Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 04-04-06 Names Tabs
A G E N D A #2607 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006 AT 5:00 P.M. 4:00-5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW I.INVOCATION – Mayor Pro Tempore Jim Roberts II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Pro Tempore Jim Roberts/Boy Scouts III.INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL – Mayor James H. Holmes, III IV.INTRODUCTION OF STAFF – City Manager Bob Livingston V.RECOGNITION OF BOY SCOUTS VI.ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda or having questions about items on the Consent Agenda should do so at this time. Questions and comments regarding Main Agenda items may be made when that item is addressed by the City Council. VII.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDER: Grant for Project: STEP WAVE, Texas Traffic Safety Program – Adams Tab I B.CONSIDER: Cancelling Joint Contract with Park Cities Municipal Utilities District – Wilson Tab II C.CONSIDER: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2006 – Wilson Tab III VIII.MAIN AGENDA A.CONSIDER: Request for Funding of Art Engagement Calendar – Austin Tab IV B.CONSIDER: Request from Hillier School at Highland Park Presbyterian Church to Use City Streets for 5K Run on October 7, 2006 – Adams Tab V C.DISCUSSION: Regarding Speed Limits on Residential Streets – Smallwood Tab VI D.CONSIDER: Resolution Authorizing Participation in New Steering Committee for Atmos Gas Cities – Austin Tab VII E.CONSIDER: Appointment of Tree Ordinance Review Committee – Bradley Tab VIII F.CONSIDER: Purchase of Police Parking Enforcement Vehicle – Adams Tab IX G.CONSIDER: Purchase Reporting Software for 3-1-1 System – Hanford Tab X As authorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be convened into Closed Executive Session for the purpose of seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any agenda items listed herein. IX. INFORMATION AGENDA Tab XI REPORTS, BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES A.BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes for April 11, 2005; October 24, 2005 and February 27, 2006 B.EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE C.FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE D.PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE E.PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes for March 6, 2006 F.PROPERTY CASUALTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE G.PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE H.PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE I.URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE J.ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE K.CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA MEMO (04/04/06 AGENDA) DATE: March 23, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gary W. Adams, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Texas Traffic Safety Program Grant Project: STEP WAVE ________________________________________________________________________ ITEM The Police Department applied for received a Texas Traffic Safety Program Grant. The total amount of the award is $5,000.00. The purpose of the grant is to conduct overtime traffic enforcement focusing on specific traffic law violation during high traffic volume holiday periods in order to reduce traffic crashes, injuries and fatalities. ATTACHMENTS ? Texas Traffic Safety Program Grant Agreement ? Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City adopt a resolution entering into an agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation supporting the state’s efforts to increase safety belt and speed enforcement. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\STEP Grant 040406.doc 3:18 PM 03/23/06 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, APPROVING A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a Texas Traffic Safety Program Grant in the amount of $5,000 for a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, it is necessary to enter into a Grant Agreement with the State of Texas, through the Texas Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to accept the grant, approve the Agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign it on behalf of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That a grant in the amount of $5,000 is accepted and the Texas Traffic Safety Program Grant Agreement (“Agreement”), by and between the City of University Park and the State of Texas, through the Texas Department of Transportation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made part hereof for all purposes, is hereby approved in all respects. SECTION 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and to perform such other administrative steps as are necessary to give effect to the Agreement on behalf of the City. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, and it is accordingly so resolved. DULY PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY th PARK, TEXAS, on the 4 day of April 2006. APPROVED: JAMES H. HOLMES, III, MAYOR ATTEST: NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY I, Nina Wilson, City Secretary of the City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, proposed by Councilmember was duly passed and adopted in the City Council meeting of the City of University Park, Dallas th County, Texas at a regular meeting thereof assembled this 4 day of April 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: CITY SECRETARY OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS — For TxDOT Use Only — Federal Pass Through Misc. Contract Number: Grant Funds CFDA #20.600 Charge Number: State Grant Funds Project Year: n/a PIN (14 characters only): 17560006987008 TEXAS TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT THE STATE OF TEXAS THE COUNTY OF TRAVIS THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE BY and between the State of Texas, acting by and through the Texas Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the Department, and City of University Park, hereinafter called the Subgrantee, and becomes effective when fully executed by both parties. For the purpose of this agreement, the Subgrantee is designated as a(n): State Agency Non-Profit Organization Unit of Local Government Educational Institution Other (describe): . AUTHORITY: Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 723, the Traffic Safety Act of 1967, and the Highway Safety Plan for the following Fiscal Year(s) 2006. Project Title: STEP - CIOT Brief Project Description: To increase occupant restraint use in all passenger vehicles and trucks by conducting an intense occupant protection enforcement and public information and education effort during the Memorial Day Holiday period. Grant Period: The Grant becomes effective on May 1, 2006, or on the date of final signature of both parties, whichever is later, and ends on June 30, 2006 unless terminated or otherwise modified. Maximum Amount Eligible for Reimbursement: $5,000. The following attachments are incorporated as indicated as a part of the Grant Agreement: ¦ Attachment A, Mailing Addresses ¦ Attachment B, General Terms and Conditions (TxDOT Form 1854) ¦ Attachment C, Project Description (TxDOT Form 2076) ¦ Attachment D, Action Plan (TxDOT Form 1852) ¦ Attachment E, Project Budget (TxDOT Form 2077 or 2077-LE) Attachment F, Operational Plan (TxDOT Form 2109) (for Selective Traffic Enforcement Program grants only) Page 1 of 1 TxDOT Form 2075-CIOT (rev. 3/15/2006) Project Title: STEP – CIOT TEXAS TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT The signatory for the Subgrantee hereby represents and warrants that she/he is an officer of the organization for which she/he has executed this agreement and that she/he has full and complete authority to enter into this agreement on behalf of the organization. At the time the signatory for the Subgrantee signs the Grant Agreement, she/he will sign and submit to the Department a letter designating signature authority by position title for grant-related documents other than the Grant Agreement or Grant Agreement amendments. These other grant-related documents will include, but not be limited to, the following: performance reports, final performance report and administrative evaluation report, Requests For Reimbursement (RFRs), and routine correspondence. THE SUBGRANTEE THE STATE OF TEXAS City of University Park Executed for the Executive Director and approved [Legal Name of Agency] for the Texas Transportation Commission for the purpose and effect of activating and/or carrying out By orders, established policies or work programs [Authorized Signature] approved and authorized by the Texas Transportation Commission. Bob Livingston [Name] By City Manager District Engineer [Title] Texas Department of Transportation (For local project grants under $100,000 or Date: April 4, 2006 for grants of $100,000 or more that are recommended for approval.) Under authority of Ordinance or Resolution Date: Number (for local governments): 06- By Director, Traffic Operations Division Texas Department of Transportation (Not required for local project grants under $100,000.) Date: Page 2 of 2 TxDOT Form 2075-CIOT (rev. 3/15/2006) Attachment A Project Title: STEP – CIOT Mailing Addresses following addresses shall be used to mail all required notices, For the purpose of this agreement, the reports, claims, and correspondence . (NOTE: For warrants (checks), the address indicated by the electronic mail code, which is the last three digits of the PIN on page 1 of this Grant Agreement, shall be used for disbursing payments. If that address is not where the Subgrantee wants warrants or checks to be sent, the Subgrantee needs to notify the Department of any appropriate changes. For Subgrantee (Project Director): Name: Robert Brown Title: Captain Organization: City of University Park Address: 3800 University Blvd. University Park, TX 75205 Phone: 214-987-5353 Fax: 214-987-5350 E-mail: rdbrown@uptexas.org Note: Any change in the Subgrantee information in this Attachment A, Mailing Addresses, does not require an amendment to the Grant Agreement. However, the Subgrantee must submit a letter with the corrected information to the Department address below within 15 days of the change. For Texas Department of Transportation: Name: Pat Hickman Title: TSS Organization: Texas Department of Transportation Address: 4777 E. Hwy 80 Mesquite, TX 75150 Phone: 214-320-6235 Fax: 214-320-6568 E-mail: phickma@dot.state.tx.us Page 1 of 1 TxDOT Form 2075-CIOT (rev. 3/15/2006) AGENDA MEMO (04/04/06 AGENDA) DATE: March 30, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Nina Wilson City Secretary SUBJECT: CANCELLING JOINT CONTRACT WITH PARK CITIES MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT As the Park Cities Municipal Utilities District (PC MUD) has cancelled their election, it is incumbent upon the City of University Park to pay the entire estimated cost of the General Municipal Election for May 13, 2006. The responsibility of PC MUD was in the amount of $2,568.11. We are now responsible for that amount plus our own, which has already been paid. The total estimated cost of the election will now be $5,136.22. ATTACHMENT: PC MUD Resolution No. 06-03-167 RECOMMENDATION: If it meets with your approval, I will request the Finance Department send a check immediately to Lisa Hembry, Dallas County Treasurer, in the amount of $2,568.11. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 U:\Docs\Election\2006\March\Memo Cancelling Joint Contract with PC MUD.doc 1:51 PM 03/30/06 MAR-30-2006 02:36P FROM:Dallas Count~ Park C 214-652-8643 TO: 2149875399 P:1/2 DALLAS COUNTY PARK CITIES MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 1811 REGAL ROW pHO -214/651-116..1'1 .,'^X -Zl4/1i52-8641 DIRECTORS AIlMINISI'KATION DALLAS, TEXAS 75235-2398 1)011 C. MellY~I" Prcsidtllt MlIl'Il Connell, Vi~r-rrC'3hl(!nt J011 8, Wbitr. Srcrrtllry PUll MllIlII. Dlrertnr C~/"I:r E. ClArk, Illrcr.tnr "'PI'ry M~Danlel,(icn. M!!r, .lrrry Dranom,Admln.Anl. Deborah White AccUScc. FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET DELIVER TO: ;1Ilh~ >>,'/-SOVl SENT BY: La! M~,Je.f :3-30-0' DATE SRNT: TIME SENT: 1 : '1~ p . m . g i i NUMBER OF PAGES SJNT. !NeT,lIDING TRANSMITTAL SHRET: i 2- OUl\ FAX NO. ISf 14/652-8643 MRR-30-2006 02:36P FROM:Dallas Count~ Park C 214-652-8643 TO: 2149875399 P:2/2 A RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE MAY 13, 2006 DIRECTORS' ELECTION AND DECLARING EACH UNOPPOSED CANDIDATE ELECTED TO OFFICE RESOLUTION NO. 06..03-167 WHEREAS. the Dallas County Park CIties Municipal Utility District Is a municipal utility district operating under Chapter 49.00 of the Texas Water Code and pursuant to the legislation of the State of Texas; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with law. a general election has been ordered for May 13, 2006 for the purpose of electing Directors to serve on the Board of the Directors of the District; and, WHEREAS, no proposition is to appear on the ballot in that election; and, WHEREAS. the authority responsible for preparing the official ballot has certified that each candidate on the ballot is unopposed for election to office; and, WHEREAS, the filing deadlines for placement on the baUot and declaration of write-in candidacy have passed; and, WHEREAS. in these circumstances SUbChapter C of Chapter 2 of the Election Code authorizes a governing body to declare each unopposed candidate elected to office and cancel the election. NOW~ THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY lliE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DALlAS COUNTY PARK CITIES MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, THAT: Section 1. The May 13,2006 election be cancelled. Section 2. The following candidates, who are unopposed in the May 13, 2006 Directors' election, are hereby declared elected to office as of May 13, 2006 and shall be issued a certificate of election on that date: Director Position 2 - Philip H. Cullum Director Position 4 . Don Mann Section 3. The Secretary of the Board be directed to post a copy of this resolution at each voting place in Spanish and English on May 13. 2006. IN WITNESS OF WHICH. WE SET OUR HANDS THIS 28th DAY OF M.&RCH. A.D. 2006. :l/{-..-1- J L-<-< ~?..~ Mark W. Connell, President Don Mann, Vice President Jon B. hite~ Secreta~ J C'l rfl- rvll-lk l\ LL~,~ Michael R. Lacy, Director Ph't"PH~I~m, Director MINUTES #2607 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2006, 5:00 P.M. Mayor Blackie Holmes opened the meeting of the City Council. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Jim Roberts and Councilmembers Syd Carter, Kelly Walker and Harry Shawver. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston, City Attorney Rob Dillard and City Secretary Nina Wilson. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION RECOGNITION OF SCOUT SCOTT MARSHALL: Since the 1930’s, various memorials have been installed within the eight major parks of the city’s park system. In an effort to inventory the memorials, staff developed an Eagle Scout project to document memorial names and locations at these park sites. This Park Memorial and Monument Inventory Eagle Scout Project was recently completed by Scott Marshall. A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to him by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts. The Park Memorial and Monument Inventory document will be exhibited at City Hall with the Memorial Tree Program inventory booklet. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following: CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER FINAL PAYMENT TO SYB CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, ALLEY AND STREET PAVING, AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR WATER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SOUTHWESTERN BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 46310: Change Order No. 1 was for the installation of a fire hydrant with an 8” water line along Southwestern. The final payment was in the amount of $124,084.93. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: The minutes were approved for March 7, 2006. MAIN AGENDA CONSIDER REQUEST FROM PARK CITIES BAPTIST CHURCH TO USE CITY STREETS FOR 5K RUN: The run will take place on Saturday, June 3, 2006, 8:00-10:30 a.m. with approximately 200-300 runners. The purpose of the run is to familiarize the community with the church and help raise funds for the indoor/outdoor preschooler playgrounds at the new Community Life Center. The route will be: south on Pickwick from the church to Bryn Mawr, to Tulane, south to Amherst, east on Amherst to Turtle Creek, north on Turtle Creek to Villanova, west back to Pickwick and to the church. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the request. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the request for the 5K Run using city streets. DISCUSS REQUEST FROM VENTURE COMMERCIAL TO ALLOW PARKING ALONG SOUTH SIDE, 4000 BLOCK WENTWOOD: This item was continued to the April 4, 2006 city council meeting. CONSIDER INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL SNIDER PLAZA NEWS RACKS AT INTERSECTIONS OF HILLCREST/MCFARLIN AND HILLCREST/ASBURY: There are two areas outside the existing Snider Plaza retail district that are candidates for a modular news rack installation. At the intersections of Hillcrest/McFarlin and Hillcrest/Asbury, there are several independent news racks that pose potential dangers to pedestrians and vehicular traffic, while also detracting from the overall aesthetics of the area. Staff recommended installing fourteen (14) individual boxes at each location for a total of twenty-eight (28) additional individual boxes. Due to the physical constraints of the locations, staff will seek the assistance of adjacent property owners in placing the city-owned news racks on private property. The purchase and installation of additional news racks will cost approximately $20,000. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the installation of additional news racks at the intersections of Hillcrest/McFarlin and Hillcrest/Asbury. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve installation of additional news racks. Red Light Cameras are now being used in several area cities DISCUSS RED LIGHT CAMERAS: in order to reduce the number of accidents caused by violations, as well as, the number of violations. University Park has the opportunity to join with Garland, Texas and A.C.S, a Dallas- based company, to install red light cameras at pre-selected intersections. There will be no cost to the city to purchase the equipment or maintain it. A set fee will be agreed upon between A.C.S. and University Park, and those fees will come from monies collected by violators caught by the red light cameras. A.C.S. has perfected their system and offers digital video, as opposed to the less reliable VHS tapes. The addition of such cameras will assist the University Park Police Department in enforcing red light violations and in making our streets safer to travel. Traffic enforcement was one area residents reported they wished to see increase in the recent citywide survey. Mayor Holmes moved that the city go forward to the next level at necessary intersections. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve red light cameras. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 4.100 PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS: Currently, the city requires solicitors to apply for a permit with the University Park Police Department. A permit may be refused by the Chief of Police if an applicant has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving a crime of moral turpitude. Because most of the applicants are from out of state, the process of completing an investigation in a timely manner is difficult, if not sometimes impossible. In order to streamline the process, a request was made to amend the ordinance so that the burden is placed on an applicant to provide arrest and conviction records at the time an application is submitted and that permits not be issued to any person wanted by another agency in another state where it shows the offense is above or comparable with a Class C Misdemeanor in Texas. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to amend the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4, Article 4.100 Peddlers and Solicitors. ORDINANCE NO. 06/05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 4.100 PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS TO REQUIRE INCLUSION OF ARREST AND CONVICTION RECORDS; AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO DENY PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PANASONIC MOBILE DATA COMPUTERS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS: In October 2001, the city implemented mobile computing in police and fire vehicles. Since the mobile computing solution was implemented, HTE, the city’s public safety software vendor, has upgraded the mobile software twice, and the city has replaced the wireless network with Verizon’s high-speed EVDO (Evolution Data Optimized) technology. The only remaining pieces of the mobile computing infrastructure requiring an upgrade are the Panasonic CF-27 laptop computers and docking stations in the vehicles. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of awarding the contract for Panasonic Mobile Data Computers to CDW-G for $103,312. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to award the contract to Panasonic Mobile Data Computers. DISCUSS CHANGING DATE FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FROM JULY 5 TO JULY 6: th Since the 4 of July holiday falls on a Tuesday this year, the suggestion was made to move the city council meeting to Thursday, July 6 at 4:00 p.m., and, since Mayor Holmes will be out of the city on May 2, it was also suggested that the meeting for that date be changed to May 9, 2006. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. th PASSED AND APPROVED this 4 of April 2006. James H. Holmes III, Mayor ATTEST: Nina Wilson, City Secretary AGENDA MEMO (04/04/2006 AGENDA) DATE: March 29, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Art engagement calendar agenda item Background University Park resident and fine artist Jennifer Culbertson contacted the City in late February regarding City participation in an art engagement calendar project. Ms. Culbertson is coordinating production of the 2007 calendar, which would feature reprints from works by Park Cities artists. The calendar would be formatted as a spiral bound, week-at-a-glance engagement calendar. Once printed, the calendars would be mailed to every household in University Park and Highland Park. Ms. Culbertson proposes that University Park and Highland Park each provide $15,000 for the project, which is estimated to cost over $60,000. The proposal and sample calendar previously provided to the Council members provide more detail. Ms. Culbertson will attend the April 4 meeting to discuss the project and answer questions. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AGENDA MEMO art calendar 040406.doc 1:56 PM 03/30/06 AGENDA MEMO (04/04/2006 AGENDA) DATE: March 29, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Gary W. Adams, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Church Request to use City Streets for 5K Run Background/Analysis The Hiller School at Highland Park Presbyterian has requested permission to use city streets for the purpose of holding a 5K run to be held on Saturday, October 7, 2006. The Hiller School is a private school that is strictly for children with learning disabilities. The purpose of the run is to familiarize the community about the school and to help raise funds for the school. The route will take the run north on Hunters Glen to Glenwick and then over to Westwick. It will then go east on Shannon around to McFarlin. At that point it will go south on Golf to Potomac then north on Auburndale to Normandy. The route will then head west on Normandy to Golf, north on Gold to University. The route will turn west on University and end at Gore Park. The run will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 10:30 a.m. There will be an estimated 250 runners. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this event. Attachments: Letter from Blake Cecil, volunteer at The Hillier School 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AGENDA MEMO-Hiller School 5k.doc 9:55 AM 03/30/06 · Start: Leave from the School/Church and head left towards Turtle Creek. .Take a right on Turtle Creek and stay straight to go on to Hunter's Glen. .Take a left on Glenwick. .Take a left on Westwick. .Take a left on Shannon. .Take a right on McFarlin. .Take a right on Golf. Take a left on Potomac. .Take a left on Auburndale. .Take a left on Norma ndy . 'Take a right on Golf. .Finish - at Gore Park by taking a left on Uni versity. . tov~!S- ~-,; - unlv~rsJ p~;t -~:.:_j[b- - . G'1'.5S'!!..~J," 0 I, - la ~-1; '- i I <:. rr - ,)> to · ffrui~ ln ~ -- i ~ l ~ Q~ - - r~!\V~~ ~ - ~J r "I'! /2/ '!L -lRoseda,e Ave 18 GI~nvAck Un (i) L-:d _. ~----lr' . ~ , ~ ~ ~-jl- \f~~t~ ' ;~1~-_-.llr.~~17~~ -- -~t ,t 7; ~" l>i f!1.~-Il.fvil!.:::,ur ~v~ ' · .,---/;- ~ ,. .- ----I - Y'-1 'f ) ~ I d A inh;e~e \ I jr~j i ::.r:~v~_~ ~ -- ('\ ~ 1 & landoah "ve '\\~'''i I' i = · , Sh~nando ti ,t I i - - ~ ~C). "J-- -- 15-' ~'. ,,1-- 1"1 ,. I -4 I I lcn ", t;/ ,-'-- - " - - ri-r.~!!.. !,-f. ... .Bo~<!.m~C? _A...'?' _ _ _ ~:2_ _ _ lox . ~ ,. .p, ,(t I :~ f l<' t- -- / j ..sa.... ~.- I MJ.WOOd~' l- - 't - : ! I. ~ ~- ..~ 1~ 'O, ~l ~HJghlariCl Pa~ I~ '61 , ~ _'I'~_ .-d~~ __ ~~. _~v~r1yJ · 10 l ,:2 ~.... f -'" s,:~_ let I L ~'!!~~_._ ~gbir1:-l:!1 .. 1 r , _ -L-.J 1 I f ~M -f ~; AJe --"1 ...... ~-. ~... 1""; !"'1 _ ! .5: , ~l ~ ~ - ~fr- ~ it I \M~amar Ave L ~r:. t -. / _e,i r AGENDA MEMO (04-04-06 AGENDA) DATE: March 30, 2006 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Discussion regarding speed limits on residential streets. Background. Pursuant to previous discussions with the City Council direction, staff contracted with traffic engineer Dannie Cummings, P.E. to review the feasibility of lowering the speed limit on residential streets. As detailed in The Texas Transportation Code, the residential speed limit, unless otherwise posted, is 30 MPH. Recent legislation allows the City Council to modify that speed limit. Mr. Cummings was asked to review traffic and speed data collected on various University Park over the past few years, conduct research through ITC, and provide comment and recommendations on the question of whether to reduce residential speed limits from 30 mph to 25 mph. The attached report speaks to the traffic along what are commonly referred to as residential streets and does NOT relate to Preston Road, Hillcrest Blvd, Airline Road, University Blvd, nor Lovers Lane. If the Council should decide to take some action based on Mr. Cummings memo, staff would recommend that any issues relating to the aforementioned streets be addressed separately with subsequent input from Mr. Cummings. If Council should decide to change speed limits, control signage could be in place within about four to six months at a cost of approximately $30,000 to $50,000. The Police Chief will be available to respond to enforcement issues. Discussion. Mr. Cummings will be available at the Council meeting to respond to Council questions and comments. MEMORANDUM DATE:March13,2006 TO:BudSmallwood,P.E. DirectorofPublicWorks CityofUniversityPark FROM:DannieCummings,P.E. C&PEngineering,Ltd. RE:SpeedLimit25Study STUDYBACKGROUND TheCityisreviewingarequestfromlocalresidentstoreducethecitywideresidentialspeed limitfrom30mphto25mph.Section545.352(b)ofTitle7,theTexasTransportationCode establishestheurbandistrictprimafaciespeedlimitat30mph.Therecentlyapproved HouseBill87allowsthegoverningbodyofamunicipalitytoalteraprimafaciespeedlimit ifthegoverningbodyshouldfindthatspeedlimittobeunreasonableorunsafe. Atyourrequestwehaveconductedatrafficstudytoprovideinformationthatwouldassist theCityinitsdeliberationsregardingthejustificationforreducingtheresidentialspeedlimit from30mphto25mph.Thisdocumentpresentsthefindingsofthatstudy. UNIVERSITYPARKSPEEDLIMITDATA AreviewofpasttrafficdatacollectedbytheCityrevealedthatbetween1999and2006 speedlimitdatafromatotalofover231,400vehicleswascollectedat64locationswithin theCity.Thisdatainvolvedresidential,collectorandarterialstreets. AbreakdownoftheCity?sspeedlimitdataindicatedthatdatawascollectedat47 th residentialstreetlocations.The85percentilespeedforthese47locationsvariedfroma th lowof18.7mph(4200McFarlin)toahighof37.0mph(7300Dickens)withanoverall85 percentilespeedof29.1mph.Theaveragetrafficvolumeatthe47residentialstreet locationswas1,875vpd. MESQUITESTUDY In2004theMesquiteCityCouncildirecteditsstafftoevaluatetheresidentialspeedlimits throughouttheCitytodetermineifaresidentialspeedlimitbelow30mphwasmore appropriate.Thekeyfindingsofthatstudyhavebeenattachedtothisreportandmaybe usedtocomparetheCityofMesquite?sfindingswiththosefromhisstudy. LITERATURERESEARCH TheConsultantconductedaliteraturesearchforpertinentinformationregardingspeedlimit reductions.ThemainsourcesofourresearchweretheInstituteofTransportation Engineers,theU.S.DepartmentofTransportation,andtheTransportationResearchBoard. Findingsandexcerptsfromthoseandothersourceshavebeenincludedinthefollowing paragraphs. Researchconductedinmanypartsofthiscountryoveraspanofseveraldecades hasshownthatdriversareinfluencedmorebytheappearanceoftheroadwayitself andtheprevailingtrafficconditionsthanbythepostedspeedlimit. Ifspeedlimitsignsarepostedforaspeedlimitlowerthanneeded,manydriverswill simplyignorethesigns.Atthesametime,otherdriverswillstaywithintheposted limit.Thisgenerallyincreasestheconflictsbetweenfasterandslowerdrivers, reducesthegapsintrafficthroughwhichcrossingscouldbemadesafely,and increasesthedifficultyforpedestrianstojudgethespeedofapproachingvehicles. Studieshaveshownthatwhereuniformityofspeedisnotmaintained,accidents generallyincrease. ?Wherespeedlimitswerelowered...Therewerenochangesinthehigh-speed th drivers(99percentile).Atsiteswherespeedlimitswereraised,...therewasa th smalldecreaseinthe99percentilespeed.? ?...themajorityofmotoristsdonotaltertheirspeedtoconformtospeedlimitsthey perceiveasunreasonableforprevailingconditions...whencomplianceimproved afterspeedlimitswereraised,accidentstendedtodecrease.? ?Onecommonlysitedreasonforpostingunreasonablelowspeedlimitsispublicand politicalpressure.? ?Postinglowerspeedlimitsdoesnotdecreasemotorists?speeds...anincreasein thepostedspeedlimitdidnotcreateacorrespondingincreaseinvehicularspeeds.? Page2 th ?Theavailableevidencesuggeststhatpostinglimitsintheregionofthe85 percentileminimizesaccidentinvolvementsandprovidesacceptabledriver compliance.Thereisnoinformationthatsuggestsincludingotherfactorsinsetting speedlimitswouldprovideadditionalsafetyorcompliancebenefits.? ?Contrarytowidespreadpopularbelief,theresultsindicatethatraisingspeedlimits th tothe85percentiledoesnotincreaseaccidents.Also,arbitrarilyloweringspeed th limitsmorethan5mi/hbelowthe85percentilespeeddoesnotreduceaccidents.? ?Accidents...wherespeedlimitswereloweredincreasedby5.4percent.? ?Accidentsatthe...siteswherespeedlimitswereraiseddecreasedby 5.4percent.? ?Theaccidentinvolvementratesonstreetsandhighwaysinurbanareaswas highestfortheslowest5percentoftraffic,lowestfortrafficinthe30to95percentile range,andincreasedforthefastest5percentoftraffic.? ?...drivereducation,speedlimits,?speed-kills?-likepublicity,etc.maycreatethe impressionthatslowdrivingissafedriving.? ?...allcurrentsafetycampaignsemphasizethat?speedkills.?Theyimplythatthe slowerdriveristhevirtuousoneandishelpingprotecthimselfandotherdrivers.It isn?tso.Toreducefatalities,itisimportantthateveryonedriveataboutthesame speed.Thusthemajorconsiderationinchoosingaspeedlimitisthatitbeobeyed. Andthemajorconsiderationforpoliceistoreducevariation,notspeed,because slowdriversareasmuchapublichazardasfastones.? IMPACTOFON-STREETPARKING TherehavebeenrecentdiscussionswithintheCity?sPublicSafetyCommittee(PSC) regardingalternativestocurrenton-streetparkingpracticesalongthecurbsidesofpublic streetsthroughouttheCity.ArecentreportwassubmittedtothePSCthataddressed possiblealternativesthatwouldpreventallowableparking,i.e.,parkingonbothsidesof narrowstreets,parkingtooclosetointersections,andconstructioncrewsparkingin residentialareas. Itshouldbepointedoutthaton-streetparkingreducestheeffectivewidthofthethrough trafficlanes.Thisinturnresultsina?squeezing?affectonmotoristsastheytravelfrom widelanesof11©-15©inwidthtonarrowlanesof8©-10©inwidth.This?squeezing?effect or?friction?betweenvehicleswillresultinslowertravelspeeds. Page3 CONCLUSIONS Basedontheresultsandfindingsofthisstudywehavepreparedthefollowingconclusions. th Theoverall85percentilespeedonthe47residentialstreetlocationsstudiedbythe Citywas29.1mph. th Postingspeedlimitsintheregionofthe85percentileminimizesaccident involvementsandprovidesacceptabledrivercompliance. Driversareinfluencedmorebytheappearanceoftheroadwayitselfandthe prevailingtrafficconditionsthanbythepostedspeedlimit. Themajorityofmotoristsdonotaltertheirspeedtoconformtospeedlimitsthey perceiveasunreasonableforprevailingconditions. Themajorconsiderationforpoliceistoreducevariation,notspeed,becauseslow driversareasmuchapublichazardasfastones. RECOMMENDATIONS Baseduponthefiveconclusionsdrawnfromthisstudy,itisourrecommendationthatthe Citymaintainitscurrentcitywideresidentialspeedlimitof30mph.Wewouldalso recommendthattheCitycontinueitscurrentpracticeofconductinganengineeringstudy atthoselocationswherevehicularspeedsand/oraccidentshaveindicatedapossible unsafeconditiontoUniversityParkresidentsandvisitors.Inthismannerspecificlocations thatareshowntoactuallybeunsafecanbetreatedaccordinglyandwithimprovements appropriatefortheconditions. ShouldtheCityCouncilchoosetoimplementthe25mphcitywidespeedlimit,theCity?s PoliceDepartmentwillneedtoprovideon-goingcitywideenforcementinordertomaintain anacceptablelevelofcompliance. CLOSING WehaveappreciatedthisopportunitytoassisttheCityinthisresidentialspeedlimitstudy. Ifyoushouldhaveanyquestionsorcommentsregardingthecontentsofthistransmittal, pleasedonothesitatetocallme. Page4 ATTACHMENTS MESQUITESPEEDLIMITSTUDY Toperformthisstudy,staffutilizedthemethodologyestablishedbyTXDOTandpublished inthedocumentProceduresforEstablishingSpeedZones.TheTXDOTprocedures th requiredthat85percentilespeedsbecollectedontheroadsectionbeingstudied.By th definition,the85percentilespeedisthatspeedatwhich85percentofthevehiclestravel th atorbelow.Thespeedlimitshouldbesetwithinfivemilesperhourofthe85percentile speed. Thekeyfindingsarelistedbelow. Speedlimitdatafromatotalofover393,500vehicleswascollectedat150locations withintheCity.Thisinvolvednotonlyresidential,butalsocollectorandarterial streets. Abreakdownofthespeedlimitdataindicatedthatdatawascollectedat92 th residentialstreetlocations.The85percentilespeedforthese92locationsvaried th fromalowof27.95mphtoahighof34.90mphwithanoverall85percentilespeed of31.00mph.Theaveragetrafficvolumeonthe92residentialstreetlocationswas 535vehiclesperday(vpd). Page5 AGENDA MEMO (04/04/2006 AGENDA) DATE: March 29, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Participation in new steering committee for Atmos Gas cities Background/Analysis Attached is a memo from Jay Doegey, City Attorney for Arlington, Texas, inviting University Park and other Atmos Gas cities to form a standing steering committee. Such a group would respond to natural gas rate filings and regulatory changes, just as the TXU Electric steering committee of cities has done for electric regulatory matters. Mr. Doegey has provided a model resolution and participation agreement, which have been adapted for use by the City of University Park. Recommendation City staff recommends approval of the resolution and participation agreement. By joining with other cities in previous gas and electric rate cases, the City is best able to review and challenge rate changes affecting the City government and residents.. Attachments: ?Memo by Jay Doegey dated March 2, 2006 ?Resolution authorizing execution of gas standing steering committee participation agreement ?Participation agreement 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AGENDA MEMO 04-04-2006 gas standing steering committee.doc 9:03 AM 03/30/06 RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE GAS STANDING STEERING COMMITTEE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: I. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to execute the Atmos Gas Standing Steering Committee Participation Agreement, a substantial copy of which is attached as Attachment 1. II. Naming Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance, kaustin@uptexas.org, 3800 University Blvd., University Park, Texas, 75205, as the representative to receive notices and carry out the responsibilities for the city as set forth in Attachment 1. III. Authorizing the payment of the initial participation of 5¢ per capita, according to City's population shown in the most recent TML Directory of Texas City Officials. IV. Directing that a certified copy of this resolution and the approved participation fee be sent to: Jay Doegey City of Arlington Post Office Box 231 Arlington, Texas 76004-0231 PRESENTED AND PASSED on this the 4th day of April, 2006, by a vote of ______ ayes and ______ nays at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas. Printed Name Printed Title BY: Signature APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: __________________________ Printed Name Signature __________________________ Printed Title Printed Name BY: Signature THE STATE OF TEXAS § ATMOS GAS STANDING STEERING COMMITTEE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT COUNTY OF DALLAS § THIS Agreement is made and entered into on this the 4th day of April, 2006, by, between CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS and among the ("CITY") and member cities of the GAS STANDING STEERING COMMITTEE ("GSSC"). This Agreement is authorized by the Texas Interlocal Cooperation Act (V.T.C.A. Texas Government Code, Chapter 791), and other authorities. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the cities in the service area of Atmos Gas have worked together collectively in a coalition to participate in the regulatory process to assure gas rates charged were just and reasonable; and WHEREAS, the nature of gas utility regulation is undergoing substantial change as a result of state and federal legislation; and WHEREAS, there remains a need for cities to cooperate to assure the public interest is protected and gas and other utility rates are just and reasonable; and WHEREAS, regulatory changes now require quick response in order to have meaningful input into the rate setting process; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to provide adequate resources to enable cities to act quickly, decisively, and jointly on gas utility regulatory developments; NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of the premises, agreements, covenants and promises set forth herein, it is agreed as follows: 1. Atmos Gas Standing Steering Committee Membership and Executive Committee The CITY and the member cities hereby form the Gas Standing Steering Committee ("GSSC"). Each member city shall, by action of its governing body, approve its membership in the GSSC and designate its representative to receive notices and participate in and vote at GSSC meetings. The GSSC shall be composed of all cities paying the current nonrefundable membership fee. The membership fee shall be established from time to time by the Executive Committee. The fee for the initial period (approximately one year) is 5¢ per capita, according to the CITY's population listed in the most recent Texas Municipal League Directory of Texas City Officials. The members shall elect an Executive Committee consisting of no more than twenty (20) persons which shall function as the Board of Directors. The Executive Committee shall at least include a representative from all member cities with a population greater than 100,000, according to the most recent Texas Municipal League Directory of Texas City Officials. The remainder of the representatives shall be selected based upon diversity of geographic location and city population size. Each city on the GSSC and each city on the Executive Committee shall have one vote, respectively. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall be open to each city on the GSSC whether or not it has a representative on the Executive Committee. 2. Powers of the Executive Committee The CITY and the member cities delegate to the Executive Committee the power to intervene on behalf of GSSC member cities in gas projects, rulemaking, rate case, and related dockets and appeals thereof, represent the interests of cities in utility matters before state and federal legislative bodies and to pay for such activities. A member city may subsequently request and cause its party status to be withdrawn from such activities. The Executive Committee shall fix the amount of the membership fee from time to time. 3. Election of Officers The Executive Committee shall elect a chair and any co-chairs as it deems necessary who shall serve at the pleasure of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall also elect a secretary/treasurer. 4. Powers of the Officers Each officer elected shall serve at the pleasure of the Executive Committee up to a term of four (4) years. The Executive Committee shall elect or re-elect officers at least every four (4) years. Unless terminated by the Executive Committee or the respective city governing body, the officer shall perform the duties of office until a replacement has been elected. Meetings of the Executive Committee and GSSC shall be upon call of the chair or two (2) members of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall meet at least annually. The chair is authorized by action of the Executive Committee to engage consultants and attorneys and to pay for such services. 5. Termination of Membership A city may terminate its membership by action of its governing body, or if said city fails to pay its membership fee in full within one-hundred eighty (180) days after notification of fee due. A city is considered notified on the day written notice is sent to its last designated representative on file with the secretary/treasurer. 6. Money Held in Trust The officers shall hold and manage all money collected in trust for the benefit of the member cities collectively. Officers may establish prudent fund accounts that accumulate funding for activities and to pay authorized expenses. Officers shall serve without pay, but may be reimbursed reasonable out-of-pocket expenses as approved by the Executive Committee. CITY may request and receive a statement of GSSC revenues and expenses each year. (2) 7. Payment for Performance of Governmental Functions and Services Made from Current Revenues By entering into this Agreement, CITY affirms that it is paying for the performance of governmental functions or services from current revenues available. The payments made under this agreement fairly and adequately compensate the GSSC for the services or functions performed under the contract. 8. Legal Construction In case any one or more of the terms, provisions, phrases or clauses contained in this agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable portion had never been contained herein. 9. Entire Agreement This contract embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto superseding all oral or written previous and contemporary agreements between the parties relating to matters herein and, except as otherwise provided herein, cannot be modified without written agreement of the parties. 10. No Other Obligations By entering into this Agreement, the parties do not create any obligations, express or implied, other than those set forth herein, and this Agreement shall not create any rights in parties not signatories hereto. 11. Immunity It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this Agreement, neither CITY nor GSSC waives, nor shall be deemed to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to each against claims arising in the exercise of governmental powers and functions. 12. Authority The undersigned officers and/or agents are properly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto, and each hereby certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions extending such authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated above. (3) CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS GAS STANDING STEERING COMMITTEE BY: BY: Signature Signature Printed/Typed Name Printed/Typed Name Title Title ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY Signature Printed/Typed Name (4) AGENDA MEMO (4/4/2006 AGENDA) DATE: March 30, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks SUBJECT: Tree Ordinance Review Committee BACKGROUND: In May 2005, the City Council approved a tree ordinance which outlined procedures for planting approved tree species on public parkways. In 2006, due to increasing construction within our community, staff has been directed to investigate the expansion of the tree ordinance to provide procedures for tree mitigation associated with new construction on both residential and commercial properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting City Council consider the appointment of a Tree Ordinance Review Committee to assist staff to develop an equitable and comprehensive tree ordinance for City Council review and approval. ATTACHMENTS: None 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Tree Preservation Committee (2).doc 8:45 AM 03/30/06 From: Gary Adams Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:30 PM To: Kent Austin Subject: Parking Control Vehicle Kent, I have talked with Jim Powell, the purchasing manager with Texarkana, Texas, about the proposed parking control vehicle. Mr. Powell advised that once they were able to get parts, as White Bear was proprietary on parts, they were satisfied with the GO-4 three wheeled parking control vehicle. I would recommend that we go ahead and purchase the vehicle as proposed by Jim Gau and Christine Green. It is my opinion that the product is a good product for the City to invest in for the proposed use. Thanks Gary W. Adams Chief of Police, University Park Texas 3800 University Blvd University Park, Texas 75205 Office 214-987-5377 FBINA 169th Session gadams@uptexas.org AGENDA MEMO (3/7/06 AGENDA) DATE: March 2, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Christine Green, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: Purchase of Parking Enforcement Vehicle The Police Department has budgeted for the purchase of a parking enforcement vehicle to replace its existing Honda GoldWing three-wheeled motorcycle currently used for this purpose. The Police Department would like to purchase the Go-4 Parking Patrol vehicle manufactured by Westward Industries in Manitoba, Canada. The total price for the vehicle is $25,944.00 as quoted by Mission Golf Cars of San Antonio, the sole Go-4 dealer in Texas. We did not seek competitive bids as we believe this is the only street-legal, three-wheeled vehicle built for the purpose of parking enforcement on the market. Attached is a letter from Westward Industries stating their belief that there is no comparable vehicle made by another manufacturer at this time. Also attached is a letter from Jim Gau, Fleet Manager, describing the history of the City’s parking enforcement vehicles and the other vehicles they reviewed before selecting the Go-4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the sole source purchase of the Go-4 Parking Patrol vehicle from Mission Golf Cars in the amount of $25,944.00. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Go-4 Parking Enforcement Vehicle memo (2).doc 1:23 PM 03/30/06 City of University Park 4420 Worcola Dallas, Texas 75206 Equipment Services March 30, 2006 Christine Green, Purchasing Agent Christine, Attached please find the quote from Mission Golf Cars to provide the City of University Park with a parking enforcement vehicle for the Police Department. This purchase will end a long search for a vehicle that will make it possible to move away from the motorcycle type vehicle and all the safety and operational problems associated with it. When I began with the City of University Park twelve years ago, the vehicles being used for this purpose were three wheeled Harley Davison motorcycles. The units were operated by two officers who performed parking enforcement and traffic control. When we began the process of replacing these in 1996 we tried a number of vehicles to see if they would work. A Suzuki Samurai, Jeep, and a Global Electric vehicle were delivered and demonstrated. All three failed to provide the tight turning radius required to mark tires on vehicles in parking spaces in Snider Plaza. We relented and returned to the three wheel motorcycles for this purpose. As we reached retirement of the current three wheel motorcycle we again searched to see what alternatives were available and discovered the GO-4 Interceptor II. The vehicle showed promise as it appeared to address the issues we needed solve. We arranged for a demonstration vehicle and had it delivered. We had the demonstration vehicle here for two weeks and the Police Department determined that this vehicle will work perfectly for the enforcement of parking laws within the City. The vehicle will provide the same three wheel construction that provides the tight turning radius needed to perform the marking of tires throughout the city. This vehicle also provides a cab for all weather use and has heat and air conditioning for the operator. The cab has a heavy roll cage that will provide protection in the event of an accident unlike the present motorcycle. All these features will make this a much better vehicle for the purpose it is assigned. This unit is unique and it appears to be a sole source for this type of vehicle as my attempts to find a competitor failed. Page 2 March 30, 2006 ? The unit is manufactured in Canada and they sell a large number of these units in northern America. New York City has hundreds of these units in their fleet as do many other large cities in that area. The units are not that common in Texas at this point and there is only one dealer in Texas to bid on the unit. It is requested that we purchase this vehicle from Mission Golf Cars and acknowledge this as a sole source provider for this vehicle unless we can locate another manufacturer that can provide a three wheeled vehicle meeting the specifications thus providing the same operability for this department. The quote from Mission Golf Cars is $ 25, 944.00 for the vehicle equipped with air conditioning and half the freight charges since we already paid half the freight for the demo unit which they will apply to the new vehicle. I attach a requisition for this purchase. Sincerely, Jim Gau Jr Fleet Manager SPECIFICATIONS flllPn. 61 n.p ,1Icpd cooled ~IlnClGf. overhead earn ~de, elec1rootesAy luet ~ r"1ISI1I/SSiD1l .1ip8'8d aulOll1a!lC (8UIOmOlM> Iran_ WIth 818C1rOnicaly cornroII8d &hilt) DimellS/lI/Ul O_aII height WI1I1 cab 69 !," O........,angtn 1IIr Oweral WIllII1 52.!>"' Out9da Iumlng ..... 114' Inelde Iumlng .aclnJ8 36' \'hwle1base T8's" BllkinD Se"""e . Aulomotr... po_ aSSl!l1<ld nyaraulx: dlec brakes on alllhree wheele ..l1n dual master C\'bnder Perlong . Hyclraulle O\lll' mecnanocal EI.cJrlUI Syslem Cba"I", . Hea'I)' duty 10 amp aU\OmotfV8 aftema:or Uglrt1- two seeled.beam headlights Stopotai ItghlS WIlli high vi8lbIl11y S10pIlghlS Tumlngllgtllll Tum Slgnale Slarti8ll' 12._ 5Iar11ng mollOl In1anock prevents 5larte. trom oper.lIng unlees ehln Ia\lll' '" .. 'neutral or park' posll1Oh GlIIlI" . Spe<<lometer, rue! level. ho.. meW ana wIs.r toemperatwe ..lIicsl..l.... . 011 "",""",e w&mIhg. Ooagno61lc llSMce IIghl Seal bell Ove.dri.... Indica1or, Charging eystam Low ,ueI Wlril, . WIling her""", WI1I1 aorBilon..a_lloom MJl1Jpla plUg 111 COhMac1OrlIlor aoce8SOl1ee GlVI"''' . 8ecIron.oc on Il>a """ 'n,aellon,;ystam Transmidon Coole. . Inlegrlll8d lTl - (Lal<<aI ThnIst Indicator) lor sata. ope,allon o1...hlCla Sl1Sp.nSiIln F.ont . Haavy ~Iy hydraulfc fO<k ...-nbly Wl'.h 8' oIlravel Raar ' Indepe<ldant McPherson s:lII1 CUmbie CDDIIIlI I.Jlp1 COte 20.000 aru h&Sle.' detrOWll Slnr/IIQ ~.1II1 stHnng...'heel wdncen'er~medhom T/res 1M. 80. 13" al~eeason .adials Blidy l/lINN 3._ WIlli 'T~ lubuIar ete8llrame AJumlnUln body panale and Do. wun IocIratN cover St4ng me1aI <>>onl With ondependenU, elidIng windon Sleall,onl ana rear tlumpers Snouldar hama... ...81 bell 0u1S<l8 rear 1II8w IT1IIIOB Elec1nc windShield _ wrth lI1allTll11en1 control and Wlndallleld washer Oomahghl Floor mat I. Tl (l.ale'allllrUSl mcator\ salety deVICe S/!al One passenger ac:ljuotaDle lOre ano all wnn adJUSlablB baCk and _est fill' 1InII 9 US gallons WeillTl! c.p'tity Vahld& weogl11. 10135 1M OVWR, 2235 lba Rated capa.clty. 800 Ib8 plus operatar Color White Wllh all blaOllrama and acoenla (!I1B1dardl Top Speed El<K1ronlcally gowrnad from tactO<)' at 40 mph ~~ 1017 r191-, :101 Sl.. Franooia xavkn. Mard0b8 Con8da fUlIA& _: 1?l>IIB04-:>Or.& FlU: 12(4) 044-2':lll4 E.m&iI: lnIO\lPwe~I8a.rom v..ro: W'IM ~ro."ilJ"&'()l)In (ffi!t.~ RETURN ON INVESTMENT Two 10 six mDn\1l payb3ck on original pun:~se price based on: - Increased produelivlly due 10 reduced latigue - Increased prcxluctlvlt;' due 10 less lime 10 Iravello i\Ild Irom beats - lewer P,EO,s to cove< required beats . 'ewer P,EO,s reQuire ferlel supervisors - Increased revenue due to more rapid circuits of beats - versatility 01 trSlng vehicle tor other uses, slJC/1 as tralflC call1TO!. AGENDA MEMO (04/04/06 AGENDA) DATE: March 30, 2006 TO: City Council FROM: Luanne Hanford SUBJECT: 3-1-1 Reporting Software As you know, I have been working toward implementing a 3-1-1 program pursuant to the Strategic Goals adopted by the City Council. To that end, I have appointed a 3-1-1 Project Team with representatives from all departments that will be impacted by the implementation of the program. The team has already made a great deal of progress toward our goal. Recently, on the team’s recommendation, the City purchased call distribution software through the city’s phone system vendor. Included in the software package was a basic reporting module that, at the time, we thought would be sufficient to at least start the program with. However, as we progressed, it soon became apparent that the reporting module was cumbersome and woefully inadequate for our needs. We have since reviewed a more sophisticated reporting system that we believe will provide more relevant, accessible, and usable data and reports much more suited to our start-up and future needs. Reports from this system will allow us to evaluate more accurately the call volume and time spent on calls, as well as a vast array of information so we can consistently assess staffing needs and the success of the program. The cost of the software and installation is $27,227.38. Funds are available in Capital Projects Account# 44-44-4410. RECOMMENDATION: Approve purchase of reporting software for 3-1-1 program. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AGENDAMEMO (13).doc 10:51 AM 03/30/06 NextiraOneLLC CityofUniversityPark CustomerInventorySchedulefor QuantityPartNumberDescription SECC3/6 Option61C:AUS0102915NA.XLT(AUS0102915)/PBXSystem 31NTE964AB8AdvancedNetworkServicestoPremiumNetworkServices Option61C:AUS0102915NA.XLT(AUS0102915)/Symposium 1NTHF24AESECC4.2S/WarePkg.English 1NTHF30ACSECCCTIEnabled10AgentIncrement Option61C:AUS0102915NA.XLT(AUS0102915)/SymposiumCallCenterServer 20NTE984YASymposiumACDAgentsL3BAdvancedNetworkServicestoL4PremiumNetworkServices ApplicationLabor/NXO-AdditionalMSLabor 1WCS-V-LABORNortelSECCApplication ManualAdditions/PBXSystem 1NT8D14CBCard8-PortUniversalTrunk ManualAdditions/NXO-AdditionalLabor 1WCS-MS-LABORFirsthalf-dayofservice(optional) 1WCS-MS-LABORLabortoloadkeycode ManualAdditions/General 1MMU2-44RABICIMMU2-44RAB,4MESSAGES,4LINES,128SECONDS,RMTACCESS,ACPWR 1NSPN(NSPN:1001)Misccables SECC3/6 21,520.36 Equipment 5,707.02 Labor 27,227.38 Total 015-CustomerSystemSolution ThisquoteissubjecttothetermsandconditionsofNextiraOne'sstandard Page1of4 purchaseagreementandisvalidforaperiodofthirty(30)daysfromthedateontheproposal. lgayle20060306111146-2275246Printed:03/06/200615:59:39 CustomerInitials'sDate: ________________________ [3/6/20063:59:19PMCT] BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES April 11,2005 The Board of Adjustment of the City of University Park met on Monday, April 11 ,2005 at 5 :00 P.M. in the Council Conference Room of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members Attending Staff Members Attending Jerry Grable - Chairman Jim Lake Beth Dargene Lon Houseman William Hitzelberger, III Bud Smallwood - Director of Public Works Jennifer Patrick - Administrative Secretary Rob Dillard - City Attorney Absent & Excused: Roy Kull - Secretary Bill Lang Steve Metzger Mr. Grable opened the public hearing and introduced the commission members. Mr. Grable asked for a motion on the minutes from the November 22, 2004 Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Hitzleberger moved to approve the minutes, with a second from Mr. Lake. The motion was approved unanimously 5-0. Mr. Grable read the case. B.O.A. 05-01 - Jerry Stark, owner of the property at 6620 Golf, requesting a variance to Section 9-1002(1) of the University Park Zoning Ordinance to allow a vertical wall surface in excess of twelve feet, six inches (12' -6") in height to be closer than forty (40') feet to the rear property line. The applicant is proposing a vertical wall height of twenty-two feet, two inches (22' - 2") on the northeast elevation of the structure, to allow the addition of a second dormer (on the same elevation) in order to maintain the architectural balance of the structure. Mr. Grable stated, unfortunately, due to an error in regards to the legal notice the case could not be heard. He noted the case would have to be re-noticed referencing to Section 9-602(2)(a) versus Section 9-1002(1). There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. Grable adjourned the meeting. Date: ~/;}11 Dh BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES October 24, 2005 The Board of Adjustment of the City of University Park met on Monday, October 24,2005 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members Attending Staff Members Attending Jerry Grable - Chairman Steve Metzger Lon Houseman William Hitzelberger, III Jim Lake, Jr. Seated & Excused: Roy Kull Absent & Excused Beth Dargene Harry Persaud - Community Development Mgr. Rob Dillard - City Attorney Jennifer Deaver - Building & Zoning Assistant Mr. Grable opened the public hearing and introduced the commission members. Mr. Grable read the charge of the Board of Adjustment and asked that all those that would be speaking to please stand to be sworn in. Mr. Grable read the specifics of the first case. 1. B.O.A. 10-1 - Scot and Susanne Smith, representing the owners of the property situated at 4400 Potomac, requesting a variance to Section 21-100 (4) (c) ii, City of University Park Zoning Ordinance to allow for a minimum side yard setback of 8.5 feet where a 10 feet setback is required and to allow for a total of 18.5 feet for both side yards where 20 feet is required. The subject tract is zoned Single Family SF-4 zoning district classification in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pat Ford, architect, representing the property owner of 4400 Potomac, came forward. He stated that this was an irregular shaped lot. He then stated he is requesting a variance for an 8.5' side yard setback, which is more than the average 5' of the other lots on the block. Mr. Grable asked ifthere were any comments. Scot Smith, owner of the property situated at 4400 Potomac, came forward and stated he has had the plans modified to cover only 44% of the lot. Stated that the east side jog was purchased from the city resulting in a lot size of36.9' wide and 150' deep. Mr. Metzger inquired if the square footage of the house was decreased to allow for the change compared to the request of 10'. Mr. Ford stated it was not changed but that he pushed the space closer to the pool area and into the courtyard. Mr. Grable inquired ifthere was any opposing or supporting correspondence. Mr Houseman stated there was one opposing letter. Mr. Persaud confirmed. Mr. Houseman moved to grant the variance allowing for a minimum side yard setback of 8.5 feet where a 10 feet setback is required and to allow for a total of 18.5 feet for both side yards where 20 feet is required, and added that another variance would not be requested for pool equipment and mechanical units. Mr. Hitzelburger asked for a motion, with a second from Mr. Lake, the request was approved 4-1. There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Grable adjourned the meeting. Approved by: Date: d~-1/~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES February 27, 2006 The Board of Adjustment of the City of University Park met on Monday, February 27, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members Attending Staff Members Attending Jerry Grable - Chairman Steve Metzger Lon Houseman William Hitzelberger, III Roy Kull Mark Hardin - Plan Reviewer Rob Dillard - City Attorney Jennifer Deaver - Building & Zoning Assistant Absent & Excused: Beth Dargene Jim Lake, Jr. Bill Lang Mr. Grable opened the public hearing and introduced the commission members. Mr. Grable read the charge of the Board of Adjustment and asked that all those that would be speaking to please stand to be sworn in. Mr. Grable read the specifics of the first case. 1. B.O.A. 06-01 - Chris and Brooke Wilbratte, owners of the property situated at 4120 Amherst Street, requesting a variance to allow a detached garage to be located 2 feet 7 12 inches from the main building. Section 25-107 (5) (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum separation of 6 feet between a detached garage and the main building. The subject tract is zoned SF-3 zoning district classification in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Chris Wilbratte, owner of the property situated at 4120 Amherst came forward, stated he purchased the home with an existing pool and second story addition. He wants to add a detached structure but understands that this would result in coverage of too much impermeable area. Being 6-8 ft from alley is too close. He then presented a photo of his fence and stated there would only be 2.5 ft between the fence and the alley. He stated that the existing garage cannot be used because the gas meter is too close to a tree. Mr. Houseman inquired what percentage of the lot would be covered if the garage was moved back with a front entry. Mr. Wilbratte stated that he would prefer a rear entry to allow having a fenced off pool area and a gated play area, not allowing it to be moved back. Mr Houseman inquired if a variance was granted for a rear entry garage, would all concrete for a front entry be removed. Mr. Willbratte stated that he only wanted it pulled to the southeast comer of the garage, and that if he removed out to the street he would have to also do the curb area and he had not budgeted for this much expense, also leaving only room for one car. To make room for two cars he would have to add to the size of the existing driveway. Mr. Houseman inquired if a two car garage could be done legally. Brooke Wilbratte, wife of Chris Wilbratte came forward. She stated that the yard would consist of mostly concrete. Mr. Metzger inquired if there were plans to live at the residence for an extended time. Mr. Wilbratte stated that they do not plan to sell in the near future but would someday and would like to park in the garage while residing here. Mr. Hitzelburger inquired if the second story added is on the back half of the house. Mr. Wilbratte stated that the second story is on the front half of the house and there was no change in footprint. Mr. Hardin stated that moving the structure back would calculate over 1000 ft too much impermeable area. Mr. Dillard inquired ifthere were other materials in order to move driveway back. Mr. Hardin stated only pavestone or grass could be used there. Mr. Grable stated that the lot was overbuilt and ordinances put in place are there for fire and safety reasons. Mr. Metzger inquired if the pool equipment could be moved. Mr. Wilbratte stated that it could be moved to the south side. Mr. Hitzelburger inquired if variance was granted would the east side fire wall contain a one hour separation south and west side within 6 ft. area between house and garage. Mr. Grable inquired ifthere was a time limit to the proposed project. Mr. Wilbratte stated there was not. Mr. Hardin read a letter from Mr. John Vuyosevich at 4115 Amherst, opposing the variance unless the existing driveway be removed and made lawn or landscaping and that the existing curb cut for the Amherst 8t. driveway be eliminated and a solid curb be installed. Mr. Grable closed the public hearing. Mr. Grable suggested the matter be tabled until the March 27th meeting to obtain further information from city staff on the issue of impermeable substances available for use with front entry garage. It was the sense of the board to table the matter on motion made by Mr. Houseman, seconded by Mr. Kul1. The applicant need not resubmit any material for the March 27th meeting. There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. Grable adjourned the meeting. Approved by: Date: :}d'/{)" PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES March 6, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday, March 6, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members Attending Staff Members Attending Robert West - Chairman Doug Roach H. Reed Shawver III Bill Foose Randy Biddle Ed Freeman Bea Humann Harry Persaud - Community Development Mgr. Jennifer Deaver - Administrative Assistant Rob Dillard - City Attorney John Gillette - Fire Marshall Bud Smallwood- Public Works Director Bob Whaling- City Engineer Mr. West opened the public hearing and introduced the commission and staff members. He then read the specifics of the first case. PZ 06-001 - F & S Partners Inc., representing Preston Road Church of Christ, requesting a zoning change from MF-2 to PD-28 zoning district classification for a tract ofland situated on the South West Comer of University Blvd and Preston Road, and described as lots 2,3 and 4 located in the Rhea Miller's Subdivision, in the City of University Park; and consideration of a detailed site plan for the amended PD-28 zoning district. The subject tract is zoned PD-28 and MF-2 and owned by the Preston Road Church of Christ. A public hearing was held on February 20, 2006 and this item was tabled for further consideration on March 6, 2006. Mr. Persaud gave a brief presentation via power point showing zoning for the proposed project. He then introduced Mr. Bob Shaw. Mr. Bob Shaw, representing Preston Road Church of Christ, came forward to present the board with a power point slide of the proposed plan. The duplex owned by the church will remain in place to serve as a buffer. The wall at the northeast comer has been modified by raising height from 5ft to 7ft, constructed of masonry and moved back to provide room for heavy landscaping and a gate added to prevent traffic from cutting through the neighborhood. At the southwest comer, abutting to the neighboring property a parking space was eliminated. Now there are currently 84 parking spaces available. Mr. West closed the public hearing, he then read a letter received from Bryan Egan, primarily addressing concerns of construction hindrances, Mr. West then inquired of Mr. Egan if the modified plan appeared to be satisfactory to his grievances. Mr. Egan expressed concerns of traffic flow during construction and light pollution from the lot. Mr. Shaw stated that the construction workers could be bussed in ifneed be and that timed lighting fixtures would be added to 15-20ft of the north island. Mr. Roach requested to see the conceptual drawing of the proposed project, when displayed he inquired if anyone had any grounds for denying the proposed project. A discussion ensued with some audience members regarding the heat and sound to the neighboring properties. Mr. Roach inquired if the gate could be covered or screened. Mr. Shaw stated yes. Mr. Biddle made a motion to approve the proposed project with reasonable efforts to screen the gate for lighting purposes. In addition Mr. Foose stated that applicants must also meet conditions of lighting from the lot spilling over into the neighboring properties. With a second from Mr. Shawver the motion was approved unanimously 7-0. Mr. West then read the specifics of the next case. PZ 06-004 - Winstead, Sechrest & Minick, representing Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP, requesting a zoning change from Multi family (MF-2), Parking (P) and Office (0-2) zoning district classification to Planned Development (PD -32), for a tract of land situated between Daniel and Haynie Ave and West of Hillcrest Ave., and described as lots 5 thru 12 , Block 3, University Park Addition, City of University Park. The subject tract is zoned Multi family 2 (MF-2), P and Office District 2 (0-2) and owned by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP. Mr. Persaud briefed the commission on the history ofPZ 06-004. Slides were viewed via a power point presentation on zoning requirements. He showed the property site, property lines, plat area, and existing alley way outlining the details of the proposed height changes. He stated that the thirty thousand (30,000) square ft. ofland was included iri the Office District 2 (0-2). He then stated the number of responses to the legal notification were opposing 263, and favoring 267 totaling 530, noting that some data is still being researched. He stated that more than 20 percent of the correspondence within the 200 ft. buffer was in opposition of the zoning change, requiring three quarters of council approval. Mr. Art Anderson representing Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP came forward. He first confirmed the amount of time allotted for representing his case. 45 minutes was confirmed and Mr. Anderson continued with his power point presentation. A slide of the conceptual plan was shown as well as the detailed site plan. He stated that the existing building is actually three different structures renovated as one. He clarified rumors circulating suggesting that the structure would be demolished. He stated that the building would not be tom down and that the architect that designed the new plans has come back with a more appropriate design than that of the 2001 plans drawn by Doug Compton. He then introduced Craig Meldy, architect. Craig Melde, architect representing Legacy Hillcrest, LP, and resident / owner of 3415 University, came forward. He stated that he lives one block from existing site. He opposed the project in 2001 because he felt the plans were not conducive to the area. He then said the site is very unique and in Snider Plaza which most would consider the town center. He has had eight meetings with neighbors and three meetings with Snider Plaza merchants and owners to go over the redesigned, more appropriate plan. He illustrated a central opened areaat the front entry of the building and explained that parking would not be a dilemma if merchants would consider publicly funded parking. A public library and parking garage would be at grade level of the building, a landscaped pedestrian area with restaurant and retail spaces, and the building would serve as a visual terminus for Snider plaza. The proposed plan will allow 4-8 luxury town homes (Minimum 250 linear feet fronting Haynie), no vehicular entrance or exit to Haynie from site. The bank drive thru has been relocated from the office building to Daniel. The office building has been s.tepped back providing similar sightlines as existing site. The above grade square footage has been reduced to 250,000 sq. ft. versus 271,000 sq. ft. The plan was coordinated with the Snider Plaza master plan and there are landscaping zones fronting Daniel, Hillcrest and Haynie. Bank Drive thru lanes no longer located on the comer of Hillcrest but enter / exit on Daniel. Underground parking will contain the number of spaces determined by u.L.I. methodology and there is an option for publicly funded parking. Structure will be five stories in height with two additional floors set back, totaling seven stories. Town home heights will be 25' maximum set back line and stepped back to minimum of 10', allowing 35' maximum. He stated there would be no great changes to thru traffic. Mr. Anderson reviewed the traffic study preformed by Mr. Jeremy Windham of Jacobs and Associates, representing Legacy Hillcrest, LP. He assessed the trip generation comparison concluding that with existing conditions were at 3,123, build out existing zoning was at 5,688, and with the proposed plan would be at 7,689. (See traffic study attached) Mr. Bruce Foverty, resident / owner of 3533 Rosedale, introduced himself stated his consent of a much needed public library for the community. He added the plan is unique but he would oppose if traffic issues were not addressed. Mr. Doug Smith, resident / owner of 6829 Golf, came forward. He stated that it was a reasonable scope, stated the library would be significant, locally accessed and has potential for parking resolutions. John Bunt resident / owner of 3036 Wentwood introduced himself and avowed his support of the proposed project. He stated that this inner city tract would increase property value and enhance the area. He agreed that parking improvements were necessary primarily the flow from Haynie but the overall development is beneficial to the community. Frank Bullock, owner / resident of 3620 Bryn Mawr, came forward. He stated that he frequently uses Snider Plaza for his family. He is in favor of this project and suggested that merchants and employees use parking garage and be ticketed for not doing so, adding that this may provide more parking for patrons. Mike Johnson, resident / owner of 3615 Rosedale came forward. He stated that he was in favor of the proposed project and declared that those in opposition should not buy into the scare tactics, and that change cannot be stopped. He concurs that the scaled down version works. Hank Williams, resident / owner of 3012 southwestern, came forward in support of the proposed project and stated that Ann Lowe, daughter of Harriet Lowe works for the University Park Library, he then asked her to stand. He then stated that this plan is a must have for the community . Don Houseman, resident / owner of 3708 Caruth and former mayor came forward in support. He illustrated the importance of a public library and renovation of this unsightly building. He said that Joe Williams surveyed the residents of University Park and told him to find land for a library. He then said that he would turn this project if it did not include a library. John Jackson, resident / owner of 3425 Colgate, where he also offices, came forward in support. He stated that improvements are greatly needed and that the proposed plans were very well done. He then stated that the Legacy team is composed of community members with goals of preservation. He agreed that this plan will increase taxes, and that businesses in Snider Plaza support our schools. He added that additional parking was vital and urged the commission to approve with conditions. Mr. Dan Baierd, owner / resident of 6408 Williams Pkwy, came forward in support of this plan He stated that no one likes change and suggested that the voters had two alternatives. Do nothing, or accept an excellent plan that is not final and look beyond inconveniences at the benefits for the community. Mr. Karl Kuby, owner of Kuby's Sausage at 6601 Snider Plaza, came forward. He stated that he is 98% in support of the proposed project. He stated that when the original bank structure was constructed some years ago, there was a tremendous drop in business, construction was dreadful and he experienced a drop in revenue on Saturdays. A solution was made by stopping construction after 12:00 noon on Saturdays and all was well. He then urged the commission to approve the plan. Jack Gosnell, resident / owner of 3530 Haynie, real estate 'broker with Leslie Real Estate, stated that he is in favor of the proposed project and likes to frequently visit Snider Plaza and loves the neighborhood. He feels the plan is feasible for the current zoning, and that the developer has pushed the envelope for this project. He then urged the commission to approve this plan. John Walsh, resident / owner of 3929 University Blvd., came forward in favor of the proposed project. He stated that he commonly visited Snider Plaza as an outsider and is now a part of the community. He stated that it is a wonderful community for children. He feels that this developer is committed to the community and has put into place a dream and a vision and in six months the project will be answering needs for all. He then suggested that the area would soon be a walking place with underground parking and the talk of publicly funded parking. He stated that the proposed project was inclusive of phenomenal improvements to public streets, and incredible increases in property taxes and a place for American communities to gather. He then urged the commission to approve the plan. Mr. West then called for opposing parties to address following a five minute recess. Wayne Johnson, resident / owner of 3601 Haynie, came forward to oppose the proposed project stating that he spear heads the block parties for his neighborhood and that his neighborhood supports the idea of a public library but opposes the plan for a 306,000 sq. ft. project. He stated the proposal consists of the same issues as that of the 2001 proposal. He would approve ifproject was significantly smaller and in scale with University Park neighborhood in density, height and traffic. He then addressed concerns of flooding, traffic flow to neighborhood streets and safety of children crossing streets to access the facility. He stated that his neighborhood should not have to pay for the developer's overbuilt property and then urged the commission to deny the proposed project. Elizabeth Crowe, of Deshazo, Tang, Associates, 400 S. Houston St. Dallas, TX, came forward in response to the traffic study preformed and briefed the commission on conflicting results. Her findings determine that traffic on Daniel is a great concern and the daily trip generation was greater than that of the study completed by Jacobs. (See traffic study attached) She stated that she was not able to obtain schematics or data on analysis until after 5 :00 pm on Friday. She stated that the residential parking should not have to be shared with retail parking, that the parking demand had been underestimated and that even with recent improvements of intersections at Daniel and Hillcrest there will be delay of flow because of traffic diversions through neighborhood streets. Mr. Steve Dawson, owner of Park Cities Apartments and resident / owner of 3444 Haynie, came forward opposing the proposed project stating that Chase Bank is 200 ft from his property. He came before the commission to file for a zoning change and was denied. Upon his returned he was denied for no evidence to reverse the ruling. He stated that the developer also has no evidence of a reverse ruling and they, too, should be denied. He then urged the commission to deny the proposed project until the developer gets the message. Bonnie Wheeler resident / owner of 3425 University, came forward in opposition to the proposed project stating that the plan was too big despite the developer calls this architect the best in Dallas. She stated that though she would love to vote for a library her vote is in favor of community value less traffic and a smaller scaled building. She then stated that if the site was nearer to The Toll way it would be in scale, she then urged the commission to deny the request. Diane West resident / owner of 6878 Westminster came forward to oppose the plans. She stated that she has nearly hit a child three times due to cars being lined up near J.D.'s Chippery. She then stated that there has been no mention as of yet regarding proper accessibility for fire department entrance. Karra Guess, resident / owner of 3521 Haynie, came forward stating that her children attend the University Park schools among 662 other students and her primary concerns were that of students utilizing the cross walk at Lovers and Dickens. Although the intersection is lighted it still proves unsafe as two children have nearly been struck by vehicles. She then stated that she no longer allows her children to walk to school. She will not approve this extremely massive size plan unless traffic flow is better addressed. Matt Dickson, resident / owner of 3448 Rosedale, came forward to speak in opposition of the proposed project, stating that there were two reasons he would not approve this plan, that being safety and security. As a landlord he works with other landlords with changes in the community and he expressed concerns of traffic flow from Daniel to Lovers Ln. and Dickens to Snider Plaza. He then stated that he will not approve the changes in question unless the traffic flow is addressed. He then noted that at 3446 Rosedale a Zoning application was denied for an inset to a garage and the reason was because the applicant had to work within the boundaries of zoning. He stated that the developer should have to abide by the same rules, he then urged the commission to reject with moratorium and in closing his refutation he added that if this plan was not inclusive of a library there would not be as many residents in favor of the proposed changes. Mr. Rick Tubb resident / owner of 7439 Marquette, came forward in opposition to the proposed plan. He stated that he will accept change in the neighborhood and accepts plans of a public library and the notion of profit, but not at expense of the community. He then asked all of those opposing the proposed project to stand. Mr. Jim Tubb resident / owner of 3417 Haynie, came forward. He recalled Mr. Anderson's statement that 7,689 will generate in Snider Plaza and that in 8 hours a day (28,800 seconds) would mean one would have only 3 seconds to cross the street. Roger Fullington property owner in Snider Plaza came forward. He stated that if the proposed project was approved that there is a stipulation to 100-150 spaces and that the immense amount of traffic on Daniel would be addressed. He stated that traffic dumping on to Haynie paralyzes revenue. He then suggested that if no restaurant spaces were part of this plan the parking would not be as large an issue. He concluded recommending that the commission consider the damage being absorbed by Snider Plaza merchants as well as neighbors. Anita Baylor was called to speak but declined stating she had no rebuttal different from what had already been stated. Mr. Larry Newman, resident / owner of 3529 Haynie, came forward stating that he is in opposition to the proposed project as the developer has made a massive plan and he questioned the benefits of its magnitude. He then stated that as a resident of University Park we could do better that other cities approve plans that are attractive and in scale. He advised the commission to wait until a master plan of Snider Plaza was completed. Mr. Art Anderson inquired ifhe could again address some issues and Mr. West said yes. He presented the slide of the conceptual plan stating that existing plan does not address the needs of the community and what a challenge he faced with the building fronting three streets. He then stated that Mr. Dennis Wilson complimented the plan with restaurants and office spaces. Library entrance would be on Haynie and would help some of the flow of traffic he added that he hopes to have more input from residents and the council to draft a plan that will work for all. Mr. West closed the public hearing. Mr. Danny Cummings of C&P Engineering came forward. He stated that the site with proposed improvements would allow for no wiggle room meaning he used an average. He stated that if the developer comes in with a less intense plan he would be able to average the numbers. Mr. Roach inquired if vehicles turned east from garage how long would it take. Mr. Cummings stated 1-2 minutes. Mr. Biddle inquired if the office and hotel space would generate more traffic. Mr. Cummings stated that hotel/office traffic would peek in the mornings. Mr. Shawver inquired if the traffic dumping onto Daniel was the best way. Mr. Cummings stated that it would be better on Haynie but community and merchants are already experiencing excessive amounts. Mr. Roach inquired if there were wiggle room how much of a reduction would there be. Mr. Cummings stated approximately 10-25%. Mr. Foose inquired if there were plans for a three way traffic sign and if the traffic would likely turn left. Mr. Cummings stated yes, traffic would likely turn left with pedestrian traffic and a three way traffic sign was definitely needed. Mr. West asked to see the land use statement. He then inquired of the possibility of the two properties behind the site would sell to the developer. Mr. Anderson agreed this would increase the linear footage. Mr. West inquired if the list of uses for 0-2 zoning were multi family and hotel. Mr. Anderson stated uses would be Multi Family (MF-2), Hotel as well as the possibility of ground floor retail. Mr. West stated that struggling with the height and inquired if there could be a compromise somewhere to put the plan more to scale. Mr. Melde stated that the 2001 plan proposed nine stories where the current plan includes five stories with two set back. Mr. West stated that was seven stories, he then called for a five minute recess. Mr. West continued stating that he has addressed his concerns of traffic, square footage and height but inquired of the occupancy level if built as proposed. Mr. Medle stated that he did not have that calculation. Mr. Biddle stated that Mr. West had addressed concerns of these retail spaces being leased but inquired if Legacy Hillcrest, L.P. sells, what likely comes about of the library needs to be considered. He then inquired how many parking spaces were available. Mr. Medle stated 729 spaces at the time of the detailed plan but the sq. ft. has now been reduced. Mr. Roach inquired why Mr. Medley opposed the plan in 2001 as it was too big but is in favor now. Mr. Medle stated that was because of its unique design and the two floors that are submerged in the ground and he likes the opened spaces. Mr. Biddle stated that the setback floors look nice but inquired how much space would be lost if that was done on the side of Daniel. Mr. Craig stated his plan was designed this way so the side facing Snider Plaza would not look like a blank wall. Mr. Biddle inquired how many stories the existing site had. Mr. Craig stated there were five; he wanted to keep the same look in height as existing site. Mr. Foose inquired if there was a public sidewalk and if there was a way to walk through the building. Mr. Medle stated no. Mr. Foose inquired if the 150 spaces included Snider Plaza. Mr. Medle stated no, the equation came from the D.L.I. methodology. Mr. Foose inquired if Lovers Ln. and Dickens become too congested is there another way occupants can enter / exit. Mr. Craig stated yes and that would be provided with the changes resulting from this meeting. Mr. West stated that street traffic around the building had been addressed but inquired if the larger businesses would bring more traffic from outside of the city. Mr. Cummings stated that was a fair assumption, approximating 10-20% from outside. Mr. Shawver inquired of the best way to handle a crowd of nine thousand cars per day, as stated in Elizabeth Crowe's trip generation comparison. Mr. Cummings stated that entrances and exits would be at Daniel where as Hillcrest was a front door and may not be anymore. Mr. Shawver inquired of the possibility of providing an extra lane or making eleven foot lanes. Mr. West expressed concerns of turning left from parking garage to Dickens. Ms. Crowe suggested that another drive way on Haynie would be a solution. Mr. Shawver inquired of Ms. Crowe if this was not the best solution to the traffic problems. Ms. Crowe stated yes. Mr. Cummings stated that if this item were tabled he would make his best effort to find a better way to address the tight traffic issues. Mr. West summed up his concerns stating that this plan contains an excess of square footage within a city that is not about community development but the general consensus would like to approve a library, and there should be a compromise. He then stated that in view of the fact that there are no changes in dimension since 200 I and he would like to see the developer come back with a plan inclusive of less retail, restaurant and hotel space, and he would be more comfortable approving if traffic situations were better addressed. Mr. Foose inquired if developer can not scale back enough to come back with no traffic issues, is there a need to re apply. Mr. Dillard stated no. Mr. Foose made a motion to table the item until a scaled down plan could be presented, with a second from Mr. Biddle the motion was approved unanimously 7-0 until April 1 th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. -------'--------._~-,_..__._--.._------~--_._-.._-_... There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. West adjourned the meeting. Approved by: aUf-Iw Robert H. West, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission z -< ~ ~ 1: ~ ~ , 'No ~ ~ ''No .~ ~ ~ i! ~ ~ ~ ~ , 'No ~ '~ rc ~ ~ . ~ -<. ~~ p.r.; ~: ~~ r..J: z~ 0: U; t.f}: u ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ t.f} ~~ I =~ ~. :-< ..... :;: -< N -< ~ ~ ~ ~ = ..... Z c.n ~ o '-I.t ALLOWED REDEVELOPMENT UNDER EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ~ 72'-0" CURRIlNTLY AlLOW ABLR MULTI-FAMILY PARXING GARAGE TInS RI!NDIlIlING SHOWS WHAT CAN DB BUILT UNDIlR.EXISTING ZONING: EXPANSION OIl CURRENT CHASE BANK OFFICE BUILDING ro 100,000 SQUARE FEET AN ABQVE.{JROUND 130,000 SQUARE FOOT, 4 STORY P~ GARAGE POR400 CARS mAT EXITS ON ro HAYNIE A VJlNUIl AND MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING en o C .-+ ::r m CD < Q) .-+ o' ::J f a 8' lil to ~ ~ em' - (I) <: Co) ..... _.~ o ...::;, Rtn I I I I I I zor;;;O~Z--i o ~. ~ ~ 0- 0 w _< Q..P; ~ N p; ro ~ "\ :::lr-t:::l ~ro Q.. :::r 1.O:f V\ . ~ V\ "\ _____ -. p; Q.. ~ccg:.:::lroV\ p; Q..:::lr-t U 0- :::l CO r-t 0 ro p; 0 p; -< -. "\ -----:::lP;:::l~p;'< V\^Q..^n~O ~ -i-t :::l' )> 0 =B ~~1.O :3~ ~~ Q.. uro r-t~r-t0 00- :::r p; '< ~ :::l C Q..U ro ^ ro "\ ro :::l V\ :::l Q.. ro r-t r-t :furoP; :::l "\ "\ :::l 1.O )> 0 -. Q.. U < :::l U -. 1.O 1.O ~. 0 P; ~O:::la- ~~oP; p;1.O :::l ro -. ~ ro 0 I ro ro >< ~ r-t r-t0 :::l :::l 1.O-i-t o ~ :::l -. I:::l p;1.O '<I :::l p; -. '< ro :::l ro o :::l N o o --i N 'J --i - o o o V\ -i-t p; 0- o < ro 1.O "\ p; Q.. ro V1N\J co~ o-~O :3 n ro V\ V\ r-t r-t ro Q.. -0 p; :::l -i-t o "\ o ro < ro o u :3 ro :::l r-t I -0 o ;;;0 ro ..0 C ro V\ r-t ~ \\\\\\\\\ 1 \X/../"'/ / i ~?~// 1111///// ---, i I j ,! I 1 .UJJY I ---I I I ~ --- I j HI I ---~ I , ----1 HlllSEY n. ~ --, t I I "' j j ----! ! < t . -I ----t I I ~ I j ----1 .~ !!l ~ .n. i.1 tfil I ii. II II - ~E^\'E. ~ r } ~--- f I ~ L-- ; : .~ J ., I ~--- . t I ~ , I I 10- _.- I J I ~---- ~ I f- I I I ~ I I I ,-- I I I L----- I ~ . I ~--- 1 ' I I ~--- i I J r I ~ AUl!'t . ~ \\\\\\\\\ I. 'v /. /y /. "/' ~ ~ /77. Ill/ I ---, I I I i II I n I ,~ I ~ r -- I I I. i ~ I.J t , t ~, l!. ~ ~ .~ iT I , j ol&LEY . ---I II " I I ---~ I I . II I ---1 ___-1 .' II 'r'~-- t, ... ~ IILlWY rr. I ---I I I ~ "I I II I I u______ I r----- 1 I I I , ----J II !' : . ---~ 0------ --- 1 I! . :' L----------~ , I , I I " 1: ~ l ___ ------ I ! . j -- -----l I I I " , ___-1 DICXEllIA\'Z. } e I ~--- I ~ ~--- ~ J I I ~--- I ~ I I .---.-.- - I J I ~--- I I ~ I I 1--- I , 1--- _ I ~ , t---- I I , I I ~--- I I J I I L-__ h III j" I I I -I I I u~ 1J...1E.+ I 'l t ~ t 1 ,. ~, -~ -: " I I ~ -----------~ I I , I 'I I I' ~-----------1 1: . :' Lu-n------J I I I I I I ~ I . " Lu______~ II II II I I ! 'I --~ I I . ~, I -----1 DJCIJ:lNS ^ \'E. .)1 . & t ~--- , I , L--- I ! J I t ~--- I I j I , I .---,- 1 J 1 ~-- :~ ~ I I ~ I , r---- l 1 >----- f ,I I , , ~--- , , I , , I ~--- , 1 J c co a.. "0 (]) CJ) 0 c.. e a.. c: 0') c 0 +-' CJ) >< 0') tn ill c:: +-' c:: -- :J ~ ... <( ca "0 :J C. a:l E CJ) c 0 +-' 0 "0 C 0 CJ () 0') c c: +-' CJ) >< 0 ill -- ..... +-' C ca (]) E ...' c.. 0 CI) 92 (]) c: 0 I 0 CI) Z C)I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> CO I"- <0 L.(') ~ C') N T""" T""" -- :>!UeJl ,(I!ea ... ~ In ra o ~ .., Daily Traffic on Haynie Haynie Traffic Volume Comparison Daily Traffic 10000 9000 9000 8000 8000 7000 QI E 6000 :J "0 > 5000 5000 ... :J 0 :J: 4000 ..t N 3000 3000 2000 2000 1000 1000 0 0 West of alley East of alley Location on Haynie . Background 0 Existing Zoning: In-Daniel, Out-Haynie 0 Existing Zoning: In-Daniel, Out-Daniel. Proposed Site a Capacity of a Tw o-Lane Road JACOBS Daily Traffjc on Dickens Dickens Traffic Volume Comparison Daily Traffic 10000 . - 10000 9000 . - 9000 8000 - - 8000 Gl 7000 7000 E ::l 6000 6000 "0 > 5000 .5000 ~ ::l 0 4000 - .4000 :I: ~ 3000 3000 ('II 2000 2000 1000 - - 1000 0- - 0 Dickens between Haynie and Daniel Avenue . Background 0 Existing Zoning: In-Daniel, Out-Haynie 0 Existing Zoning: In-Daniel, Out-Daniel. Proposed Site DCapacityofa Two-Lane Road JACOBS Daily Ti'"affic on Daniel Daniel Traffic Volume Comparison Daily Traffic 14000 12000 Gl 10000 E :J 0 8000 > ... :J 0 J: 6000 ~ ('II 2000 o West of Snider Aaza East of Snider Aaza Location on Daniel Avenue . Background 0 Existing Zoning: In-Daniel, Out-Haynie 0 Existing Zoning: In-Daniel, Out-Daniel. A"oposed Site a Capacity of a Tw o-Lane Road 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 o JACOBS Signalized_Intersection Analysis Totall Totall Total Proposed Total Proposed Background Enter Daniell Enter Daniell Development Exit Daniel Exit Haynie Development2 (Improved) 2 Intersection Time of Day Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS AM 21.3 C 20.3 C 20.3 C 29.4 C 22.6 C Hillcrest Avenue and Daniel Avenue PM 25.9 C 55.6 E 32.4 C >80 F 32.5 C AM 13.4 B 12.1 B 12.2 B 13.1 B 13.1 B Hillcrest Avenue and Milton Road PM 13.3 B 10.8 B 11.6 B 13.3 B 13.3 B 1 Existing Zoning 2 Assuming 290,000 square footage of land use 3 Delay in seconds per vehicle JACOBS PrQPQsed Mitigation 1. At Hillcrest Road and Daniel Avenue · Construct a southbound left-turn lane · Restripe the northbound approach to match the existing northbound through lane offset · Restripe the eastbound approach to provide a dedicated left-turn lane 2. At Snider Plaza and Daniel Avenue · All-way stop control · Provide eastbound left-turn lane 3. Along Daniel Avenue · Redo pavement markings and signage JACOBS I' I :.;00 I ' r /lV.':U:.LI.!iJJL; t1 rLJ,J'tUc, (JfI1I1IHP4~." 'lJ'N.iT /"'''''' 'I~ i n o m U) 8OBJU'S CArs GIW'HlC SCALII . ~ kr..r i...J f (.... ) ....... ft- I CE.~TER OF HlUCREST I ...:;:,' ..,,~ -- SECTION .4-A :;0" ~SlRIPE ,OR I. / .~ /./LLLLLL..:'//////"/;.F/I~/////) , r--60' BEGIN ASP~ALT,~AY : 50' ." " .' - - -tJ;t; ..~ ARROW (T'IP) 0" SOUO MiITE ;{~~-C-R @ 5' C-C OOUBLE ." 'ltLLOW SOlIO ,'a_ w/TY Il-A-A 0 20' C-C . ....... ,....1PQiI6 ...-. ''''''''. W :I: -- - 1- ~ n .... ICD ItA .. D) I~ c.. N 89: /..07 38;-li c D) ~ -- CD SIIOJ tOl - - 3 -C .... o < CD 3 CD ~ .. tA Proposed Daniel Improvements ~ I"' ,.... ~ ~ '1 :h. ~ ~ (1) Restripe Daniel Between Hillcrest and Dickens Add All-Way Stop at Daniel / Snider Plaza Add Southbound and Eastbound Left-Turn Lanes at Daniel/Hillcrest .JACOBS Traffic and Parking Questions Resolved Question Raised Resolution Link Level of Service for Daniel (DT&A) Provided Synchro and SimTraffic analysis Left- Turn Storage along Daniel at Snider Provided recommendations for restriping Plaza and Garage Entrance (DT&A) Daniel between Hillcrest and Dickens Provide back-up for Existing Zoning Trip Provided Generation and Routing (DT&A) Provide back-up for growth rate used Provided (DT&A) Driveway analysis along Daniel (DT&A) Provided Replace August counts and reanalyze Collected new traffic counts at two affected intersections (DT&A) intersections and revised analysis Oak Lawn Overlay District versus Urban Agreed to provide parking in accordance Land Institute (C&P) with ULI Provide queuing analysis on Daniel at Provided proposed garage entrance (C&P) JACOBS Unsignaliz_ed Intersection Analysis r Control Approach Total1 Total1 Total Proposed Total Proposed Time Background Enter Daniell Enter Daniell Development Delay Delay Development2 Intersection (Major (Minor of Exit Daniel Exit Haynie (Improved)2 Street) Street) Day Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS Northbound AM 11.0 B 11.6 B 11.5 B 11.3 B 11.3 B Hillcrest (Left-Turn) Avenue PM 10.3 B 10.5 B 10.3 B 11.0 B 11.1 B and AM 11.3 B 11.8 B 12 B 11.5 B 11.1 B Haynie Road Eastbound PM 11.1 B 16.5 C 18 C 13.7 B 11.6 B Eastbound AM 0.3 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.4 A 8.6 A Snider Plaza (Left-Turn) PM 0.3 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 0.8 A 34.1 D and Daniel Avenue AM 11.9 B 10.5 B 10.2 B 16.3 C 9.1 A Southbound PM 12.6 B 13.7 B 12.4 B 40.7 E 11.9 B Eastbound AM 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.3 A 0.3 A Dickens Road (Left-Turn) PM 0.2 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 0.3 A 0.3 A and Haynie Road AM 12.5 B 13.1 B 13.8 B 13.6 B 13.6 B Southbound PM 11.7 B 12.4 B 13.8 B 13.3 B 13.3 B Southbound AM 0.3 A 0.6 A 0.6 A 0.8 A 0.8 A Dickens Road (Left-Turn) PM 0.4 A 0.6 A 0.7 A 0.8 A 0.8 A and Daniel Avenue AM 14.2 B 18.1 C 19 C 22.4 C 22.4 C Westbound PM 13.8 B 17.3 C 18.5 C 34.6 D 34.6 D Northbound AM 0.6 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.6 A 0.6 A Hillcrest Avenue (Left-Turn) PM 0.5 A 0.5 A 0.5 A 0.6 A 0.6 A and Rosedale AM 18.3 C 13.4 B 13.1 B 20.1 C 17.7 C Avenue Westbound PM 20.1 C 43.0 E 24.6 C 25.2 D 23.4 C 1 Existing Zoning 2 Assuming 290,000 square footage of land use 3 Delay in seconds per vehicle JACOBS Vl ~ 4- Q) C Q) co >- ~ C :J E E o U "'C C ro >- ~ ro E E :J Vl ~ U Q) .~ o ~ a.. ......-.... u.. - ~ '-' C o O'l C .- C ~ ro ro Vl a.. a. Q) ~ "'C U X Q) C Vl ro ~:J ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ Vl ~ E ~ ~ E ~ rot; Q) ~ Vl Q) Q)O ~ "'C Q) Q) > .c "'C ~ ~ 0 C "'C c e >- .i: <( Q) Q) ro ro C m V) a. ro ~ co.. E> ro ro:J ..cO E I 0 0 N N"'C Ol-J- U "'C O"'C ~ ro Q) :J- C Q)c> ECI<( c...c..."'C oQ)o . C 0 ~ E ro >- C ~ C :.... . u .;:; >- Vl .- Q) ~ ._ Q) ~:J ..c > u ~ > 0 a. 1ft Q) ~ Q) I+- ~:.... Q) ro .- U IV \oJ ~ Q) Q) Vl I X - ro..c Vl .c.~ >- > V') :.... ~ LJ.J ro "'C u .- ro ,^ C U .;- 4- ~ C - --- .~ Vl ....J v, - 0 ...... C ~ ....... Q) ~ Q) Vl.- 0 C Q) .2 0 ~ cQ) a. Q) ~ b .8 o:C ~ Q) _ E ~ >-.- ro Q) ~ C ~ :J > Q) Q) ro - ~ "'C u ~ ro ~ C Q) .- > > .- ~ .- Vl Vl ,~ c... C 0 a. m -J C 0 ~ECVl~"'Cv, ro Q)~~ ~ m:.... Q) ro LJ.J Q) \.;:: C "'C ~.~ E Vl 0 Q) 0 a. Vl u.. .n 0::: Q) ro Q) . - C :J I+- "'0 ..c -- E Q)I ~~c....J>~ro Q)CcV')~m~- ~ Q) :J U Q) 0 a. .- ~ m ~ ",- a.-uQ) C~Q)~Vllft Eo~ua.~Q) O'l ~ co > I V E .- ..... Q) u .- - 0 Q) a..-.n N ~ ~ 0 0 u _ C roco~Q)a.Ec:JrooQ)a.~Q)u=m c~Zc...~O-~Vlc...U~OUO:::~IO Q) U ~ l.L. "'C Q) l.L. Vl .n :0 ~ Q) :J C 0::: 0::: c... Vl I- ~ ro - :J U ~