The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda 4-21-04 Names Tabs AGENDA #2410 CITY COUNCIL MEETING/WORK SESSION CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM WEDNESDAY, April 21, 2004 AT 7:30AM i. 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. ii. CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2004 - Wilson Tab I iii. MAIN AGENDA B. C. D. E. F. G. CONSIDER: Request from Shaved Ice Hut to sell in the city's swimming pool this summer - Livingston Tab II DISCUSSION: Of responsibility for replacement of sidewalks on public rights-of-way - Smallwood Tab III CONSIDER: Requests by various groups to use park facilities - Livingston Tab IV CONSIDER: Amendment to Sign Ordinance for real estate sign regulations - McLaurin Tab V DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO STAFF: Regarding commercial building height requirements - McLaurin Tab VI CONSIDER: Temporary Metal Building Extension for Fire Department - Ledbetter Tab VII CONSIDER: Setting Wednesday, May 19, 2004, 7:30 a.m. for Special City Council Meeting - Smallwood Tab VIII 8:30-8:45 A.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE PENDING LITIGATION INVOLVING CITY AND TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM CITY ATTORNEY UNDER SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. 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. MINUTES #2409 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2004, 5:00 P.M. Mayor Harold Peek opened the meeting of the City Council. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Dick Davis, Councilmembers Jim Roberts, Harry Shawver and Blackie Holmes. Also in attendance were City Attorney Rob Dillard, City Manager Bob Livingston and City Secretary Nina Wilson. AWARDS DEPARTMENT PIN: City Manager Bob Livingston presented a department pin to Manager Jim Gau, Equipment Services, and thanked him for 10 years of service to the city. Fleet RETIREMENT: Police Chief Gary Adams presented Police Detective Lawrence Byrd with a plaque from the University Park Police Department displaying his badge and service pins. Former City Manager Leland Nelson paid tribute to Detective Byrd for his past achievements. Councilmember Harry Shawver presented a retirement plaque to him along with a gift check and thanked him for 20 years of loyal and dedicated service to the city. Police Captain Mike Brock was thanked for 26 years of service and Police Lieutenant Tony Dagger for nine years of service to the city. They were unable to attend the city council meeting. BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: Two boy scouts, Alex Dawkins and Robert Voelker, introduced themselves and gave their troop number and the badge upon which they were working. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Ms. Judith Patterson, 3609 Granada, spoke on the issue of payment for maintenance and repair of public sidewalks. She encouraged the council to look at the benefits resulting from using public funds rather than a homeowner having to use his private funds. Ms. Meg Read, 4110 Normandy, gave the council an update on her suggestions for a dog park. Councilmember Holmes moved acceptance of the Consent Agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Davis seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following: CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER PROPOSAL FROM R.L. GOODSON, JR. IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000 TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PAVEMENT DESIGN OF HILLCREST AVENUE FROM THE ALLEY NORTH OF SOUTHWESTERN TO CARUTH: R.L. Goodson has been developing plans and specifications for the proposed utility and storm sewer project east and north of Caruth Park. In reviewing the design, staff determined that the construction would be so detrimental to the Hillcrest pavement, from the alley north of Southwestern to Caruth, that repair and subsequent asphalt overlay would not be a reasonable solution. A proposal was solicited from John Stull to provide the surveying and engineering services necessary to design that section of the street. CONSIDER FINAL PAYMENT FOR WATER, SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND ALLEY PAVING TO SYB CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.: Final payment was approved to SYB Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $26,796.20 for work performed and materials furnished for the construction of Project No. 46510. The project included the 4100 block of the University/Emerson alley and the 4100 block of the Glenwick/Emerson alley. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For March 17, 2004. MAIN AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING FOR CREATION OF NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 30 FOR CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3001 LOVERS LANE: Mayor Peek opened the public hearing. The church proposed additions to the existing building, which includes a new 255-seat sanctuary, requiring a total of 85 parking spaces per the city's Zoning Ordinance. The construction, as a whole, is seen primarily as a modernization of facilities. As there was no opposition to the church's plans, the mayor closed the public hearing. CONSIDER ORDINANCE CREATING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 30 FOR CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3001 LOVERS LANE: Mayor Pro Tem Davis moved approval of the new planned development. Councilmember Holmes seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the ordinance for Christ Lutheran Church. ORDINANCE NO. 04/12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO GRANT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 30 FOR CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS 1.7323 ACRES OF THE JEFFERSON TILLEY SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 1480, CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3001 LOVERS LANE; APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "B"; REQUIRING SUBMISSION OF A DETAILED SITE PLAN; PROVIDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF F1NE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER REQUEST TO SELL SHAVED ICE INSIDE CITY'S SWIMMING POOL THIS SLA/[MER: A request was received from Mr. Nick Mesec, a junior at Highland Park High School, to sell shaved ice inside the city's swimming pool this summer. The city has had the same concessionaire at the pool for almost 30 years, who offers snow cones for sale, which would be a duplication of products. The council applauded Nick for his ingenuity and suggested he speak with the concessionaire and inform City Manager Bob Livingston or Director of Parks Thom Hanford of the result of his conversation. CONSIDER ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PARKING LIMITS ALONG THE 4300 BLOCK OF HYER AND THE WEST SIDE OF DUBLIN, SOUTH OF BiNKLEY: For several years, the 4300 block of Hyer Street was included in the Resident Parking Only Zone around Highland Park High School. Last year, residents of the subject block, with the exception of 4301, 4305, and 4309, requested removal from the parking zone, and the Council granted that request. The same residents petitioned for parking restrictions again. The east half of the block asked to be included in the parking zone, and the west half of the block petitioned for a 2-hour parking restriction. Staff also received a request from SMU for a No Parking Anytime designation along the west side of Dublin, south of Binkley, to its intersection with Airline. SMU is the abutting property owner. Mayor Pro Tem Davis moved approval of the new parking limits along the 4300 block of Hyer and the west side of Dublin, south of Binkley. Councilmember Roberts seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 04/13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 10, SECTION 10.1213 BY ADDING SUBSECTION (b) (D) CREATING A RESIDENT PARKING ONLY ZONE IN THE 4300 BLOCK OF HYER, FROM THE POINT OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH DOUGLAS WEST A DISTANCE OF 260 FEET; PROVIDING A TWO HOUR PARKING LIMIT IN THE 4300 BLOCK OF HYER, FROM THE POINT OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH ARMSTRONG EAST A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET; PROHIBITING PARKING AT ANY TiME ON THE WEST SIDE OF DUBLIN, FROM THE POINT OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH BiNKLEY SOUTH TO THE POINT OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH AIRLINE; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FiNE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER RESOLUTION OPPOSING GOVERNOR PERRY'S PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PROPOSAL: On March 11, Governor Rick Perry announced a four-part series of property tax proposals designed to provide relief to Texas taxpayers. The Governor's plan would: 1) limit appraisal increases for homesteads to three percent per year, versus the current cap of ten percent; 2) limit the amount of revenue local entities can raise from property taxes to the amount raised the previous year plus an inflation and population growth factor; 3) require mandatory sales price disclosure for real property; and, 4) establish appraisal district boards of five elected officials who would be accountable to the taxpayers. The proposals are intended to be part of a school finance reform effort. The first two proposals are the most problematic and potentially devastating to local governments like University Park. Limiting appraisal increases to three percent per year would result in a never-ending distortion of values throughout the city. The second proposal, limiting property tax revenue growth to no more than the Consumer Price Index and population growth, is even more troubling. Many local government expenditures experience different inflation rates than the CPI. In short, the Governor's proposals would severely limit the City's ability to raise sufficient revenue to fund its operations. Cities and organizations across Texas, including the Texas Municipal League, are opposing the Governor's property tax relief proposals. RESOLUTION NO. 04-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, URGING THE LEGISLATURE NOT TO ADOPT ANY SCHOOL FINANCE OR TAX SYSTEM REFORMS THAT WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT CITY REVENUES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR CANCELLATION OF CITY COUNCIL ELECTION MAY 15, 2004: The candidates for position on the ballot for the May 15, 2004 General Election of the City Council of the City of University Park are unopposed, no write-in candidates have filed, and no proposition is scheduled to appear on the ballot. The unopposed candidates are: James H. Holmes, III, Mayor, Councilmembers James E. Roberts, Harry R. Shawver, Jr., Sydney D. Carter and Kelly J. Walker for terms of two (2) years. Mayor Pro Tem Davis moved acceptance of the ordinance. Councilmember Roberts seconded, and the vote was unanimous to cancel the election of May 15, 2004. ORDINANCE NO. 04/14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, DECLARING UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES FOR CITY COUNCIL ELECTED TO OFFICE; REQUIRING POSTING OF THIS ORDINANCE ON ELECTION DAY AT EACH POLLING PLACE; REQUIRING ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION TO EACH CANDIDATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PASSED AND APPROVED this 21st day of April 2004. ATTEST: Harold Peek, Mayor Nina Wilson, City Secretary AGENDA MEMO (04/21/04AGENDA) DATE: April 15, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Bob Livingston SUBJECT: Shaved lce Hut On April 6, 2004 the City Council considered a request from Mr. Nick Mesec regarding a business proposal to sell shaved ice at the City's swimming pool. Mr. Mesec is a junior at Highland Park High School, and hopes to establish a summer business. Approval of the proposal would allow Mr. Mesec to sell shaved ice during the summer swimming season in return for a city fee. The item was tabled at the April 6th meeting to determine the status of the City's agreement with the current vendor, Mr. Bill Maxvill. Mr. Maxvill operates the concessionaire service out of a permanent facility located at the pool. The vendor has operated at the pool for a number of years with a verbal agreement with the City. However, there is no exclusive right given to Mr. Maxvill under the verbal agreement. In exchange for use of the pool facility, the vendor has paid the City a fee of $6,500. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of this request. The City is satisfied with the current service provided by the vendor. The space at the pool is limited, and allowing an additional facility would further congest the area for pool patrons. In addition, the patrons of the shaved ice hut would be limited to those individuals that also purchase admittance into the pool. To serve other customers, the shaved ice hut would need to be located outside of the pool facilities, and current City Code does not permit this activity. ATTACHMENTS: Email 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwils°n'UNIVPARK\L°cal Settings~Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\Shaved Ice 4 21 04 (3).doc 4:16 PM 04/15J Page 1 of 2 From: Robbie Corder Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:51 PM To: Nina Wilson Subject: FW: Ice Hut From: Bob Livingston Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:17 plVl To: Robbie Corder Subject: FW: Ice Hut ..... Original Message ..... From: IVlark A. IVlesec [mailto:mark@mesec.com] Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 10:09 AlVl To: Bob Livingston Subject: Re: Ice Hut Bob, Thanks for your prompt reply...appreciate it. I know this is not the most pressing issue you guys face, but it is pretty important in our world, especially in terms of life lessons for a young man "dipping his toes into the water of the adult world" with this venture, plus there is some principle involved here too! -Mark ..... Original Message ..... From: Bob Livingston To: Mark A. Mesec Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 8:38 AM Subject: RE: Ice Hut Mark I have asked Robbie Corder in my office to follow up on this since Thom Hartford has retired. He started working on it yesterday, and should be contracting you shortly. Bob Livingston ..... Original IVlessage ..... From: Hark A. IVlesec [mailto:mark@mesec.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:49 plVl To: Bob Livingston Subject: Ice Hut Bob, This note is a follow-up to the consideration by the Council last week of the Ice Hut proposal submitted by my son, Nick. As I understood how it ended, the Council tabled it for final determination at a later date, and suggested we contact the individual who currently has the food and beverage contract at the pool. I also thought the Council was going to do a little research to see what the status really was of the current food and beverage contract at the pool (see below). While I think I know how any meeting with that individual will go, we cannot proceed with that suggestion without a little more information. Therefore, at your earliest convenience, we would appreciate information on the following (by the way, Nick and/or I would be happy to stop by your office to go over any of this, if you believe that would be more efficient): file ://U:~Electronic%20Agendas\200&FW%20Ice%20Hut.htm 4/15/2004 Page 2 of 2 1. I do not have the name, phone number, address, etc. of the current operator for the food and beverage service at the pool; 2. I am unable to find any City Ordinance that provides that the contract currently in place for food and beverage service at the pool specifically names the current operator, or provides for an exclusive contract for such service; 3. Has anyone (City Attorney or Tom Hanford, etc.) located a copy of the contract with the current operator, and has anyone determined whether such contract is exclusive (in any event, I would like a copy)? If such a contract does exist, I would like to know a couple of things about it, such as the following: (i) who entered into the contract? (ii) what authority is or was there to enter into an exclusive agreement? (iii) what oversight is there in connection with the awarding of an exclusive contract, particularly if what Tom said was true, that this individual has had it for 25+ years (forget actual number he said), and who reviews the reasonableness of its terms? (iv) if what Tom said was true that the City derives $6,500 a year from the pool contract, has anyone reviewed that to see if that's reasonable or the best the City can do (the overly defensive tone about this business relationship makes me wonder)? (v) does this same operator have the exclusive food and beverage contract at basketball, football, gymnastic, baseball, etc. games? I appreciate your attention to this, and appreciate your support and encouragement when Nick went through the licensing process last year (following the mix-up with Nina about the permissibility of setting up on the pool grounds)! I must say, however, that the hearing last week raised more questions than it answered. First of all, it is too bad Nick (or me for that matter) did not expect he would be asked to do a formal presentation of the proposal in addition to the written materials he provided, as it appeared by a couple of the questions that either some at the meeting did not have the proposal or had not read it. Secondly, the "search" by some to find out why it would not work took us by surprise, as it seemed to me to be inconsistent with an objective review of a business proposal, particularly one that would benefit the City and one that was proposed by an enterprising high school student who is well-regarded in the community...I speak of items such as (1) "1 think there is a City Ordinance against such a proposal" (none cited), (2) "there is an exclusive contract with the operator" (none produced, no details), (3) "we have a long-term relationship with the current operator, and the agreement has been very good to UP...bringing $6,500 a year in revenue" (if true, I think approximately $70.00 a day to the City hardly constitutes "very good"), (4) "if someone else is there, he may quit" (if that's the case, the City should reconsider who it is contracting with, with that type of attitude, as the operator could also upgrade his food and beverage operation and customer service or, understand that having the Ice Hut there would very likely benefit him (and the City), not hurt him financially), and (5) "if we let the Ice Hut in at the pool, we would have to let in anybody with a permit sell food or beverage items at the pool" (a wild exaggeration and hardly true). Again, thank you very much to your attention to this, and please advise on the above or let me know if you would prefer that I (and/or Nick) arrange to come by in person to further discuss these matters. -Mark Mesec (214) 265-7060--work dd file ://U:~Electronic%20Agendas\200&FW%20Ice%20Hut.htm 4/15/2004 AGENDA MEMO (04-21-04 AGENDA) DATE: April 15, 2004 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Discussion of responsibility for replacement of sidewalks on public rights- of-way. Background. Judith Patterson addressed the City Council at their 04.06.04 meeting with a request to amend Section 3 of the Code of Ordinances, which places the responsibility for repair or replacement of public sidewalks on the abutting property owner. She detailed her concerns in a memo, a copy of which is attached for your review. The overall emphasis of her request is for the City to take over that responsibility and establish a sidewalk maintenance and replacement program. This would be similar to the annual curb and gutter (C&G) program the City began approximately ten years ago. The City's sidewalk system represents an investment of about $15 million. The cost of developing an annual program is somewhat subjective, however, staff estimates that cost at approximately $750,000. The annual impact of a program of that magnitude on the tax bill of the average single-family residence is about $115. Ms. Patterson makes several good arguments. Code Enforcement staff have limited time to deal with sidewalk issues and typically respond only to complaints regarding the sidewalk conditions. The City could certainly be more proactive in the overall maintenance if we were responsible for the sidewalks. Discussion. Staff requests direction from Council regarding this issue. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson. UNIVPARK\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3~M SW Responsibility 04 21 04.doc 9:05 AM 04/15/04 4/'15/2004 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE / REPAIR PROGRAM * City of UP has approximately 400 blocks * Assume 1800 LF of sidewalk per block (1800 LF = 800 SY) 800 SY @ $40.00 $32,000.00 * Sidewalk Infrastructure Sidewalk 400 BIk @ $32,000.00 = Hdcp Ramps 1,600 Ea @ $1,500.00 = $12,800,000.00 $2,400,000.00 Total Value of Sidewalk Infrastructure = $15,200,000.00 * Assume 5% repair / replacement annually Annual SW Maintenance Program = $760,000.00 IMPACT OF SW PROGRAM ON THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2003 Certified Taxable Value Annual Sisewalk Allotment Addition to Tax Rate $3,769,405,331 $750,000 $0.0001989704 Average SF Home - Market Value Less 20% Homestead Exemption Average SF Home - Taxable Value $717,626 ($143,525) $574,101 Tax Levy $114.23 In summary, the impact is 1.9 cents on the tax rate, resulting in an additional $114.23 in taxes annually for a SF homevalued at $717,626 (market). RE: Sidewalk Ordinance Dear Mr. Smallwood: Question: Who should and who must pay for the repair of public sidewalks abutting private residences in University Park? (a) the City of University Park through tax dollars? (b) the owner of the resident abutting the sidewalk? (c) the City of University Park through tax dollar should pay for the repair, but the owner of the resident abutting the sidewalk must pay out of his or her own pocket. Answer: (c). Section 3.1412 of the University Park City Ordinances imposes a "duty" on the private property owner to keep the "sidewalk, parkway, curb, or driveway abutting his property in a good and safe condition.., free from any defect and hazard." Section 3.1415 of this Article further provides that the abutting property owner shall be "primarily liable" for damages resulting from injury due to a defective sidewalk. Moreover, under section 3.1426, the property owner who fails to repair a defective sidewalk within 30 days of notification from the City is guilty of a misdemeanor. Objective: Repeal the Sidewalk OrdinanCes outlined above. I would appreciate your advice on how to achieve this goal.. Shouldn't public sidewalks be maintained .by public tax dOllars? For the safety and financial good .of the residents of UniVersity Park, aS well as for the good of the City itself, I propose the repeal of the three ordinance section imposing a financial burden on the home owner to repair public sidewalks and driveways. How does the City of University Park identify public sidewalks in need of repair? Is it a result of an injury due to a defect or numerous complaints by residents? No. According to Russell Craig, a Code Compliance Inspector emploYed by University Park, a single complaint, even if anonymous, prompts him to inspect the sidewalk on the offending street and issue notice to the residents that they have 30 days to replace their sidewalks. The day after residents on my street received these notices, a Concrete Contractor had left a letter that indicated he was aware of these notices and would proVide a "good" bid to repair the sidewalks. The quick timing of this Concrete Contractor leaves one suspicious as to the identity of the "anonymous" complainant. In contrast, when asked about possible repairs to the street, Mr. Craig said that while University Park had received many complaints about the street, there were other streets in even worse repair and that it would be at least two years before repairs would be made. In other words, a private resident has 30 days to fix a cracked sidewalk, but the City can leisurely schedule repairs to a severely pitted road more than two years out. So, am I writing this letter to avoid paying someone a couple thousand dollars to fix my sidewalk? No. I cannot hope to benefit by a repeal of this Ordinance since the notification of sidewalk defects says repairs must be completed within 30 days. Rather, I am writing this letter because I firmly believe that repeal of this Ordinance benefits the residents of University Park as a whole. What are these benefits? 1. Financial: Assuming that the residents must pay more taxes as a result of the City paying for sidewalk repairs, the residents may deduct these increased taxes from their Federal Income Tax liability. Conversely, if the resident must himself pay for the sidewalk repair, it is not a tax deduction. Moreover, the City could pay for repairs more economically than private residents since the City would be dealing in a greater quantity of work, thus reducing the cost to the contractor. Further, the City would be a savvier consumer than a single resident would be. 2. Safety: if the City assumes the responsibility of repairing or replacing the sidewalks, the work will be done by one contractor for the entire block, thus resulting in greater uniformity in the completed work than if individuals procure the cheapest bidder they can locate. Moreover, even if the entire sidewalk block is not defective, the City may elect to replace the entire sidewalk at one time, thus reducing the number of work projects over time. Conversely, an individual homeowner would be motivated to make the minimum repair necessary to pass inspection, designed to last only so long as he will own the home. 3. Insurance: Homeowner's insurance does not typically cover this liability for an individual homeowner. Generally, sidewalk cracks and other defects are due to settling of the ground over time, not a single identifiable event such as a hailstorm. If sued, attorney fees, court costs, and medical expenses of the injured party could easily bankrupt the homeowner. Most homeowners are surprised to learn they are responsible for this maintenance and do not know to seek out special insurance coverage. Conversely, the City could either elect to self-insure or procure insurance to protect against liability. The same lawsuit would not "cripple" the City as it would an individual. 4. Work priorifization: The City could fairly assess and prioritize the sidewalks most needing repair. Currently, the City operates on a "complaint" basis. If someone complains, then the City checks the particular block that has been complained about. The sidewalk block that received the complaint may be in far better condition than a sidewalk two blocks away. However, via the complaint or "squeaky wheel" system, the better sidewalk is repaired while the truly hazardous sidewalk is neglected. This results in patent unfairness and does little to further the safety of the residents. 5. Time saved: Under the "complaint" system, the City inspects the sidewalks piecemeal whenever it receives a complaint. Rather than this piecemeal City, the City could inspect the sidewalks once, prioritize the work, set a schedule, and efficiently complete the work according to a plan. Society abhors "profiling" by law enforcement. Residents of University Park have been "profiled" as rich people. Among those on my street who have received notices to repair their sidewalk are two single moms and an elderly woman. We cannot easily afford to replace the sidewalk. Judith Patterson-Piauche' Twelve Year Resident University Park, TX 75205 AGENDA MEMO (04/021/04 AGENDA) DATE: TO: FROM: February 25, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Bob Livingston SUBJECT: Requests by Various Groups to Use Park Facilities The Park Department has received request from four groups for use of various parks during the upcoming months. All events have a projected number of participants of more than 300 and require City Council approval for the use. One group has additionally requested wavier of the fees for the rental. The requests are: · Dallas Symphony - Concert in Goar Park on Saturday, May 29th. Estimated attendance - up to 1500 people. · Highland Park Presbyterian Day School - Field Day in Williams Park on May 14th. Estimated attendance is over 300. The school requests waiver of the fee. The City has not historically waived fees and this event was charged in past years. · Watermark Community Church - Picnic in Curtis Park on May 16th. Estimated attendance is up to 700 people. · Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - "Light the Night Walk" in Burleson Park on October 24th. Estimated attendance 4,000. Copies of the individual letters from these groups are attached. RECOMMENDATION: Dallas Symphony Goar Park Concern - Approve request. Fee is $500 plus a refundable $250 security deposit. The event has been held in past years with no incidents. The fee is consistent with that charged previous years. Highland Park Presbyterian Day School Field Day in Williams Park - Approve request. Fee is $300 plus a refundable $250 security deposit. This even has also been held in past years with no problems. The fee is consistent 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwils°n'UNIVPARK\L°cal Settings~Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\PARKRESERVATIONS041504.doc 2:59 PM 04/15/04 with that charged in previous years and staff does not recommend it being waived. Watermark Community Church - Approve request. Fee is $500 plus a refundable $250 security deposit. The Church has held similar events in the Curtis Park previously without incident. The fee is consistent with that charged previously. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Walk - Approve request. This even was held on the SMU campus last year. We have recently held two events in Burleson Park of similar size. They were the "Lone Star Ride" and the "Avon Breast Cancer Walk". The "Avon" walk resulted in some problems, which have caused us to modify our approach to large events in this park. Because of this, it is recommended the group be required to: (1) Provide notice the neighborhood adjacent to the park. (2) Hire off-duty police officers in a number recommended by the Chief of Police. (3) Contract with SMU for use of their parking garages and inform walkers of parking availability in those garages. (4) Provide 15 port-a-potties for use during the event. The charge would be $750 plus a refundable $250 security deposit. This is consistent with the charge for the other similar events. We will inform the member of these groups that this item will be on the April 21st Agenda. If ! can provide any additional information, please let me know. ATTACHMENTS: Letters from groups Cc: Chief of Police Park Department 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwils°n'UNIVPARK\L°cal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\PARKRESERVATIONS041504.doc 2:59 PM 04/15/04 DALLAS SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA ANDREW LITTON, MUSIC DIRECTOR. ~R 13 2OO4 April 12, 2004 Bob Livingston City Manager City of University Park 3800 University Boulevard University Park, TX 75205 Dear Mr. Livingston, In past years the Dallas Symphony has held Concert in the Park performances at various University Park locations. We did not have such an event in 2003 and would like to request a Park Land Use Permit for Saturday, May 29, 2004 as we hope to continue in our partnership with University Park in our annual performances. Below I have listed the particulars for this event. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 214.871.4013 or DJessie~dalsyrn.com. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Darin Jessie Development Benefits Coordinator Dallas Symphony Orchestra Date: Saturday, May 29, 2004 Time Needed: 9:00am - 11:00pm Saturday, May 29, 2004 Concert Time: 8:00pm- 9:00pm Set-Up Equipment: One 40-foot truck, back shell and stage for 90 musicians, one generator for sound/electric power and several port-a-johns Approximate Count: Over 300 but not exceeding 1,500 rejuvenateyours ou [ 2301 Flora Street, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75201 · Telephone: 214-871-4000 · Fax: 214-871-4049 www.dallassymphony.com Date- To: From' Subject: March 22, 2004 Thom Hanford Amy Grah, ami:' .,~. Crozier K~mzey 0.~"' Park Reservation for May 14, 2004 I spoke with Amber last week and she recommended that I contact you regarding our park reservation for May 14th. Highland Park Presbyterian Day School holds Field Day in May at Williams Park every year for the students. We are a non-profit organization and our budget for the event is very small, We would tike to ask you to waive the cost of the park so that we can use our budget to fund the actual event. We are happy to pay the fully refundable security deposit of $250. Field Day 2004 will be May 14th from 8:30am-3pm, We expect about 300 people to attend the event over the course of the day. Please call me with any questions at 214.364.4112. I will follow up with Amber next week. Thanks for your consideration. I0 BDga NIgINAOJ 9]00 9300 §E68LgP69~ 6~:P~ ~00E/~/£0 March 24°~, 2004 Thom Hartford Umversity Park Recreation Department 3800 University Blvd. Dallas, TX 75205 Dear Mr. Hartford, Please accept this letter as our request in writing to reserve Curtis Park on Sunday, May 16t~ fzom lO:00am until 2:00pm for a church picnic. Based on previous picnics we anticipate up to 700 in attendance. The participants of the picnic are as follows: · Food will be furnished and prepared on our chuck wagon for our members. Three bounce houses as well as cotton candy for the children. · We will have a sound system playing music. · Two port-a-potties will be rented · All trash will be carried off the premises. Please allow this letter to serve as our written submission that you will bring before the City Council on our behalf. Thank you for your consideration to our request. I look forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, Stacy Kazee Assistant to Jay Jacobs Watermark Comm~ty Church I0100 fY. Central E~pressway, Suite 250 ' Dallas, Texas 7.~23 I 214.361,227.~ - fax: 214.361.6519 * web size: www. waterntarkcommunlty, or~ · Allow use of campus trash · Allow golf cart for Society use. · Allow campus police support. o headc ° Allow 9:30 I: The City of University Name: Signature: Date: 75,000 brochures tems in walker goodie Society's Representative: NOTE: You shouId ask any organ.~ation or municipal~ that you may be dealing with if any proof of insurance Will ~ r~eeded as early in the eVent originatio~ s a~ possib e. This may help avoid any rUsh processing due to late Or inadequate notice from the o~er par~ regal~ing prOOf of insurance needs. Chapter Cq~tact's e-~il ~m, ss: , ~ , Date of Eve0t: , Cost of Event. ~ O ~f~,~~ v~ O. I~,~ ~ ~,~,1~ o~3 .~ ~ ' ~ / O 00 Chapter: .~ ~ ~ H°w manytimes has ~ Anticipated income: I". ow..~ ~ this Event been held? I~"C f~ Z*~O~ oo O. oO Address: ~-~ City, State, Zip If applicable, is the event being held at the same location? ho.~ ~ i: +~ :l i ..il.ii i~.ii .~_.~i,ed:~. I_Ch.,, 0.a~. O No B. tf yes, what insurance limits Requested If yes, attach a copy of the April 9, 2004 3513 Stanford Dallas, TX 75225 The Honorable Harold F. Peek Mayor, City of University Park 3800 University Boulevard Dallas, TX 75205 Dear Harold, As a member of the Board of Trustees of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society of North Texas, I encourage the City of University Park and the Park Department to allow the Society to use Burleson Park for the annual Light the Night Walk on Sunday, October 24, 2004. The park would be needed for registration and as a starting point for the Walk. As you may know, the very successful 2003 walk began at the Doak Walker Plaza on the SMU campus. Unfortunately, we are unable to use that area next September due to renovations that SMU will be making at that time. SMU has assured the Society that we will be able to return to Doak Walker Plaza for the 2005 Walk. The campus is a central site for this event, drawing from the Park Cities and immediate surrounding areas. The University was pleased with the way the L&L staff and volunteers organized and took care of clean up following the 2003 Walk. The City can be assured that will be the case again next September. Light the Night Walks are held all over the United States during September and October, with eight being held in North Texas alone. The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society raises millions of dollars in research from these events. Many of these dollars go to our own Southwestern Medical School to support research in blood-related diseases. The L&L Board realizes that for a short time that evening there will be extra cars parking on the surrounding streets, which could cause an inconvenience for some residents. We all know that those of us who live in University Park live with occasional inconveniences caused by street parking, especially when we live around schools and/or churches. Many have to deal with guest parking on the streets on a regular basis. I might add that many of the participants will come from dorms and sorority and fraternity houses and will not have need of parking places, and the University is also providing space in the nearby parking garage. This would be the only time Burleson Park would be needed, and the SMU campus is the perfect location for the Walk. I hope that you will give every consideration to this request. Sincerely, Claire M. Roberts DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AGENDA MEMO (4/21/04 AGENDA) April 14, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Wade McLaurin, Building & Zoning Administrator Amendment to the Sign Ordinance - Real Estate Sign Regulations BACKGROUND: It has come to our attention that as a result of some of the recent amendments to the Sign Ordinance, several important provisions were inadvertently removed. When the ordinance related to temporary signage was revised to provide for a maximum "aggregate" area of twelve (12) square feet, the stipulation that not more than one sign of any type be permitted on a site was removed. This stipulation prevented multiple real estate signs, or even a real estate sign in addition to a construction sign. It is important that this restriction be re-instated. In addition, when the real estate sign regulations were amended in August, the provision which allowed realtors to place "riders" on these signs was also removed. Previously the Sign Ordinance allowed the placement of up to two (2) riders, totaling no more than 240 square inches in area, to be hung on a real estate sign. This 240 square inch provision was in addition to the six (6) foot maximum area of the real estate sign. The allowance of the riders has been allowed for some time, and the elimination of that allowance would prove costly to most realtors. The Urban Design and Development Advisory Committee (UDADAC) reviewed both of these items on April 12, 2004 and determined that the previous wording on both provisions should be restored PUBLIC NOTICE: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the enabling ordinance amending Article 12.200 of the University Park Code of Ordinances, to restore previous provisions regulating the number of real estate signs on a site, and the allowance for the use of riders on real estate signage. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 Real Estate Signage Amendments Number of Signs on a lot · As of 2/18/04: Sec. 12.233 Aggregate Area of Temporary Signs in Residential Zones The aggregate area of all temporary signs (i.e. real estate signs, political signs), excluding the area of authorized address signs, permitted on a lot in a residential zone shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. (Ordinance 03/18 adopted 8/5/03) The use of "aggregate area" in this case was primarily a result of the discussions involving the size and number of political signs on a particular lot. · Previous Wording of Section: Sec. 12.233 Number of Signs Permitted in Residential Zones Only one sign of any type shall be permitted on any site, except for security protection signs, address signs, permitted flags, and political signs. There shall not be both a real estate sign and a construction sign on a site except as a combined sign not to exceed the area and height limitations of a real estate sign. (Revised Code of Ordinances, 1981, Chapter 12, Section 2F) This provision prohibited more than one real estate sign, as well as a real estate sign & a construction sign on one lot. Real Estate Signage Amendments cont'd. Real Estate "Rider" Provisions · As of 8/5/03: Sec. 12.229 Real Estate Signs in Residential Zones Real estate signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area. Such temporary signs shall be erected or constructed so that no portion thereof exceeds a height of four feet (4') from the ground. In addition, a temporary "Open" sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet in area, may be used on the property for a maximum of eight hours per day when the dwelling is open for public inspection. Real estate signs must be removed not later than ten (la) days after the transaction pursuant to which the property is sold or leased is closed. (Ordinance 03/18 adopted 8/5/03) New amendment did not contain any allowances for "riders" on real estate signs in addition to the 6 s.f. maximum area. · Previous Wording of Section: Sec. 12.229 Real Estate Signs in Residential Zones Real estate signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area, provided that riders or additional plates not exceeding two (2) in number and two hundred and forty (240) square inches in area in the aggregate may be attached. Such signs shall be erected or constructed so that no portion thereof exceeds a height of four (4') feet from the ground. In addition, a temporary "open" sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet in area, may be used for maximum of eight hours per day when the dwelling is open. Real estate signs must be removed not later than ten (la) days after the transaction pursuant to which the property is sold or leased is closed. (Revised Code of Ordinances, 1981, Chapter 12, Section 2B) This provision allowed a maximum of 2 riders, to not exceed a total of 240 square inches. These are typical dimensions for the real estate signs that have been used universally. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, CHAPTER 12, SIGN REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING SECTION 12.229 REGULATING REAL ESTATE SIGNS; AMENDING SECTION 12.233 TO REGULATE AGGREGATE AREA OF TEMPORARY SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 12, Article 12.200, Section 12.229, of the Code of Ordinances, City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 12.229 Real Estate Signs in Residential Zones Real estate signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area, provided that riders or additional plates not exceeding two (2) in number and two hundred and forty (240) square inches in area in the aggregate may be attached. Such temporary signs shall be erected or constructed so that no portion thereof exceeds a height of four feet (4') from the ground. In addition, a temporary "Open" sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet in area, may be used on the property for a maximum of eight hours per day when the dwelling is open for public inspection. Real estate signs must be removed not later than ten (10) days after the transaction pursuant to which the property is sold or leased is closed." SECTION 2. That Chapter 12, Article 12.200, Section 12.233, of the Code of Ordinances, City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 12.233 Number of Signs Permitted in Residential Zones Only one sign of any type shall be permitted on any site, except for security protection signs, address signs, permitted flags, and political signs. The aggregate area of all temporary signs, excluding the area of authorized address signs and political signs, permitted on a lot in a residential zone shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet." SECTION 3. That all provisions of the Code of Ordinances of the City of University Park, Texas, in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same are hereby, repealed. SECTION 4. That should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance or of the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, be adjudged or held to be void or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of said ordinance or the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, which shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense, and each and every day any such violation shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 6. That this Ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of April, 2004. APPROVED: HAROLD PEEK, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/4-15-04) NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, CHAPTER 12, SIGN REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING SECTION 12.229 REGULATING REAL ESTATE SIGNS; AMENDING SECTION 12.233 TO REGULATE AGGREGATE AREA OF TEMPORARY SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day of April 2004. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AGENDA MEMO (4/21/04 AGENDA) April 14, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Wade McLaurin, Building & Zoning Administrator Commercial Building Heights BACKGROUND: Staff was asked to bring the commercial building height issue back to the City Council for discussion, specifically to receive direction regarding possible changes to the building and wall heights in Snider Plaza. The Planning & Zoning Commission made recommendations in the Spring of 2003 to amend the allowable building heights in Snider Plaza, the Miracle Mile, and in the General Retail districts along Hillcrest and Preston Road. As a result of concerns expressed by some of the commercial building owners, primarily in Snider Plaza, the Council asked staff to determine if any height or design alternatives might be available that would satisfy both the property owners and those concerned with possible excessive heights in the Plaza. While there has been no wording written for a possible ordinance to implement any such designs, we do have some conceptual wall details that were prepared by Taylor Armstrong that restrict building heights to no more than 45 feet, and still appear to maintain the ability to construct a three-story building. In addition, these details provide more favorable roof and facade designs. The ability to construct a building up to three-stories in height appears to be the primary concern of the majority property owners in the Plaza. The Urban Design and Advisory Committee (UDADAC) met on April 12, 2004 and agreed that the proposed 45 foot height limitation, along with prescribing a maximum wall height, would promote a more favorable result for any new construction that may take place within Snider Plaza. PUBLIC NOTICE: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff is asking for direction as to how to proceed in the passage and implementation of any new building height requirements. An amending ordinance must be taken to the Planning & Zoning Commission before returning to the Council. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 AGENDA MEMO (04/21/04 AGENDA) DATE: April 8, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor And City Council FROM: David Ledbetter, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Temporary Metal Building Extension I am requesting to temporarily extend the apparatus bay located next to the creek to allow sufficient room for the ladder truck to fit into the apparatus bay. The extension will be constructed with metal studs and sheet metal with a cost of less than $500.00. Due to the length of the ladder truck and the Mobile Intensive Care Unit (MICU) there is not enough room to walk between the two units. Currently, the rear bumper of the MICU has to be placed against the front bumper of the ladder truck to be able to shut the bay door fronting University Boulevard. However, due to the five-inch hose connector on the rear of the ladder truck the rear bay door cannot be closed. ! propose this as a temporary solution to comply with the Insurance Service Office (ISO) inspection to house all Fire Department fire apparatus in one location. This extension will only be for the duration it takes to build the new apparatus bays for the Fire Department. This extension will not interfere with traffic flow around the building for police officer's or maintenance personnel. The proposed extension will be 4 feet 6 inches in length X 15 feet wide X 12 feet in height. The sheet metal will match the current sheet metal colors used at the rear of the building which is dark brown. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the temporary extention. ATTACHMENTS: One (1) Sketch of building extention 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson. UNIVPARK\Local Settings~Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\agenda memorandum for Building Extention 042104.doc 2:09 PM 04/12/04 AGENDA MEMO (04-21-04 AGENDA) DATE: April 15, 2004 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Set Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 7:30 a.m. for a special City Council meeting. Background. Pursuant to the discussion at the 04.06.04 Council meeting, staff is requesting that the City Council call a special meeting to take action on bids received for the reconstruction of Lovers Lane. Discussion. Staff recommends action to set a special City Council meeting on May 19, 2004 at 7:30 a.m. at City Hall. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson. UNIVPARK\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3~AM Special CC Mtg 04 17 04.doc 9:00 AM 04/15/04