,135 1,500,000 91%
1,516,00047017MPY Tulane-Bryn Mawr north to Caruth 71,970 516,000 14%
1,461,00047030MPY 4400 San Carlos/Potomac & Other Alleys 71,565 664,820 11%
1,200,00047200MPY Key Street et al 90,487 600,000 15%
946,33748100Fondren Water Tank Renovation 667,594 921,017 72%
4,707,41948410Booster pump station COMPLETE 232,564 - #DIV/0!
100,00048600Wastewater metering stations 6,992 44,186 16%
913,16049000Emergency water supply interconnect 548,573 622,000 88%
800,00049150Westwick Pavement/Drainage Recon. (Specific Alley Pave 20,295 483,458 4%
1,339,00049210University-Boedeker pavement reconstruction 92,131 149,300 62%
120,00049250Traffic signal Lovers@Baltimore 7,600 118,100 6%
50,00049350High water ALERT flashers -- McFarlin@Turtle Creek 8,099 50,000 16%
90,00049400Bush Presidential Center utility line COMPLETE 99,480 90,000 111%
22,219,607 PUBLIC WORKS SUBTOTAL 4,123,514 7,535,441 55%
FILENAME: S:\FINANCE\FUND REPORTS\Calendar 2011\Fund Report 06-2011.xlsx CAP PROJ
LAST PRINTED: 7/13/2011 4:02 PM Page 30 of 195
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FUND REPORT
FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE AS OF JUNE 30, 2011
CAPITAL PROJECTS
YTD ACTUALFY11 BUDGETYTD%
Projects contingency:
1,500,000 Unplanned projects - 1,500,000 0%
1,500,000 Unplanned subtotal - 1,500,000 0%
28,609,181 Total project expenditures 5,016,361 10,697,255 47%
Total Fund expenditures 5,091,211 10,803,495 47%
Excess/(deficiency) of revenues (1,119,011) (5,500,888)
Transfers, Special - - 0%
Net change in fund balance (1,119,011) (5,500,888)
Working Capital - beginning 9,361,368 9,361,368
Working Capital - ending 8,242,357 3,860,480
FILENAME: S:\FINANCE\FUND REPORTS\Calendar 2011\Fund Report 06-2011.xlsx CAP PROJ
LAST PRINTED: 7/13/2011 4:02 PM Page 31 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:LizSpector,CitySecretary
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onrenewalofacooperativeagreementwithDallasCounty
fortheCDBG/HOMEProgram
BACKGROUND:
Since1987,UniversityParkandotherareacitieshaveapprovedcooperativeagreementswithDallas
County,allowingtheCountytoapplyforCommunityDevelopmentBlockGrant(CDBG)andHOME
InvestmentPartnershipprogramfundsfromthefederalgovernment.CDBGmoniesareusedbylocal
governmentstofundprojectsbenefittinglow-to-moderateincomeneighborhoods.DallasCounty
administerstheprogram;fundshavebeenusedforprojectslikeroadreconstruction,waterandsewer
installation,codeenforcementandhousingreconstruction.Renewingthecooperativeagreementdoes
notrequiretheCitytoapplyforortakeCDBGfunding,butitdoeshelptheCountyinobtainingfunds
forothercitieswithlegitimateneeds.Theproposedthree-yearagreementisidenticaltotheprevious
agreementbetweentheCityandCounty,whichwasapprovedbyCouncilonJuly1,2008.
RECOMMENDATION:
CitystaffrecommendsapprovaloftheproposedAgreementofCooperationforCDBG/HOME
ProgramwithDallasCounty.
ATTACHMENTS:
DallasCoCommissionerlettertoMayor
DallasCoCDBG.HOMEAgrmt
Page 32 of 195
Page 33 of 195
Page 34 of 195
Page 35 of 195
Page 36 of 195
Page 37 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:JacobSpeer,AssistantDirectorofPublicWorks
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceregulatingconnectionstothesanitaryand
stormsewersystems
BACKGROUND:
TheCity'sStormWaterManagementProgram,asrequiredandapprovedbytheTexasCommission
onEnvironmentalQuality,requiresthattheCitydetectandeliminateillicitorillegalconnectionsto
thestormwatersystem.Often,illicitconnectionsoriginateonprivateproperty;therefore,an
ordinanceallowingtheCityaccesstoprivatepropertyforthedetectionandeliminationofsuch
connectionsisnecessary.
Similarly,theCityshouldhavetheabilitytoaccessprivatepropertywhereanillicitconnectiontothe
sanitarysewersystemissuspected.Suchconnectionscanbedetrimentaltotheoverallpublicsewer
systemandshouldbemitigatedwheneverpossible.
TheproposedordinanceallowstheCitytoaccessprivatepropertywhereanillicitconnectionis
suspected.Ifanillicitconnectionexists,theordinanceauthorizestheCitytorequiretheproperty
ownertoremovetheillicitconnection.Iftheownerfailstoeliminatetheillicitconnection,theCityis
alsoauthorizedtoperformthenecessaryworkandclaimalienontheproperty.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommendsapprovaloftheproposedordinanceregulatingconnectionstothepublicsanitary
andstormsewersystems.
ATTACHMENTS:
ProposedIllicitConnectionOrdinance
Page 38 of 195
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
CHAPTER 13 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING SECTION 13.04.066 (c)
REGULATING CONNECTIONS TO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM AND
THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM; AUTHORIZING INSPECTIONS; REQUIRING
DISCONNECTION OF ILLICIT CONNECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCONNECT; AUTHORIZING DISCONNECTION FROM
WATER SUPPLY; AUTHORIZING CITY TO PERFORM WORK AND CLAIM LIEN ON
PROPERTY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A REPEALING
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 13, “Utilities & Solid Waste”, of the Code of Ordinances of the City
of University Park is amended in part by amending Section 13.04.066 (c) (3) as follows:
“Sec. 13.04.066
…
(c) Administration
…
(3) The owner of property suspected to have an illicit connection or cross-connection
(“connection”) to the City’s public water supply system or to the sanitary or storm sewer
system is maintaining a public nuisance and shall allow the property to be inspected by a
duly authorized City inspector upon due notice and at a reasonable time. If there is a
permitted connection present, the owner shall follow all ordinances and regulations of the
City with regard thereto. If the City’s inspector determines that there is an illicit
connection present on the property:
i. The inspector shall prepare and hand deliver or mail to the owner by certified mail, return
receipt requested, a written notice to remove or remedy the illicit connection within fifteen
(15) days from the date of the notice;
ii. If the owner fails to comply with the notice, the department will inform the owner by letter
that the water service to the owner’s premises will be terminated within five (5) days of
the date of the letter, provided such time may be extended as provided in section
13.04.067 (d) below;
iii. In the alternative, if the owner fails to correct the illicit connection within the time
permitted by the inspector, the City or its contractor may go on the premises, do the work
Page 39 of 195
or make the improvements necessary to correct the illicit connection and eliminate the
public nuisance, pay for the work done or improvements made and charge the expenses to
the owner of the property. If, after due notice, the charges are not paid by the owner,
notice shall be given in writing to the owner and all lien holders of record that a Statement
of Expenses will be prepared in a form of lien claim allowing it to be recorded in the Real
Property Records of Dallas County, Texas, signed by the Director of Public Works on
behalf of the City and filed if the expenses are not paid in full within ten (10) days after
the date of the notice. The filing of the statement of expenses and the lien for collection of
the expenses shall be handled in the same manner as provided in Sections 6.05.004 and
6.05.005 of this Code of Ordinances.”
SECTION 2. 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 unconstitutional, illegal or invalid.
SECTION 3. That all ordinances in conflict with this ordinance or the Code of Ordinances
as amended hereby are repealed.
SECTION 4. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms
of this ordinance as amended hereby shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a
penalty as provided for in this ordinance, and upon conviction shall be punished by fine not to
exceed the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense, and each and every day such
violation shall continue shall constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage as the
law in such cases provides.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the ____ day
of __________ 2011.
Page 40 of 195
APPROVED:
____________________________________
W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
(RLD; 6/22/11; 49901)
Page 41 of 195
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
CHAPTER 13 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING SECTION 13.
REGULATING CONNECTIONS TO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM AND
THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM; AUTHORIZING INSPECTIONS; REQUIRING
DISCONNECTION OF ILLICIT CONNECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCONNECT; AUTHORIZING DISCONNECTION FROM
WATER SUPPLY; AUTHORIZING CITY TO PERFORM WORK AND CLAIM LIEN ON
PROPERTY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A REPEALING
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the ____ day
of __________ 2011.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
Page 42 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:GeneR.Smallwood,P.E.;DirectorofPublicWorks
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onaproposalfromDFWCommunicationsforthe
installationofamonopoleatthePeekServiceCenter
BACKGROUND:
AsaresultofnewconstructionnorthoftheFred&HaroldPeekServiceCenter,theCity'semergency
radiosystemsmustbemodified.Atthe03.17.09Councilmeeting,staffdetailedconstructionof450+
apartmentsproposedforconstructionontheoldShamburgerLumberYardproperty.That
constructionwillblockthelineofsitebetweenantennaeontheroofofthePeekCenterandthe
repeaterontopoftheFondrenelevatedstoragetank.FollowingdevelopmentbyDFW
Communicationsofarevised"pathstudy,"theconsultantrecommendedinstallationofa120-foot
monopoleatthePeekCenter.TheattachedproposalfromDFWCommunicationsintheamountof
$110,600providesthematerials,equipment,andservicesnecessarytoinstallthemonopole.
AnadditionalpieceofequipmentthatDFWCommunicationsrecommendedwasthepurchaseand
installationofaUPS(uninterruptedpowersupply)fortheradioequipmentroominsidetheFondren
tank.Theexistingunitfailed,andthecostofreplacementis$4500.Thatcostisseparatefromthe
monopole,andisnotincludedintheDFWproposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsCityCouncilapprovaloftheproposalfromDFWCommunications,directtheCity
Managertoexecuteacontractforthemonopole,andauthorizethepurchaseoftheUPSforthe
FondrenTank.
FUNDINGSOURCE:
CAPITALPROJECTSFUND
AcctNo:44.44.4410
ProjectNo:33500.2300
ATTACHMENTS:
DFWCOMMPROPOSAL1
DFWCOMMPROPOSAL2
DFWCOMMPROPOSAL3
Page 43 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park, Texas
DFW Communications 1 of 3 Microwave Relocation
Confidential and Proprietary Project
Section 1
System Description
1.1 General Understanding
The purpose of this section is to provide the City with a description of the new
system configuration, system equipment, and other features offered in this
proposal. It is understood that the City’s Microwave Path between the Peek
Service Center and the Fondren Water tower will be blocked with a new building
currently under construction.
It is also understood that an additional building is being proposed at Fondren and
Central Expressway that will not block the Fondren Water Tower to the City Hall
Microwave radio path. A letter from the Architect of this project has been
submitted to the city stating this.
DFW Communications has done preliminary site studies and has determined two
possible options for the city to consider. These options must be further
investigated with an on the ground path Study to verify the actual path for
clearance of objects that will not be visible thru Mapping software. If any building
trees, poles, bridges or other objects are present in the path, they may pose threats
of impediment to the path or Fresnel Zones of the Radio signal and could cause
blockage or interference.
Therefore the City needs to move forward with a phased approach at
implementing and selecting the correct option for Tower Size and
Reconfiguration of Paths.
1.2 CURRENT SYSTEM
The City’s Current Radio System consists of the Following:
1) Main Radio Site
This is the Northwest Water Tower. This site consist of (3) each Motorola
800Mhz Quantar Repeaters. They are used for the (3) main channels for
the City (Police, Fire, and Local Government). This site is connected to
both City Radio Consoles at the Peek Service Center Dispatch and the
City Hall Dispatch (Currently under renovation). The transport medium
Page 44 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park, Texas
DFW Communications 2 of 3 Microwave Relocation
Confidential and Proprietary Project
for the control circuitry is via T1 connection on NEC 18 GHz Microwave
Radios.
Microwave Radio Links are:
Northwest – Peek
Northwest – City Hall
2) Backup Radio Site
This is the Fondren Water Tower. This site is identical to the Main Site
and is configured for use as back up due to a radio failure at the Main site.
Control of this site is also via the NEC 18 GHz Microwave radio
equipment.
Microwave Radio Links are:
Fondren – Peek
Fondren – City Hall
3) Peek Service Center
This is the Backup Dispatch Center for the City. It consists of (2)
Motorola MCC5500 Consoles and Radio Control Stations for
Interoperability and backup channels. This Site is connected to Both Main
and Backup Radio Sites and the Main Dispatch via the NEC 18 GHz
Microwave Radio System.
Microwave Radio Links are:
Peek - Fondren
Peek - Northwest
4) City Hall
This site is the Main Public Safety Dispatch Center and PSAP for
University Park. It consist of (3) Motorola MC5500 Consoles and Radio
Control Stations for Interoperability and Backup channels. This site is
connected to the Main, Backup and Peek Service Center via NEC 18 GHz
Microwave radio equipment.
Microwave Radio Links are:
City Hall – Northwest
City Hall - Fondren
Page 45 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park, Texas
DFW Communications 3 of 3 Microwave Relocation
Confidential and Proprietary Project
1.3 Microwave Impediments
1) Peek to Fondren Microwave Path
a. Directly adjacent to and on the North Side of the Peek Service Center
a New building is under construction. This building is proposed to
reach 65 feet in height. This will block the current Microwave link.
b. This will require raising the Microwave link to a new height of at least
120 feet and relocate further south of its current position.
c. A Microwave Monopole is being proposed to accommodate the new
location.
1.4 Microwave System Enhancements
The Microwave Solutions has been evaluated and considered by the City.
1) Path
a. Leave all current Paths as is, but relocate the Peek Microwave
Radio Dishes to a new Tower that will give a height advantage
over the new building.
b. This will require Engineering and relicensing the Peek to Fondren
and the Peek to Northwest Microwave Path.
1.5 Radio Tower Options
Four different Tower Options were offered. The decision is a 120 foot Monopole.
The Cellular Type Monopole design consists of a single tubular rolled steel pole.
The Choices of Towers are as follows:
1) One Hundred Twenty Foot Monopole
Page 46 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 1
Section 2
Statement of Work
2.1 General Understanding
This Statement of Work (SOW) describes the work to be performed for the
Relocation of the Microwave Radio facilities at the Peek Service Center. It
delineates responsibilities between DFW Communications and the City of
University Park as agreed to by contract.
2.2 Statement of Work
DFW Communications will perform the Project Management, Installation, and
Optimization Duties for the City of University Park. It is understood that all of the
new equipment will be installed in areas specified by the City at the Peek Service
Center.
2.2.1 General Tasks
1) Upon receipt of the “Notice to Proceed” and a purchase order, DFW
Communications will begin the acquisition of the materials
designated on the enclosed equipment list. Once the equipment and
Services has been ordered, updated equipment delivery times will be
provided to the City’s Project Manager.
2) DFW Communications will appoint a Project Manager who will
remain as the single point of contact throughout the project. The PM
will coordinate the project kick-off meeting with the City. This initial
meeting would include the following discussions along with any
other points requested by the City:
a) Introduce project team to the City and establish “Point of
Contact” for both Motorola and the City. This would
include exchanging contact information (email address,
phone numbers, etc.).
b) Review City responsibilities and timeline of their
completion.
Page 47 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 2
c) Review equipment delivery schedules with City.
d) Review installation schedule
e) Discuss any on-site requirements of the City. This would
include establishing access requirements, onsite contacts,
and any special work conditions or safety requirements
(hardhats, work location hazards, etc.).
3) All materials will be stored delivered to the Peek Service Center.
DFW Communications will be responsible for all shipping and
transportation costs as part of this proposal.
4) All project installation will be performed in accordance with
recognized industry standards for system installation. Motorola R56
guidelines will be followed where applicable.
5) Prior to beginning system implementation, verify proper operation of
the existing system microwave radio system.
2.2.2 Microwave Path Survey and Report
1) System Performance Calculations
The surveyed paths had the proper clearance during a survey
preformed in 2008. This design of the microwave paths using NEC
18 GHz equipment is based upon these findings. The antenna sizes
required to meet 99.999% of reliability are already in place and
will be reused.
2) Frequency Coordination
DFW Communications will submit the system design to the
frequency coordination company to obtain the required
frequencies. For the radio equipment that is being repositioned the
frequency coordinator will be requested to keep the same
frequencies, if possible. This will eliminate the retuning of the
equipment.
3) FCC 601 Applications Preparation and Submission
Assuming the frequencies are available, DFW Communications
will prepare and submit the FCC 601 application for each site.
There are a total of three FCC applications required for and four
applications for option 2. File numbers of FCC applications will be
submitted to DFW Communications. FCC filings located in the
FCC’s ULS database may be accessed using the appropriate file
numbers. Hard copy is available on request.
Page 48 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 3
4) FCC Schedule K
Once the system is installed and working then DFW
Communications will prepare the required Schedule K’s for the
FCC. These filings may also be located in the FCC’s ULS
database. Hard copy is available on request.
5) FCC Application Fees
DFW Communications will pay for all FCC fees at the time the
FCC forms are filed. FCC fees are dependent on the situation.
There are several rules that dictate what the fees will be. At the
time the FCC applications are submitted DFW Communications
will know the FCC’s charges.
2.2.3 Tower Installation
1) 120’ Monopole Tower
120' Monopole Tower. Survey and mark the site. Saw cut and
remove approximately 6'X6' concrete from existing parking lot.
Remove and dispose of NORMAL soil to >14'. Supply and tie
rebar cage to manufacturer’s specifications. Install (3) grounding
rods exothermically welded to #2 solid tinned conductor, connect
to tower base and run (1) #2 solid tinned conductor to the building
for customer grounding bar. Fabricate concrete form and jig and
place anchor bolts/base section. Pour and vibrate >8.25 yds
3000psi concrete. Finish concrete to top of form. The Foundation
is designed for NORMAL SOIL. Pending results of the soil sample
a change order for a larger foundation may be required. Install, and
level tower. Install Mounts, antennas, and cables. Engineering,
Geotechnical soil analysis, permits, rock removal, not included.
DFW Communications to supply Labor and expertise, P.E
Certified Tower and Foundation Design, Rebar materials,
grounding materials, concrete and forms, spoils removal and site
clean-up. 120' Monopole Tower, 32"' tapering to 15" at top, Hot-
Dipped Galvanized, Dish Mounts, Omni Antenna Mount, Anchor
Bolts, Step Bolts and safety climb cable system, P.E. Certified
Tower Profile, design and Foundation design based on customer
supplied soils report, Grounding Kit Tower Foundation
(NORMAL SOIL) 8.25 yds, 28day/3000psi, Rebar ASTM A615
Grade 60 (2) 4"X42" Protection Bollards, Broom Finish
Aluminum Cable Tray Extension (Rooftop)
Page 49 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 4
2.2.4 Microwave Relocation Path
1) Peek to Northwest Link
a) Switch Radio Consoles to Fondren Radio site for operations.
b) Run New Andrews Heliax Low Loss ½” Diameter Coax from Radio
room To New Tower Mounting Location. In preparation of faster
deployment.
c) Document system performance of Radio Link prior to relocation.
Capture RSSI and BER at Both Ends of Radio Link.
d) Remove and relocate to Tower the Northwest Water Tower Radio and
Antenna Dish.
e) Align Microwave Radio Path at Northwest radio Tower and Peek
Service Center for New Tower.
f) Switch Radio Consoles to the Northwest Radio Site
2) Peek to Fondren Link
a) Run New Andrews Heliax Low Loss ½” Diameter Coax from Radio
Room To New Tower Mounting Location. In preparation of faster
deployment.
b) Document system performance of Radio Link prior to relocation.
Capture RSSI and BER at Both Ends of Radio Link.
c) Remove and relocate to Tower the Fondren Water Tower Radio and
Antenna Dish.
d) Align Microwave Radio Path at Fondren Radio Tower and Peek
Service Center for New Tower.
e) Switch Radio Consoles to the Fondren Radio Site and test radios.
2.2.5 NEPA/ SHPO
Service Center Site addressed at 4420 Worcola Street in Dallas, Texas. DFW
Communications through DFW Communications through Terracon will conduct
the NEPA/Section 106 submittal and review process to conform with FCC NEPA
Land Use new tower construction in accordance with 47 CFR Section 1.1307 (a)
(1) through (8), to determine whether any of the listed FCC special interest items
would be significantly affected if a tower structure and antenna and associated
equipment control cabinets were constructed at the proposed site location which
will include the filing of Form FCC 620 for the site per the National
Programmatic Agreement between the FCC and Council on Historic Preservation
2.2.5.1 NEPA/ SHPO-SECTION 106 SCOPE OF SERVICES
2.2.5.1.1 NEPA Evaluation
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations implementing National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements are found in 47 CFR Sections
Page 50 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 5
1.1301 through 1.1319. As found in 47 CFR Part 1.1307(a), these federal
regulations require that nine (9) items potentially impacted by tower construction
and licensing must be addressed in a screening process. These items are
summarized below in the form of a list of questions, which must be answered and
documented to determine whether the action may be excluded from further NEPA
processing.
1. Is the facility to be located in an officially designated "Wilderness Area"?
2. Is the facility to be located in an officially designated "Wildlife Preserve"?
3. Will/may the facility affect listed "Threatened or Endangered Species"?
4. Will/may the facility affect properties that are listed or eligible for listing
in the "National Register of Historic Places"?
5. Will/may the facility affect "Indian Religious Sites"?
6. Is the facility located in a "Flood Plain"?
7. Will/may construction of the facility involve "Significant Change in
Surface Features" (e.g., wetland fill, deforestation or water diversion)?
8. Is the facility an antenna tower and/or supporting structure that is
equipped with "High Intensity White Lights" which are to be located in
"Residential Neighborhoods", as defined by local zoning laws"?
9. Will the facility result in human exposure to radio-frequency radiation in
excess of the applicable safety standards specified in §1.1307(b).
DFW Communications through DFW Communications through Terracon’s state-
approved archaeologist will conduct a desk top archaeological review of the site.
If through the archaeological research process, a Phase I archaeological survey,
consisting of visual reconnaissance and shovel tests, is deemed necessary, the
client will be advised and provided with a cost estimate to perform these services.
2.2.5.1.2 NEPA Implementation Review (Section 106 -Form 620) Evaluation
In addition, DFW Communications through DFW Communications through
Terracon will submit site-specific information to specified state and federal
agencies to include the Texas State Historic Preservation Office as required. Upon
receipt of correspondence from the state and federal agencies, a copy of a final
NEPA implementation review will be submitted that present the results of this
screening. If "yes" is answered to any of these items, the tower site may require
further NEPA assessment prior to construction, such as an architectural survey, or
biological survey.
To conduct the NEPA implementation review, the following tasks will be
performed for the location:
x Review of proposed tower construction documents;
x Correspondence and/or interviews with necessary federal/state/city agency
personnel
x Filing Public Notice in the locality of the proposed tower;
x Phase I archaeological survey, if required; Tower Construction
Notification System (TCNS) filing and corresponding;
Page 51 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 6
x A Visual effects study, if required.
The NEPA implementation review report will contain the results of our findings
and our opinions and interpretation of these findings. DFW Communications
through DFW Communications through Terracon will provide the appropriate
supporting documentation and/or explanation, if available.
Please note that with the exception of the Phase I archaeological survey, this
scope of work does not include an agency file review or conducting additional
services that might be required by a “Yes” response to the NEPA review. At your
request, DFW Communications through DFW Communications through Terracon
can provide supplemental proposals and cost estimates for any additional services
related to a “Yes” response.
2.2.5.1.3 Schedule
Services will be initiated upon receipt of the written notice to proceed. Results of
the NEPA implementation review will be submitted within approximately 90-120
days from receipt of the written notice to proceed, assuming site access can be
gained upon approval. This accounts for a minimum 30 day response time from
the agencies contacted regarding possible environmental impacts and 60 days
allowance for TCNS. In order to comply with the proposed schedule, the
following items are required to be provided by the client at the time of notification
to proceed in order to meet the project completion date.
x Right of entry to conduct the assessment, including access to building
interiors, if any Notification of any restrictions or special requirements
(such as confidentiality) regarding accessing the site.
x An accurate, legal description and a diagram of the site such as a
surveyor’s plat map or scaled architect’s drawing (if such diagrams exist)
Copies of TCNS notifications filed with the FCC and any responses
received
x Copies of relevant correspondence with governmental agencies
x Copies of any environmental reports that were previously prepared for the
site
x Any information relating to known or suspect environmental conditions at
the site
x Information about environmental liens and activity and use limitations for
the site, if any
x A signed Agreement for Services evidencing acceptance of this scope of
services
Consideration of information not received by the issuance date of the report is
beyond the scope of these NEPA services.
2.2.5.1.4 Reliance
The NEPA report will be prepared for the exclusive use and reliance of DFW
Communications (the client). Reliance by any other party (other than a regulatory
agency with jurisdiction) is prohibited without the written authorization of DFW
Page 52 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 7
Communications and DFW Communications through DFW Communications
through Terracon.
If the client is aware of additional parties that will require reliance on the NEPA
report, the names, addresses and relationship of these parties should be provided
for DFW Communications through DFW Communications through Terracon
approval prior to the time of authorization to proceed. DFW Communications
through DFW Communications through Terracon will grant reliance on the
Report to those approved parties upon receipt of a fully executed Reliance
Agreement (available upon request). If, in the future, the client and DFW
Communications through DFW Communications through Terracon consent to
reliance on the Reports by a third party, DFW Communications through DFW
Communications through Terracon will grant reliance upon receipt of a fully
executed Reliance Agreement and receipt of an additional fee of $250.00 per
relying party.
Reliance on the Report by the client and all authorized parties will be subject to
the terms, conditions and limitations stated in the Agreement (and sections of this
proposal incorporated therein), the Reliance Agreement, and Reports.
2.2.5.1.5 Scope and Report Limitations
The findings and conclusions presented in the final reports will be based on the
site’s current utilization and the information collected as discussed in this
proposal. Please note that we do not warrant database or third party information
(such as interviewees) or regulatory agency information used in the compilation
of reports.
NEPA reviews, such as those proposed for these sites, are of limited scope, are
noninvasive and cannot eliminate the potential that environmental consequences
are present beyond what is identified by the limited scope of this NEPA review.
In conducting the limited scope of services described herein, certain sources of
information and public records will not be reviewed. It should be recognized that
environmental concerns may be documented in public records that are not
reviewed. This NEPA review does not include subsurface or other invasive
assessments, business environmental risk evaluations or other services not
particularly identified and discussed herein. No NEPA review can wholly
eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for environmental consequences.
The limitations herein must be considered when the user of this report formulates
opinions as to risks associated with the proposed sites. No warranties, express or
implied, are intended or made.
Page 53 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 8
NEPA Review (Tower site located in Dallas, Texas) * $ 3,100.00
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological review (if required) Project Specific
Tribal review/consultation fees (if required) Project Specific
Legal Notice/Public Notification (required)
Cost plus 25%
each
Follow Up Correspondence/Consultation with FCC at Clients Request ** Project Specific
Phase I Archaeological Survey (if required)***
Cost plus 25%
each
Additional Filings, Mitigation or Surveys (if required) Project Specific
SUBTOTAL $ 3,100.00
LUMP SUM TOTAL * $ 3,100.00
* Pricing is based upon the assumption of a one-time mobilization.
** Not included in the scope of services per the client’s direction.
*** Costs associated with performance of a Phase I Archaeological Survey
will vary depending
on the site. A typical price for a stand-alone survey for one site is typically in the $2,000 to
$3,000 range.
2.2.5 Geotechnical Services
2.2.5.1 Field and Laboratory Services
In the boring cohesive soils will be sampled using thin walled tubes. Cohesionless
soils will be sampled during the performance of the standard penetration test.
Sampling will be continuous to ten feet and intermittently thereafter at a maximum
interval of five feet. All samples will be extruded, logged, sealed, and packaged in
the field to maintain their moisture content and reduce disturbance during
transportation to the laboratory. The load carrying capacity of the bedrock will be
evaluated in the field using the Texas Department of Transportation Cone
Penetration Test. Following the completion of drilling, the pavement surface will be
patched with secrete if necessary.
DFW Communications through Terracon will contact DigTESS, the one call locator
service, to avoid underground utilities. We will not be responsible for damage
resulting from encountering utilities of which we are not made aware of.
An experienced geotechnical engineer will review the boring logs and samples.
Laboratory tests will be conducted on representative samples to evaluate the
pertinent engineering properties of the materials encountered. Afterberg limits will
be preformed to classify the clay soils and as an indication of their volume change
potential. In-situ moisture contents will be preformed to evaluate the consistency of
the soils. Unconfined compression tests may be used to evaluate the strength of the
cohesive soils. Samples will be discarded 30 days after the geotechnical report is
issued.
2.2.5.2 Geotechnical Engineering Report
The results of the field an laboratory studies will be combined into an engineering
Page 54 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 9
report presenting DFW Communications through Terracon’s analysis, comments
and recommendations on geotechnical considerations pertinent to the design of the
communications monopole. These wil include the following:
x Boring log, boring location diagram, groundwater information, and laboratory data.
x Appropriate foundation types, depths, and design parameters with alternatives, if
necessary.
x The presence of groundwater along with its effect on construction
x Site class per Table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 IBC
2.3 City of University Park’s Responsibilities
This section discusses the responsibilities and tasks expected of the City of
University Park. Each of these items will be addressed in the Detailed Design
Review meeting held at the time of signing the contract.
1. Provide a designated project manager for system implementation and work
with DFW Communications in scheduling all meetings and site visits.
2. Supply primary commercial power, wiring, and cable terminations.
3. Obtain all FCC, FAA, zoning, site access, and other permits (including, but not
limited to, easements, impact studies, planning commission approval,
variances, etc) necessary for this project and any other agreements required to
gain use of sites except where noted in SOW that DFW is providing FCC
coordination efforts for new Microwave links.
4. Post the RF license for radio sites prior to testing.
5. Secure the right to use new site location.
6. Provide Building and Civil Drawings for proposed Tower Site.
7. Provide Dig Test Services of proposed site to insure there are not any
underground utilities or plumbing structures that could be damaged or impede
the construction of tower and foundation.
8. Take responsibility for all Civil Engineering of Building to accommodate
Cable tray extension and Ice Bridge to the new Radio tower.
9. Provide all authorizations to perform the installation services.
10. Obtain and provide all approvals, permits, and agreements as required at all
sites and locations.
11. Provide site access and escort as required, in a timely manner during normal
work hours.
Page 55 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 10
12. Provide adequate space for equipment to be installed.
13. Provide primary electrical power at the site.
14. Provide all roof penetrations required by the project.
15. Provide connectivity and connections at the equipment locations.
16. Sign “Installation Completion Form” upon satisfactory completion of project.
17. Provide all buildings, equipment shelters, and towers required for system
installation
18. Insure communications sites meet space, grounding, power, and connectivity
requirements for the installation of all equipment.
19. Customer will provide a dedicated delivery point, such as a warehouse, for
receipt, inventory and storage of equipment prior to delivery to the site(s).
2.4 Assumptions
DFW Communications has developed a comprehensive engineered solution contained
within this proposal with the best intentions of satisfying the needs of University
Park. Certain assumptions were made in order for DFW Communications to design
this system. The following is a list of site requirements and design assumptions for
the system.
1. All existing sites or equipment locations will have sufficient space available for
the system described as required/specified by R56.
2. All existing sites or equipment locations will have adequate electrical power in
the proper phase and voltage and site grounding to support the requirements of the
system described.
3. Any site/location upgrades or modifications are the responsibility of the customer.
4. Approved local, State, Federal third party permits as may be required for the
installation and operation of the proposed equipment are the responsibility of
University Park.
5. Any required system interconnections not specifically outlined here will be
provided by University Park. These may include dedicated phone circuits,
microwave links, Ethernet or other types of connectivity.
6. No coverage guarantee is included in this proposal.
7. DFW Communications is not responsible for interference caused or received by
the DFW Communications provided equipment. Should the University Park’s
system experience interference, DFW Communications can be contracted to
investigate the source and recommend solutions to mitigate the issue.
8. The Path study preformed in 2008 is still valid.
Page 56 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 11
2.5 Site Preparation
DFW Communications will begin work at a site only after mutual agreement by
the City of University Park and DFW Communications that the site is deemed
ready. At a minimum, Site Ready requires a site to have adequate room in an
existing building or shelter to accommodate the equipment to be installed, and
electrical service and internal distribution in place. In addition, network testing
must have been satisfactorily completed.
Sites are required to meet or exceed the requirements as defined in the Motorola
document “Fixed Network Equipment Installations” (“R56 Standard”). Site
requirements must be met before DFW Communications will begin installation of
system equipment. The City of University Park will be responsible for any project
delay costs if sites do not meet the site ready condition within the time required
by the project schedule.
2.5.1 Site Access
Requirement – the City of University Park shall provide site access
for scheduled site walks, installation, optimization, system
troubleshooting and completion of ATP. the City of University
Park shall use its best efforts to provide site access including
transportation to sites that are not accessible by regular four-wheel
drive vehicles. The City of University Park shall be responsible for
coordinating and scheduling with the DFW Communications
Project Manager for access to sites not directly controlled by the
City of University Park.
2.6 Implementation
Implementation of the project will proceed according to the mutually agreed upon
Statement of Work presented in this section. DFW Communications phased
approach to implementation includes factory staging, site development,
infrastructure and subscriber unit installation, optimization and programming, and
testing of the communications network.
Installation and optimization of system equipment
Perform Installation of DFW Communications Supplied Equipment
DFW Communications will install the equipment as defined by the
Equipment List and this statement of work.
Perform On-Site Optimization and Test of DFW Communications
Supplied Equipment
Page 57 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 12
DFW Communications will verify correct operation of all supplied
equipment as the equipment is installed. After the equipment has been
correctly installed, DFW Communication’s Field Engineering Team will
optimize the entire system.
2.7 System Acceptance
The ATP section of this proposal details the procedures to confirm that the system
provided by DFW Communications is complete and meets the acceptance test
criteria.
Each segment will be tested independently using detailed check sheets to be
provided by DFW Communications, as appropriate, and approved by the City of
University Park prior to commencement of acceptance testing. If deficiencies are
found during the testing, both the deficiencies and resolutions to the deficiencies
shall be agreed upon and documented. If the documented deficiencies do not
prevent productive operational use of the system, then the test will be deemed to
have been completed. DFW Communications will, however, remain responsible
for the resolution of the documented deficiencies.
DFW Communications must review any system testing that the City of University
Park wants performed that is not specified in the ATP section of this proposal for
feasibility and acceptability. Any additional tests will represent a change in the
project’s scope.
2.7.1 Microwave Acceptance Testing
1) Bit Error Rate Testing of T1
a. Acceptance testing will consist of documenting for
customer the Bit error Rate of all T1 circuits with alarm
free operation over a 24 hour period.
2) Testing of Circuit Loop Protection Device
a. After all Microwave radio sites are in full operation the
system can loose anyone site and fully recover the
microwave path from the Working to the Protected path
or the reverse thereof. This will be demonstrated by
powering off selected Microwave radios to simulate path
losses.
2.7.2 Radio Tower Acceptance
1) Tower Engineering
a. A Certified P.E. Stamp will be provided for the Tower
upon completion.
b. Tower will be built to supplied specification and be
satisfactory in appearance and structural integrity and
workmanship by professional tower company.
Page 58 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
Microwave Relocation Project Page 13
c. All material waste and debris will be removed from city
property.
2.8 System Documentation
DFW Communications provides documentation of the system configurations, and
system testing. Documentation is created and updated during the project.
2.8.1 Design Documentation
DFW Communications will create or update the following documents
during the design phase:
Equipment list
System description
Acceptance test procedures
Programming parameters
2.8.2 Equipment Manual
DFW Communications will provide equipment manuals covering
both standard and optional features. The content of these manuals
is standardized and may not be specific to the City of University
Park.
Some equipment manuals are only available in Hard Copy. Some
equipment manuals are available electronically. We do not
guarantee which format you will receive for each manual.
Page 59 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
DFW Communications 1 of 5 Microwave Relocation
Confidential and Proprietary Project
Section 3
System Implementation Price Proposal
3.1 Overview of System Pricing
The following tables show the pricing for the equipment and services offered in
this proposal. Installation and optimization includes all of the services described
in the Statement of Work along with the acceptance testing procedures.
Tower Cost
120’ Monopole $84,000.00
Field Service Engineering
Optimization of 2 New Paths $12,900.00
New Coax and Connectors $2,550.00
Project Management Services $4,200.00
Geotechnical Services $3,850.00
Estimated NEPA / SHPO $3,100.00
Not Including:
x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological review (if required)
x Tribal review/consultation fees (if required)
x Legal Notice/Public Notification (required)
x Follow Up Correspondence/Consultation with FCC at Clients Request
x Phase I Archaeological Survey (if required)
x Additional Filings, Mitigation or Surveys (if required)
Total $110,600.00
Proposal Pricing is subject to Outcome of Path Engineering Results and Assumptions of
Normal Soil at Tower Location.
Page 60 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
DFW Communications 2 of 5 Microwave Relocation
Confidential and Proprietary Project
3.2 Clarifications
1) This price proposal is valid for 90 days
2) All work will be performed during normal working hours (Monday through
Friday, 8AM to 4:30PM).
3) All manufacturer warranties apply. The warranty period shall begin once the
City has begun beneficial use of any part of the system not to exceed 90 days
beyond the date of delivery.
4) Installation charges include full system installation and optimization,
acceptance testing, training.
5) Prior to execution of a contract between the City and DFW Communications
and after a letter of intent has been received from the City, a meeting will be
held to thoroughly discuss this proposal and provide all of the detailed
information about the new system offered. This meeting is referred to as the
Detailed Design Review.
6) Any additional work required to complete this project not addressed in this
proposal will be addressed utilizing a Change Order Request Form shown
below.
Page 61 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
DFW Communications 3 of 5 Microwave Relocation
Confidential and Proprietary Project
Change Order Request Form
Change Order Request No.
Requester: Title
Phone No. Department
Description of Request:
Equipment Required:
SOW Modification
Time Line Modification:
Additional Services Required:
Justification:
Budgetary Dollar Value:
Equipment: Services: Total:
Payment Terms:
Other Terms:
Unless amended above, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.
Approved:
City of University Park Project Manager Date
DFW Communications, Inc. Project Manager Date
DFW Communications, Inc. Engineer Date
DFW Communications, Inc. Account Manager Date
Page 62 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
DFW Communications 4 of 5 Microwave Relocation
Confidential and Proprietary Project
3.3 Terms and Conditions
1) Service agreement on equipment can be written to cover all infrastructure on a
24 x 7 basis. If the City so chooses after the warranty period has expired, a
maintenance agreement could be developed to cover malfunctions, electronic
components, and failure. Negligence, abuse and Acts of God are not covered
under a service agreement.
2) Manufacturers’ standard equipment warranty (which will be furnished upon
request) applies to all ordered equipment.
3) DFW Communications, Inc. disclaims all other warranties with respect to the
ordered products express or implied including the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. DFW Communications,
Inc. total liability arising from the ordered products will be limited to the
purchase price of the products with respect to which losses or damages are
claimed. In no event will DFW Communications, Inc. be liable for incidental
or consequential damages.
4) Warranty Service is provided Monday through Friday, 8AM to 4:30PM. After
hours warranty service is available, pricing for this service can be discussed
during the detailed design review meeting.
5) Unless otherwise stated, payment will be due within thirty days after invoice.
What the Warranty Does Not Cover
Defects or damage resulting from use of the Product in other than its
normal and customary manner.
After hours service
Defects or damage from misuse, accidents, water, lightning, or neglect
Defects or damage from improper testing, operation, maintenance,
installation, alteration, modification, or adjustment.
Breakage or damage to antennas unless caused directly by defects in
material workmanship.
Products, which have had the serial number removed or made illegible.
Scratches or other cosmetic damage to Product surfaces that does not
affect the operation of the Product.
Page 63 of 195
DFW Communications City of University Park
DFW Communications 5 of 5 Microwave Relocation
Confidential and Proprietary Project
A Product subjected to unauthorized Product modifications, disassemblies
or repairs.
Normal and customary wear and tear.
Page 64 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:GeneR.Smallwood,P.E.;DirectorofPublicWorks
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:toreviewbidsandawardacontractforin-placerecyclingof
asphaltpavementatvariouslocations
BACKGROUND:
TheCityroutinelycontractsforin-placerecyclingofasphaltpavements.Streetsselectedthisyearby
thePublicWorksDepartmentforresurfacingarelistedontheattachedspreadsheet.Thisyear's
projectwasadvertisedintheParkCitiesNewson06.16.11and06.23.11andbidswerereceivedon
Monday,07.11.11.ThelowbidfortheworkwassubmittedbyCutlerRepaving,Inc.intheamount
of$722,457.60.Thecontractormeetsalltechnicalspecificationsfortheproject,andfundsare
availableintheCapitalProjectsFund.Thespecificationsrequirethecontractortouseasphalt
providedbytheCity.
IftheCityCouncilawardsacontracttoCutlerRepaving,staffrequestsauthorizationtoexpend
capitalprojectfundsforpurchaseofapproximately7,700tonsofasphalt,whichshouldamountto
about$400,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsCityCouncilapprovalofthebids,authorizationfortheCityManagertoexecutea
contractwithCutlerRepaving,Inc.intheamountof$722,457.60,andauthorizationforstaffto
purchasetherequisiteasphaltintheamountof$450,000.
FUNDINGSOURCE:
CAPITALPROJECTFUND
AcctNo44.44.4410
ProjectNo42731.2300
ATTACHMENTS:
StreetList
SiteLocations
BidTabulation
Page 65 of 195
2011 In-Place Recycling Locations
NO. STREET NAME BLOCK(S) FROM TO
1 Amherst 2900-3000 Boedeker Durham
2 Amherst 3100 Durham Airline
3 Amherst 3200-3300 Airline Hillcrest
4 Baltimore 7200 Amherst Stanford
5 Baltimore 7300 Stanford Purdue
6 Baltimore 7400 Purdue Hanover
7 Baltimore 7500 Hanover Bryn Mawr
8 Boedeker 7200 Amherst Stanford
9 Boedeker 7300 Stanford Purdue
10 Boedeker 7400 Purdue Hanover
11 Boedeker 7500 Hanover Bryn Mawr
13 Bryn Mawr 3800 Baltimore Tulane
14 Bryn Mawr 4000 West of Tulane Preston
15 Dickens 7200 Amherst Stanford
16 Douglas 6300 Windsor McFarlin
17 Dublin 6300 McFarlin Fondren
18 Dublin 7400 Purdue Hanover
19 Dublin 7500 Hanover Bryn Mawr
20 Dublin 7600 Bryn Mawr Southwestern
21 Durham 7200 Amherst Stanford
22 Durham 7300 Stanford Purdue
23 Durham 7400 Purdue Hanover
24 Durham 7500 Hanover Bryn Mawr
25 Durham 7600 Bryn Mawr Southwestern
26 Durham 7700 Southwestern Greenbrier
27 Durham 7800 Greenbrier Caruth
31 Fondren 2800 US 75 Boedeker
35 Granada 3500 Key High School
36 Granada 3600-3700 High School Golf
37 Greenbrier 4000 Pickwick Caruth
38 Hanover 2900 Boedeker Dublin
39 Hanover 3000 Dublin Durham
40 Hanover 3200-3300 Airline Hillcrest
41 Hanover 3600-3700 Thackeray Baltimore
42 Larchmont 4200-4300 Douglas Lomo Alto
43 Marquette 3400 Hillcrest Turtle Creek
44 McFarlin 4400 Armstrong Lomo Alto
45 Milton 2700 Willard Cleburne
46 Milton 2800 Cleburne Boedeker
47 Milton 2900 Boedeker Dublin
Page 66 of 195
48 Purdue 2700-2800 Willard Boedeker
49 Purdue 2900 Boedeker Dublin
52 Purdue 3000 Dublin Durham
53 Purdue 3100 Durham Airline
54 Purdue 3200-3300 Airline Hillcrest
55 Purdue 3500 Dickens Turtle Creek
56 Rankin 3200 Airline Athens
57 Rankin 3300 Athens Hillcrest
58 Rosedale 2700 Willard Cleburne
59 Rosedale 2800 Cleburne Boedeker
60 Rosedale 2900 Boedeker Dublin
61 Rosedale 3000 Dublin Durham
62 Rosedale 3100 Durham Airline
63 Rosedale 3200 Airline Athens
64 Rosedale 3300 Athens Hillcrest
65 Southwestern 2900-3000 Boedeker Durham
66 Southwestern 3100 Durham Airline
67 Southwestern 4100 Preston Westchester
68 Stanford 2700-2800 Willard Boedeker
69 Stanford 2900 Boedeker Dublin
70 Stanford 3000 Dublin Durham
71 Stanford 3100 Durham Airline
72 Stanford 3200-3300 Airline Hillcrest
73 Stanford 3400 Hillcrest Dickens
74 Westminster 2700 Willard Cleburne
75 Westminster 2800 Cleburne Boedeker
76 Westminster 2900 Boedeker Dublin
77 Westminster 3200 Airline Athens
78 Westminster 3300 Athens Hillcrest
Page 67 of 195
CIR
KE
Y
S
T
KEY
S
T
BO
A
Z
L
N
DYER ST
DYER ST
GO
L
F
D
R
GO
L
F
D
R
GO
L
F
D
R
DYER ST
DYER ST
PA
R
K
S
T
HYER STHYER ST
SMU BLVD SMU BLVD
OW
N
BY
D
R
DRUID LN
DRUID LNDRUID LN
DRANE DR
MILTON ST
RANKIN ST
LOVERS LN
VAS
SA
R
D
R
CHA
L
E
T
C
T
DUB
L
I
N
S
T
AT
H
E
NS
S
T
HU
R
S
E
Y
S
T
HUR
S
E
Y
S
T
DUB
L
I
N
S
T
DU
BL
I
N
S
T
DU
B
L
I
N
S
T
DU
R
H
A
M
S
T
LOVERS LN
D UB
L
I
N
S
T
LOVERS LN
LOVERS LN
LOVERS LN
V
A
S
S
A
R
D
R
LOVERS LN
PURDUE ST
LOVERS LN
LOVERS LN
DA
N
I
E
L
C
T
MILTON ST
MILTON ST
ASBURY STASBURY ST
DU
R
H
A
M
S
T
PURDUE ST
AT
H
E
NS S
T
AT
H
E
N
S
S
T
AT
H
E
N
S
S
T
DU
B
L
I
N
S
T
LOVERS LNLOVERS LN
PRE
S
T
O
N
R
D
SN
I
DE
R
P
L
Z
SN
I
DE
R
P
L
Z
OXFORD TER
AIRLI
N
E
R
D
AI
R
L
I
N
E
R
D
HI
L
L
T
O
P
L
N
AIRLINE RD
FONDREN DR
SH
A
N
N
O
N
LN
AI
R
L
I
N
E
R
D
AI
R
LI
N
E
R
D
FONDREN DR
DANIEL AVE DANIEL AVE
WI
L
LA
R
D
ST
AI
R
L
I
N
E
RD
AI
R
L
I
N
E
R
D
AI
R
L
I
N
E
R
D
AIRLI
N
E
R
D
PR
E
S
T
ON
R
D
HANOVER ST
AMHERST ST
PR
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
PR
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
PR
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
PR
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
PR
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
PR
E
S
T
ON
R
D
PR
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
AMHERST ST
HANOVER ST
DANIEL AVE
DANIEL AVE
WI
L
L
A
R
D
S
T
DANIEL AVE
AI
R
L
I
N
E
R
D
HANOVER ST HANOVER ST
AMHERST STAMHERST ST
SHANNON LN
RO
L
A
N
D
AV
E
HAY
N
I
E
A
V
E
HAYNIE AVEHAYNIE AVE
WINDSOR LN
TH
A
C
K
E
R
Y
S
T
PURDUE BLVD PURDUE BLVD
BINKLEY AVE
POTOMAC AVE
COLLEGE PLZ
PEYTON PKWY
PEYTON PKWY
BOED
E
K
ER
S
T
BI
S
H
O
P
B
L
V
D
DIC
K
E
N
S
A
V
E
BINKLEY AVE
CL
EBUR
N
E
S
T
BOED
E
K
ER
S
T
THA
C
K
E
R
Y
S
T
TH
A
C
K
E
R
Y
S
T
TH
A
C
K
E
R
Y
S
T
THAC
K
E
R
Y
S
T
THA
C
K
E
R
Y
S
T
TUL
A
N
E
B
L
V
D
PI
C
K
W
I
C
K
LN
TU
L
A
N
E
B
L
V
D
PI
C
K
W
IC
K
L
N
PI
C
K
W
IC
K
L
N
TU
L
A
N
E
B
L
V
D
STANFORD ST
TU
L
A
N
E
B
L
V
D
WEST
W
IC
K
R
D
DO
U
G
L
A
S
A
V
E
DO
U
G
L
A
S
A
V
E
EMERSON AVE
DO
U
G
L
A
S
A
V
E
DO
U
G
L
A
S
A
V
E
DOU
G
L
A
S
A
V
E
DO
U
G
L
A
S
A
V
E
POTOMAC AVE
TH
A
C
K
E
R
Y
S
T
STANFORD ST
WENTWOOD DR
CARUTH BLVD
COLGATE AVE
CARUTH BLVD
COLGATE AVE
WENTWOOD DR
TU
LA
N
E
B
L
V
D
WENTWOOD DR
W ENTW
O
O
D
D
R
DIC
K
E
N
S
A
V
E
DIC
K
E
N
S
A
V
E
BOED
E
K
ER
S
T
CL
EBU
R
NE
S
T
BO
E
DEK
E
R
S
T
BINKLEY AVE
BI
S
H
O
P
B
L
V
D
GRANADA AVE
BINKLEY AVE
BINKLEY AVE
POTOMAC AVE
WES
T
W
ICK
R
D
WES
T
W
I
C
K
R
D
C
O
N
N
E
R
L
Y
D
R
COLGATE AVE
CARUTH BLVD
C OLGATE
A
V
E
CARU
T H BLVD
COLGATE AVE
CARUTH BLVD
STANFORD ST STANFORD ST
EMERSON AVE
GLENWICK LN
DO
U
G
L
A
S
A
V
E
GLENWICK LN
GLENWICK LN
WINDSOR AVE
DO
U
G
L
A
S
A
V
E
POTOMAC AVE
BINKLEY AVE
AI
RL
I
N
E
E
X
T
PR
E
S
T
O
N
P
K
W
Y
BA
L
T
I
M
O
RE D
R
GRASSMERE LN
BRYN MAWR DR
BA
L
T
I
MO
R
E
D
R
BA
L
TIM
O
R
E
D
R
STANHOPE AVE
NORMANDY AVE
LOMA
A
L
T
O
D
R
LOMA
A
L
T
O
D
R
LO
MA
A
L
T
O
D
R
LO
M
A
AL
TO
D
R
STANHOPE AVE
NORMANDY AVE
BA
LTIMO
R
E
D
R
MARQUETTE ST
CENTENARY DR
VILLANOVA ST
BRYN MAWR DR
BRYN MAWR DR
MARQUETTE ST
CENTENARY DR
MARQUETTE ST
CENTENARY DR
VILLANOVA ST
VILLANOVA ST
ROSEDALE AVE
NORMANDY AVE
GRASSMERE LN
CENTEN
A
R
Y DR
MAR QUETTE
S
T
BRYN MAWR DRBRYN MAWR DR
GRASSMERE LN
BRENTWOOD ST
LO
M
A
A
LTO
D
R
LO
M
A
A
LTO
D
R
LO
M
A
A
L
T
O
D
R
VILLANOVA ST
N
O
R
M
A
N
D
Y
A
V
E
NORMANDY AVE
WINDSOR PKWY
NORMANDY AVE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
P
K
W
Y
SAN CARLOS DR
SAN CARLOS DR
SHENANDOAH ST
SHENANDOAH ST
SHENANDOAH ST
AR
M
S
T
RONG
A
V
E
AR
M
S
T
RONG
A
V
E
WI
LLIA
M
S
P
K
W
Y
MCFARLIN BLVDMCFARLIN BLVD
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
MCFARLIN BLVD
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
MCFARLIN BLVD
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T A
V
E
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T A
V
E
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T A
V
E
MCFARLIN BLVD
ST
A
N
D
R
E
W
S
D
R
MCFARLIN BLVD
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
GREENBRIER DR
GREENBRIER DR
MCFARLIN BLVD
CATHEDRAL WAY
MCFARLIN BLVD
SHENANDOAH ST
S
T
A
N
D
R
E
W
S
D
R
ST ANDREWS DR
GREENBRIER DR
GREENBRIER DR
MCFARLIN BLVD
LARCHMONT AVE
A
R
M
S
T
R
O
N
G
P
K
W
Y
NORTHWEST PKWYNORTHWEST PKWY
NORTHWEST PKWY
FR
A
T
E
RN
I
T
Y
R
O
W
WE
S
T
CH
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
WES
T
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
WE
S
T
CHE
S
T
E
R
D
R
WE
S
T
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
W
E
S
T
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
MOCKINGBIRD LN
WESTMINSTER ST
MOCKINGBIRD LN
WE
S
T
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
AR
M
ST
R
ONG
P
K
WY
AR
M
S
TR
O
N
G
PKW
Y
HI
G
H
S
C
H
O
O
L
A
V
E
UNIVERSITY BLVD
UNIVERSITY BLVD
UNIVE RSI TY BLVD
UNIVERSITY BLVD
UNIVERSITY BLVD
TU
R
T
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
L
N
WESTMINSTER AVE
UNIVERSITY BLVDUNIVERSITY BLVD
UNIVERSITY BLVD
UNIVERSITY BLVD
HUN
T
E
R
S
G
L
EN
R
D
UNIVERSITY BLVD
UNIVERSITY BLVD
HU
N
T
E
R
S
G
LEN
R
D
HI
G
H
S
C
H
O
O
L
A
V
E
MOCKINGBIRD PKWY
TU
RT
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
TUR TLE
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
TU
R
TL
E
C
R
EEK
B
L
V
D
TU
R
T
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
TU
R
T
L
E
C
R
E
E
K B
L
V
D
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
TURTLE C REEK BL
V
D
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
NO
R
T
H
C
E
N
T
RA
L
E
X
P
Y
T
T
A D
A
L
L
A
S
N
O
R
T
H
T
O
L
L
W
A
Y
2700
4200
80
0
0
82
0
0
76
0
0
76
0
0
74
0
0
74
0
0
75
0
0
77
0
0
79
0
0
80
0
0
62
0
0
3600
60
0
0
60
0
0
63
0
0
3400
3400
3400
70
0
0
67
0
0
65
0
0
6
1
0
0
62
0
0
3900
60
0
0
70
0
0
62
0
0
59
0
0
60
0
0
67
0
0
60
0
0
60
0
0
59
0
0
58
0
0
58
0
0
59
0
0
60
0
0
62
0
0
65
0
0
65
0
0
66
0
0
67
0
0
68
0
0
71
0
0
73
0
0
74
0
0
76
0
0
77
0
0
79
0
0
58
0
0
59
0
0
60
0
0
61
0
0
63
0
0
64
0
0
65
0
0
66
0
0
66
0
0
66
0
0
67
0
0
68
0
0
68
0
0
70
0
0
68
0
0
70
0
0
71
0
0
73
0
0
74
0
0
76
0
0
7
7
0
0
79
0
0
80
0
0
82
0
0
82
0
0
66
0
0
62
0
0
6
8
0
0
69
00
69
0
0
70
0
0
61
0
0
65
0
0
66
0
0
68
0
0
69
0
0
70
0
0
71
0
0
77
0
0
57
0
0
59
0059
0
0
63
0
0
63
0
0
65
0
0
65
0
0
64
0
0
59
0
0
60
0
0
61
0
0
62
0
0
63
0
0
64
0
0
65
0
0
67
0
0
68
0
0
69
0
0
70
0
0
82
0
0
83
0
0
84
0
0
780
0
77
0
0
80
0
0
79
0
0
5
8
0
0
3300
4200
2600
2600
3000
36003700
7000
3800
4400 4300
4100
4300
4200
4300
70
0
0
64
00
4500
3000
2900
2700
4000
2600
4500
3200
3900
3100
3300
690
0
4100
3900 3800
4300
4300
660
0
4300
3300 3200
3300 3200
3300 3200
3300 3200
3300 3200
3300 3200
3300 3200
3300 3200
3300 3200
3900 3800
3900 3800
3900
3800
4200
4300
4200
3500 3400
3800
4400 4300
4400 4300
4400 4300
4400 4300
4400 4300
4400 4300
6700
69
0
0
3900
3900
3900
3900
3800
3900
400
0
3900
3800
3800
3800
79
0
0
3400
75
00
71
0
0
3300
3700
7000
370
0
3400
64
0
0
3300
3200
3500
3900
3700
4400
4000
3500
4500
670
0
660
0
3700 3600
3700 3600
3700 3600
3700 3600
3700 3600
3700 3600
3700 3600
3700 3600
3700 3600
3700 3600
2800 2700
2800 2700
670
0
590
0
580
0
27002900
27002900
3400
2800
3000 2900
3000 2900
4200
4100
4100
6
3
0
0
680
0
3400
3900
3800
3500
4500
3100
4300
4000
2900 2800
2700
3200
4100
3400
4400
4000
59 00
4500
4500
4500
4500
3400
4000
3600
3600
3700
3700 3600
3400
3400
3500 3400
680
0
3800
3900
4200
3900
4200
3600
3800
3400
3200
3100
4100
43004400
4000
4000
3000
3900
3500
3100
3000
3600
3600
4200
4400
4400
4500
4400
3900
4000
2900
3700
3200
3300
3400
3400
3400
3400
3500
3400
2600
2600
2600
2900
30003100
3100
2900
29003000
3000
2900
3000
3000
4100
4100
4100
4400
3000
3000
2900
3100
3100
3400
3400
3400
3600
2800
3100
3100
3100
3300
3600 3500
35003600
3500
3300
3200
3400
3400
3800
38003900
4000
4000
4000
4000 3900
4000
4100
3900
4200
4200
4200
4200
4200
4200
4200 4100
4200
4000
4100
4400 4300
4100
4100
4100
4400 4300
4400 4300
4400 4300
4300
4300
3100
LANELOVERS
RANKIN ST
MILTON STMILTON ST
PURDUE ST
DU
B
L
I
N
S
T
DU
R
H
A
M
S
T
DU
R
H
A
M
S
T
DU
R
H
A
M
S
T
PURDUE ST
DU
B
L
I
N
S
T
AMHERST ST
HANOVER ST
AMHERST ST
HANOVER ST
FONDREN DR
BO
E
D
E
KE
R
S
T
STANFORD ST
DIC
K
E
N
S
A
V
E
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
A
V
E
STANFORD ST
BO
E
D
E
KE
R
S
T
GRANADA AVEWINDSOR PKWY
ROSEDALE AVE
ROSEDALE AVE ROSEDALE AVE
BA
LT
I
M
OR
E
D
R
BA
L
T
I
M
OR
E
D
R
ROSEDALE AVE
BRYN MAWR DR
TA
R
R
Y
T
O
W
N
T
ER
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T A
V
E
MT
V
E
RN
O
N
A
V
E
GREENBRIER DR
MCFARLIN BLVD
AU
B
U
R
N
D
A
L
E
AV
E
WESTMINSTER AVEWESTMINSTER AVE
WESTMINSTER AVE
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
PR
E
S
T
O
N
C
E
N
T
E
R
P
L
Z
Page 68 of 195
Bi
d
T
a
b
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
H
o
t
I
n
-
P
l
a
c
e
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
o
f
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
i
c
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
V
a
r
i
o
u
s
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
4
2
7
3
1
J
u
l
y
1
1
,
2
0
1
1
It
e
m
Un
i
t
T
o
t
a
l
No
.
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
y
U
n
i
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Am
o
u
n
t
A
m
o
u
n
t
SE
C
T
I
O
N
1
-
P
A
V
I
N
G
P.
1
10
9
,
3
9
1
S
Y
H
o
t
I
n
-
P
l
a
c
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
o
f
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
i
c
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
$2
.
5
5
$
2
7
8
,
9
4
7
.
0
5
P.
2
7,
6
5
7
T
O
N
1
"
H
M
A
C
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
(
H
a
u
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
)
$1
2
.
7
5
$
9
7
,
6
2
6
.
7
5
P.
3
10
,
9
3
9
G
A
L
R
e
j
u
v
e
n
a
t
o
r
A
g
e
n
t
$3
.
7
5
$
4
1
,
0
2
1
.
6
3
P.
4
86
,
2
5
3
S
Y
F
u
l
l
W
i
d
t
h
M
i
l
l
i
n
g
(
1
"
)
$2
.
2
5
$
1
9
4
,
0
6
9
.
2
5
P.
5
20
,
5
0
7
S
Y
6
'
C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
W
e
d
g
e
M
i
l
l
i
n
g
(
V
a
r
i
e
s
0
"
t
o
1
"
)
$2
.
4
5
$
5
0
,
2
4
2
.
1
5
P.
6
12
,
4
2
7
S
Y
6
'
E
d
g
e
M
i
l
l
i
n
g
(
V
a
r
i
e
s
0
"
t
o
1
"
)
$2
.
4
5
$
3
0
,
4
4
6
.
1
5
P.
7
4,
1
8
0
S
Y
2
0
'
B
u
t
t
J
o
i
n
t
M
i
l
l
i
n
g
(
V
a
r
i
e
s
0
"
t
o
1
"
)
$2
.
2
5
$9
,
4
0
5
.
0
0
P.
8
31
E
A
In
s
t
a
l
l
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
A
d
j
u
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
n
g
s
(
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
r
i
n
g
s
t
o
be
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
d
b
y
C
i
t
y
)
$2
0
0
.
0
0
$6
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
P.
9
11
6
E
A
In
s
t
a
l
l
W
a
t
e
r
V
a
l
v
e
B
o
x
R
i
s
e
r
R
i
n
g
(
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
r
i
n
g
s
t
o
b
e
su
p
p
l
i
e
d
b
y
C
i
t
y
)
$1
2
5
.
0
0
$
1
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
B
a
s
e
B
i
d
$7
2
2
,
4
5
7
.
9
8
Cu
t
l
e
r
R
e
p
a
v
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
Page 69 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:GeneR.Smallwood,P.E.;DirectorofPublicWorks
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onarequesttoabandoncertainstreetrights-of-way
BACKGROUND:
TheBankofTexasisinterestedinacquiringtheBrentwoodStreetright-of-wayadjacenttotheir
facilitiesalongthewestsideofthe6200blockofHillcrest.Brentwoodatonetimewasaneast-west
streetrunningparalleltoandbetweenAsburyandGranada,fromHillcrestwesttoHighSchool.In
1944(andagainin1973),Brentwood(westofthenorth-southalleywestofHillcrest)wasvacatedas
astreetandutilizedasanalley.Theright-of-wayeastfromthenorth-southalleytoHillcrest
remainedafiftyfootwidestreet,andhasbeenusedbythebankasaparkinglot.Therearenoutilities
inthesubjectBrentwoodright-of-way.
IftheCityCouncilisamenabletotherequestedabandonment,staffwillsolicitanappraisalofthe
subjectright-of-way,thecostofwhichappraisalwillbetheresponsibilityoftheBankofTexas.
Uponcompletionoftheappraisal,theCityAttorneywillprepareanabandonmentordinanceforCity
Councilconsideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsCityCouncilauthorizationtoproceedwithanappraisaloftheBrentwoodright-of-
way.
ATTACHMENTS:
PlatMap
AERIAL
Page 70 of 195
Page 71 of 195
Page 72 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:GeneR.Smallwood,P.E.;DirectorofPublicWorks
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceabandoningcertainpropertyadjacenttothe
McFarlinAvenueright-of-waytoSMU
BACKGROUND:
DuringthereviewofplanssubmittedfortherealignmentandreconstructionofAirlineandDublin
(associatedwiththeResidentialCommonsproject),CitystaffaskedSMUtodedicateadditionalstreet
right-of-wayatthenortheastquadrantoftheMockingbird-Airlineintersection(fromtheirParkCities
Plazaproperty).Aspartofthosediscussions,SMUstaffexpressedaninterestintheCityproperty
thatrunsalongthesouthsideofMcFarlin,adjacenttothestreetright-of-way,betweenDublinand
Airline.SMUacquiredtheoldinterurbanright-of-way,andgiftedittotheCityin1941.However,
foryearstheyhaveutilizedmuchofthepropertyhasbeenutilizedusesancillarytotheirDawson
ServiceCenter.Inrecentyears,SMUconstructedfraternityhousesandaparkingloteastofthe
servicecenter,however,theCity'sParkDepartmenthasirrigatedandmaintainedthelandscaped
parkwayborderingthosefacilities.
Thesizeofthetwoparcelsisfarfromequal.However,itisstaffopinionthepropertytradewill
benefittheCitythroughtheacquisitionofapropertythatwillimprovetrafficconditionsatavery
busyintersection.Additionally,theCitywouldnothavefurtherresponsibilitytomaintainthe
landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsCityCouncilapprovaloftheabandonmentordinancefortheCity-ownedproperty
adjacenttoMcFarlinbetweenDublinandAirline.
ATTACHMENTS:
ExhibitA-AirlineR-O-W
ExhibitB-McFarlin
AbandonmentOrdinance
Page 73 of 195
Page 74 of 195
Page 75 of 195
50223
ORDINANCE NO. _________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK TEXAS,
ABANDONING A PORTION OF THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MC FARLIN
BOULEVARD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AND DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT
“B”, TO THE ABUTTING OWNER, SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, IN
EXCHANGE FOR DEDICATION OF NEW STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR AIRLINE
ROAD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AND DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT “A”;
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FURNISHING OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS
ORDINANCE FOR RECORDING IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DALLAS
COUNTY, TEXAS, AS A QUITCLAIM DEED OF THE CITY IN EXCHANGE FOR A
DEDICATION DEED FROM SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, has determined that
certain street right-of-way of Mc Farlin Boulevard, as described and depicted in Exhibit “B”, is not
needed or necessary for public purposes by the City and should be abandoned to the abutting owner
in exchange for new right-of-way for Airline Road as described and depicted in Exhibit “A”; Now,
Therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the City of University Park hereby abandons and quitclaims in favor of
the abutting owner, Southern Methodist University, a portion of the street right-of-way of Mc Farlin
Boulevard more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and made a part
hereof for all purposes, the same as if fully copied herein, in the City of University Park, Dallas
County, Texas.
SECTION 2. In consideration for the abandonment of this real property interest, the
abutting owner, Southern Methodist University, will convey by dedication deed to the City of
University Park additional right-of-way for Airline Road more particularly described and depicted
in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and made a part of hereof.
SECTION 3. That the City of University Park does not abandon any other interest other
than described in Exhibit “B”, but does hereby abandon all of its right, title, or interest in the
described real property interest, together with any and all improvements thereon.
Page 76 of 195
50223
SECTION 4. That the City Secretary is directed to prepare a certified copy of this
ordinance and furnish the same to the abutting owner for recording upon receipt of the executed
dedication deed dedicating the right-of-way described in Exhibit “A”. The recording of a certified
copy of this abandonment ordinance in the Real Property Records of Dallas County, Texas, shall
serve as a quitclaim deed of the City of University Park of all such right, title or interest of the City
of University Park in and to the street right-of-way described in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, as
the law and Charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 19th day
of July 2011.
APPROVED:
________________________________
W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_________________________ ________________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY ELIZABETH SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY
(RLD/7-13-11/50223)
Page 77 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:LizSpector
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofminutesoftheJune21,2011CityCouncil
Meeting
BACKGROUND:
MeetingminutesareattachedfortheCouncil'sreview.
ATTACHMENTS:
June21,2011Minutes
Page 78 of 195
MINUTES
AGENDA #2816
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
COUNCIL CHAMBER – CITY HALL
TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2011, 5:00 P.M.
2:00 - 3:00 P.M. DEDICATION AND OPENING OF THE BOOSTER PUMP STATION
AND GERMANY PARK
3:00 - 4:00 P.M. UNIVERSITY PARK CIVIC FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MEETING
4:00 - 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW
The Regular City Council Meeting was called into session at 5:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at City Hall. Present were Councilmember Stewart, Mayor Pro Tem Grable, Mayor
Davis, Councilmember Clark, and Councilmember Begert. Also in attendance were City
Manager Livingston, and City Attorney Dillard.
Mayor Davis introduced Bradfield Elementary student Drew Woodward. He said Drew is
Mayor for the Day and asked him to gavel in the meeting. Afterwards, Mayor Davis presented
Drew with his own gavel and thanked him for his assistance.
City Manager Bob Livingston introduced city staff. They included Community
Information Officer Steve Mace, Director of Information Services Jim Criswell,
Director of Finance Kent Austin, Director of Public Works Bud Smallwood, City
Secretary Liz Spector, Information Services support staff Ken Irvin, Director of Human
Resources Luanne Hanford, Administrative Intern George Ertle, Director of Community
Development Robbie Corder, Assistant Director of Public Works Jacob Speer, Director
of Parks Gerry Bradley, Police Captain Greg Spradlin, and Fire Chief Randy Howell.
Fire Chief Howell introduced fire department personnel in attendance as Brad Zwaska,
Devin Penny, Rusty Massey, and Bob Poynter. Police Officer Todd Jenkins was also
present.
Community Information Officer Steve Mace stated that on June 12, 2011 University
Park resident Harrison Frazar won his first PGA Tour title, the FedEx St. Jude Classic,
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. INVOCATION: Human Resources Director Luanne Hanford
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Human Resources Director Luanne Hanford
C. INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL: Mayor W. Richard Davis
D. INTRODUCTION OF STAFF: City Manager Bob Livingston
II. AWARDS AND PROCLAMATIONS
A. PROCLAMATION: to congratulate University Park resident Harrison Frazar
Page 79 of 195
on the third hole of a playoff. Mr. Mace also said Mr. Frazar is a graduate of Highland
Park High School who won two state titles and was a three-time Honorable Mention
All-American as a member of the University of Texas golf team. Mayor Davis
presented Mr. Frazar with a proclamation to designate June 12, 2011 as Harrison Frazar
Day in the City of University Park.
CIO Steve Mace addressed the Council. He said that the City is recognizing Dallas
Mavericks Head Coach and UP resident Rick Carlisle for winning the 2010-2011 NBA
Championship. Because Coach Carlisle was out of town, Mr. Mace will deliver the
proclamation to the Mavericks' offices.
Director of Parks Gerry Bradley addressed the Council and stated the City experienced
an emergency situation at the Holmes Aquatic Center on Monday, July 13 at about 7:45
p.m. when a young child was pulled from the water unresponsive. Pool manager Bonner
Morren immediately began administering CPR to the boy, while other personnel
contacted 911. The boy was resuscitated by Bonner and transported by emergency
personnel to the hospital. The boy is expected to make a full recovery. Staff commends
lifeguard Bonner Morren for his quick and professional response to this emergency
situation.
Mr. Bradley stated that in addition to Mr. Morren, there were several other pool staffers
present that he wished to recognize. They included Nick Hoover, Katie Thiebaud,
Morgan Kemendo, Craig Thiebaud, Hayden Williams, Valerie Henning, Zach Weber,
Lucie Morren, Haydyn Anigian, and Grant Muller.
The YMCA has requested permission to use city streets in and around the neighborhood
surrounding the YMCA to conduct the 4th Annual Kids Triathlon on Sunday, August 7,
2011, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. The event will include bicycle and foot race
segments through the neighborhood along a route approved by the University Park
Police Department.
The YMCA will advise by letter all homeowners along the race route of the event one
week prior to the race. Police assistance will be provided per the department’s available
manpower. Race planners will have a private ambulance stationed at the YMCA should
one be needed.
At the July 6, 2010 meeting, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of
$743,140 to CPS-Civil, LLP for construction of a 24" watermain along Roland Avenue,
B. PROCLAMATION: to recognize University Park resident Rick Carlisle, head coach of
the Dallas Mavericks
C. PROCLAMATION: to recognize Holmes Aquatic Center Pool Manager Bonner
Morren
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. CONSIDER AND ACT: on YMCA request to conduct 4th annual Kids Triathlon
B. CONSIDER AND ACT: on final payment to CPS-Civil for construction of 24" water
main along Roland Ave.
Page 80 of 195
north from Mockingbird to the Germany Park booster pumping station. That work is
now complete. Engineering Division staff has inspected the installation to ensure
compliance with plans and specifications and they recommend approval of the final
payment of $21,833.27 to the contractor.
The Texas Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA, also Chapter 2256 of the Texas
Government Code) requires that a city’s governing body “review its investment policy
and investment strategies not less than annually” and that the policy be adopted by rule,
order, ordinance, or resolution.
The City Council last approved University Park’s Investment Policy by resolution on
June 15, 2010. The Finance Advisory Committee reviews the proposed policy each year
before making a recommendation to the Council. The revised investment policy
complies with changes in the PFIA without altering the City’s investment philosopy and
practices. Finance Department staff and the Finance Advisory Committee recommend
approval of the investment policy.
RESOLUTION 11-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE INVESTMENT POLICY OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 10-12;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Councilmember Stewart made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the stipulation
that the YMCA use non-permanent street markings for the race. Councilmember Clark
seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
Assistant Director of Public Works Jacob Speer addressed the Council regarding a
required public on the city’s storm water management plan.
Mr. Speer said the City Council approved the Storm Water Management Plan on
January 25, 2008 and the public works department subsequently submitted it to the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). He stated the City’s SWMP
requires an annual presentation to Council and Advisory Committees as well as an
opportunity for public comment and question.
Mr. Speer said along with adopting state and federal agency requirements, the city’s
Storm Water Management Plan addresses issues related to water runoff through public
education, involvement, discharge detection and elimination, and control of construction
sites, and other issues.
There were no requests to address the Council on the City's Storm Water Management
C. CONSIDER AND ACT: on a resolution amending the City’s Investment Policy
D. CONSIDER AND ACT: on approval of minutes of the June 7, 2011 City Council
Meeting
IV. MAIN AGENDA
A. PUBLIC HEARING: regarding the City’s Storm Water Management Program (SWMP)
Page 81 of 195
Plan and Mayor Davis closed the public hearing.
City Secretary Liz Spector addressed the Council. She stated that on June 28, 2010 the
City entered into a contract with Franklin Legal Publishing for a complete legal review
and revision of the existing Code of Ordinances. She explained that Franklin Legal
attorneys analyzed each code provision and ordinance and identified any conflicts,
ambiguities, obsolete and/or duplicative provisions and made recommendations to
address those to the City. Ms. Spector said after the review was received and a draft
code was submitted to the city by Franklin Legal, staff met to review each section of the
code and submit the City’s responses to Franklin Legal.
Ms. Spector explained that one of the major changes to the code was the numbering
system. She explained the new system is a three-part system, referencing the chapter,
section and article. The review from Franklin Legal stated it would now be simpler to
locate specific items and easier to incorporate amendments.
Ms. Spector also stated that in addition to the legal review, the code was recodified to
include all ordinances adopted by the Council through December 31, 2010.
Councilmember Clark thanked staff for their efforts to undertake the Code review and
recodification.
There was no one else who wished to address the Council and Mayor Davis asked for a
motion.
Councilmember Clark made a motion to approve the adoption of revised Code of
Ordinances. Councilmember Stewart seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE 11/11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK BY ADOPTING AND ENACTING THE 2011 UNIVERSITY PARK
CODE OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF SUCH CODE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Director of Community Development Robbie Corder addressed the Council regarding a
request he had presented to the Council at the June 7 meeting. He reminded the Council
that Friends of the Library member Elin Greenberg asked to include the P Parking
District in the zoning districts approved to hold special events.
Mr. Corder said special events must be part of a civic event, specific holiday or
community function and are limited to four times yearly per applicant. He said the
event must also be approved by the Community Development Department and be
granted a Special Events Permit. He said the proposed change to the ordinance was to
B. CONSIDER AND ACT: on adoption of revised Code of Ordinances
C. CONSIDER AND ACT: on an ordinance amending Article 4.800 University Park Code
of Ordinances regarding special events
Page 82 of 195
include the specific P Parking district located west of Hillcrest, between Haynie and
Daniel, as an approved zone for those events.
Councilmember Clark asked if other parking lots in the City could now hold special
events. Mr. Corder said the ordinance was written to include only the one parking lot,
but that could be considered later if requested.
Councilmember Begert made a motion to approve an ordinance amending Article 4.800
University Park Code of Ordinances regarding special events. Councilmember Stewart
seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE 11/12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING
ARTICLE 4.800 "DISPLAY AND SALE OF GOODS OUTSIDE A BUILDING"
IN PART TO ADD THE "P" PARKING DISTRICT WEST OF HILLCREST,
BETWEEN DANIEL AND HAYNIE, TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED
LOCATIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A
REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO
EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH
OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Director of Finance Kent Austin addressed the Council regarding a proposal made
by Branded Retail Energy Company. He said the company wanted to establish a retail
electric provider, Park Cities Power, to partner with the City, the Town of Highland
Park and HPISD. Mr. Austin said the partnership would provide each of those entities
$5 per month from each customer. Mr. Austin reminded the Council that during the
work session representatives from Branded Retail said they had similar collaborations
with SMU (Mustang Power), the University of Texas (Longhorn Power), and Texas A
& M (Aggie Power). He said the company had no cities as partners.
Mayor Pro Tem Grable asked if the company needed approval from each of the entities
before they created Park Cities Power. A company representative said they would need
no approval to create Park Cities Power, however, the city would receive no revenue if
they decided not to participate.
Mayor Davis thanked the two company representatives for their earlier presentation. He
said they provided good information and he would like more time to study the issue.
Mayor Davis asked that this proposal be put on an agenda in September for further
discussion.
City Manager Livingston addressed the Council regarding the contract for library
interior design finish-out. He reminded them that up to this point, the Friends of the
Library have worked directly with the architectural firm PSA-Dewberry Inc. using
Denelle Wrightson, AIA, to provide preliminary design for the interior spaces. He said
D. DISCUSS: Branded Retail Energy concept for Park Cities Power affinity energy
marketing program
E. CONSIDER AND ACT: on a contract with PSA-Dewberry, Inc. for design of interior
space finish out of the University Park Public Library
Page 83 of 195
the proposed agreement would shift financial responsibility for interior design and
finish-out to the City. He said Ms. Wrightson is Director of Library Architecture for
PSA-Dewberry and has worked with numerous cities nationwide and especially in the
Dallas-Ft. Worth area.
Mr. Livingston said the proposed agreement is a standard American Institute of
Architects document for design services between an owner (City) and architect. He
explained that the proposed fee for the project is $182,535 plus incidental expenses and
includes the design of the interior to include HVAC, electrical, restrooms, and furniture.
Mayor Davis said the Friends of the Library as well as a committee comprised of certain
Council members and staff have worked on this proposal for many weeks and he said
they are satisfied with the contract as proposed.
Councilmember Stewart made a motion to approve a contract with PSA-Dewberry, Inc.
in the amount of $182,535 for design of interior space finish-out of the University Park
Public Library. Councilmember Begert seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
There was no one present who wished to address the Council and Mayor Davis adjourned the
meeting.
Considered and approved this 19th day of July, 2011.
____________________________________
W. Richard Davis, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Elizabeth Spector, City Secretary
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 84 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:HarryPersaud,MRTPI,AICP,ChiefPlanningOfficial
SUBJECT:PUBLICHEARING:onarequestbyLegacyHillcrestInvestmentsforachangeof
zoningfromParking“P”andOffice“O-2”zoningdistrictclassificationtoPlanned
DevelopmentDistrict“PD-37”andconsiderationofaConceptualSitePlanfora
mixed-usedevelopmenttoinclude,butnotlimitedto,Hotel,oneSingle-Familyunit,
Offices,RetailandParkingbelowgrade.
BACKGROUND:
LegacyHillcrestInvestmentsinitiallyrequestedtherezoningofthesubjecttractin2001,andsince
thenPDapplicationswereagainsubmittedin2006and2009withthecurrentrequestmadeinJanuary
2011.Eachofthoserequestswasamendedseveraltimesduringthezoningprocess,withchangesto
maximumgrossfloorareaandlanduses.Asummaryaccountofthoserequestsandchangesare
includedintheattachedP&Zreport.
IntheJanuary24,2011PDconceptualplansubmittal,LegacyHillcrestInvestmentsrequesteda
maximumbuildingsizeof150,000sq.ft.withofficesnottoexceed150,000sq.ft.,retail/restaurant
use-20,000sq.ft.,hotel-50,000sq.ft.,onesingle-familyunitand30,000sq.ft.forbelowgrade
storageandaccessoryusestobeexcludedfromthemaximumgrossfloorarea.ThePlanningand
ZoningCommissioninitiatedapublichearingatitsregularmeetingonFebruary8,2011and
continuedtodiscussandconsiderthisitematitsregularmeetingsinMarchandApril.Thefinal
recommendationsforwardedtotheCityCouncilhavebeenincorporatedinadraftordinancewhichis
includedfortheCouncil'sreview.StaffwillspendagreatdealoftimeintheJuly19worksession
reviewingthedetailscontainedinthedraftordinanceandhopefullyclarifyandprovideanswersto
questions.
TheCitynotifiedownersofpropertieslocatedwithin200feetofthesubjecttractoftheproposed
zoningchangeandpostedlegalnoticesintheParkCitiesNewsonJanuary27,2011andJune30,
2011.Fourteenoftheforty-onepropertyownersnotifiedrespondedinwriting,opposedtothe
proposedzoningchangeandnoonerespondedinfavor.Thetotalpercentageoflandareaopposed
tothecaseis33.76exceedingthe20percentwhichtriggersthethree-fourthsrule.Inaccordance
withSection15-101ofthecomprehensivezoningordinancetheapprovalofthiscasebytheCity
Councilwillrequiretheaffirmativevoteofatleastfourcouncilmembers.
RECOMMENDATION:
PlanningandZoningCommissionrecommendedapprovalwithspecificdevelopmentstandardsand
conditionscontainedinthedraftordinanceattached.
ATTACHMENTS:
ConceptualSitePlan
Overlayshowingexistingbuildingfootprint
DraftOrdinance
Page 85 of 195
P&ZReport
Parkingdemandanalysis
Parkingrequirementsforaccessoryuses
P&ZminutesforMarch8,2011
P&ZminutesforApril12,2011
LegacyHillcrestResponses
ResidentPetition
P&ZminutesforFebruary8,2011
Page 86 of 195
DANIEL AVE.
HAYNIE AVE.
AL
L
E
Y
HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
.
AL
L
E
Y
N
0'10'30'50'
EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT
(IN RED)
PROPOSED PD SETBACK LINES
(IN BLUE)
LEGACY HILLCREST
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTJUNE 28, 2011
UNIVERSITY PARK, TX 1845 Woodall Rodgers Freeway Phone 214 826 7080
Suite 1500 Fax 214 826 7016
Dallas, Texas 75201 Copyright C 2009
www.omniplan.comPage 87 of 195
Page 88 of 195
Page 89 of 195
Page 90 of 195
Page 91 of 195
Page 92 of 195
Page 93 of 195
Page 94 of 195
Page 95 of 195
Page 96 of 195
Page 97 of 195
Page 98 of 195
Page 99 of 195
Page 100 of 195
Page 101 of 195
Page 102 of 195
Page 103 of 195
Page 104 of 195
Page 105 of 195
Page 106 of 195
Page 107 of 195
Page 108 of 195
Page 109 of 195
Page 110 of 195
Page 111 of 195
Page 112 of 195
Page 113 of 195
Page 114 of 195
1
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, SO AS TO GRANT PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 37 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS ALL OF
LOTS 7-12, BLOCK 3, UNIVERSITY PARK ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT “A”; PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; 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 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, are hereby amended to grant Planned Development District No. 37 (“PD-
37”) for the property described as Lots 7-12, University Park Addition, an addition to the City of
University Park, Dallas County, Texas (the “property”).
SECTION 2. The Conceptual Site Plan for PD-37, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
made a part hereof for all purposes, the same as if fully copied herein, is approved as the Conceptual
Site Plan for said Planned Development District as required by Section 17-101 (1) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas. The Detailed Site Plan for
PD-37 as required by Section 17-101 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance, will be submitted for review by
Page 115 of 195
2
the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council prior to the issuance of any
building permit, provided that there will be no additional public hearing required. Approval of the
Conceptual and Detailed Site Plans is subject to the following special conditions:
A. The property shall be developed only in conformance with the requirements of this Planned
Development District 37 and the approved Detailed Site Plan;
B. Development of the property must be in substantial conformance with the Conceptual Site
Plan approved by the City Council. The PD-37 Conceptual Site Plan contemplates the
abandonment of the existing alley and the right turn corner clip from Daniel to Hillcrest. A
Detailed Site Plan must be approved prior to issuance of any building permit;
C. Maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA) of Buildings and Structures:
1. The Gross Floor Area (GFA) for all buildings and structures constructed above and
below grade in this PD-37, except the required off-street parking uses, shall not exceed
135,000 square feet GFA, provided that the utility, accessory and incidental uses permitted by
subsection D (6) b. below, not exceeding 5,000 square feet, shall not be included in the
calculation of the total GFA;
2. Retail uses may not exceed 20,000 square feet of GFA, including restaurant uses
not to exceed 10,000 square feet of GFA;
3. Office uses may not exceed 135,000 square feet of GFA;
4. A Hotel not to exceed 50,000 square feet of GFA, provided the Hotel use on the
site shall be located east of the center line of the existing alley;
D. Permitted Uses; Parking Requirements; Area Regulations; Miscellaneous Conditions:
1. Educational, Institutional and Special Uses listed in section 20-102 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance shall be permitted, except the following uses:
a. Church;
b. Community center;
c. Fraternal organization, lodge or civic club; and,
d. School;
Page 116 of 195
3
2. The Retail and Service type uses, as defined in Section 20-102 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, will be permitted, to wit:
a. Retail uses may not exceed 20,000 square feet of GFA, including restaurant
uses not to exceed 10,000 square feet of GFA;
b. Office uses, including bank and professional offices (such as title
companies, mortgage companies, medical, dental etc.) not exceeding 135,000 square feet
of GFA;
c. The gross floor area for specific uses in this category will be shown on the
Detailed Site Plan;
d. All uses permitted in the PD, including retail, restaurant, office and service
type uses must front on and have direct access only on Hillcrest Avenue and Daniel
Avenue, except for fire and emergency exits that may be required on Haynie Avenue by
applicable building codes;
3. One single-family residential unit (“unit”) may be located east of Lot 10 within the
maximum building height;
4. Private safe deposit box services;
5. Parking structure, commercial, provided that at-grade or above-grade structured
parking shall be prohibited;
6. Utility, Accessory and Incidental Uses as listed in Section 20-102 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in subsection E. below:
a. Any infrastructure and facilities for the receipt or transmission of
communications services, broadband services, and information services, including but not
limited to those that fall within the jurisdiction of the FCC Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau;
b. A gross floor area not exceeding 5,000 square feet located below grade and
used for any or all of the following utility, incidental and accessory uses, intended
primarily for tenants and guests shall be excluded from the gross floor area calculation for
the buildings approved for this PD-37, to wit:
i. Mailroom;
ii. Maintenance office and work area;
iii. Maintenance storage (light bulbs, cleaning supplies and equipment);
Page 117 of 195
4
iv. Fitness center for tenants only;
v. Deli or vending machine areas;
vi. Car wash and auto detailing services below-grade only for use by tenants,
their guests and parkers only, not exceeding 2 bays;
c. The specific accessory and incidental uses’ locations and gross floor areas,
and a list of below-grade uses and activities primarily for use by tenants and their guests,
will be shown on the Detailed Site Plan;
7. Storage of wine, in accordance with TABC regulations, as provided in Section 20-
102 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The storage of wine shall be for private
collections only and not storage related to sale, tasting events or wholesale distribution of
wine;
8. A Hotel not to exceed 50,000 square feet of GFA, provided the Hotel use on the
site shall be located east of the center line of the existing alley.
E. Prohibited Uses. The following uses shall not be allowed on the property:
a. College or university;
b. Nursing home or residence for aged;
c. Fire station or similar public safety building;
d. Tennis court (private);
e. Tennis court (unlighted);
f. Telephone exchange (call center);
g. Church;
h. Community center;
i. Fraternal organization, lodge, or civic club; and,
j. Any drive through associated with a primary or accessory use at or above grade;
F. Building Setbacks. The Detailed Site Plan must satisfy the following setbacks:
1. Hillcrest Avenue:
Page 118 of 195
5
a. Comply with setback requirements in Section 23-102 (4) (a) (iii) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, in effect as of the effective date of this PD-37.
Zero setback is required;
b. A minimum 10 feet 6 inches wide sidewalk, with a 5 feet wide tree
planting zone and 1 foot wide dismount area adjacent to on-street parallel parking
spaces, will be provided. Four (4) valet parallel parking spaces, 23 feet long by 8
feet wide, will be provided along the frontage;
2. Daniel Avenue:
A minimum 10 feet wide sidewalk, with a 5 feet wide tree planting zone and a
minimum 1 foot wide dismount area adjacent to on-street parallel parking spaces, will be
provided. Four (4) valet parallel parking spaces, 23 feet long by 8 feet wide, will be
provided along the frontage west of the center line of the existing alley;
3. Haynie Avenue:
a. East of the center line of the existing alley, a minimum 7½ feet wide
sidewalk with a 5 feet wide tree planting zone shall be provided, and ten (10)
angled head-in parking spaces, marked as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, will
be provided;
b. West of the center line of the existing alley, a building setback of 25
feet from the property line will be provided. A minimum 5 feet wide sidewalk and
a 5 feet wide tree planting zone will be provided;
c. The building setback for Lot 7 shall be 10 feet from the west
property line, provided driveways and ramps shall be setback 3 feet from the
property line and screened by a 6 feet high masonry wall set back not less than
twenty-five feet (25’) from the property line on Haynie and shall terminate at the
property line fronting on Daniel Avenue.
G. Building Height
1. Mid Rise Building
a. The Mid Rise building shall not exceed a maximum building height
of seventy-two point five feet (72.5’) from reference point “A” as shown on the
Conceptual Site Plan;
b. Screening walls for roof-top mechanical equipment shall be limited
to twenty feet (20’) in height for the Mid Rise building shown on the Conceptual
Page 119 of 195
6
Site Plan, and shall follow a slope of 1.5 feet in vertical height to 2 feet of
horizontal setback, starting at the rooftop at the exterior wall of the building.
2. Low Rise Building:
a. The maximum building height for a building west of the east line
of the alley shall be thirty-five feet (35’) from reference point “B” as shown in the
Conceptual Site Plan;
b. Screening walls for roof-top mechanical equipment shall be limited
to eight feet (8’) in height and shall be set back twenty feet (20’) from the
perimeter walls;
c. The elevator, penthouse or bulkhead structures on top of a building
may project not more than twelve feet (12’) above the maximum building height,
provided they are set back at least twenty feet (20’) from all perimeter walls.
H. Off-Street Parking
1. The total number of required off-street parking spaces for this PD-37 will be
calculated using the parking standards contained in Section 26-100 of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance. The Detailed Site Plan will show all parking spaces to be constructed
in this PD-37 and will specify the number of required off-street parking spaces for the PD;
2. Underground parking on the property may be accessed from street level by the
ramps shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. The owner will obtain and file with the
Community Development Director a comprehensive traffic study approximately 18
months after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the new buildings, and the owner
shall pay the cost of any additional traffic control measures or studies recommended by the
study and deemed necessary by the City Council. The traffic study or studies will focus on
the impacts of additional traffic generated by and attributable to the development
approved by this PD-37 and will be performed by a consultant selected by the City
Council;
3. The private safe deposit box services and storage of wine uses will require one
parking space per 300 square feet of GFA. In the event the use of this floor area is
changed in the future, parking shall be calculated for the new uses in accordance with the
parking standards contained in §26-100 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance;
4. No additional parking spaces shall be calculated or required for the following
accessory uses, not to exceed 5,000 square feet of GFA, located below grade and for use
by tenants and guests only, to wit:
Page 120 of 195
7
a. Mailroom;
b. Maintenance office and work area;
c. Maintenance storage (light bulbs, cleaning supplies and equipment etc.);
d. Fitness center for tenants only;
e. Deli or vending machine areas; and,
f. Car wash and auto detailing services below grade for use by tenants, their
guests, and parkers (2 bays);
5. Clubs, restaurants or other uses located in a hotel and intended for use by the
public other than guests shall provide parking in accordance with Section 26-100 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance;
I. Additional Conditions:
1. Wireless Communication Services
a. Any infrastructure and facilities for the receipt or transmission of
communications services, broadband services, and information services, including
those that fall within the jurisdiction of the FCC Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, which may not project more than twenty feet (20’) above the approved
building height of the Mid Rise building as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and
set back a minimum of twenty feet (20’) from the parapet walls of the building.
Such facilities and related equipment located on top of a building are expressly
prohibited on a building west of the center line of the existing alley;
b. Must be screened and/or integrated into the structure to minimize views
from public streets, sidewalks and open spaces and neighboring residential uses
and shown on the Detailed Site Plan approved by City Council. The materials for
the screens must be architecturally compatible with the building(s) on which they
are located;
2. Exterior Façades and Landscaping:
a. On the south side of the Low Rise building along Haynie Avenue, exterior
façades and landscaping will be designed in a manner that softens visual impact to
the residential uses, will be shown on the Detailed Site Plan, and are subject to City
Council approval. Landscaping in those areas will maximize green space, as
approved by the City Council. Final landscaping must be shown on the Detailed
Site Plan;
Page 121 of 195
8
b. The detailed landscape plan to be submitted with the Detailed Site Plan
shall provide the species, caliper, specific location and height of trees to be
installed on the site. All plant material must be irrigated and maintained in a
healthy condition at all times;
3. Architectural Articulation.
Building façades for each building fronting a public street must have offsets in the
plane of the façade, and no more than 75 percent of the total face area may occur in a
single vertical plane (minimum 25 percent cumulative offsets required). The required
offsets must consist of projections or recesses from the primary façade. The architectural
articulation for the external building facades shall be approved with the Detailed Site Plan;
4. Exterior Façade Materials. The following shall apply to all exterior walls of
buildings and parking structures that are clearly visible from a public street, walkway,
open space, or adjacent residential area:
a. Exterior walls, excluding windows, doors, and other openings, shall be
constructed of one hundred percent (100%) masonry, including, without
limitation, brick, stone or cultured stone, cast stone, pre-cast concrete or Portland
cement stucco on the exterior façade;
b. EIFS (Exterior Insulating and Finishing System), unpainted metal, or
metal subject to ordinary rusting shall not be used as an exterior building
material. Factory finished metal elements as well as metals that develop an
attractive oxidized finish, such as copper, galvanized metal, stainless steel or
weathering steel, may be used as architectural accents;
5. Tenant Parking. Each lease for space in the improvements in this PD-37 must
include a provision requiring the tenants and their employees to park in the underground
parking garage. In the event that a fee is charged for parking in the underground garage,
tenants in the building shall be required to validate parking tickets for customers and
clients;
6. Signage. Signage in this PD-37 shall be in accordance with Article 12.200 of the
Code of Ordinances. Applicant may also request the creation of a special sign district
under Section 12.258 of the Code of Ordinances;
7. Site Utilities. Location and capacity of utilities, including specific locations,
number, and spacing of fire hydrants, water, sanitary and storm sewer, solid waste
disposal, electric and gas, shall be submitted with the Detailed Site Plan, and reviewed and
approved by the Director of Public Works prior to the issuance of a building permit. All
wires, cables, lines, conduits, and other appurtenances designed to serve this PD-37
development will be buried. The developer will be responsible for all costs of utility
installation and relocation. Owner will be responsible for all above-grade and below-grade
Page 122 of 195
9
utility improvements, installation and relocation costs within the property. The allocation
of costs for all off site infrastructure improvements shall be determined at the time of the
Detailed Site Plan approval;
8 Valet Parking. Applicant will submit details of lane configuration, storage and
transition with the Detailed Site Plan for further review. Valet parking will be allowed in
the parallel parking spaces along Daniel Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue in conformity with
the requirements of Article 10.2700 of the Code of Ordinances;
9 Trash Receptacles. The final locations of trash receptacles will be shown on the
Detailed Site Plan and must comply with requirements of the Public Works Department.
Dumpsters may not be located in public rights-of-way;
10. Streetscape Details: Pedestrian lighting and streetscape furniture will be provided
and shown on the Detailed Site Plan;
11. Balconies: Balconies 10 feet or more above the sidewalk may protrude not more
than 6 feet from the building face, except that the Low Rise building located west of the
alley shall not have any balconies facing Haynie Avenue;
12. Awnings or canopies: Awnings or canopies supported off the primary structure
may encroach above the public sidewalk, provided they leave a minimum clearance of 8
feet above the sidewalk, are set back a minimum of 18 inches from back of curb, and will
not impede sidewalk tree growth. A separate building permit is required for the installation
of awnings;
13. Outdoor Dining: The private property setback areas adjacent to restaurants
may be used for dining and congregation areas as shown on the Detailed Site Plan,
providing that a clear and unobstructed sidewalk of at least 4 feet is available at all times
for pedestrian use. Specific requests for outdoor dining areas which encroach on a public
right-of-way will be permitted only by a license agreement approved by the City Council;
14. Construction Fence. An eight foot (8’) solid plywood screening fence must be
installed around the construction site during construction and remain in place while
construction is ongoing. The fence must be painted green, or as otherwise approved by the
City Counci;
15. Explosives. No explosives may be used in the demolition and construction on
the property;
16. Neighborhood Liaison. The Owner of the property will provide a liaison person
during construction to respond to questions and complaints from nearby residents. The
Owner will provide notice to residents located within 2 blocks of the property of the name
Page 123 of 195
10
and methods of contacting the liaison person 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The
contact name and number will be posted on the construction site;
17. Construction Vehicles. Construction vehicles and equipment may not be parked
on City streets, except on streets closed for construction. All construction vehicle parking
will be accommodated on-site. If additional parking is required, then Owner will provide
off-site parking and shuttle workers to the site;
18. Construction Hours. Unless written permission is granted by the Director of
Public Works, construction work on the site is restricted to Monday through Friday from
7:00 am to 6:00 pm and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturdays;
19. Background Checks. All contractors must perform background checks on all
construction workers prior to their working at the site. The contractors must keep the
background check information on file. No registered sex offender may work on the site;
20. Existing Improvements. Improvements and uses on the property existing on
the effective date of this ordinance may remain in place under Article 6 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance;
21. Cell tower on wheels. During construction, the Owner may relocate existing
telecommunication antennas to a cell tower on wheels on the site. The tower shall not
exceed 65 feet in height, measured from grade, and must maintain a minimum ”fall down”
provision equal to the height of the tower plus 10 feet to any public right-of-way line or
property line
SECTION 3. All ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. Should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map, 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.
Page 124 of 195
11
SECTION 5. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this
ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map, 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 6. 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 ___________ 2011.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________ ____________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY ELIZABETH SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY
(RLD; 2/15/11; 47766)
Page 125 of 195
12
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, SO AS TO GRANT PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 37 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS ALL OF
LOTS 7-12, BLOCK 3, UNIVERSITY PARK ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT “A”; PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; 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.
Duly passed by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the ____ day of
______________ 2011.
APPROVED:
________________________________
W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
ELIZABETH SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY
Page 126 of 195
Planning and Zoning Commission Report
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Chief Planning Official
Date: March 8, 2011
Case Number: PZ 11-001: Legacy Hillcrest PD request
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP
LOCATION: The subject site is situated west of and abutting Hillcrest Avenue
between Haynie and Daniel Avenues.
REQUEST: A request by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP, for a change of zoning
from Parking “P” and Office “O-2” zoning district classification to
Planned Development District “PD-37” and approval of a Conceptual
Site Plan for mixed use development to include one Single Family
unit, Offices, Retail and Parking below grade. The subject tract is
approx. 1.58 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie
Avenues and West of Hillcrest Ave., and described as lots 7 thru 12,
Block 3, University Park Addition, City of University Park, Dallas
County, Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking “P” and Office “O-2”
zoning district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest
Investments, LP.
EXISTING Parking ‘P’ and Office ‘O-2’
ZONING:
SURROUNDING
LAND USE: North: PD-1-R for retail uses in Snider Plaza.
South: General Retail “GR”, Single family Attached SF-A and
Single family SF-3.
East: UC-1, SMU
West: Multi family, MF-2
Page 127 of 195
2
STAFF
COMMENTS: (A) Site Description and Existing Zoning:
The subject site for this zoning case includes lots 7 thru 12, with 150
feet frontage on Hillcrest Avenue and 459 feet on Daniel Avenue and a
site area of approx. 1.58 acres. The zoning proposal includes the 15
feet Alleyway Right Of Way subject to abandonment by the City.
The topography of the site slopes down 12 feet from an elevation of
598 feet at the Daniel /Hillcrest intersection to 586 feet at Lot 7 and
Daniel; and 8 feet from an elevation of 595 feet at the
Haynie/Hillcrest intersection to 587 feet at lot 7 and Haynie Avenue.
The subject tract is zoned for Office “O-2” and Parking “P”
Zoning district classifications as follows:
(1) Office “O-2” District:
The “O-2” tract measures 180 feet by 150 feet with an area of 27,000
sq. ft. The maximum building height in this district is 60 feet with an
additional setback of 1 foot for every 2 feet over 40 feet in height.
With an FAR of 4:1 the developer should be able to build a floor area
of 108,000 sq. ft. If the City approves of the abandonment and
selling of the 15 feet Alleyway ROW, the O-2 tract will increase by
1,125 sq. ft. (15X150 ÷ 2 + 27,000) to 28,125 sq. ft. and the maximum
developable floor area increases to 112, 500 sq. ft.
(2) Parking “P” District:
The “P” tract measures 264 feet by 150 feet for a total area of 39,600
sq. ft. If the City approves of the abandonment and selling of the 15
feet Alleyway ROW, the “P” tract will increase by 1,125 sq. ft.
(15X150 ÷ 2 + 39,600) to 40,725 sq. ft. This zoning will allow for a
surface parking lot or a commercial parking structure. The maximum
building height is 35 feet.
(B) Proposed Conceptual Site Plan:
1. Proposed Land Uses:
(a) Educational, Institutional and Special Uses except that the
following uses require a Specific Use Permit: (i) church; (ii)
community center; (iii) fraternal organization, lodge or civic
club, and (iv) school.
Page 128 of 195
3
(b) Retail and Service Type Uses as listed in Section 20-102 of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to include the following:
(i) Retail and Restaurant –Not to exceed 20,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant use is limited to 10,000 sq. ft.
(ii) The GFA for specific uses in this category will be shown
on the detailed site plan and required parking spaces calculated
in accordance with the methodology referenced in Section H of
the draft ordinance.
(iii) Office (including bank and professional offices, such as
title companies, mortgage companies, medical, dental, etc.)
uses may have access on Hillcrest and Daniel Avenues- Not to
exceed 130,000 sq. ft.
(c) One residential unit.
(d) Private safe deposit box services
(e) Parking structure, commercial: At-grade or above-grade
structured parking for off-site parking requirements shall be
prohibited
(f) Utility, Accessory and Incidental Uses as listed in Section
20-102 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance;
(g All accessory and incidental uses shall be included in the
GFA (GFA) of the buildings included in the Concept Plan,
which may include below and above grade structures. The
specific accessory and incidental uses and GFA will be shown
on the detailed site plan to be considered by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council. The City Council may
not approve specific accessory uses requested on the detailed
site plan, if the Council finds such uses are not customarily
incidental or subordinate to a primary use as shown on the
concept plan.
(h) Any infrastructure and facilities for the receipt or
transmission of communications services, broadband services,
and information services, including those that fall within the
jurisdiction of the FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
(i) Storage of wine in accordance with TABC regulations
Page 129 of 195
4
(j) Hotel – not to exceed 50,000 sq. ft.
(C) Prohibited Uses:
The following uses are not allowed on the Subject Property:
College or university
Nursing home or residence for aged
Fire station or similar public safety building
Tennis court (private)
Tennis court (unlighted)
Telephone exchange (call center)
(D) Building Setbacks and Streetscape Standards:
The topography of the site slopes down 12 feet from an elevation of
598 feet at the Daniel /Hillcrest intersection to 586 feet at Lot 7 and
Daniel; and 8 feet from an elevation of 595 feet at the
Haynie/Hillcrest intersection to 587 feet at lot 7 and Haynie Avenue.
(a) Hillcrest Avenue:
Minimum10 feet 6 inches wide side walk with 5 feet tree planting zone
and 1-foot wide dismount adjacent to on-street parallel parking spaces.
The concept plan shows 4 valet parallel parking spaces 23 feet by 8
feet along the frontage.
(b) Daniel Avenue:
Minimum10 feet wide sidewalk with 5 feet tree planting zone and a
minimum 1-foot wide dismount adjacent to on-street parallel parking
spaces. The concept plan shows 3 valet parallel parking spaces 23
feet by 8 feet located along the frontage west of the existing Alley.
(c) Haynie Avenue:
East of the center line of the existing alley: Minimum 7½ feet wide
sidewalk with 5 feet tree planting zone. Ten angled head in parking
spaces are shown on the concept plan.
West of the center line of the existing alley: 25 feet from property line
as shown on the concept plan. Five feet of sidewalk and 5 feet wide
tree planting zone are shown on the concept plan. Eleven angled head
in parking spaces will be converted to parallel parking spaces if the
public library building is not built on the adjacent MF tract.
(d ) Setbacks for Lot 7 (adjacent to the MF tract)
Building setback – Minimum 10 feet from property line.
Page 130 of 195
5
Driveways and ramps shall be setback 3 feet from the property line
and screened by a 4 feet masonry wall.
(E) Building Height:
North East Corner of Hillcrest and Daniel
(i) Mid Rise Building as shown on the Concept Plan
5 Stories 72.5 ft
(ii) Screening walls for roof top mechanical equipment
required to be setback 20 feet from perimeter walls
of the primary structure. 20 ft
North West Corner of Site on Daniel
(iii) Low Rise Building as shown on Concept Plan
Two stories 35 ft
(iv) Screening walls for roof top mechanical equipment
required to be setback 8 feet from perimeter walls
of primary structure. 8 ft
(F) Traffic Impact Analysis:
An updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared by
Jacobs Engineering dated December 28, 2010. A summary memo
from Jacobs is attached. The City hired Dannie Cummings, a traffic
engineer to review that TIA. Mr. Cummings review comments dated
January 19, 2011 is also attached. Staff is requesting that the
additional 30,000 sq. ft. below grade for accessory uses be included in
the GFA of the overall development. Mr. Cummings will report on
February 8 as whether this increase in GFA below grade will have a
significant impact on the traffic numbers.
(G) Additional Staff Comments:
(i) Developer to provide the proposed layout of vehicular access on Lot
7.
(ii) Provide details for relocated Traffic signal at Daniel and Hillcrest
intersection.
(iii) Head in parking space west of the Service/Trash access drive need
to be removed.
(iv) Discuss stop sign/access to valet parking on Daniel.
Page 131 of 195
6
(H) History of Zoning Requests for the Site:
1. 2001 Concept Plan:
In 2001, the applicant requested a zoning change to allow the
following mixed uses on the subject site and that request was denied
by P&Z.
9 Story Offices 162,000 sq. ft
1 Story restaurant 25,800 sq. ft.
1 Story bank 8,000 sq. ft.
2 Story library 39,800 sq. ft.
Below grade YMCA 34,900 sq. ft.
Total 270,500 sq. ft.
2. Amended Concept Plan dated February 20, 2006.
The Planning Zoning Commission held a public hearing and
considered a concept plan at a special called meeting on March 6,
2006. That plan showed the following maximum floor area for
various uses not to exceed 290,000 sq. ft. plus a maximum of 8 single
family units. The concept plan also included a request for the City
Council to consider a “maximum of 306,000 square feet plus single-
family at the Detailed Site Plan stage if the Council believes the
additional square footage will enhance the project.”
The concept plan showed the following maximum floor area by uses:
Office/ Hotel/Multi Family 225,000 sq. ft.
Bank 15,000 sq. ft.
Retail 20,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant 20,000 sq. ft.
Library 40,000 sq. ft.
Single Family Residential 8 Units
Total 320,000 sq. ft.
The City’s traffic consultant pointed out at that meeting on March 6,
2006, that a reduction of floor area by 10 – 25% would provide the
necessary “wiggle” room to allow for better traffic flows in that
neighborhood over time. The Planning Commission requested the
applicants to address the comments which were made by residents who
spoke in opposition and return on April 17, 2006 for further
consideration.
Page 132 of 195
7
3. Amended Concept Plan Dated April 5, 2006:
The applicant resubmitted another concept plan on April 13, 2006,
which reduced the maximum square footage by about 7% from
290,000 to 270,000.
The breakdown of uses by maximum floor area is as follows:
Office/ Hotel/Multi Family 225,000 sq. ft.
Bank 15,000 sq. ft.
Retail 20,000 sq. ft.
Restaurant 17,500 sq. ft.
Library 35,000 sq. ft.
Single Family Residential 8 Units
Total 312,000 sq. ft.
However, at the P&Z meeting of April 17, 2006, the applicant
presented a concept plan which called for a maximum of 260,000 sq.
ft. P&Z voted unanimously to deny that request.
4. Amended Concept Plan Dated June 8, 2006
The applicant then re submitted a revised concept plan dated June 8,
2006. The plan noted that the total floor area will not exceed 217,500
sq. ft. plus 8 single family homes.
Maximum floor area for various land uses:
Office 175,000 sq. ft.
Bank 15,000 sq. ft.
Retail 22,500 sq. ft.
Restaurant 17,500 sq. ft.
Library 30,000 sq. ft.
Single Family Residential 8 Units
Total 260,000 sq. ft.
The revised concept plan shows the maximum building height
measured from grade as follows:
Height of Signature Element @ Hillcest and Haynie – 123 feet.
Height of Signature Element @ Hillcrest and Daniel - 120 feet
Maximum building height @ Hillcrest and Haynie – 90.92 feet
Page 133 of 195
8
Maximum Building Height @ Hillcrest and Daniel - 87.92 feet
Height of Signature Elements west of Common area – 77.22 feet
Maximum building height west of Common area on Daniel – 40 feet
Maximum building height east of the parking garage at Daniel – 49
feet.
5. P&Z recommendation – July 17, 2009
Concept Plan with a total of 135,000 sq. ft. GFA, excluding the 8 units
of town homes.
(a) Height of the proposed building on the O-2 site shall be
limited to the height of the existing building.
(b) A maximum of 25,000 square feet for restaurant /retail space.
(c) Building height west of the common area shall not exceed 35
feet.
(d) Parking to be provided at the rate of 1:200 square feet for retail
and restaurant, and 1:300 square feet for office space and
(5) Include 19 staff conditions.
6. Amended Concept Plan dated October 9, 2009.
Legacy Hillcrest Investments submitted a request dated October 9,
2009, to change the zoning on a tract of 2.0696 acres (including
ROWs) from “MF-2”, “P” and “O-2” zoning district classification to a
Planned Development District for a mixed use development.
1. Land uses:
The proposed development will provide for the following uses and
gross building floor area. The cumulative total for all specific uses
may not exceed the GFA of the building.
Maximum floor area of building
(excluding the Parking garage) 187,500 SF
Offices: 162,500 SF
Bank (lobby and office) 10,000 SF
Page 134 of 195
9
Retail/Restaurant 25,000 SF
Hotel 50,000 SF
City Council by Resolution agreed to grant a total of 136, 000 sq. ft.
for the entire development, to include 10,000 sq. ft. of Bank, 12,000
sq. ft. Retail, 8,000 sq. ft. Restaurant, 38,000 sq.ft. Hotel and one
single family unit. City Council Resolution 10/13 was later rescinded.
(I) Special Conditions:
(1) Conceptual Site Plan: Development of the Subject Property
must be in substantial conformance with the Conceptual Site Plan
approved by the City Council. A Detailed Site Plan must be approved
prior to issuance of any building permit.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
A. Maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA) of Buildings and Structures
1. The maximum gross floor area for all buildings and structures
constructed above and below grade is limited to 142,000 square feet.
Some below grade uses as provided for in Section B (6) may be
excluded from the gross floor area calculations (square footage
number represents an average of each commissioner).
2. The maximum gross floor area for retail and restaurant uses
combined is 20,000 square feet.
3. The maximum gross floor area for restaurant use is 10,000
square feet.
4. The maximum gross floor area for office uses is 142,000
square feet.
5. Hotel use to be located east of the existing Alley is limited to
50,000 sq. ft. gross floor area.
B. Permitted Uses
1. Educational, Institutional and Special Uses (Exceptions listed
under (C) “prohibited uses” below).
2. Retail and Service Type Uses as listed in Section 20-102 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to include the following:
a. Retail and Restaurant –Not to exceed a combined total of
20,000 sq. ft. Restaurant use shall not exceed 10,000 sq. ft.
b. Office uses including bank and professional offices (such as
title companies, mortgage companies, medical, dental, etc.). - Not to
exceed 142,000 sq. ft.
c. The gross floor area for specific uses in this category will be
shown on the detailed site plan.
Page 135 of 195
10
d. Access to all retail and service type uses, including offices,
shall have access on Hillcrest Avenue, Daniel Avenue, and Haynie
east of the existing alley.
3. One residential unit located east of lot 10 (within the maximum
building height).
4. Private safe deposit box services.
5. Parking structure, commercial: At-grade or above-grade
structured parking for off-site parking requirements shall be
prohibited.
6. Utility, Accessory and Incidental Uses as listed in Section 20-
102 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance:
a. Any infrastructure and facility for the receipt or transmission of
communications services, broadband services, and information
services, including those that fall within the jurisdiction of the FCC
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
b. The following accessory uses located below grade for use by
tenants and guests only shall provide a gross floor area not to exceed
5,000 sq. ft. and shall be excluded from the gross floor area
calculations for buildings and structures as authorized in the PD.
i. Mailroom
ii. Maintenance office & work area
iii. Maintenance storage (light bulbs, cleaning supplies, etc.)
iv. Fitness center for tenants
v. Deli or vending machine areas
vi. Car wash and auto detailing services below grade for use by
tenants, guests and parkers only (2 bays)
c. Any additional floor space for accessory uses located below or
above grade shall be included in the gross floor area calculations for
buildings and structures as authorized in the PD.
d. All accessory and incidental uses shall be submitted with the
detailed site plan to be considered by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council. The City Council may not approve
specific accessory uses requested on the detailed site plan, if the
Council finds such uses are not customarily incidental or subordinate
to a primary use as shown on the concept plan.
7. Storage of wine in accordance with TABC regulations. The
storage of wine is intended for private collections only and not storage
related to wholesale distribution.
8. Hotel – not to exceed 50,000 sq. ft. Hotel use on the site shall
be located east of the existing alley.
Page 136 of 195
11
C. Prohibited Uses
1. College or university
2. Nursing home or residence for aged
3. Fire station or similar public safety building
4. Tennis court (private)
5. Tennis court (unlighted)
6. Telephone exchange (call center)
7. Church
8. Community center
9. Fraternal organization, lodge or civic club
10. School
11. Any other use not expressly permitted by this ordinance
12. Any drive through associated with a primary or accessory use
at or above-grade
D. Building Setbacks
1. Hillcrest Avenue:
a. Comply with setback requirements Section 23-102(4) (a)(iii) of
the City Zoning Ordinance, as of the effective date of this PD
ordinance.
b. Minimum10 feet 6 inches wide sidewalk with 5 feet tree
planting zone and 1-foot wide dismount adjacent to on-street parallel
parking spaces. The concept plan shows 4 valet parallel parking
spaces 23 feet by 8 feet along the Hillcrest frontage.
2. Daniel Avenue:
a. Building setback – Minimum 10 feet from the northern
property line
b. Minimum10 feet wide sidewalk with 5 feet tree planting zone
and a minimum 1-foot wide dismount adjacent to on-street parallel
parking spaces. The concept plan shows 3 valet parallel parking
spaces 23 feet by 8 feet located along the Daniel frontage west of the
existing alley.
3. Haynie Avenue:
a. Building setback –
i. East of the center line of the existing alley, minimum ten feet
from the property line.
ii. West of the center line of the existing alley, minimum of 25
feet from the property line.
b. East of the center line of the existing Alley: Minimum 7½ feet
wide sidewalk with 5 feet tree planting zone. Ten angled head in
parking spaces are shown on the concept plan.
c. West of the center line of the existing Alley: Five feet of
sidewalk and 5 feet wide tree planting zone are shown on the concept
plan. Only parallel parking spaces 23 feet by 8 feet shall be located
along the Haynie frontage west of the Alley.
Page 137 of 195
12
4. Building Setbacks for Lot 7 (adjacent to the MF tract)
a. Building setback – Minimum 10 feet from west property line.
b. Driveways and ramps shall be setback 3 feet from the property
line and screened by a 6 feet masonry wall. The masonry wall shall
be located ten feet from the property line on Haynie Avenue and
terminate at the property line fronting on Daniel Avenue.
E. Building Height
1. Mid Rise Building
a. Mid Rise Building as shown on the Concept Plan shall not
exceed 5 Stories with a maximum building height of 72.5 feet from
reference point “A” as shown on the Concept Plan.
b. Screening walls or enclosures for roof top mechanical
equipment shall not exceed 20 feet in height and follow a slope of 1.5
foot in vertical height to 2 feet of horizontal setback starting at the
rooftop at the exterior wall of the building.
2. Low Rise Building
a. Low Rise Building as shown on Concept Plan shall not exceed
2 stories with a maximum building height of 35 feet from reference
point “B” as shown on the Concept Plan..
b. Screening walls for roof top mechanical equipment shall not
exceed 8 feet in height and are required to be setback 20 feet from
perimeter walls of primary structure.
c. Elevator shafts above the roof shall not exceed 12 feet in height
and shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from perimeter walls
F. Off-Street Parking
1. The total number of required off-street parking spaces for the
PD will be calculated using the parking standards contained in § 26-
100 of the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The Detailed Site
Plan will show details for all specific uses with parking calculations
and layout for all parking spaces to be constructed in the PD.
2. Private safe deposit box services and Storage of wine in
accordance with TABC regulations will be parked at one parking
space per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
3. No additional parking shall be required for the following
accessory uses, not to exceed 5000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, located
below grade and for use by tenants and guests only.
a. Mailroom
b. Maintenance office & work area
c. Maintenance storage (light bulbs, cleaning supplies, etc.)
d. Fitness center for tenants
e. Deli or vending machine areas
f. Car wash and auto detailing services below grade for use by
tenants, guests and parkers only (2 bays)
Page 138 of 195
13
4. Clubs, restaurants or other uses located in a hotel and intended
for use by the public other than guests, shall provide parking in
accordance with § 26-100 of the City's Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance.
G. Special Conditions
1. Wireless Communication Services
a. Any infrastructure and facility for the receipt or transmission
of communications services, broadband services, and information
services, including those that fall within the jurisdiction of the FCC
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, may not project more than 20
feet above the approved building height as shown on the Conceptual
Site Plan
b. Must be screened and/or integrated into the structure to
minimize views from public streets, sidewalks and open spaces and
neighboring residential uses as shown on the Detailed Site Plan
approved by City Council. The materials for the screens must be
architecturally compatible with the building(s) on which they are
located.
2. Exterior Façade and Landscaping
a. Façades and Landscaping on South Side of Low-Rise Building
along Haynie Avenue.
b. Exterior façade and landscaping for the Low-Rise Building in
the areas adjacent to the residential uses on the south side of Haynie
Avenue will be designed in a manner that softens the visual impact to
the residential uses, and will be shown on the Detailed Site Plan,
subject to City Council approval. Landscaping in those areas will
maximize green-space, as approved by City Council. Final
landscaping must be shown on the Detailed Site Plan.
c. All plant material must be irrigated and maintained in a healthy
condition at all times.
3. Architectural Articulation
a. Building façades for each building fronting a public street must
have offsets in the plane of the façade, and no more than 75 percent of
the total face area may occur in a single vertical plane (minimum 25
percent cumulative offsets required). The required offsets must consist
of projections or recesses from the primary façade. The architectural
articulation for the external building facades shall be approved with
the detailed site plan to clearly and positively enhance the building
design and architectural compatibility with the existing neighborhood.
4. Exterior Façade Materials
a. The following shall apply to all exterior walls of buildings and
structures that are clearly visible from a public street, walkway, open
space, or adjacent residential area:
i. Exterior walls, excluding windows, doors, and other openings,
shall be constructed of one hundred percent (100%) masonry,
Page 139 of 195
14
including, without limitation, brick, stone or cultured stone, or
Portland cement stucco on the exterior façade.
ii. EIFS (Exterior Insulating and Finishing System), unpainted
metal, or metal subject to ordinary rusting shall not be used as an
exterior building material. Factory finished metal elements as well as
metals that develop an attractive oxidized finish, such as copper,
galvanized metal, stainless steel or weathering steel, may be used as
architectural accents.
iii. At the detailed site plan stage, the City Council shall have the
discretion to consider materials shown on the elevations for the
building facades and the applicant shall resubmit the elevations with
different façade materials.
5. Tenant Parking
a. Each lease of floor space in this PD must include a provision
requiring the tenants and their employees to park in the underground
parking garage.
6. Signage
Signage in the PD shall be in accordance with Article 12.200 of the
City Zoning Ordinance except that sidewalk signage (other than
temporary, portable signage for retail/restaurant uses) is prohibited in
the PD. Applicant may also request the creation of a special sign
district under Section 12.258 of the City Zoning Ordinance.
7. Site Utilities
Site utilities including but not limited to the specific location, number
and spacing of fire hydrants, will be reviewed with the Detailed Site
Plan submittal. All overhead wires and cables designed to serve the
PD will be below grade within the PD. Applicant will be responsible
for all above-grade and below-grade utility improvements, installation
and relocation costs within the PD.
8. Valet Parking
Applicant will submit details of lane configuration, storage and
transition with the Detailed Site Plan for further review. Valet parking
will be allowed in the parallel parking spaces along Daniel Avenue
and Hillcrest Avenue in conformity with the requirements of
Article 10.2700 of the City Code of Ordinances.
9. City Alley Abandonment
Applicant shall request abandonment of Alley and provide a legal
survey of the alley right-of-way to be abandoned by the City. The City
will conduct an appraisal to determine the fair market value of the
alley to be abandoned at the cost of Applicant. The City will then
Page 140 of 195
15
consider the request to abandon the alley. If approved and following
payment of the fair market value for the abandoned alley and removal
and relocation of all public infrastructures by Applicant, the City will
then release the certified copy of the abandonment ordinance for
recording. This abandonment process will be conducted in compliance
with applicable state and local laws and ordinances. After the
abandonment ordinance has been filed with the County the property
must be platted to account for the change in boundaries.
10. Trash Receptacles:
The final locations of trash receptacles will be shown on the Detailed
Site Plan and must comply with requirements of the Public Works
Department. Dumpsters may not be located in public rights-of-way.
11. Streetscape Details
Pedestrian lighting and streetscape furniture will be provided by
Applicant and shown on the Detailed Site Plan.
12. Balconies
Balconies 10 feet or more above the sidewalk may protrude not more
than 6 feet from the building face, except that the low rise building
located west of the existing Alley shall not have any balconies facing
Haynie Avenue.
13. Awnings or canopies
Awnings or canopies supported off the primary structure may
encroach above the public sidewalk, provided they leave a minimum
clearance of 8 feet above the sidewalk, are set back a minimum of 18
inches from back of curb, and will not impede sidewalk tree growth.
Separate permit is required for the installation of awnings.
14. Out door Dining
Developer will be allowed to use the setback areas adjacent to
restaurants for dining and congregation areas as shown on the Detailed
Site Plan, providing that a clear and unobstructed sidewalk of at least 4
feet is available at all times for pedestrian use. Dining and
congregation areas may not encroach in the public Right of Ways.
15. Construction Fence
An 8-foot solid plywood screening fence must be installed around the
construction site during construction and remain in place while
construction is ongoing. The fence must be painted green, or as
Page 141 of 195
16
otherwise approved by the City Council, and installed prior to
demolition of any structure on the Subject Property.
16. Explosives
No explosives may be used in the demolition and construction on the
Subject Property.
17. Neighborhood Liaison
Applicant will provide a liaison during construction to respond to
questions and complaints from residents. Applicant will provide
notice to residents located within 2 blocks of the Subject Property of
the name and methods of contacting the liaison 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. The contact name and number will be posted on the
construction site.
18. Construction Vehicles
Construction vehicles and equipment may not be parked on City
streets, except on streets closed for construction. All parking will be
accommodated on-site. If additional parking is required, then
Applicant will provide off-site parking and shuttle workers to the site.
19. Construction Hours
Unless written permission is granted by the Director of Public Works,
construction work on the site is restricted to Monday through Friday
from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturdays.
20. Background Checks
All contractors must perform background checks on all construction
workers prior to their working at the site. The contractors must keep
the background check information on file. No registered sex offender
may work on the site.
21. Existing Improvements
Improvements and uses on the Property existing on the effective date
of this ordinance may remain in place under Article 6 of the zoning
ordinance. (Discuss temporary relocation of telecommunication
facilities)
22. Additional Staff Comment
Change note on MF-2 tract shown on concept plan. “Site to be
rezoned for the proposed Library”
Page 142 of 195
17
NOTIFICATION: A public notice was published in the Park Cities News on January 20,
2011 and notices were mailed to owners of real property within 200
feet of the subject tract. The continuation of the public hearing on
March 8, 2011, was announced at the meeting on February 8, 2011.
Staff will provide a report regarding the number of responses received
at the meeting.
ATTACHMENT:
(1) Revised Concept Plans included in packet
(2) Memo dated February 3, 2011 regarding accessory uses.
(3) Parking calculations with and without the ULI methodology.
Page 143 of 195
From: Dannie Cummings [dcummings@c-pengineering
From: Dannie Cummings [dcummings@c-pengineering.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:23 AM
To: Harry Persaud
Subject: Parking Demand memo
Attachments: Parking Requirements 3-1-2011.pdf
Harry –
Attached is the information that you requested. The parking demand based on City parking
requirements (no ULI methodology applied) is 586 spaces. When we apply the ULI methodology to the
City’s parking requirements the parking demand is 607 spaces.
The reason that the ULI method produces a higher value in this situation is that the recommended
number of ULI parking spaces is 10% above the ULI peak hour parking demand. In this case the ULI peak
hour parking demand was 552 spaces. When we increase this by 10%, we get the 607 spaces.
Dannie
file:///S|/Harry/CITY%20COUNCIL%202011/JULY/ATTACHMENTS/Parking%20Demand%20memo%20Attachment%235.htm7/12/2011 8:26:45 AM
Page 144 of 195
PARKING DEMAND
City Parking Requirements Only
130,000 sf of office
10,000 sf of retail
10,000 sf of restaurant
1 dwelling unit
Recommended Parking Spaces = 586 spaces
City Parking Requirements With ULI Shared Parking Methodogolgy
130,000 sf of office
10,000 sf of retail
10,000 sf of restaurant
1 dwelling unit
Recommended Parking Spaces = 607 spaces
Page 145 of 195
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 3, 2011
TO: Bud Smallwood, P.E.
Director of Public Works
FROM: Dannie Cummings, P.E.
C&P Engineering, Ltd.
RE: Legacy Hillcrest Mixed Use Development
Proposed PD Conditions
At your request we have reviewed the PD requirements proposed for the Legacy
Hillcrest site in regard to permitted uses and the allocated sizes of these uses. Our
understanding of these PD requirements as they pertain to uses and sizes is
summarized below.
The maximum square footage of all uses in the PD is 150,000 square feet.
A maximum of 20,000 square feet of the 150,000 square feet is being allocated
for retail and restaurant uses.
Separate and apart from the 150,000 square feet is an “underground storage and
accessory” use for tenants and guests that is set at a maximum of 30,000 square
feet.
From a traffic impact standpoint we would recommend that that these uses and sizes be
analyzed as a maximum square footage of 180,000 square feet rather than the
proposed 150,000 square feet. We do not believe that the 30,000 square feet of
“underground storage and accessory” use can be separated from the total and assumed
to have a zero or negligible effect on the traffic volumes to be generated by the site.
The information provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in their Trip
Generation Handbook does not indicate the use of separate storage areas when
calculating the trip generation characteristics of permitted land uses such as office,
retail, and restaurants.
Page 146 of 195
Our interpretation of the ITE trip generation data for office land use, for example, is that
their trip rates include such items as: individual offices/cubicles, conference rooms,
common areas, kitchens/eating areas, rest rooms, hallways, reception areas, storage
areas, etc.
The removal of 30,000 square feet of storage area from an office space to an
underground location would allow the owner/developer to build an additional 30,000
square feet of offices/cubicles, conference rooms, etc. which in turn would generate
additional traffic to and from the site.
This transmittal documents our understanding of the information provided in the current
PD conditions proposed by the Legacy Hillcrest site as well as our application of ITE trip
data to these PD conditions. If you or your office should have any questions or
comments regarding this transmittal, do not hesitate to contact me.
Page 147 of 195
file:///S|/Harry/CITY%20COUNCIL%202011/JULY/ATTACHMENTS/Dann...n%20parking%20for%20accessory%20uses%20Attachment%20%234.htm
From: Dannie Cummings [mailto:dcummings@c-pengineering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:03 AM
To: Bud Smallwood
Subject: Legacy Hillcrest Proposed PD Conditions
Bud –
I have reviewed paragraph 7 – TIA/Off-Street Parking – of the most recent PD conditions proposed for
the Legacy Hillcrest site. My review comments in this transmittal are in regard to the following portion of
paragraph 7.
The parking requirement for the permitted uses in Par. 2(e) and (g) and storage uses shall be one
space per 1,000 square feet. There shall be no parking requirements for the uses listed in Par. 2(h).
We concur with their proposal of 1 parking space per 1,000 sf of “private safe deposit box services” and
“storage of wine”. We also concur that there should be no parking requirements for the underground
and accessory uses listed in paragraph 2(h). However, should the current list of underground and
accessory services change, we would withdraw our concurrence until we have conducted a review of the
new list of underground storage and accessory uses.
Let me know if you have any questions regarding our review comments of the Legacy Hillcrest proposed
PD conditions.
Dannie Cummings, P.E.
C&P Engineering, Ltd.
1801 Gateway Boulevard
Suite 101
Richardson, TX 75080
O (972)644-2800
F (972)644-2817
file:///S|/Harry/CITY%20COUNCIL%202011/JULY/ATTACHM...ng%20for%20accessory%20uses%20Attachment%20%234.htm7/12/2011 8:36:21 AM
Page 148 of 195
-- - - -. . - . ,.
MBF DEVEr.OPMEm COWANY
%THE FRWA Dl lnA COMPANY
13355 HDG1, Rn Sl E TJl5
I)AI,F,tS, TX 752406d20
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE#PZll-661
The City of University Park Planning and Zuning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider
a quest, by Legacy Hillcrest Investmmts, LP, far a change of zoning from Parking "P" and Office "0-
2" zoning district classificetion to Plamed Development Disrricr "PD-37" and approvd of a Conceptual
Site Plm far mixed use devcIopmcnt to include one Single Family unit, Osces, Retail and Parking below
grade. The subject tract is appmx. 1.58 sows more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues
and West of Hillcnst Ave., and described as lots 7 thru 12, Block 3,Univrrsity Park Addition. City of
University Park, Dallas County, exa as, ~hesaid tract is zoned Parking "P'hd Offjce "0-2" zoning
district clmsificatian and owned by Legacy W illcrest hvestments, LP.
The public hearing will sta~ at 4:00 PM an Tmsday February 8, 201 1, in the City of University Park
Council Chmber, 3800 University Blvd, University Park, Texas. Intcrcstod panics are invited to attend
the hearing and speak to the Commission, If you have my questions paining to this me, please call
234-987-5410. Your repEy may be sent by mail or hand delivered to: Harry Persaud, Chief Planning
Ofid al, Community Development Department, City of University Park, 3800 University Blvd.,
University Park, TX 75205,
**Please Type at Use Black Inkf*
(Circle one) mJ FPlVOR
Name:
(Please Brint)
Signature:
Addxss:
4f.L *#A
Comments:
Zoning Change and Amendment Process
A request for a mning change follows a two-step process designed to provide opportunities for citizen
involvement and comment. We fm step following the submission of an application for a mning change is to
~hsdule a public heaing before ?he Planning and Zoning Commission. Ladwm within two hundred (200)
feet of he subject site are notified of the Ql~nning and Zoning Commission public hearing. They are pmvided
this ~Sponse shnt and m invited to anmd the public haring to express their mppon or oppo~ition to the
request. Scmnd, the request is lowarded to the City Council for final action following r recommendation fmm
the Planning and Zoning Commission. If tlu owner(r) of more than twcnty percent of the lsnd area within two
hundred feet of the site submit(s) written opposition, then n throo-foudhs vote of all thc eligibb mcmbs~ d the
Ci* Council is required to appro* the coning change. These foms are used to calculate the paeentagc of the
property in opposition.
~~~iSNt plmms w mlng dcti~ih pmpasd by the nppHent, nay change before or during a public
haring and after thb notice. Homer, tkgt tka.gn mnt he mlnot and more restrictive. 1 they nre not
minor and mere lleslr another nr wt bt made,
Page 149 of 195
M&F DEVEMlPMEW COMPANY
*/. I'IIE FRIT'% DllRA COIfPANY
13355 NOEI, RD STF, 13 15
DALLAS, 'z'X 7524OhR20
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # PZ 11 - 001
The City of University Park Planning and Zoning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider
a request by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP, for a change of zoning from Parking '*P" and Office "U-
2" zoning district classification to Planned DeveFopment District "PD-37" and approva1 of a Conceptual
Sitc Plan for mixed use development to include one Single Family unit, Offices, RetaiI and Parking below
grade. The subject tract is approx, 1.58 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues
and Wcst of Millcrest Avt., rtnd described as lots 7 thn~ 12. !3!ock 3, I!niversity Park Additinn. City of
University Park, Dallas Counly, Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking "P" and Office "0-2"' zoning
district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest InvesEments, LP.
The public hearing will start at 4:00 PM on Tuesday February 8, 20 1 1, in the City of University Park
Council Chamber, 3800 University Blvd, University Park, Texas. Interested parties are invited to attend
the hearing and speak to the Commission. If you have any questions pertaining to this case, please call
2 14-987-541 0. Your reply may be sent by mail or hand delivered to: Harry Petsaud. Chicf Planning
Ofificial, Community lprnent Department, City of University Park, 3800 University Rlvd..
University Park, TX 7!
**Please t Use Rhck inkk*
(Circle 1N FAVOR UNDECIDED
Name:
(Please Print)
Signature:
13375 ,un F A js =9C D11llqs Address:
I 7g 7sa Jd JA# 2'y 201;
comments: A. A. 3L/dk &!!CPLBV~~~YII. QeceCupfl
Zoning Change and Amendment Process
A request for a zoning change follows a two-step process designed to provide opportunities for citizen
involvement and comment. The first step folllowing the submission of an application for a zoning change is to
schedule a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1,sndowners within two hundred (200)
feet of the subject site are notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. Tliey are
provided
this response sheet and are invited to attend the public hearing to express their support or opposition to the
rcquest. Second, the request is forwarded to the City Council for final action following a recommendation Ftom
the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the owner(s) of more than twenty percent of thc land area within two
hundred feet of the site subrnit(s) written opposition, then a three-fourths vote of all the eligible members of the
City Council is required to aoorove the zoning change. The* forms are used to calculate the percentage of the
property in opposition.
NOTE: Site plans or rvalr~g details proposed by the applicant, may ehangc before or during a public
hearing and after this notice. However, these changes must be minor and more restrictive. If they are not
mirror and more restrictive, another notice must be matlc. Page 150 of 195
02/04/ZOll FRI R003/003
M&V DIIVELOPME~ COMPANY
%T~IE VIHTZ nunh COMPANY
13355 NOEL RD STF. 1315
DAl,LAS.'TX 75240G820
NOTICE OF PURLIC HEARING
CASE#PZ1'1-001
The City of University Park Planning and Zoning Commission has schedulsd a public hearing to consider
n request by Legacy HiEIcrcst Investments, LP, for a change of zoning from Parking "'P'and Office "O-
2" zoning district classification to Planned Development District "'PD-37'' and approval of a Conceptual
Site Plan for mixed use development to include one Single Farnijy unit, Oflices, Retail and Parking below
grade. The subject tract is approx. 1.58 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues
and Wcst of I-lillcrest Ave., and described as lots 7 thru 12, Block 3, University Park Addition, City of
University Park, Dallas County, Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking "P" and Office "0-2" zoning
district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP,
The public hearing will start at 4:00 PM on Tuesday February 8, 20 1 1, in tlze City of llniversity Park
Council Chamber, 3 800 University BIvd, University Park, Texas. Interested parties are invited to attend
the hearing and speak to the Commission. If you have any questions pertaining to this case, please call
2 14-987-541 0. Your reply may be sent by mait or hand delivered to: Hawy Persaud, Chief Planning
Official, Community Development Department, City of Unf versil y Park, 3 800 University Blvd.,
University Park, TX 75205.
**Please Type or Use Rlack Ink**
(Circle one) n\l FAVOR UNDECIDED
Name:
(Please Prinr)
Signature:
Address:
,/?\hi :J >j 2[i j ;
Comments: ,W@~~lueb
esponsc
st. Seco
lanning a
rttend thc
d to the 4
If the ow
'
Zoning Change and Amendment Process
A request for a zoning change follows a two-step process designed to provide opportunities for citizen
involvement and comment. The first step following the subrnissioi~ of an application for a zoning change is to
schedule a public hcsring before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Landowners within two hundred (200)
feet of the subject site are notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. They are provided
this r sheet and are invited to a : public hearing to express their support or opposition to the
reque nd, the rcqucst is fowarde Zity Council for final action following a recommendation from
the P mnd 7~nimg Commission. 1 nerls) of more than twenty pcrcetit of the land area within two
hundd feet of the site submit(s) written opposition, then a three-fourths votc of a1 l the eligible members of the
City Council is required to approve the zoning changc. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of the
property in opposition.
N0TE:Sitc plans or wnimg details proposed by fhc applicant, may change before or during s public
hearing and after this notice. I=Iowever, thcse changes must be minor and more restricHrc. lf thcy arc not
minor and more restrictive, another notice must bc made.
Page 151 of 195
02/04/2011 FRI 15: 35 PAX 3122220552 ~001/003
Real kmic Investment BrtiIdcn * Dcvelopcrs
- { iw/l. Q 7; p v I L]
February 3,201 1
Mr. Harry Persaud, Chief Planning Official
City of University Park
Community Development Department
City HaIE
3800 University Bhd.
University Park, TX 75205
Re: Legacy Hillcrest
Mixed Use Development
Haynie Avenue and Daniel Avenue
University Park, TX
Case PZ I 1-00 1
Dear Mr. Persaud:
Please be advised that we are the property owners of the rnulti family residential property
located at 3436 Haynie Avenue in University Park, Texas. This letter is to file with the
City of University Park our objection for the proposed mixed use development called
Legacy Hillcrest,
It is our understanding that under this proposed zoning change, an existing office building
will bc demolished and replaced with 350,000 square feet to include one Single Family
unit, Ofices, Rerai I and parking below grade, The impact of these massive structures will
create public safety concerns for the neighbor hood plus will create traffic, noise and
obnoxious lighting problems. We have received the plans submitted for this proposal
from the Community Development Department and have reviewed them thoroughly.
The area of this proposed development has always had a Village atmosphere with the
mixture of private and student residential life. Introducing commercial business of
150,000 sf of offidbanking, retail/rcstaurant and a hotel use along with having
all
of its
parking requirements enter and exit off Haynie and Daniel Avenue is not fundamentality
good planning. We would have to assurne that this size of development will introduce a
minimal of 850 vehicles into an already congested area of the city. This increase of
traffic certain1 y will crcate hazards to the existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Please
remember several students will walk past this future development each dzly.
One Galleria Tower * 13355 Noel Road, LB 3 - Suite 131 5 * Dallas, TX 75240.6603 * 972.934.2244 FAX 972.991.5184
3425 Via Litlo Suite 250 Ntwpmr kxh, CA 92663.3929 349.723.7100 * FAX 949.723.1 141
www.fri tzduda.com
Page 152 of 195
Letter to City of University Park, Texas
Februav 3,201 1 Page 2
We strongly oppose this proposal and urge the City of University Park Planning
Commission to deny this proposed zoning change. We request that a copy of this letter
be forwarded to each Plan Commission member prior to the February 8,201 1 hearing.
Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. Please fee! free to contact me at (3 12)
222-0085 if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely;
M&F DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
By Fritz Duda Company, its manager
&d% -Y-
April Koestner
Real Estate Manager
Cc: City of University Park Plan Commission
Fritz Duda Company
Page 153 of 195
Mr. Harry Persaud, Cliief Planning Official
City of University Park
Community DeveIopment Department
City Hall
3800 University
Blvd.
University Park, TX 75205
Re: Legacy Hi1 1 crest
Mixed Use Development
Haynie Avenue and Daniel Avenue
University Park, TX
Case PZ I 1 -00 1
Dear Mr. Persaud:
Please be advised
that
we are the property owners of the multi family residential property
located at 3436 Haynie Avenue in University Park, Texas. This letter is to file with tfle
City of University Park our objection for the proposed mixed use development called
Legacy Hillcrest.
Tt is our understanding that under this proposed zoning change, an existing office building
will be demolished and replaced with 150,000 square feet to include one Single Family
unit, Offices, Retail and parking below grade. The impact of these massive structures will
create public safety concerns for the
neighbor
hood plus will create traffic, noise and
obnoxious Iighting
problems.
We have received the pIans submitted for this proposal
from the Community Development Department and have reviewed them thoroughly.
The area of this proposed development has always had a Village atmosphere with the
mixture of private and strrdent residential life. Introducing commercial business of
1 50,000 sf of officelbanking, retaillrestaurant and a hotel use along with having a11 of its
parking requirements enter and exit off Haynie and Daniel Avenue is not fundamentdity
good planning. We would have to assume that this size of development will introduce a
minimal of 850 vehicles into an already congested area of the city. This increase of
trafic certainly will create hazards to the existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Please
remember several students will walk past this future development
each
day.
One Galleria Tower * I3355 Noel Road, LB 3 4 Suite 13 15 Dallas, TX 75240-6603 972.934.2244 * FAX 972.991 5184
3425 Via Lido Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3929 949.723.7 100 FAX 949.723.1 141
www.fritzduda.com Page 154 of 195
Letter to City of Universi ty Park, Texas
February 3,20 1 1 Page 2
We strongly oppose this proposal and urge the City of University Park Planning
Commission to deny this proposed zoning change. We request that a copy of this letter
be forwarded to each Plan Commission member prior to the February 8,201 1 hearing.
Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. PIease feel free to contact me at (3 12)
222-0085 if I can be of any assistance.
M&F DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
By Fritz Duda Company, its manager
&TO%-
April Koestner
Real Estate Manages
Cc: City of University Park Plan Commission
Fritz Duda Company Page 155 of 195
trt~lu~ TIIO~IAS a
KAREN l.l<I.:
3213 Ilr\YNlE ,%YE
Z)!\LI,:\S, 'I S 752051841
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE# PZ 11 -001
The City of University Park Planning and Zoning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider
a request by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP, for a change of zoning from Parking "P" and Office "0-
2" zoning dislrict classification to Planned Development District "PD-37" and approval of a Conceptual
Site Plan for mi xed use development to include one Single
Family
unit, Offices, Retail and Parking below
grade. The subject tract is approx. 1.5 8 acres mote or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues
and West oT1lillcresz AV c... and dcsclihcd as lots 7 thru 12, Pllock 3, IJniwrsity Pnrk .h.ddition. City of
University Park, Dallas County, Texas. 'The said tract is zoned Parking "P'" and Office "0-2" zoning
district classification and owned by Legacy Hi I lcrest Investments, LP.
The public hearing will start at 4:00 PM on Tuesday Febmary 8, 20 1 1, in the City of University Park
Council Chamber, 3 800 University Blvd, Wniversi ty Park, Texas. Interested parties are invited to attend
the hearing and speak to the Commission. If you have any questions pertaining to this case, please caIl
214-987-5410. Your repIy may be sent by mail or hand delivered to: Harry Persaud, Chief Planning
nmunity Devel~ nent, City of University Park, 3800 University Blvd.,
c, TX 75205.
Oficia
Univer
1, Cor
sity Par1
'*Please
(Circle
! Type o
one>
+ ~r Use Black Ink**
IN FAVOR -. DECIDED
Name:
(Please Print)
Signature:
Address:
Zuning Change and Amendment Process
A request for a zoning change follows n two-step proccss designed to provide opportunities for citizen
involvement and comment. The first step following the submission of fin application for a zoning change is to
schedule a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Landowners within two hundred (200)
feet of the subject site are notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. They are provided
this response sheet rind are invited to attend the public hearing to express their support or opposition to the
request. Second. the request is fonvarded to the City Council for final action following a recommendation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the owner(s) of more than twenty percent of the land area within two
hundred feet of the site submit(s) written opposition, then a three-fourths vote of all the eligible members of the
City Calrncil is required to approve the zoning change. 'These forms are used to calculate the percentage of the
rty in opposition.
nu I &Site plans ar mning details proposed by the applicant, may cbangc before or during a public
hearing and after this notice. I-Iowever, thcsc changes must he minor and more restrictive. If they arc not
minor and more restrictive, another notice must be made. Page 156 of 195
, - -- -- -- -
NEIL MARY LOU
3421 RAYNIP. A\-
DALLAS, TX 752031#42
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE#PZ 11 -001
The City of Univmity Park Planning and Zoning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to considb
a 'quest by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP, for a change of zoning from Parking "P" and Office "O-
2" zoning district classification to Planned Development Disaict "PD-3 7" and approval of a Conceptual
Site Plan for mixed use development to include one Single family unit, Offices, Retail and Parking below
grde. The subject tract is approx. ! .58 acres more or less. situated b~n Daniel mc! Haynie Avenues
and West of Hillcrest Ave., and described as lots 7 thru 1 2. Block 3,Upiversity Park Addition. City of
University Park, Dallas County, Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking "P.' and Ofice "0-2" zoning
district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest Invcatmtnts, LP.
The publie hearing will start at 4:00 PM on Tuesday February 8. 201 1, in the City of University Park
Council Chamber, 3800 University Blvd, University Park, Texas. Interested panies are invited to attend
the hearing and spk to the Commission. If you have my questions pertaining to this case, please call
214-987-5410. Your reply may be sent by mail or hand delivered to: Hany Persaud, Chief Planning
Official, Community Development Department, City of University Park, 3800 University Blvd..
University Park, TX 75205.
**Please Type or Vire R!~ek Inkk*
(Circle one) Pd FAVOR UNDECIDED
Name:
(Please Prim)
MAP
Signature:
;Xag tt-h'a, Address: - n /I
fining"change and Amendment Process
A request for a zoning change follows a two-step process designed to provide opportunities for citizen
involvement and comment. The first step fof lowing the submission of an application for a zoning change is to
d~edule a public hearing befon: the Planning and Zoning Commission. Landowners within two hundd (200)
feet of the subject rite arc notified of the Planning find 7aning Commission public hearing. They are provided
this response sheet and are invited to attend the public hearing to express their supporz or opposition to the
request. Second, the request is fowarded to the City Council for final action following a recommendation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the owner(s) of more than twenty percent of the land area within tw
hundred feet of the site submit(s) written opposition, then a three-founhs vote of all the eligible members of the
City Council is required to approve the zoning change. These forms nre used to calculate the percentsge of the
property in opposition.
NOTE: Site plans or mnlng details pmpaed by the mpptiant. nmy ehnage before or during a pabllc
haring and nher thia notice. However, thue chsngea must be minor and more restrictive. IT they are not
minor and more restrictive, anothermotice *nust be made,
Page 157 of 195
-- -. --
TUBB JAMESC P SU7ANNE S
34(n HAWIE AVR
DALLAS, I'X 7SZOStMZ
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE#PZ 11 -001
The City of Univenity Park Planning and 7aning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider
a wquest by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP, for a change of zoning from Parking 'TP" and Office! "O-
2" zoning district classificadon to Planned Development District "PD-37" and approval af a Conceptual
Site Plan for mixed use development to include one Single Family unit. Offices, Retail and Parking below
grade. The subject tract is approx. 1.58 acres mon or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues
and West of Hillcrest Ave., and described as lots 7 tbru 12, Block 3,University Park Addition, City of
University Park, Dallas County, Texas. Thesaid tract is zoned Parking "'P" and Office "0-2" zoning
district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP.
The public hearing will start ELI 4:00 PM on Tuesday February 8, 201 1, in the City of University Park
Council Chamber, 3800 University Blvd, University Park, Texas. Interested parties are invited to attend
the hearing and speak to the Commission. If you have any questions pertaining to this case, please call
2 14-987-541 0. Your reply may be sent by mail or hand delivered to: Harry Persaud. Chief Planning
Oficial, Community Development Department, City of University Park, 3800 University Blvd .,
University Park, TX 75205.
**Please Type or Use Black Ink**
(Circle one) IN FAVOR UNDECIDED
_.
Namc : ) t
(Please Print)
Signature:
Iy07
-.
Address:
I I
comments: /~ELQ !I
Zoning Change land Amendment Process I
A tequest for a zoning change follows a twbstep process designed to provide opportunities for citizen
involvement and comment, The first step fo!lowing the submission of sn application for n zoning change is to ,
~=hedule a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Landowners within two hundred (200) '
feet of the subject site arc notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. They are provided
this Rspnse sheet and are invited to attend the public hearing to express their support or opposition to thc
request. Second, thc request is forwarded to the City Council for final action following a recommendation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the owner(@ of more than rwcnty psrccnt of the land area within two
hundred feet of the site subrnit(s) written opposition, then a three-fourths vote of all the eligible members of the
City Council is to approve the zoning change. These fons are used to calculate the ps~entage of the
I propcq in opposition. I
NOT'E:Site plans or zoning debils proposed by tho mpplicnnt, msy rhan~e bela* or during a public
hcarinf and after this nntice. Hmrwer, them chan~es must be minor and more rtrictivc. Jfthq ere not
minor and m( bother notlce must be made.
Page 158 of 195
SUZANNE and JIM TUBB
TELEPHONE 2145264321 - 3407 HAYNlE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75205-FACSIMILE 214443-9754
TO: Bob West, Chairman-Planning & Zoning Commissioin
Mernbets:
Randy Biddle
Mark Aldrege
Doug Roach cc: Jerry Jordan
Dawn Moore Kern Kohler
DATE: March 8,2011
RE: Legacy Hi l lcrest, LP ("Legacy")
Mr.Chairman and Members of P & Z.:
I will not be able to attend your meeting March gth or will Wayne
Johnson. I suspect you have heard or read all of what is in this letter this
before but this is my home and neighborhood and I am concerned about what
lies ahead. I need to be heard (read) to sleep at night.
1.PERSONAL COMMENTS: The Legacy presentation at the meeting 2-8-1q was
a demonstration of obfuscation, innuendo, doublespeak and dodging of the
issues. The presentation was the worst possible
example
of an effort to "just
keep pushingWand maybe the neighbors, P & Z and Council will give up and let
hawe Legacy what it wants.
2. GENERAL OBSERVATONS ABOUT THE CURRENT APPLICATION.
A. Traftic- The placement of the Valet Parking station on Daniel and the 21
head-in parking places on Haynie is a travesty. Divertinglforcing commercial
and office customers to use these 21 spaces to access the new commercial is
a certainty to move a significant amount of commercial traffic West of Hillcrest
through the residential areas on Maynie, Dickens, Golf, University and the East
West Streets Milton, Rosedale, etc. I know Chase is allegedly out of the
picture-let's wait and see.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT- I am sure you have read the results of a new study
by the HP I S D regarding schoolaged children in the District. My recollection is
that the study revealed that there are 1045 schoolaged children in each square
mile of the District.
WE DO NOT NEED ONE MORE SQUARE FOOT OF COMMERCIAL.
WE NEED MORE SCHOOL SPACE THAT IS WHY PEOPLE SPEND
SERIOUS MONEY TO GET INTO THE DISTRICT.
8. Traffic Controls- If you spend 30 minutes at mid day (most any
day)atternpting to cross the intersection of Snider Plaza and Daniel you
will see how difficult it is already to cross that intersection. Adding more
traffic just compounds the problem. A review of fl traffic studies
Page 159 of 195
presented by Legacy (that 1 'have seen and I have seen a lot of them in
tne
past ten years) reveals one "Solution" proposed for the Pedestrian issues =
REPAINT THE EXISTING WHITE PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK .
(I have never heard of a single auto or truck stopped by a white stripe)
(Legacy's interest has always been for the commercial traffic-not the
neighborhood pedestrian)
In my opinion DaniellSnider is the most dangerous pedestrianlauto intersection
in the city. Mlost of the autoltruck traffic has been waiting anxsiously at Snider
Plaza or Hillcrest traffic lights to go somewhere and is not too concerned about
the pedestrian.
THINK ABOUT IT-SOMETHNG NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE
WE HAVE A PEDESTRIAN DEATH HERE
C. PARKING The proposed use of head-in parking on Haynie is in itself an
insult and disregard for the
residential
neighborhoods to the West. Mowever,
for Legacy to take 10 to 22 feet of Haynie right of way to do so is akin to
rubbing salt in the wound.
"'BANK AND OFFICE CUSTOMERS ONLY"
(I still think we will get another badly needed bank before this is over)
D, SQUARE FOOTAGE- A timelinelchart was circulated to some of those in the
residential neighorhood (I did not receive a copy but I saw it) showing the
number of square feet Legacy has sought each time over the past 10 + years.
The end result was a claim that Legacy has substantially reduced its '%askings"
in this 150,000 s.f. Application of I1 -3-20.
Of course they do not tell you that all of the ten or eleven other Applications
filed since Januag 17,2000 proposed the use of the entire tract of 1.60 + acres
of land (which the Council in April 2010 said could only contain 136,000
GROSS). Legacy seeks to place say 15% more square footage on say 80% of
the total tract and expects us to accept tht gracious act as a 'big deal. I
understand you are not considering the M F tract(the Library Legacy calls it)
They seek more footage (Useable until the Staff and Harry said
stop
mixing
apples and oranges) on less land. I am not good at math but it doesn't take
much thought to see that the entire 1.6Q+ acres will eventually be covered with
170,000 to 180,000 s f of buildings of one form or another.
1 want to thank you, the City Attorney and the Staff for pushing through smoke
screen and forcing Legacy to admit
that
they were actually seeking far more
than the 150,000 s. f.
Those of who live in the area do not have any voice of authority and can
only seek to protect our homes by addressing our concerns to you and the City
Council. You are the jury of our peers. All we ask you to do is vote your
Page 160 of 195
conscience and when doing so bear mind that whatever you do will change the
neigh borhoeds around the Legacy project forever.
I speak only for myself as a homeowner and citizen. Park.
My
neighbors
may not agree with what I have said here.
Jim Tubb
Page 161 of 195
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAMNG
CASF#PZ 11 -001
to Plan
merit to one Sin
The City of University Park Planning and Zoning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider
a request by Legacy I-Iillcrest Investments, LP, for a change of zoning from Parking "P and Office "O-
2" zoning district classi ned Dcv it District "PD-37" and approval of a Conceptual
Site Plan for mixed use include gle Family unit, Offices, Retail and Parking below
grade. The subject tracr IS approx. 1 -58 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues
and West of"Hil!crest Ave., and described as lots 7 thm 12, Rlock 3, University Park Addition, City of .
University Park, Dallas County, 'Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking "P" and Office "0-2" zoning
district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, L?.
The public hearing wiIl start at 4:OQ PM on Tuesday February 8, 20 1 1, in the City of University Park
Council Chamber, 3800 University Blvd, University Park, Texas. Interested parties are invited to attend
the hearing and speak to the Commission. If you have any questions pertaining to this case, please call
214-987-5410. Your rer>Pv may be sent by mail or hand delivered to: Harry Persaud, Chief Planning
>prnent ity of University Park, 3800 University Blvd., Officia
Univer:
1, Con
sity Park
, Type o
one>
r Use Black Ink
BN FAVOR
Name:
(r' - ' "
Signature:
nent, C
d* UNDECIDED
A 6~-
W~Q--uak4L- Poi ""L I5 ""k- . .- L - .
.
- Address: ( P--+ ;-+--'6 - -?Fa ,MIu.Q k )
A reqttest for a zoning charigc follows a two-step prmcss designed to provide
request. Second, the request is forwarded to the City Council for final action following a recommendation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the owner(s) of more than wenw percent of the land ares within two
hundred feet or the site submit(s) written opposition, then a three-fourths vote of all the eligible memhcrs of the
City Council is required to approve the zoning chanse. 'These forms are used to calculate the percentage of the
rty in opposition, propel
NOTI E:Site plans or zoning details proposed by the applicant, may change heforc or during a public
hearing and after this notice. However, these changes I minor and more restrictive. If they are not
minor and more restrictive, another notice must he ma4
nvst be I
dc. Page 162 of 195
PORTER R1 IFC'S C ESTAm
% KOGER \\. FGtl.fYC'TC)N
PO nos 728s
D,\l,l,hS, TX 75t0302s
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE#PZ 11 -001
The City of University Park Planning and Zoning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider
a request by Legacy Hillcrcst Investments, LP, for a chnnge of zoning from Parking "P and Office "0-
2" zoning district classification to Planned Development District "PD-3 7" and approval of a Conceptual
Site PIan for mixed use development to include one Single Family unit, Offices, IZetail and Parking below
grade. The subject tract is approx. 1.58 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues
and West of ljillcrest Ave., and described as lots 7 thru 12, Block 3, University Park. Addition. City of
University Park, Dallas County, Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking "P" and Office "0-2" zoning
district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP.
The public hearing will start at 4:00 PM on Tuesday February 8, 201 1, in the City of University Park
Council Chamber, 3800 University BIvd, University Park, Texas. Interested parties are invited to attend
the hearing and speak to the Commission. If you have any questions pertaining to this case, please call
21 4-987-54 10. Your reply may be sent bv mail or hand delivered to: Harry Persaud, Chief Planning
Oficia ~PVP 1 ~pment nent, C ty Park, 3800 University Rlvd.,
Univer -
r*Please
(Circle
1, Cor
sity Park
nmunity
:, TX 7:
ity of 1
1
Universi
JI
A request for a zoning chnnge follows a hvo-step prnccss dusigned to provide opportunities for citizen
involvement and comment. l'he first. step following the submission of an application for a zoning change is to
schedule a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Landowners within two hundred (200)
feet of the subject site are notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. They are provided
this response sheet and are invited to attend the pzrblic hearing to express their support or opposition to the
request. Second. the request is fonvarded to the City Council for final action following a recommendation From
the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the ownel.(s) of more than twenty percent of the land area within two
hundred feet of the site submit(s) written opposition, then a three-fourths vote of all the eligible members of the
City Co~~ncil is required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of the
property in opposition.
N0TE:Site plans or zoning details p by the change before or during a public
hearing and after this noticc. Howcvcr, these changes must be minor and more restrictive. If they ant not
minor and more restrictive, another notice must be made. Page 163 of 195
PORTER RIJFLTS C ESTATE
X 1tOC;ER W FULLIYGTON
PC) ll0.Y 7585
DAI,l,,\S, TX 7!2090!?$5
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # PX 11 -001
The City of University Park Planning and Zoning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider
a request by Legacy Hi !!crest Investments, LP, for a change of zoning from Parking "P" and Office '9-
2"zzoning district classification to Planned Development District "PD-37" and approval of a Conceptual
Site Plan for mixed use development to include one Single Family unit. Offices, Retail and Parking below
grade. The subject tract is approx. 1.58 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues
and West of Hillcrest Ave., and described as lots 7 thm 12, RIock 3, University Park Addition, City of
University Park, Danas County, 'Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking "P" and Officc "0-2'* zoning
district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP.
The public hearing will start at 4:00 PM on Tuesday February 8, 201 I, in the City of University Park
Council Chamber. 3800 University Rlvd, University Park, Texas. Interested parties are invited to attend
the hearing and speak to the Commission. If you havc any questions pertaining to this case, please call
2 14-987-541 0. Your reply may be sent by mail or hand delivered to: Harry Pcrsaud, Chief Planning
Oficial, Cornrnuni ty Development Department, City of University Park, 3800 University Rlvd.,
University Park, TX 75205.
**Please Type or Use Black Ink**
(Circle one) IN FAVOR v UNDECIDED
Name: Y
rL-iL-i--4 b w-
(Please Print)
Signature:
Address:
Comments:
Zoning Change and Amendment Process
A request for a zoning change follows a two-step process designed to provide opportunities for citizen
invnlven~ent and comment. The first step fallowing the submission of an application for a zoning change is to
schedule a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Landowners within two hundred (200)
feet of the subject site are notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. They are provided
this response sheet and are invited to attend the public hearing to express their support or opposition to the
request. Second, the request is forwarded to the: City Council for final action following a recommendation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the owner(s) of more than twenty percent of the land area within two
hundred feet of the site submit(s) written opposition, then a three-fourths vote of all the eligible members of the
City Council is required to approve the zoning
change.
These forms are used to calculate the percentage of the
property in opposition.
NOTE: Site plans or zoning details proposed 'by the applicant, may change befow or during a public
henring and after this notice. Howevcr, t bese changes rnr~st be minor ant1 more restrictive. If they are not
minor and more restrictive, another notice must be madc. Page 164 of 195
STARHILL I LTn co &
STA Rl I1 LL I1 LTD CO
2413 SEVIL1,E CT
PINOLE, CA 945641 I09
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE#PZ 11-001
The City of Ur Park Planning and Zoning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider
a request by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP, for a change of zoning from Parking "P" and Office "0-
2" zoning district classification to Planned Development District "PD-37" and approval of a Conceptual
Site Plan for mixed use development to include one Single
Family
unit, Offices, Retail and Parking below
grade. The subject tract is approx. I .5 8 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues;
and West of Hillcrest Ave., and described as lots 7 thru 12. Block 3. University Park Addition. City of - -
University Park, Dallas County, Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking "P" and Office "0-2" zoning
district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest investments, LP.
The public hearing will start at 4:OO PM on Tuesday February 8, 201 1, in the City of University Park
Council Chamber, 3800 University Blvd, University Park, Texas. Interested parties are invited to attend
the hearing and speak to the Commission. If you have any questions pertaining to this case, please call
2 14-987-54 10. Your reply may be sent by mail or hand delivered to: Ham Persaud, Chief Planning
Offici~ :ity of 'ity Par1 University Blvd.,
Univer
il, Go1
.sity Par
opment Univers
e Type c
: one)
)r Use 18
R\J FA\,
;lack In
'OR DECIDED
Name: f(-%J 7d /EK
(Please Print)
Signature:
"6d~ 7 ,/' Address: /Lcc/@57 AUK,
Comments:
Zoning Change and Amendment Process
A request for a zoning change follows a two-step process designed to provide opportunities for citizen
involvement and comment. The first step following the submission of an application for a zoning change is to
schedule a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Landowners within two hundred (200)
feet of the subject site are. notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. They are provided
this response sheet and are invited to attend the public hearing to express their support or opposition to the
request. Second, the request is forwarded to the City Col~ncil for final action following a recommendation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the owneqs) of more than twenty percent of the land area within two
hundred feet of the site submit(s) written opposition, then a three-fourths vote of all the eligible members of the
City Council is required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of the
property in opposition.
N0TE:Site plans or zoning details proposed by the applicant, may change before or during a public
hearing and after this notice. However, these changes must be minor and more restrictive. If they am not
minor and more restrictive, another notice must be made. Page 165 of 195
Page 166 of 195
Page 167 of 195
Page 168 of 195
Page 169 of 195
Page 170 of 195
Page 171 of 195
Page 172 of 195
Page 173 of 195
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
-
MrNUTES
February 8,201 1
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, February
8,201 1 at 4:00 prn in the City of University Park Council Chambers, located at 3800 University
Boulevard, University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Seated Staff Members Attending
Robert H. West, Chairman Robbie Corder, Community Development Director
Mark Aldredge I-Farry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Chief Planning Official
Doug Roach Lorna Balser, Planning Assistant
Randy Biddle Rob Dillard - City Attorney
Dawn Moare
Present
Jerry Jordan
Kim Kohler
Liz FarPey
Absent
Mr. West opened the public meeting ad 4:15 PM, weIcorned everyone in attendance. He introduced the
commission members and staff
Minutes of the November 30, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting were reviewed.
Mr. Roach made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Aldredge seconded the motion. With a
vote of 5-0, the minutes were approved.
Mr. West then read the case before the commission
PZ 1 1-00 1 : Hold a public hearing and consideration of a request by Legacy Millcrest
Investments, LP, for a change of zoning from Parking "P" and Office "0-2" zoning district
classification to Planned DeveIoprnent District "PD-37" and approval of a Conceptual Site Plan
for mixed use development to include one Single Family unit, Offices, Retail and Parking below
grade, The subject tract is approx. 1.58 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie
Avenues and West of Hillcrest Ave., and described as lots 7 thru 12, Block 3, University Park
Addition, City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking "P"
and Office "0-2'kzoning district classification and owed by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP.
Mr. Persaud reviewed the item with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and described the
existing and proposed development to the commission. He then introduced the representatives
present for the request, Mr. Preston Phillips with Legacy HiIlcrest Investments, Art Anderson,
attorney representing the developer, David Williamson and Rock Owens, both associates with
Omni Plan, Jeremy Wyndhm, Jacobs Engineering and Danny Cummings, C&P Engineering.
He then asked Mr. Anderson to provide a report on how the sire development is proposed. Mr.
Art Anderson stated that the Friends of the Library had approached Legacy I-lillcrest Investments
1 Page 174 of 195
at least one year ago stating their interest in a stand alone site. They looked at an offer to convey
2 multi-family tracks with an adjacent parking garage to the Friends of the Library. The libraries
responsibility was to raise the funds for the building. Mr. Anderson added that lks discussion
took place prior to any discussions that the Friends of the Family had with the City of University
Park City Council concerning the Preston
Center
East site. He stated that the offer they made to
the Friends of the Library has not yet been withdrawn.
Mr. Anderson stated that the bank is a huge traffic generator so it was a huge challenge to
considering the re-developing of the site in 2007. He added though that the building is currently
fairly empty. Mr. Anderson stated that if the PD is not approved for the development, it will be
developed under the current zoning standards. He added that the building is currently 68 %'and
that the PD request is to increase the height to 72'. Mr. Anderson provided the commission with
a Powerpoint slide of proposed changes from 2001 to 2007 to 201 I. He discussed the feedback
from neighborhood residents and stated that the proposed 1 50,000 square feet, it will consist of:
Ofice space (1 50,000 gross max)
= Retail space (20,000 gross max}
Hotel space (50,000 gross max)
He advised the commission on the cost for parking and the need for the increase in density. Mr.
Anderson then
stated
that
he wanted to make sure that the development is in synergy with what's
in Snider Plnzn(restaurantslretai1). He also added that accessory uses would be approximately
15% of the 150,000 square feet or approximately 22,500 square feet. This space would not be
considered rentable and serve as support for the offices
located
above grade, such as:
A mailroom
Maintenance office and work area
Maintenance storage
Fitness center for tenants
Deli or vending machine area
Long term storage for tenants only
Mr. Anderson advised he commission of the elements
included
in the conceptual site plan such
as trees, angled parking along I-Iaynie and sidewalks. He stated that the garage design generalIy
is completed wit11 the detailed
site
pIan. He showed the elevations to the commission and noted
that the proposed design has been dramatically reduced since the last time.
Mr. Anderson explained the advantages to the community through the PD process and advised
the commission on
the
specific area of the staff report regarding the special conditions requested
by the staff. He advised the commission of the trip generation under the proposed zoning verses
the existing zoning with an almost empty building. He showed the existing vs. proposed traffic
exiting in the PM peak traffic hour, and the advantages of the proposed zoning. Mr. Anderson
stated that he felt that the proposed zoning will prodrice less traf'fic. He then stated that the
existing Chase Bank building was not the typical office space. He showed the proposed
elevation drawings as the "Image and Character of the PD".
Mr. Roach asked Mr. Anderson if the application proposal was not as detailed for the conceptual
site plan ns had been in prior submittals to Planning & Zoning. Mr. Anderson stated that he
didn't feel so, but noted a 4' difference in the current building verses their request. He added
that there is now a proposed screening wall.
Mr. Dillard asked Mr. Anderson if the library is not really an issue. Mr. Anderson stated "no, he
2 Page 175 of 195
didn't think so and that is what he had previously said. Mr. Dilld asked him if the bank had
terminated their lease so that there would not be a motor bank Eocated there. Mr. Anderson
stated that he won't guarantee that but that there is no motor bank currently proposed. Mr.
DilIard questioned if the height of 72 %' includes the penthouse. Ms. Anderson replied, "no,
there is one unit on the top and it is set back like the mechanical to 20'. Mr. Dillard questioned
the size of the penthouse. Mr. Anderson stated that they currently did net have a size, but using
the setbacks. Mr. Dillard asked if the height would be 92 %' if buiIt out to the fullest height. Mr.
Anderson replied that in 2001, the request allowed the mechanical in addition to the approved
height. Mr. Dillard asked if there would be 150,000 square feet above grade. Mr. Anderson
replied, "yes, with 22,500 square feet below gradeCaccessory uses)". He then added that
accessory uses are not rentable square footage, no one can see it and there are no additional trips
generated or parking spaces needed.
Mr. DilIard asked about the parking spaces and there was further discussion amongst the
commission about Dnnny Curnrnings parking methodology.
Mr. Persaud then provided an anaIysis to the commission members based on approved industry
parking standards. Ms. Moore asked Mr. Persaud about the accessory uses and whether or not
the city's traffic report took into consideration more intensified uses based on the possible
storage abilities. Ms. Moore asked the staff to look further at the possibility sf there being more
staff upstairs with storage downstairs below grade. Mr. Persaud explained that there are several
issues which needed to still be worked out in regard to car washes for the tenants on their way
home.
Mr. West asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. With no one, he asked if
anyone wished to speak in opposition.
Mr. Jim Tubb, who resides at 3407 Waynie cme fonvard. He stated that Mr. Anderson's traffic
analysis shows 3080 cars per day after constsuction, and that is with no Chase Bank lease. He
felt that the number was a moving target and that Mr. Anderson had avoided the answer to
whether or not there would be a bank lease. He discussed the original approval of the parking lot
in 1971 located behind the bank. He added that since 2000, it has become a parking district. Mr.
Tubb stated that there had been an intensification
to permanently
convert the piece of ground to
anything other than a above ground parking lot. He stated that there was never a vision for the
lot to be a 3 story parking lot, and that the transition from Snider Plaza to that area does not have
to be commercial.
Mr. Wayne Johnson, who resides at 3601 Haynie came forward. He stated that he tried to work
with the developer for years, and that the library appears to have found a new home. At this
point, Mr. West advised everyone that the Planning & Zoning commission is not considering the
library lot. The requests have been going on for 10 years and the commission understands that
their homes are not going away. He suggested that everyone view the PD request and
understand what is allowed by right.
Ms. Mary O'Neil, who resides at 3421 Haynie came fonvard. She stated that she had taught
college for 37 years and referenced Dente'. She added that it was time to draw the request to a
close, and requested that the commission presewe the neighborhood. Ms. O'Neil stated that
Snider Plaza was never meant to be a Preston Center Plaza, but was built to provide a
neighborhood shopping center.
Page 176 of 195
Mr. Roger FuIIington, on behalf of the Rufus Porter estate, which owns the 6600, 6700 and 6800
blocks of Snider Plaza came forward. He asked that the commission look at the proposed
upstairs tenants very carefully. He asked that the city ask the developer to state how much
restaurant space would be built. He then asked if it could directly
impact
the
6600 block
restaurants of Snider Plaza. He asked that the commission require all the construction workers to
park offsite, no streets be cIosed for the construction,
but
added that he was in favor of the
development under the current zoning uses and height allowances.
Ms. Karen Zanger, who resides at 3548 Milton came forward. She simply stated that the
community is tired of the time and funds they have used to oppose the developer's requests. She
stated that it will affect the homes and children of the
community.
Ms. 7nnger asked that the
commission keep the area safe for the
children
and to approve the 108,000 square feet allowance
under the current zoning ordinance.
Ms. Danielle Booth, who resides at 341 7 Haynie came forward. She stated that she moved from
Manhatten and noted the alley and front yard concerns. Ms. Booth asked that the commission
listen to common sense, because nothing the developer is saying has changed.
Ms. Mary Graves, who resides at 671 6 Hursey came foward. She stated that she is a member of
the Retail Advisory Committee so is very familiar with the issue at hand. Ms. Graves added that
mass and density equals a hot button with the residents. There is a problem with traffic, parking
and the proposed square footage.
Ms. Ann McEntire, who resides at 3439 Westminster came fonvard. She stated that she had
heard many good things
today,
and happy that the developer will go ahead and build despite if
the PD is approved. She asked that they just build with the 108,000 square foot allowance and
that the city work with the developer to buy the property adjacent for adequate parking. She
commented that this would "fix" the area with one sweep.
Mr. West then asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. With no one coming fonvard,
Mr. West closed the public hearing.
Ms. Moore then asked for Mr. Anderson t~ show one of his charts again on the 2000 occupancy
rate. She questioned the trip generation. Mr. Anderson skited that parking and safety is an issue
and that there wiIl be more trips generated with the proposed. In asking what is the best way to
deal with that, he stated that he thinks a PD is the better alternative. Mr. Anderson added that
there will be an incremental increase in trips, but told P&Z that if trips increase, it is net worth it
to have subsurface parking vs, a 3 story parking lot. It is the decision that the city will have to
make.
Mr. Biddle asked about the special conditions proposed by staff. Mr. Persaud advised the
commission about a special sign district. He stated
that
a PI3 can request a sign district which
will have to go through review and recommendations.
Mr. West asked if there were any further questions, With none, Mr. West asked about the
proposed accessory uses. Mr. Phillips then noted the list of uses again as previously noted. Mr.
West asked Mr. Phillips about the hotel and if it was still a possibility. Mr. PhilIips stated that it
was currently requested in 2002 but not completely researched. Mr. West asked Mr. Persaud
what the existing square footage of the Hotel Lumen in University Park was. Ms. Persaud noted
that it is approximately 50,000 square feet.
4 Page 177 of 195
Mr. Aldredge asked about the special conditions and if they had been discussed with the
developer. Mr. Persaud stated, "yes, some".
Mr. West asked about the safe deposit boxes as an accessory use. Mr. Phillips stated that it was a
permitted use, but it would be a non-banking service.
Mr. West asked the developer how important the residential unit on the top of the building was.
Mr. Phillips stated that the owners wanted it to be included. Mr. West asked again the residential
units location. Mr. Phillips stated that if there is n lot of concern for it being at the top, they will
look at the location.
Ms. Moore asked again about the retail and service uses, specifically the motor bank. Mr.
Phillips stated that no motor bank will be listed on the detailed site plan, with no curb cuts for it
shown on the conceptual site plan. Mr. Anderson noted that the property owner's Ieave with
Chase Bank had been terminated and that they would be willing to exclude motor bank from any
allowed uses.
Mr. West asked for further questions. With none, he consulted with the city attorney on having
another meeting prior to 1 month. There was Wher discussion among the comission members
and staff but other city meetings were to take place. Mr. Persaud then advised the Planning &
Zoning Commission that the next meeting would take place on 3/81 1 1. He requested that they
give direction to staff at that time or to make a recommendation to Council.
Mr. Roach asked that the staff meet with the developer about the PD process from the zoning
ordinance. Mr. Roach questioned if the developer had incIuded all the elements required in the
PD process for a conceptual site plan. Mr. Anderson showed via Powerpoint how they had but
that it had been faded on the screen.
Ms. Moore asked that the deveIoper show more information on the storage sizes to be available
below grade for the tenants.
Mr. West questioned the wine storage allowance. Mr. Phillips stated that per the permitted uses,
the square footage for wine storage could be part of the 150.000 square feet. We added that it
would be humidity controlled with different variations of wine stored.
Mr. West then recommended the continuation of the public hearing on 31811 1. With agreement
from other commission members, Mr. Persaud stated again that it would be at 490 PM on
3/8111.
Mr. West then questioned if a PD was actually required. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Persaud
concurred, unless the development exceeds 40,000 square feet and complies with current zoning.
With there being no further business before the board, Mr. West adjourned the meeting at 6:05
PM.
Robert M West, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Date
Page 178 of 195
1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
MINUTES
March 8, 2011
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, March 8,
2011 at 4:00 pm in the City of University Park Council Chambers, located at 3800 University
Boulevard, University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Seated Staff Members Attending
Robert H. West, Chairman Robbie Corder, Community Development Director
Mark Aldredge Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Chief Planning Official
Doug Roach Lorna Balser, Planning Assistant
Randy Biddle Rob Dillard – City Attorney
Dawn Moore Bud Smallwood –Public Works Director
Present
Kim Kohler
Absent
Jerry Jordan
Liz Farley
Mr. West opened the public meeting at 4:00 PM, welcomed everyone in attendance. He introduced the
commission members and staff
Minutes of the February 8, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting were reviewed.
Mr. Roach made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Biddle seconded the motion. With a vote
of 5-0, the minutes were approved.
Mr. West then read the first case before the commission:
PZ 11-002: Hold a public hearing and consider a replat for a tract of 11.239 acres situated on
the south east corner of Preston Road and Northwest Parkway, described as Preston Center Plaza
East and zoned Shopping Center “SC” zoning district classification in accordance with the
comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of University Park
Mr. Persaud explained how the applicant had submitted the replat request which was triggered
by the agreement on easements signed by the city and the owners of Preston Center Plaza. This
agreement is in conjunction with the location of the new library. He stated that the
recommendation for approval is based on the submittal of letters of approval from service
providers including Oncor, Atmos, AT&T and Charter before the replat is signed by the City for
filing with Dallas County.
Page 179 of 195
2
Mr. West asked if any commission members had questions. With none, Mr. Biddle motioned to
approve the request with the approval letters from the utility companies received. Ms. Moore
seconded the motion. With a unanimous vote of 5-0, the motion was approved.
Mr. West read the second case before the commission:
PZ 11-001: Continue a public hearing and consideration of a request by Legacy Hillcrest
Investments, LP, for a change of zoning from Parking “P” and Office “O-2” zoning district
classification to Planned Development District “PD-37” and approval of a Conceptual Site Plan
for mixed use development to include one Single Family unit, Offices, Retail and Parking below
grade. The subject tract is approx. 1.58 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie
Avenues and West of Hillcrest Ave., and described as lots 7 thru 12, Block 3, University Park
Addition, City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking “P”
and Office “O-2” zoning district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP.
A public hearing was convened on this item on February 8, 2011.
Mr. Persaud advised the commission of responses received to date which were 11 opposed and 0
in favor with 28% of the property owners opposed to the request.
He asked Mr. Art Anderson to present proposed changes to the commission. Mr. Anderson
approached the podium and reiterated to the commission and those in attendance that this request
would be the property owner’s last request. He explained their cost of parking spaces, being
$9500-$11,500 per space for above grade and $22,000-$25,000 per space for below grade. Mr.
Anderson emphasized the advantages to the city by their exceeding the city’s requirement
through the PD process.
Mr. Anderson then explained the applicants proposed use changes since the previous meeting
and those which had been deleted from the request. He added that they had reduced the
underground use square footage from 22,500 square feet to 15,000 square feet, removed the
underground storage use and that the residential use was no longer requested for the rooftop.
Mr. Anderson stated that they were looking at limiting the below grade uses further and that any
uses were specifically be provided for the tenants of the building. He noted that this square
footage would not count toward the applicants parking requirement with the City of University
Park.
Mr. Anderson explained that the current height of the building is 68’5” and that the proposed is
now 72’5”. He provided the commission with elevations while explaining the setbacks for the
envelope of the building with the mechanical equipment being located on the rooftop. Through
these illustrations, he described the proposed development as a “transition property” from Snider
Plaza. He then provided further illustrations of previous requests. Mr. Anderson stated that the
city staff had reviewed and agrees with the analysis. He also stated that the area will see a traffic
increase with the proposed zoning, however; they have proposed another traffic study to be done
in 18 months at which time, and he believes that the TIA will be less. In addition, the applicant
would agree to provide a traffic control officer if needed.
Page 180 of 195
3
Mr. Anderson provided the benefits of the applicants request to the Haynie Avenue residents as
being:
▪ Additional landscaping in the 25’ setback off Haynie Ave.;
▪ an exterior fascade provided in the detailed site plan;
▪ elevation plans which face Haynie;
▪ a conceptual site plan
Mr. West if there were any questions for Mr. Anderson. With none, he opened the public
hearing. Mr. West asked if anyone wished to speak in favor. With none, he asked if anyone
wished to speak in opposition.
Ms Nancy Newmann who resides at 3529 Haynie approached the podium. She stated that there
is a cost for parking but that it is not the city or the residents’ problem. Ms. Newmann added that
the fact that the development has still not occurred after 10 years should not enter into the
commission’s decision.
Ms. Mary Neal, who resides at 3421 Haynie approached the podium. She stated that she
supports Ms. Newmann’s position and stressed that there were several residents not present at
the meeting which simply could not be there. Not that the residents didn’t care. Ms. Neal asked
that that the commission understands that the residents don’t need the proposed development, she
commented on Mr. Anderson’s comments and asked that the commission reject the request.
Mr. Biddle made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Aldredge seconded the motion. With
a 5-0 vote, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. West stated that since the commission has once again heard from the applicant and the
neighbors; their goal for the meeting was to consider one by one, the comments in addition to the
conditions provided by staff.
With regard to the gross building area:
Mr. Roach stated 2 years ago, he had recommended 135,000 square feet to the commission.
After two City Council meetings and; with a 4-1 vote, 136,000 square feet without accessory use
area was approved. He felt that it was a good start for the re-development of the property. Mr.
Biddle stated that he felt 142,000 square feet was a good number but with a downsize on the
accessory use portion. Mr. West explained the elevation drawing with regard to the current
zoning vs. planned development allowance. He stated that the tradeoff was for denser use but
that the commission was looking at the best use for the city.
Ms. Moore stated that she would of liked seeing more parking underground with the Planned
Development as well as more landscaping.
Mr. Aldredge stated that he believes the city could control the development more with a Planned
Development.
Ms. Moore interjected that there is no problem with more space as long as it has little visual
affect. By limiting the accessory uses, she felt that the commission could proceed with 142,000
Page 181 of 195
4
square feet.
Mr. Biddle reiterated that the current building is 68’5”. The proposed building would be 72’5”
with the 20’ setback. He compared it to the SMU Law Building and stated that he could proceed
with 72’5”.
Mr. West stated that he felt that the additional 4’ gives the city a better building in regard to
ceiling height on the floors. Mr. Aldredge concurred with Mr. West.
Permitted and Proposed Uses:
Mr. West reviewed the staff recommendations of uses and accessory uses below grade (not
included in the gross square footage). He stated that the applicant requested 15,000 square feet.
The commission reviewed other ideas.
Ms. Moore stated that the request would not add to the traffic flow. She used a fitness center as
an example though and said that typically a fitness club would only be for the tenants and should
be carved out of the discussed 5,000 total square feet.
Mr. Roach stated that he would be comfortable with 5,000 square feet for accessory uses.
Mr. Biddle concurred with Mr. Roach and Ms. Moore. He did calculations for the uses and
estimated that 6,000 square feet would be appropriate.
Mr. West stated that he felt 5,000 square feet was a better number.
Prohibited Uses: As requested, the commission added church, community center, fraternal
organization, lodge or civic club, and school.
Permitted Uses: Each commission member agreed to add:
▪ Storage of proviate collections of wine
▪ Hotel not to exceed 50,000 square feet.
Library: The commission decided that there was no purpose to include the language of “library”
Mr. West added that it was going to Preston Center East anyways.
Restaurant/Retail: The proposed restaurant use was limited to 10,000 square feet and the retail to
20,000 square feet.
Setbacks: Ms. Moore stated that a 6’ fence instead of 4’ fence on the west side of the property
was appropriate in order to shield the Multi-Family lot from the driveway of the development.
Mr. West reviewed the layout of the site plan and stated that with no library, parallel parking
along Haynie will stay. He asked Mr. Persaud if that would be on city property. Mr. Persaud
replied, “Yes, partly in the city ROW”.
Page 182 of 195
5
Mr. West asked for comments on the trash and wireless communications. There was none.
Off Street Parking: With 586 underground spaces, Ms. Moore asked for the city code
application be applied based on square footage. The commission reviewed for clarity of that.
Mr. Dillard stated that the application is for 150,000 square feet with 15,000 square feet below
grade (accessory uses). He reminded the commission members that for purposes of off street
parking, they should not include the below grade square footage.
Mr. Persaud reminded Mr. Dillard that the below grade square footage is now 5,000 square feet.
Mr. West made the comment the Planned Development would put requirements on the
landscaping.
Ms. Moore asked if the leases would require the applicant to park in the parking garage. She
then asked if things like that would be put together to review.
Mr. West asked Mr. Persaud if the staff could do that. Mr. Persaud responded, “yes”.
Mr. West then asked the applicant if there was anything further.
Mr. Anderson approached the podium and stated that the square footage discussed by the
commission was close to what they could live with. He added that he looked forward to seeing
the final product.
Mr. West then asked Mr. Persaud for the next meeting date. Mr. Persaud responded that it would
be 4/12/11. Mr. West asked that there be a draft ordinance prepared to see if that is what the
commission desires.
Mr. West then recommended the continuation of the public hearing on 4/12/11.
With there being no further business before the board, Mr. West adjourned the meeting at 5:15
PM.
________________________________
Robert H. West, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Date____________________________
Page 183 of 195
1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
MINUTES
April 12, 2011
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, April 12,
2011 at 5:00 pm in the City of University Park Council Chambers, located at 3800 University
Boulevard, University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Seated Staff Members Attending
Robert H. West, Chairman Robbie Corder, Community Development Director
Mark Aldredge Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Chief Planning Official
Doug Roach Lorna Balser, Planning Assistant
Randy Biddle Rob Dillard – City Attorney
Kim Kohler Bud Smallwood –Public Works Director
Present
Liz Farley
Jerry Jordan
Absent
Dawn Moore
Mr. West opened the public meeting at 5:00 PM, welcomed everyone in attendance. He introduced the
commission members and staff. Mr. West reversed the order of the items on the agenda.
Minutes of the March 8, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting were reviewed. Mr.
Roach made a motion to approve the minutes with a change on page 27 of the staff report in
which a reference to PZ 11-001 was made for a 2009 City Council decision. Mr. Kohler
seconded the motion. With a vote of 5-0, the minutes were approved with the change.
Mr. West then read the first case before the commission:
PZ 11-003: Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Highland Park Independent School
District to amend Planned Development District “PD-25” to install athletic lighting for the ball
field and tennis courts. The subject site is zoned Planned Development District “PD-25” and
located south of Druid Lane and east of Westchester Drive, in the City of University Park, Dallas
County, Texas.
Mr. Persaud reviewed the location of the site with a PowerPoint map. He explained the light
pole heights to provide the commission with any potential impacts on the adjacent properties.
Mr. Persaud advised the commission of the public notices mailed as well as any received
responses. He then showed an example of the light fixtures, luminaries and control of the
spillover.
He showed the photometric layout for the site from Musco Sports Lighting . He stated that he
felt that the proximity to the residential structures was acceptable, but in relation to the height of
Page 184 of 195
2
the structures, the poles were of substantial concern. Mr. Persaud provided the setbacks to the
current property lines. Mr. Persaud stated that there was a staff concern for fall down provisions
not being met on private property.
Mr. Persaud introduced representatives present from the school district, SHW Architecture
Group and Musco Sports Lighting.
Mr. John Bunton, Highland Park ISD Trustee, resident at 3613 Wentwood came forward. He
spoke about what events are held at the HPISD facilities and the main reasons for the school
district requesting the amendment to the planned development.
● Academic
● Competition
● Other student activities
He stated that the students must miss classes in order to have games prior to sunset and that they
would like to have kids in class during the day as long as possible. Mr. Bunton added that
HPISD is the only school district in 7 counties which have no lights on their tennis courts or
softball field. The added benefit would allow kids in their classes more. He stated that on the
competition side, the school district cannot pull in other competitive teams because there is not
enough daylight hours usually in order to compete. In regard to tennis specifically, Mr. Bunton
told the commission that the team can only do duel meets, no singles matches. He stated that
with the time change (daylight savings) helps but that they still cannot get the competitions in,
therefore; they must find other fields in the city to practice. Many times other park fields in the
city are taken up by other activities. Mr. Bunton then stated that Musco Sports Lighting would
go over the fall zone issue but that they had measured 94’ from the poles to someone’s home. In
reference to the bleed over issue, Musco Sports Lighting had been given specific direction by the
school district to carefully not have bleed over, and with hoods over the lights.
Mr. Bunton stated that softballs are not as noisy as hardball. He added that the school district
would be willing to put restrictions on the time periods, etc. He then invited Tod Spears from
Musco Sports Lighting to the podium. He reviewed the structure of the proposed lighting as well
as the quality of their product. Mr. Spears asked for any questions. Mr. Roach asked if there had
been any fall overs of their product. Mr. Spears responded, “yes in an Austin tornado”. Mr.
Kohler then asked who was liable. Mr. Spears explained that their product provides for a 25 year
structure warranty and the warranty is determined by what calls it to fail. With a tornado, it
could fail with lots of other damage too. Mr. Aldredge asked if there were any others installed.
Mr. Spears responded “yes, City of Carrollton”. Mr. Aldredge asked Mr. Spears “what field?”.
Mr. Spears responded “Lake Carroll football field”.
Mr. Biddle asked why the poles have to be so high. Mr. Spears responded that it is for
competitive reasons but that they protect the light source with the pole height and shielding. Mr.
Aldredge asked John Polando, representative for HPISD about the nights. He responded that for
tennis, it is usually used 3-4 nights per week and primarily February through April. For softball,
it is used Tuesday and Friday nights. For lacrosse, it is used Monday through Thursday in the
fall. He added that due to daylight savings time, the lights would possibly not be turned on until
mid October. Mr. Polando also noted to the commissioners that the school district is liable for
damage which could occur, but to look to Musco for failure liability.
Page 185 of 195
3
Mr. West asked about the batting cages on the softball field. Mr. Polando stated that there are 2
batting cages and they would stay at their present location. Mr. Wadlow, Musco representative
addressed the concern of residents in regard to the glare. He stated that there would be 2 poles
which will have 5 fixtures, but that Highlander Stadium has poles with 20 lights. Mr. Wadlow
stated that a person would have to look up to get the reflection from the lighting.
Mr. West asked for anyone who wished to speak in favor.
Mr. Rob Walters who resides at 3916 Southwestern approached the podium. He stated that the
tennis program is the pride of the community and that it would be nice to host tournaments.
Their inability to do that puts them at a disadvantage. Mr. Walters stated that there is a financial
disadvantage because it is costing school time where the school district cannot compete with
other programs and that HPISD then offers a compromised program. He stated that the other
financial disadvantage is with the program and that everyone should be mindful of the
community’s needs and concerns. With current technology, there is less brightness but more
quality.
Mr. John Paul who resides at 4116 Greenbrier approached the podium. He reiterated that HPISD
is the only school in the district without lights. He stated that the opposing team sometimes must
leave early. Mr. Paul commended the softball field and its renovations. He added that other
teams would benefit from the lighting and that it wouldn’t be on past 9:30PM.
Mr. Laney Bowman who resides at 4421 Windsor approached the podium. He stated that he is
the Highland Park Boys Lacrosse president and that the greatest problem is with the fields and
space being the greatest concern. He added that the lacrosse team shares space at McCullough
and Highlander Stadium for practices. Mr. Bowman stated that the approval of this would help
the kids of University Park.
Mr. Rick Annigan who resides at 4128 Southwestern approached the podium. He stated that he
had reviewed the girls lacrosse program and found that most problems with success for the girls
and boys programs both stems from scheduling. With lighting at the softball field, it will give 4
additional hours of lighting that the kids would otherwise not have.
Mr. Andy Flick who resides at 4125 Windsor stated that he had experienced the lighting
dilemma many times. HPISD contends for state with no lights(the only team). He said that the
opponents have an advantage with their practice times/court times.
Mr. Steve Orr who resides at 3724 Purdue approached the podium, has 3 children at the high
school and stated that he supports the lights for the softball field. He thanked Mr. Bunton for the
updates at the softball facility. He reviewed aloud a letter from another resident who couldn’t
attend.
Mr. Aldredge asked Mr. Polando if there are other tennis courts in the area which have the
Musco lighting on them. Mr. Polando responded that one ISD is McKinney.
Mr. West then asked for anyone wishing to speak in opposition.
Mr. Mort Newmann who resides at 6727 Golf and owns 4128/30 Druid approached the podium.
Page 186 of 195
4
He stated that of the 11 structures on Druid, many have been converted to duplexes and single
family homes. He reviewed those which were in opposition. He added though that the 4100
block of Druid comes in peace but is respectfully opposed, and the reason is that there is an
inconvenience with allowing the lighting. Mr. Newmann stated that the school district had said
that there would be no lighting. He was essential in getting the school district to put the parking
garage on the alley side of the site. With the daytime effect, he added that there would be noise,
traffic and loud speakers playing. Mr. Newmann said that the “lighted towers” would be twice
the size of their homes and would have a detrimental effect on their lives.
Mr. Newmann explained about one of his tenants expecting their first child and how the lighting
would reduce the home values thus lowering the tax base. He agreed that the lighting submittal
was from a quality company; however, he showed the commission a picture of a lighting
example from Trinity University in San Antonio. He added that this is the embryonic stage for
this topic and it will become more active with time. Once the residential quality is destroyed, it
will affect the resident. He urged the commission to deny the request brought before them and to
have a school live within its means.
Mr. Matt Klein who resides at 4138 Druid approached the podium and stated that he had bought
his home 1 ½ years ago and opposes the request of HPISD.
Mr. Rob Olds who resides at 4121 Druid approached the podium, stated that he had bought the
property 6 weeks ago for the quietness of the street. He added that he has a 9 year old who goes
to bed at 9:00PM and if he had known this was up for discussion, he would have never bought
the property.
Ms. Christy Haggard who resides at 4112 Druid encouraged the commission to come and walk
the neighborhood to see the lights. Since 1999, the residents have been reassured by the school
district that there would be no lighting.
Ms. Charmain Beasley who resides at 4132/34 Druid approached the podium and stated that the
entire block will be adversely affected by the lighting if allowed. She asked that the commission
oppose and preserve the residential quality.
Mr. Roach motioned to close the public hearing and Mr. Aldredge seconded the motion. Mr.
West asked for discussion from the commission members.
Mr. Roach stated that it is a shame that HPISD is the only school without lighted fields, but that
he cannot look at the people who live on Druid and support.
Mr. Kohler agreed it is wonderful that the tennis team has gone to state and that the program has
been successful so far, even with no lighting.
Mr. Roach made a motion to deny the request. Mr. Kohler seconded the motion. With a 4-1
vote, the request for lighting was denied. Mr. Biddle voted in favor.
Mr. West requested a break in the Planning & Zoning meeting from 6:10PM-6:15PM.
At 6:15PM, Mr. West read the second case before the commission:
Page 187 of 195
5
PZ 11-001: Consideration of a request by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP, for a change of
zoning from Parking “P” and Office “O-2” zoning district classification to Planned
Development District “PD-37” and approval of a Conceptual Site Plan for mixed use
development to include one Single Family unit, Offices, Retail and Parking below grade. The
subject tract is approx. 1.58 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues and
West of Hillcrest Ave., and described as lots 7 thru 12, Block 3, University Park Addition, City
of University Park, Dallas County, Texas. The said tract is zoned Parking “P” and Office “O-2”
zoning district classification and owned by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP.
Mr. West stated that this was the 3rd hearing for this case. The public hearing had been closed at
the 3/8/11 meeting. He stated that the applicant had taken time with the staff to work on the draft
conditions for the commission to focus on and to give direction in the zoning request.
In regard to the building square footage and height, the commission reviewed the last meetings
discussion on the subject. Mr. Roach commented on the gross floor area of 135,000 square feet
recommended by the City Council and the City Mayor last year. Mr. Biddle stated that he
supports 142,000 square feet and felt that the commission should move on to get it done. Mr.
West stated that during the last 30 days, he had been concerned with the retail portion of the
development and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He asked Mr. Art Anderson,
representative for the applicant to address the retail today, the existing zoning and the
retail/restaurant allowed on site today. Mr. Anderson reviewed the uses allowed stating that it
was a large list. He stated that the location of the retail/restaurant is restricted to front on Daniel
or Hillcrest streets and promoted as an end cap on Snider Plaza. He added that the reduced
retail/restaurant space with 10,000 square feet affects the parking requirement and traffic. Mr.
Anderson noted that the request has gone far from the original request. In addition, he noted that
the portion between the alley and the western boundary of the property is regulated by the
detailed site plan and will go before the City Council.
With further discussion on the square footage, Mr. Kohler commented that he was in support of
135,000 to 142,000 square feet. Mr. Roach asked if everyone was clear on the auxillary space in
the parking garage. He then stated that discussions had been for the GFA at 135,000 square feet,
with the additional garage space no larger than 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Roach made a motion that other square foot limitations had been made. This included:
● 10,000 restaurant
● 135,000 office uses
● 50,000 hotel use
● 20,000 retail/restaurant max
There was no 2nd motion.
Mr. Biddle made a motion for:
● 142,000 max GFA
● 20,000 retail/restaurant max
● 10,000 restaurant shall not exceed
● 50,000 hotel east of existing alley
● 5,000 accessory use limitation
Page 188 of 195
6
Mr. Aldredge seconded the motion.
Mr. West reviewed the motion.
Mr. Roach asked Mr. Biddle and Mr. Aldredge why they would approve more square footage
than the City Council last year.
Mr. Biddle summarized that he felt it should be put to bed. He was willing to give a little. The
applicant has come down on their size request and he was willing to work with them. Plus, the
city will have knowledge in regard to input on what is actually built.
Mr. Aldredge added that he agreed with Randy in that they can put together a better building
envelope.
Mr. Kohler stressed the important on Snider Plaza and stated that he had read every word in the
applicants request and sees no negative impact on the neighborhood. He stated that he agrees
with Mr. Roach though that smaller is better.
Mr. Biddle stated that something needs to be done with the property and the argument is only
over 7,000 square feet. He told Mr. Roach that he had his position and respectfully asked for his
right to disagree.
Mr. West reviewed everyone’s stand on the issue before them. Having no more discussion on
the motion, Mr. West called for a vote.
A vote ensued whereby the motion failed with a 3-2 vote, Mr. Roach, Mr. West and Mr. Kohler
opposing.
Mr. Roach submitted his previous motion. Mr. West reviewed it again and a vote ensued. Mr.
Kohler seconded the vote which ended with a 3-2 vote in favor of Mr. Roach’s motion. Mr.
Aldredge and Mr. Biddle opposing.
Mr. Anderson approached the podium and immediately advised the commission that the zoning
case would probably be withdrawn in view of the situation. Mr. West agreed with him that it
was a difficult case.
Permitted Uses were further reviewed from the proposed development standards and Mr. West
asked for changes. Section B2.e was mentioned by Mr. Roach who made the comment that no
offices may front on and have access on Haynie.
Mr. West discussed the change to Section B.5. of the proposed development standards and noted
that the storage of wine “shall be” for private collections only.
A vote ensued for the proposed change from staff to Section 2.e. Mr. Biddle made the motion
and Mr. Kohler seconded it.
Mr. West reviewed the proposed draft standards for uses. Mr. Kohler concurred with the
changes. Mr. West asked Mr. Biddle whether or not to include all of Sections C and D. Mr.
Biddle responded that he felt that Section C.11 should be deleted from the proposed draft
standards. He recommended changing Section D1.b. to provide for a 0 setback required along
Hillcrest with a 10’ setback along Daniel. He suggested deleting Section 3.c. (23’ x 8’) in
Page 189 of 195
7
reference to parallel parking spaces. He suggested changing Section 4.b. to 25’ for driveways.
He suggested a deletion of Section E.1.a with reference to 5 stories and to E.1.b.in reference to
the rooftop. In Section F, Mr. Biddle made a recommendation in respect to wine storage, the
allocated parking spaces, and how that would affect parking requirements. If the spaces were not
used for such, then Mr. West made the suggestion to delete “one parking space per 1000 sq. ft of
gross floor area” and to replace with “one parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area”.
He added that the building would then not lose parking spaces and the use would match with the
current office requirements. Mr. Biddle concurred with Mr. West. Under Section G.3., Mr.
Biddle suggested that “to clearly” be deleted. In Section G.4.i., he suggested that “cast stone” be
added for exterior facade materials. In Section G.4.iii, he suggested to delete, “detailed”. Under
Section G.5., he suggested adding something in regard to if in the event, owners charge parking;
customers will receive free parking in the restaurant/retail areas. Under Section G.14., he
suggested deleting the word “dining” and to add, “request for outdoor…”. Mr. Biddle
recommended that under Section G.22 and in regard to cell phone towers, the wording “under
construction” be added. In Section G.23, Mr. Biddle suggested that there be an addition to read,
“site to be…”
Mr. Biddle made the motion for the noted changes.
Mr. Kohler seconded the motion.
There was discussion which ensued amongst the commission members. Mr. Dillard mentioned
that the City Council would address the corner clip at Daniel and Hillcrest which is not a part of
this request and not a condition to the Planned Development Ordinance.
With a 5-0 vote, the commission voted in favor of the request by Legacy Hillcrest Investment
with all noted changes to the development standards and special conditions.
With there being no further business before the board, Mr. West adjourned the meeting at 6:48
PM.
________________________________
Robert H. West, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Date____________________________
Page 190 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:GerryBradley,ParksDirector
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:on5-YearCapitalProjectsrecommendationsandresident
requestsandprovidedirectiontostaff
BACKGROUND:
StaffhasrecentlybeenrequestedtoupdatetheCityCouncilregardingtheapprovedfuturecapital
projectsidentifiedwithintheCity’s5-yearCIPprogram.PublicWorksandParksDepartmentstaff
plantoreviewthepotentialtimelinesandbudgetsofthefollowingprojectswiththeCityCouncil:
McFarlinMedians
PardoePark(UniversityBlvd.Medians)
HuntersGlenMedians
Barns/Dublin/DouglasMedians
PeekServiceCenterLandscaping
CurtisParkBridgeRepairs
MiracleMile
SniderPlaza
IftheCouncilrequestschangestotheplannedimplementationschedule,Councilshouldprovide
directiontostaffatthistime.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffwilltakedirectionfromCityCouncilonhowtoproceedwiththeCIPprogram.
FUNDINGSOURCE:
CapitalProjectsFunding
ATTACHMENTS:
LetterfromResident(McFarlinMedians)
Page 191 of 195
Page 192 of 195
Page 193 of 195
AGENDAMEMO
(7/19/2011AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:RobbieCorder,DirectorofCommunityDevelopment
SUBJECT:DISCUSS:fenceheightsinrearyards
BACKGROUND:
Withinthelastcoupleyears,theBoardofAdjustment(BOA)hasruledonseveralcasesrelatedto
fenceheightsintherearyardthatabutanalley.Thesecasestypicallyinvolveapropertythathasa
significantgradechangebetweenthepropertyandthealleyright-of-way.Duetothegradechanges,
whichtypicallyrequirearetainingwall,propetyownerssubmitanapplicationtotheBOAfora
variancetothefenceheightregulationsthatlimitarearyardfencetoamaximimuheightofeightfeet
(8').
DuringtheMay17thCityCouncilmeeting,staffpresentedtheCityCouncilwithaproposedZoning
Ordinanceamendmentthatwouldgivestaffthelatitudetopermitfencesinexcessofeightfeet(8')
wherearetainingwallisrequired.TheCityCouncilreferredthisitemtotheZoningOrdniance
AdvisoryCommittee(ZOAC)foradditionalconsideration.Afterreviewingthisitemwithstaff
duringtheirJunemeeting,ZOACrecommendedtheCityCouncilamendtheZoningOrdinanceto
allowstafftopermitfencesthatrequirearetainingwalluptoamaximumheightoftenfeet(10').The
languageZOACrecommendedfortheproposedamendmentisattached-seeitem(c).
IftheCityCouncilwouldliketoproceedwiththeproposedamendmenttotheZoning
Ordinance,staffwillscheduleapublichearingbeforethePlanning&ZoningCommission.Oncea
recommendationisreceivedfromP&Z,staffwillscheduleasecondpublichearingbeforetheCity
Councilforfinalconsideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsapprovaloftheproposedZoningOrdinanceamendmentandthatthisitembe
referredtothePlanning&ZoningCommission.
ATTACHMENTS:
ProposedAmendment
Page 194 of 195
Fence Requirements in the SF, SF-A, D, and MF Districts
(1) Rear Yard
(a) Where a fence or wall is erected along a rear lot line, such fence or wall shall
not exceed eight feet (8’) in height.
(b) Where a fence or wall is erected along a rear lot line where such property line
adjoins an Alley right-of-way, such fence or wall shall not exceed eight feet (8') in
height.
(c) Where the existing grade of the lot slopes toward the Alley in such a way that
a retaining wall is necessary, the maximum height of the retaining wall and fence
located in the rear yard, shall not exceed ten feet (10') when measured from the
abutting grade on the Alley side, provided that the fence portion shall not exceed
eight feet (8') in height. Any attempt to change the grade by building up the
parkway or the surface of a lot so as to justify the need for a higher fence would
constitute a violation of this Section.
Page 195 of 195