HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06-20-06 Names TabsA G E N D A
#2612
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2006 AT 5:00 P.M.
2:00-4:00 P.M. TRAINING SESSION ON OPEN MEETINGS AND OPEN RECORDS
4:00-5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW
I.INVOCATION
– Director of Human Resources Luanne Hanford
II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE –
Director of Human Resources Luanne Hanford
III.INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL
– Mayor James H. Holmes, III
IV.INTRODUCTION OF STAFF
– City Manager Bob Livingston
V.AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
DEPARTMENT PIN: Kate Smith, Administrative Assistant to City Manager, 2 years.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Proclamation by DART in appreciation for City’s
cooperation during past ten years of light rail service
VI.CONSENT AGENDA
A.CONSIDER: Ordinance Denying Atmos Gas 2005 GRIP Rate Request – Tab I Austin
B.CONSIDER: Resolution Denying Atmos System-Wide Rate Increase Request – Tab I
Austin
C.CONSIDER: Resolution Regarding “In-Kind Compensation” From Charter Cable –
Tab II Austin
D.CONSIDER: Resolution Approving Raymond D. Noah as Representative to DART
Board of Directors – Tab III Wilson
E.CONSIDER: Approval of Tele-Works Knowledgebase Software for 311 System –
Tab IV Criswell
F.CONSIDER: Purchase of Global Electric Motorcar for Parking Enforcement – Tab V
Adams
G.CONSIDER: Renewal of Liability, Property, Auto & Worker’s Compensation
Insurance – Tab VI Hanford
H.CONSIDER: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2006 – Tab VII
Smith
VII.MAIN AGENDA
A.PRESENTATION: By Charter Cable TV in Response to Community Survey –
Tab VIII Austin
B.PUBLIC HEARING: Request of Highland Park Independent School District for
Amendments to Joint Use Agreement and Potential Improvements/Upgrades to Track
and Existing Restroom Building at Germany Park – Tab IX Bradley
C.PUBLIC HEARING: Regarding Amending Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,
Section 28-105(2) (a) to Provide Fence Requirements in Side Yards in Residential
Districts – Tab X Persaud
D.CONSIDER: Ordinance to Provide Fence Requirements in Side Yards in Residential
Districts - Tab X Persaud
E.PUBLIC HEARING: To Approve Zoning Change at 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard
from Single Family Classification to Planned Development District and Approve Site
Plan to Allow Single Family Home with Specific Development Standards – Tab XI
Persaud
F.CONSIDER: Ordinance Approving Change of Zoning at 6601 Turtle Creek
Boulevard – Tab XI Persaud
G.CONSIDER: Request from Southern Methodist University to purchase Potomac Park
– Tab XII Livingston
H.DISCUSS: Recommendations from Advisory Committees Regarding Inset Parking –
Tab XIII Smallwood
I.CONSIDER: Lease Agreement with Metro PCS for Installation of Cellular
Equipment at Northwest Highway Water Tower Site – Tab XIV Speer
J.DISCUSS: Legacy/Hillcrest Planned Development Request and Provide Directions
Regarding Process – Tab XV Persaud
K.DISCUSS: Request from Reynolds Outdoors to Locate Information Kiosks in Snider
Plaza – Tab XVI Persaud
L.CONSIDER: Appointments of Statutory Boards and Advisory Committees
VIII.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.
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 XVII
REPORTS, BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
A.BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
B.EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
C.FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
D.PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for May 16, 2006
E.PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes for April 17, 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
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
DENYING THE REQUEST OF ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX
DIVISION, FOR AN ANNUAL GAS RELIABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM (GRIP) RATE INCREASE IN THIS MUNICIPALITY, AS A
PART OF THE COMPANY’S STATEWIDE GAS UTILITY
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM; APPROVING COOPERATION WITH
OTHER CITIES WITHIN THE ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX
DIVISION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AS PART OF THE ATMOS CITIES
STEERING COMMITTEE (ACSC); AUTHORIZING ACSC TO HIRE
LEGAL AND CONSULTING SERVICES AND TO NEGOTIATE WITH
THE COMPANY AND DIRECT ANY NECESSARY LITIGATION;
AUTHORIZING INTERVENTION AS PART OF ACSC IN ANY APPEAL
OF THE CITY’S ACTION TO THE RAILROAD COMMISSION;
PROVIDING A REQUIREMENT FOR A PROMPT REIMBURSEMENT
OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY; FINDING THAT THE MEETING
AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF THIS
ORDINANCE TO ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX DIVISION.
WHEREAS,
on or about March 30, 2006, Atmos Energy Corp., Mid-Tex Division, (the
“Company”) filed with the City a request for an annual gas reliability infrastructure program
(“GRIP”) rate increase for customers on the Company’s statewide gas utility system to be
effective May 30, 2006; and
WHEREAS,
the City has exclusive original jurisdiction to evaluate the Company’s
request as it pertains to the distribution facilities located within the City, pursuant to Texas
Utilities Code §§ 102.001(b) and 103.001; and
WHEREAS,
it is reasonable for the City to cooperate with other cities in a coalition of
cities in opposition to the Company’s filing at the Railroad Commission (“Commission”), said
coalition being known as Atmos Cities Steering Committee (“ACSC”), in any appeal of the
cities’ actions to the Commission; and
WHEREAS,
the Gas Utility Regulatory Act (“GURA”) grants local regulatory
authorities the right to intervene in rate proceedings filed at the Railroad Commission; and
WHEREAS,
the Texas Utilities Code § 103.022 provides that costs incurred by the City
in ratemaking activities are to be reimbursed by the regulated utility; and
WHEREAS,
counsel for ACSC, upon review of the Company’s filing and upon
consultation with various consultants, recommends finding that the Company’s proposal is
unjustified and unreasonable; and
1
1668\15\ord060531 Model Ordinance Denying
WHEREAS,
the Company has publicly stated that it will receive substantial profit in
2005 and that its expenses are substantially below those on which the GUD No. 9400 rates it is
charging were based; and
WHEREAS,
the Company’s GRIP request fails to account for growth in numbers of
customers, thereby undercounting the revenues it will receive from its proposed GRIP rate
increase; and
WHEREAS,
the Company’s GRIP request fails to recognize that GUD No. 9400 rates
included profit based on TXU Corporation’s capital structure rather than Atmos Energy Corp.’s
current capital structure, which justifies a lower rate of return; and
WHEREAS,
under the provisions of § 104.301 of GURA, the interim rate adjustment is
subject to true-up in a general rate case filed within five years of the effective date of the interim
rate surcharge; and
WHEREAS,
the Company has, on May 31, 2006, filed a Statement of Intent to increase
its distribution rates on a system-wide basis, using calendar year ending December 31, 2005, as
its test year; and
WHEREAS,
the capital investment made by Atmos during 2005 will be reviewed in the
Statement of Intent filing, making the 2005 GRIP filing superfluous, duplicative, and
unnecessary;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the Company’s GRIP rate increase request is found to be
unreasonable, superfluous, duplicative, and unnecessary, and is therefore denied in all respects.
SECTION 2. That the City is authorized to cooperate with other Cities within the
Company’s Distribution System that have formed ACSC to hire and direct legal counsel and
consultants, negotiate with the Company, make recommendations to the City regarding
reasonable rates, and to direct any necessary litigation associated with an appeal of a rate
ordinance and the rate case filed at the Commission.
SECTION 3. That the costs incurred by the City in reviewing the Company’s GRIP
request shall be promptly reimbursed by the Company.
SECTION 4. That the City is authorized to intervene in any appeal of the City’s action
filed at the Commission and any related litigation, and to participate in any such appeal or
litigation as a member of ACSC.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately from and after its
passage, as the law and charter in such cases provide.
2
1668\15\ord060531 Model Ordinance Denying
SECTION 6. That it is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which
this Ordinance is passed is open to the public as required by law and that public notice of the
time, place and purpose of said meeting was given as required.
SECTION 7. A copy of this ordinance, constituting final action on the Company’s
application, be forwarded to the following:
Richard T. Reis
Atmos Energy Corporation
5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75240
Lloyd Gosselink Blevins Rochelle & Townsend
c/o Geoffrey Gay
P.O. Box 1725
Austin, Texas 78767-1725.
DULY PASSED
and approved by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas,
on this the 20th day of June, 2006.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
James H. Holmes, III, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Nina Wilson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
City Attorney
3
1668\15\ord060531 Model Ordinance Denying
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
DENYING ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX DIVISION’S
STATEMENT OF INTENT TO INCREASE THE GAS UTILITY RATES
IN THIS MUNICIPALITY; SUPPORTING THE REDUCTION OF
EXISTING NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION RATES CURRENTLY
CHARGED BY ATMOS MID-TEX WITHIN THE CITY; ORDERING
ATMOS MID-TEX TO REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR ITS REASONABLE
COSTS INCURRED IN RATEMAKING PROCEEDINGS OR APPEALS
OF SAID PROCEEDINGS; AUTHORIZING THE ATMOS CITIES
STEERING COMMITTEE TO ACT ON BEHALF OF CITY AND
INTERVENE IN ANY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE OR
JUDICIAL BODIES; REQUIRING DELIVERY OF THIS RESOLUTION
TO THE COMPANY AND LEGAL COUNSEL; AND FINDING THAT
THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED IS OPEN
TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
WHEREAS,
the City of University Park, Texas (“City”) is a regulatory authority under
the Gas Utility Regulatory Act (“GURA”) and has original jurisdiction over the gas utility rates
of Atmos Energy Corp., Mid-Tex Division (the “Company”); and
WHEREAS,
the City, along with 87 other Atmos Cities Steering Committee (“ACSC”)
cities, exercised its authority under §§ 103.001 and 104.151, GURA, to initiate a proceeding to
determine whether the existing rates of the Company were unreasonable or in any way in
violation of any provision of law and ordered the Company to show cause regarding the
reasonableness of its existing natural gas distribution rates within the City; and
WHEREAS,
the Company filed its rate filing package with the City in response to the
City’s order on or about December 31, 2005, and the City’s representatives obtained additional
information from the Company through written requests for information; and
WHEREAS,
the City’s consultants and representatives, through cooperative efforts and
under the direction of the ACSC, reviewed the information and recommended that the City
reduce the rates charged by the Company within the City; and
1
1668\14\res060601kpd Denial Res for SC Cities
WHEREAS,
by its own action pursuant to GURA § 104.151(a) or by procedural
agreement with the Company, the City reduced the current natural gas rates charged by the
Company within the City effective May 31, 2006; and
WHEREAS,
the Company has bonded in its existing rates with the Railroad
Commission as part of its appeal of rates set by ACSC cities; and
WHEREAS,
as part of its appeal of city rate actions taken by ACSC members, the
Company filed a Statement of Intent to Increase the Gas Utility Rates within the City effective
July 5, 2006; and
WHEREAS,
the Company’s request is unreasonable based upon the information already
reviewed by the City in response to its action initiating the show cause action;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the Statement of Intent to Increase Gas Utility Rates filed by the
Company on or about May 31, 2006, and effective July 5, 2006, is hereby denied.
SECTION 2. That the reduction to current rates previously adopted by the City pursuant
to ordinance or agreement with the Company is just and reasonable.
SECTION 3. That the City is authorized to intervene in any appeal of the City’s action
filed at the Railroad Commission of Texas and to otherwise participate in any litigation
associated with the Company’s rates charged in the City, in conjunction with the ACSC.
SECTION 4. That the Company shall promptly reimburse ACSC for ratemaking costs
associated with the City’s activities related to the show cause proceeding and/or the denial of the
Statement of Intent including appeals to the Railroad Commission or Courts, in accordance with
GURA § 103.022.
2
1668\14\res060601kpd Denial Res for SC Cities
SECTION 5. That a copy of this Resolution shall be sent to the Company, care of
Richard T. Reis, at Atmos Energy Corporation, 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas
75240, and to Geoffrey Gay, legal counsel to ACSC, at Lloyd Gosselink, P.O. Box 1725, Austin,
Texas 78767-1725.
SECTION 6. That it is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which
this Resolution is adopted is open to the public as required by law and that public notice of the
time, place and purpose of said meeting was given as required.
DULY PASSED
and approved by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas,
on this the 20th day of June, 2006.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
James H. Holmes, III, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Nina Wilson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
City Attorney
3
1668\14\res060601kpd Denial Res for SC Cities
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/2006 AGENDA)
DATE: June 15, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Resolution regarding “in-kind compensation” from Charter Cable
Background/Analysis
State legislation (known as SB5) approved last year provides for a 5% franchise fee to be paid
by cable TV providers to cities who formerly received a local franchise fee. University Park’s
expired franchise required this same fee, equivalent to 5% of gross revenues earned within the
city. A secondary provision of SB5 allows cities to collect an additional 1% fee as
replacement for any “in-kind services” that cable operators may have been providing cities.
For example, if a city’s old franchise required the cable company provide studio equipment or
facilities in addition to the 5% franchise fee, that city could now request an additional 1% fee
to offset the loss of these in-kind services.
University Park did not require any in-kind services of Charter Cable while the franchise
agreement was in effect. Given this background, Charter has requested that the City approve
a resolution stating that the additional 1% fee is not required.
Recommendation
City staff recommends that the Council approve the attached resolution that continues the 5%
franchise fee without the additional 1%.
Attachments:
Resolution
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AGENDA MEMO 06-20-06 No 2.doc
12:33 PM 06/15/06
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ELECTING TO RECEIVE THE
PER SUBSCRIBER FEES PAID TO THE CITY UNDER THE
EXPIRED CABLE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH MARCUS
CABLE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. D/B/A CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS IN LIEU OF IN-KIND COMPENSATION
AND GRANTS.
WHEREAS,
Marcus Cable Associates, L.L.C. d/b/a Charter Communications
(“Charter”) currently operates a cable franchise television system pursuant to a franchise
granted by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on March 15, 1995 by
Ordinance No. 95/11 and extended by Ordinance No. 05/07 adopted on March 1, 2005
(collectively, “franchise agreement”); and
WHEREAS,
said franchise agreement between the City and Charter has expired;
and
WHEREAS,
on February 17, 2006, Charter was granted a certificate of franchise
authority from the Public Utility Commission of Texas for the provision of cable services
within the City of University Park; and
WHEREAS,
Section 66.005 of the Public Utility and Regulatory Act requires the
holder of a certificate of franchise authority to pay a franchise fee of five percent of gross
revenues, as defined by state law; and
WHEREAS,
Section 66.006(b) of the Public Utility and Regulatory Act grants
municipalities the authority to elect to receive one percent of a cable service provider’s
gross revenues in lieu of in-kind contributions or the per subscriber fee that was paid to it
under the expired incumbent cable service provider’s agreement; and
WHEREAS,
the holder of a state-issued certificate is entitled to recover any fee
imposed by the state and paid to the municipality from the cable service provider’s
customers; and
WHEREAS,
the City does not wish to enact a new fee on residents who are
Charter customers;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
1. In lieu of in-kind contributions and grants, the City Council elects to
receive the same payment on a per-subscriber basis as required by Charter’s expired
franchise agreement.
2. The City Council acknowledges that Charter did not pay a per-subscriber
fee to the City under the expired franchise agreement.
3. The City Council does not require Charter to collect from subscribers in
the City of University Park any additional in-kind compensation or grants beyond the 5%
franchise fee required by state law.
4. Charter shall not be required to remit to the City of University Park, any
additional in-kind compensation or grants beyond the 5% franchise fee pursuant to
Section 66.006(b) of the Public Utility and Regulatory Act.
5. The City Manager shall send a certified copy of this Resolution to the
Company.
6. This Resolution takes affect immediately upon its adoption.
ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF June, 2006.
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK
By: ____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/06 AGENDA)
DATE:
June 15, 2006
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Nina Wilson
City Secretary
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NAMING RAYMOND D. NOAH TO DART BOARD
A resolution in 1994 established a method of and appointment to a shared position on the
DART Board of Directors. The resolution presented today would affirm an agreement
with the cities of Addison, Richardson and The Town of Highland Park regarding that
selection process. As the City of Richardson has submitted the name of Raymond D.
Noah as the individual to serve in this position, the attached resolution concurs and
approves that appointment.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is staff’s recommendation that the resolution to appoint Raymond D. Noah to the
DART Board of Directors be passed.
ATTACHMENT:
Resolution
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
U:\Docs\City Secretary\2006\Memo for DART Board of Directors.doc 1:12 PM 06/15/06
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
AFFIRMING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES OF ADDISON,
RICHARDSON AND HIGHLAND PARK REGARDING THE SELECTION
PROCESS FOR A SHARED MEMBER TO THE DALLAS AREA RAPID
TRANSIT (DART) BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO APPROVE A CANDIDATE FOR BOARD MEMBER.
WHEREAS,
Resolution No.94-8 of the City Council of the City of University Park
establishes a method for creation of and appointment to a shared position on the DART
Board of Directors; and
WHEREAS,
it is the desire of the University Park City Council to continue using the
method established in Resolution No. 94-8; and
WHEREAS,
the City of Richardson has submitted the name of Raymond D. Noah as the
NOW, THEREFORE,
individual to serve in this position;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1:
That the City Council of the City of University Park hereby concurs with and
hereby approves the appointment of Raymond D. Noah to the DART Board of Directors as
nominated by the City of Richardson.
SECTION 2:
That the other provisions of Resolution No. 94-8 continue to apply.
SECTION 3:
This Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its adoption.
DULY PASSED AND APPROVED
by the City Council of the City of University
th
Park, Texas, on this the 20 day of June 2006.
APPROVED:
JAMES H. HOLMES, III
MAYOR
ATTEST:
NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/06 AGENDA)
DATE: June 15, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jim Criswell, Director of Information Services
SUBJECT: Tele-Works Knowledgebase Software for 311 System
BACKGROUND:
To implement a comprehensive 311 Information System requires four major
components.
1.Creation of the relationship by SBC of the 311 number with all land line
telephone numbers for addresses within the City of University Park.
2.Installation of Automated Call Distribution and reporting software on the
City’s Nortel telephone switch to route the incoming 311 call to the
appropriate call taker position.
3.Installation of the customer service and work order software to be used in
routing the requests for service to the appropriate City department.
4.Installation of a knowledgebase software system to house the frequently
asked questions that come from the caller, but do not require the City to
perform work.
Components 1, 2, and 3 have previously been established, and Staff has been
researching the proper solution for a knowledgebase system. Since late 1997, the
City has offered a dialup service called CUPID where a citizen can get voice
responses to a number of predefined questions. This product was provided by Tele-
Works and has worked very well in its limited capacity. In searching for a
knowledgebase system for 311, Tele-Works proposed a system upgrade for our
CUPID system to the eVision 5.0 platform. The enhanced product will provide the
database of frequently asked questions, with full online search capability, accessible
by phone, through the City website, or internally by a 311 call taker. The database
of responses may be easily updated as new issues arise, or the City responses change.
Using a “text-to-speech” capability, the same database is used to support phone
requests. The fact that one data repository will support phone, website, and 311 call
taker requests, and the fact that the City has had a long and successful relationship
Tele-Works Knowledgebase Software for 311 System Page 2
with Tele-Works, the eVision product is the logical choice for the last component
needed for the 311 implementation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the purchase of the Tele-Works equipment and software totaling
$23,800 as outlined below.
eVision platform hardware and software $19,000
eVision annual maintenance $4,800
Funds are available in the Capital Projects Fund for project 13110 - 3-1-1 System.
AGENDA MEMO
(6/20/06 AGENDA)
DATE:
June 13, 2006
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Gary W. Adams, Chief of Police
SUBJECT:
Purchase of GEM Car - Parking Enforcement Vehicle
Background/Analysis
The Police Department has approved two part-time parking enforcement officers to enforce
parking in and around Snider Plaza. The Police Department requested that Jim Gau and
Christine Green obtain pricing on a GEM (Global Electric Motorcar) to be used as a second
parking enforcement vehicle.
The GEM is available on State Contract 070-A1 (Automobiles and Trucks) through Randall
Noe Chrysler Dodge Jeep in Terrell, Texas for $11,119.00. A higher quote was received from
Allen Samuels Dodge Hyandai in the amount of $11,449.00 (+$330) for comparison.
Purchases from a state contract fulfill all competitive bidding requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the state contract purchase of the GEM car in the amount of $11,119.00
from Randall Noe Chrysler Dodge Jeep.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\GEM Parking Enforcement Vehicle memo.doc
8:32 AM 06/15/06
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/06 AGENDA)
DATE:
June 13, 2006
TO: City Council
FROM: Luanne Hanford
SUBJECT: Renewal of Liability, Property, Auto & Worker’s Comp Insurance
The City’s insurance coverage for Liability, Property, Auto and Worker’s Compensation
expires on July 1, 2006. Renewal proposals were solicited from Texas Municipal League
Inter-Governmental Risk Pool (TML-IRP), the City’s current insurance carrier, Arthur J.
Gallagher, the City’s former insurance broker, and Merit Insurance. The renewal proposal
from TML-IRP is $287,868, less than 1% higher than last year’s premiums of $286,274.
Arthur J. Gallagher and Merit Insurance declined to submit proposals.
The Property, Casualty & Liability Insurance Committee met on June 13, 2006, to review
the proposal from TML-IRP. The committee recommends approval of the proposal from
TML-IRP in the amount of $287,868.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve renewal of the city’s Liability, Property, Auto, and Worker’s Compensation
Insurance with Texas Municipal League Inter-Governmental Risk Pool in the amount of
$287,868.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AGENDAMEMO (14).doc 10:32 AM 06/13/06
MINUTES
Property, Casualty & Liability Insurance Committee
Tuesday, June 13,2006
A meeting of the Property, Casualty & Liability Insmance Committee was held on
Tuesday, June 13, 2006. Attending the meeting were Chairman Frank Swingle and Scott
Ragland. Also at the meeting were City Manager Bob Livingston and Director of Human
Resources Luanne Hanford. Committee members Kevin Curley, John Palter, and Bruce
Klingman were absent.
Chairman Swingle called the meeting to order at 7:50 am. Ms. Hanford told the
committee that Arthur J. Gallagher, the city's former insurance broker, and Merit
Insurance had declined to submit proposals stating they could not provide a proposal that
would be competitive with the Texas Municipal League Inter-Governmental Risk Pool
(TML-IRP). The renewal proposal from TML-IRP, the city's current carrier, is $1,594
higher than last year's premiums. Last year, the city paid $286,274 in premiums; the
renewal for 2006-07 is $287,868. Mr. Swingle and Mr. Ragland discussed the experience
modifier used for the Worker's Compensation quote. Mr. Swingle asked Ms. Hanford to
obtain loss runs from Gallagher Bassett for the past five years to review with the
possibility of improving the experience modifier for next year. Claims for the past year
were reviewed, and Mr. Swingle remarked that claims were very low. After further
discussion, Mr. Ragland moved to recommend approval of the TML-IRP proposal in the
amount of $287,868. Mr. Swingle seconded the motion, and the vote in favor was
unanimous.
The committee members then reviewed the most recent fund report for the Self-Insurance
Fund. Mr. Swingle asked Mr. Livingston how the city's health plan was doing. Mr.
Livingston responded that it did well last year and that it was close to breaking even so
far this year.
ess to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 am.
MINUTES
#2611
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY JUNE 6, 2006, 5:00 P.M.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mayor Blackie Holmes convened the City Council into an Executive
Session in the City Hall Conference Room at 3:05 p.m. to receive legal advice from the City
Attorney under Section 551.071 of the Government Code. The Executive Session closed at 3:50
p.m. No action was voted on or taken during the meeting.
Mayor Blackie Holmes then opened the regular meeting of the city council at 5:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Harry Shawver and Councilmembers Syd
Carter, Kelly Walker and Jerry Grable. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston,
Acting City Attorney Louis Nichols and Deputy City Secretary Kate Smith. City Secretary Nina
Wilson was absent and excused.
AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
PRESENTATION: Matt Grubisich, Regional Urban Forester with the Texas ForestService
recognized the City of University Park as a Tree City USA recipient. Mr. Grubisich stated that
Tree City USA was begun by the National Arbor Foundation and that approximately 72 cities in
the state of Texas have qualified for this award. Mayor Holmes accepted the award on behalf of
the City.
PROCLAMATION: The University Park Public Library was presented a proclamation
th
recognizing the library’s 5 Birthday. Councilmember Walker made the presentation and the
Friends of the Library accepted the award.
RETIREMENT: Police Chief Gary Adams introduced Police Sergeant Bill Hawkins. He was
presented with a retirement check and plaque by Councilmember Shawver
RECOGNITION: Police Chief Gary Adams recognized the promotion of two officers to the rank
of Sergeant. Chief Adams presented Officers Greg Spradlin and John Mutchler with their new
Sergeant badges and chevrons.
Councilmember Walker moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Carter
seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following:
CONSENT AGENDA
REVIEW QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTS AND INVESTMENT REPORT: Director of
Finance Kent Austin reviewed the January-March 2006 City investment reports and the April
2006 (FY2006 YTD) financial report. The reports show budget-to-actual activity by fund and
department, and a narrative is also provided to highlight notable events and trends. The
investment report provides an overview of the City’s total portfolio.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CAPP TO NEGOTIATE AN ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR THE CITY FOR 2007: University Park has been a member of
CAPP since its formation in 2001. For 2002 and 2003, CAPP selected First Choice Power as the
cities’ retail electric provider (REP). For 2004, the contract was awarded to TXU Energy, and
for 2005 and 2006, Direct Energy Business Systems has been CAPP’s electric provider.
By participating in CAPP, University Park has achieved savings of from 10% to 33% of the
“Price to Beat” (PTB), or default, electric price. This resolution authorizes the CAPP Chairman
to act as an agent in binding each CAPP member to a power contract for 2007-2008.
RESOLUTION NO. 06/09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE
CITIES AGGREGATION POWER PROJECT, INC. TO NEGOTIATE AN ELECTRIC
SUPPLY AGREEMENT FOR DELIVERIES OF ELECTRICITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,
2007; AUTHORIZING CAPP TO ACT AS AN AGENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR ELECTRICITY; AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
CAPP TO EXECUTE AN ELECTRIC SUPPLY AGREEMENT FOR DELIVERIES OF
ELECTRICITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2007; AND COMMITTING TO BUDGET FOR
ENERGY PURCHASES IN 2007 AND 2008 AND TO HONOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK’S COMMITMENTS TO PURCHASE POWER FOR ITS ELECTRICAL NEEDS IN
2007 AND 2008 THROUGH CAPP.
CONSIDER PROPOSAL FROM MORAN & MURPHY ARCHIITECTS, INC. TO PROVIDE
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE PEEK SERVICE CENTER: The City Hall project will require certain staff to vacate their
offices during the renovation of the existing building. After considerable discussion, the most
efficient use of facilities would be to temporarily relocate the Police Department, including
Dispatch Services, to the Peek Service Center. Additionally, the Police Chief and Fire Chief have
requested the construction of a permanent backup dispatch center so we would remain
operational in the case of a catastrophic event at City Hall. Staff solicited a proposal from Moran
& Murphy Architects to provide professional services in designing the proposed improvements.
The proposal from Moran & Murphy Architects is in the amount of $31,700.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For May 23, 2006.
MAIN AGENDA
CONSIDER SETTING DATE FOR DELIVERY OF FINALIZED STUDY OF INITIAL
REPORT REGARDING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF TXU 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE:
The City’s consulting engineer, Sega, hired to perform an underground utility feasibility study, is
in the process of completing the final report. Representatives from Sega are unavailable to
th
attend the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on June 20; therefore, staff requests
th
Council set a special meeting on Tuesday, June 27, to have representatives from Sega formally
present the results of the study to the Council and general public. The initial date of the formal
th
presentation was set for June 6; however, after visiting with staff and members of the Steering
Committee, more time was necessary to make reco mmended changes to the report.
th
Councilmember Shawver moved approval of June 27 for the special meeting. Councilmember
Grable seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the date for a special meeting.
CONSIDER LEASE AGREEMENT WITH METRO PCS TO INSTALL CELLULAR
EQUIPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST HIGHWAY WATER TOWER: Representatives of
Metro PCS, a wireless communications provider, approached the City regarding the possibility
of locating cellular antennae and associated equipment on and around the water tower in the
3500 block of Northwest Parkway. Staff reviewed and modified the proposed lease agreement
and construction plans. The primary components of the lease agreement are as follows: Term: 5
years, Renewal: 4 additional 5-year terms, Rent: $2,000 per month with a 3% annual escalator,
Lease Area: 10’ x 12’ area for equipment and 6 antennas on the tower pedestal, Termination:
Upon 90 days written notice by either party, Insurance: $4 million of commercial general
liability (cost to replace tower). The provisions of this lease are comparable to those of the
cellular providers utilizing the City Hall site. The City Council requested that several revisions
th
be made to the contract and the item be continued to the June 20 City Council Agenda.
RECEIVE FY2005 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT AND AUDITOR
MANAGEMENT LETTER COMMENTS: The FY2005 published financial statements, known
as the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report), represent the third year of statements
compliant with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34
standard. The City’s external auditors, Weaver & Tidwell LLP, provided the discussion of the
FY2005 MLC. The FY2005 MLC is even briefer than last year’s letter and contains no
comments requiring major corrections or changes. Councilmember Carter moved approval of
the acknowledgement of receipt of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and MLC.
Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to receive and approve receipt
of the CAFR and MLC.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING FY2006 BUDGET: This ordinance would amend the
FY2006 budget to approve specific funding requests not included in the adopted FY2006 budget.
The amendment would increase authorized expenditures in the General Fund by $199,890 and
increase budgeted revenues in the General Fund by $9,855. Among the specific items are
$60,000 for the power line study, $36,715 for police equipment, $22,500 for a new mowing
contract, $12,000 for an electric parking enforcement vehicle, and $11,500 for a speed measuring
trailer. Also included is money for the purchase of Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs).
Councilmember Carter moved approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Walker seconded, and
the vote was unanimous to amend the FY2006 budget.
ORDINANCE NO. 06/12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE
2005-2006 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET, ORDINANCE NO. 05/31, TO APPROPRIATE $190,035
FROM THE GENERAL FUND UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE BY INCREASING
EXPENDITURES $199,890 AND INCREASING REVENUES $9,855; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO ABANDON RIGHT-OF-WAY AT ARMSTRONG
PARKWAY AND POTOMAC: Staff asked the City Attorney to draft an ordinance abandoning
1,045.44 square feet of an Armstrong Parkway right-of-way (ROW) along the west side of 4368
Mockingbird Parkway. Following Council action, the property owners, Kenneth E. and Darla J.
Reimer, will need to provide payment of fair market value (FMV) for the abandoned ROW in
accordance with the following: FMV=1,045.44 SF @ $42.3736/ SF=$44,299.06. Upon receipt
of the aforementioned FMV, the City will provide a certified copy of the abandonment
ordinance, which must be filed with Dallas County. The subject ROW parcel must then be
consolidated with the residential lot on which the residence is located through an amending plat.
Councilmember Walker moved approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Shawver seconded,
and the vote was unanimous to abandon the right-of-way at Armstong and Potomac.
ORDINANCE NO. 06/13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ABANDONING A
PORTION OF THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARMSTRONG PARKWAY, AS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A”, TO THE ABUTTING OWNERS, IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE PAYMENT OF $44,288.06 TO THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR
THE FURNISHING OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR RECORDING IN
THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS A QUITCLAIM
DEED OF THE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CONSIDER: AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BASED ON BIDS
RECEIVED FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT FOR 4100-4300
BLOCKS OF SHENANDOAH/STANHOPE ALLEYS: The locations to be included in this
project are: Stanhope/Shenandoah Alley from Armstrong to Preston (41-4300 blocks) and
Shenandoah from Armstrong to Douglas (42-4300 blocks). This project will also include an 8”
fire line for the 4200-4300 blocks of Shenandoah to take the fire hydrant off of the water line in
the alley. Two bids were submitted, the lowest being North Texas Contracting for a total amount
of $1,545,992. Councilmember Grable moved approval of the bid for Project No. 47100.
Councilmember Carter seconded and the vote was unanimous to approve the bid from North
Texas Contracting in the amount of $1,545,992.
ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
Mr. Max Fuqua, 7615 Lovers Lane, stated that there are two issues negatively affecting residents
on Lovers Lane since reconstruction of the street. First, there are a large number of expansion
joints that have created a new layer of noise. He would like for these joints to be inspected.
Second, there has been an increase in heavy truck traffic and believes it is because appropriate
trucking route signs are not currently posted. He stated that the signs were not replaced at
Lovers Lane and Boedeker nor Lovers Lane and US 75 following construction, and he would
like them replaced. Director of Pubic Works Bud Smallwood will look into these two issues.
Ms. Kitty Ritchie Holleman, 3939 Marquette, spoke in opposition to McMansions. Ms.
Holleman wanted to know if the City had done research on what other communities are doing on
this issue. She also stated that the increase in area of concrete has caused drainage issues in the
community. Mayor Holmes told Ms. Holleman that the City will hold a public hearing on this
issue and that residents, builders and realtors will all be invited to attend.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of June 2006.
James H. Holmes III, Mayor
ATTEST:
____
Kate Smith, Deputy City Secretary
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/2006 AGENDA)
DATE: June 15, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Rescheduled Charter Cable TV appearance at June 20 City Council meeting
Background/Analysis
As you know, Charter Communications is the sole cable TV provider in University Park and
Highland Park. Charter is the successor to Marcus Cable and Sammons Communications. To
prepare for franchise renewal discussions with Charter, beginning in 2004 City staff met with
members of the Cable TV Franchise Review Advisory Group (FRAG). Membership in FRAG
was composed of HP and UP residents appointed by their respective City Councils.
FRAG commissioned a telephone survey of both communities to determine current attitudes
toward Charter, as well as future needs related to cable and other services. The Dallas
Marketing Group conducted the survey last summer and briefed FRAG members on the
results last fall. As expected by FRAG, the survey results reported high levels of
dissatisfaction with Charter’s service. City staff presented the complete results of the
community survey to Charter early this year
Before the University Park franchise could be renewed last year, state legislation changed so
that cable operators and other video providers need only obtain a statewide franchise, not a
local one. Despite the lack of direct franchise authority, the City still acts as an advocate for
customers and encourages Charter to improve its services. Toward that end, the City has
invited Charter to attend the June 20 Council meeting (postponed from April 20) and provide
a response to the survey findings.
Recommendation
City staff recommends that the Council provide Charter an opportunity to respond to the
survey in a public forum. Kevin Allen, Governmental Relations Manager for Charter, will
th
attend the June 20 meeting to give Charter’s response.
Attachments:
News release from City of University Park, 4/10/2006
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AGENDA MEMO 06-20-06.doc
12:27 PM 06/15/06
City of University Park
News & Information
April 10, 2006
Charter Cable to address Cable Service Concerns
Last summer, in a telephone survey of University Park and Highland Park residents, only
about 35 percent said they were satisfied with the “value” of their cable subscription.
Moreover, in that same survey, only about half of the respondents (54%), who said they
had called Charter Cable with service concerns, reported satisfaction with the way those
concerns were addressed.
With these and other findings as a backdrop, Charter Cable representatives will update
the City Council on efforts to improve customer concerns during the Council’s April 20
meeting.
Additional Survey Background:
Conducted by The Dallas Marketing Group, at the request of the Cable TV Franchise
Review Advisory Group, the telephone survey involved 425 Park Cities residents. Of
that number, 350 were Charter Cable subscribers, and 175 of those subscribers were
residents of University Park. Among the other key survey findings:
?
Of ten service problems, almost half the subscribers (49%) experienced
intermittent loss of Internet at least five times in the preceding two years.
Other frequent problems:
Partial channel loss (42%)
o
Total Internet loss (40%)
o
Degraded picture (37%)
o
Slow Internet (37%)
o
Loss of e-mail service (33%)
o
Total cable TV outage (32%)
o
?
More than half (57%) of the non-subscribers had previously subscribed to a
cable service, and had done so for an average of 6.7 years. The most
common reasons for dropping: Cost (51%) and Service (47%). A third of
those questioned (35%) dropped cable service due to reception problems.
?
Of the 20 attributes associated with cable service, only two had significant
scores higher than 70 percent: Bill Accuracy (85%), and Availability of the
Programming you want (77%).
(More)
Charter Cable has been University Park’s provider of cable service since 1999 and was
preceded by Marcus Cable and Sammons Communications. University Park granted
the original cable franchise to Sammons in 1978. State legislation approved in 2005
now allows cable TV providers to obtain a statewide franchise agreement instead of a
local one. While the City of University Park no longer has franchise authority over
Charter, the City still acts as an advocate for residents in cable matters.
To see a more detailed presentation of the survey findings, go to the City’s Web site at
www.uptexas.org and click on the link in the “University Park News” section.
For More Information:
Steve Mace
Community Information Officer
214-987-5301
smace@uptexas.org
19
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/2006 AGENDA)
DATE:
June 10, 2006
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - HPISD Request - Germany Park
BACKGROUND:
The City of University Park has been approached by the HPISD to discuss two
separate items involving the use of Germany Park. The items include
amendments to the Joint Use Agreement of Germany Park (which is due for
renewal in August 2006) and potential improvements/upgrades to the track and
existing restroom building.
During the May 9, 2006 City Council meeting, staff was directed by City Council
to advertise a Public Hearing for the HPISD requests to be scheduled during the
June 20, 2006 Council meeting. Staff has advertised the public hearing in the
newspaper and notified residents located within 200 feet of the park site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is requesting direction from City Council on how to proceed with the HPISD
request.
ATTACHMENTS:
Letter of Request from HPISD
Existing Joint Use Agreement
Proposed Facility Improvements - Exhibits
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
HIGHLAND PARK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
7015 Westchester Drive. Dallas Texas 75205
(214) 780-3000 Fax (214) 780-3099
www.hpisd.org
(Via Hand Deliverv)
Apri I 25, 2006
Mr. Bob Livingston
City Manager
City of University Park
4420 Worcola
Dallas, Texas 75206
Mr. James Holmes,
Honorable Mayor, City of University Park
3800 University Blvd.
University Park, Texas 75205
Re: Agreement for Joint Use of Germany Park (copy attached)
Gentlemen:
We at HPlSD are extremely thankful for the almost 30 year "joint use" relationship we've shared with
the City of University Park and its Residents regarding Germany Park. Over the years, beginning in
1976, we have jointly modified and extended our Agreement as improvements have been made and
uses further defined.
It is now time, once again, to do the same!
The following terms and conditions are "in-line" with the various and recent conversations and
meetings that have occurred.
As we are anxious to immediately begin our fund-raising endeavor for the proposed improvements and
hopefully construct them over the summer, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest
convenience regarding any aspect of our request.
3800 UNIVERSllY BOULEVARD
UNIVERSllY PARK, TEXAS 75205
TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
Terms and Conditions
We suggest the following:
1. That paragraph c:P of the Agreement is changed to reflect an extension of 20 years.
2. That paragraph 3 of the Agreement is changed to reflect that "all 6 lanes" of the track are
the exclusive use ofHPISD during the time period specified in the Agreement.
3. A paragraph should be added to allow for the construction of the new improvements
(MONDO track surface and HPISD Track Team Facility) as contemplated in the attached
"Exhibit A".
Again, we look forward to another 20 years.
Sincerely,
/") / 1;/
~ P--- i-i tuv
.; L. Ben Coker
Assistant Superintendent
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Randy Allen, Athletic Director ofHPISD
Mr. Jerry Sutterfield, Women's Athletic Director ofHPISD
Mr. Houston Hunt, HPISD Board Member
Mr. Bud Smallwood, Director of Public Works - City of University Park
Mr. Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks - City of University Park
02/10/98
10:06
"5'2149875399
CITY U:"1IV PARK
IaJ 002
AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE OF GERMANY PARK
STATE OF TEXAS Ii
Ii
COUNTY OE DALLAS S
This Agreement, made and entered into on this
5th
day of
March
, 1991, by and between the city of university Park,
a home rule municipal corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Texas, hereinafter called "First Party" and
the Highland Park Independent School District, an independent
school district orgainized and existing under the laws of the State
of Texas, hereinafter called "Second Party,"
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, First Party and Sllcond Party have heretofore entered
into Agreements for the joint u~e, development, and maintenance of
Germany Park: and
WHEREAS, such Agreements expire on August 19, 1992: and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify and extend such
Agreements as provided herein:
NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
First Party and Second Party, for and in consideration of the
premises and other good and valuable consideration, hereby agree as
follows:
1. This Agreement is to begin on August 20, 1991, and run
through August 19, 2006, provided that the Agreement for Joint Use
of Park "A" and Agreement for Development and Maintenance of Park
"A" entered into by and between First Party and Second Party on
August 19, 1.976, as modified, shall remain in full force and effect
until the effective date hereOf.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
02/10/98 10:06
'fi'2149675399
GITI UNIV l'iUm
"I*l vvoJ
2. Germany Park is the property of First Party and shall be
operated and maintained by First Party, save and except for the
maintenance and repair of the track, field events area, and
storage-restroom building, whi.ch shall be the responsibility of
Second Party.
3. Subject to the provisions hereinafter set forth, during
the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. of each day, except saturdays
and sundays, from the beginning of the fall term to the end of the
spring term of the school program of Second Party, Second Party
shall have accesS to the track and playing fields and shall have
exclusive use thereof, provided that the two (2) outside lanes of
the track shall be reserved for use by the general public during
such hours, and Second Party shall have exclusive use of the four
(4) inside lanes. Should the school athletic schedule change by
necessity, the parties shall work out a mutually agreeable time to
give Second party access for three (3) hours per day when needed by
its athletic program.
4. Second Party shall also have exclusive use of the track,
field events area, and playing field for competitive events which
may be held on not more than ten (10) days during the school year,
provided Second Party shall give notice to First Party at least
thirty {30} days in advance of its need for the exclusive use of
said facilities.
5. In connection with the Agreement, First Party will:
a. Furnish water and electricity for the storage-
restroom building at the north end of the park,
provided that the restroom facility shall be used
and maintained for school practice and competitive
-2-
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
02/10/98
',.
Jfd.
UP Mayor
!JJ1I ~ ~d.
10:07
U2149875399
CiTY UN1V t'Al<K
~UU4
events only and will not be operated as a public
restroom during such time as it is not supervised
by school personnel.
b. Maintain all landscaping, exercise stations, fence,
soccer field and goals, tennis courts, parking lot,
water fountains, and bleachers.
6. In connection with this Agreement, Second party will:
a. Repair and maintain the track, field events area,
and the storage-restroom building, including the
repair and replacement,
when ne~ded,
of the
artificial surface of the track.
b. Have priority rights on the .use of' the field and
track at times other than specified herein,
provided that sufficient advance notice is given to
First Party, and further provided that Second party
is reasonable in its requests and respects the
needs of the public in its use of the park.
c. Not establish, Inaintain, operate, nor permit any
concessions for the sale of food or beverages of
any kind or character in the park.
d. Not establish, maintain, nor operate any loud
speaker system, as a fixture, on any of the park
premises.
e. Not increase the capacity for seating of spectators
to more than two hundred (200) places.
f~ot~Install or permit the installation of any lighting
other than the low intensity lighting presently in
Pres.
place for security purposes.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
UU lUnHl
LU:Uli
'O'Z14l:lli75399
elTY UNIV PARK
~005
7. The riqhts and benefits of Second party under this
Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred, conveyed, or
otherwise disposed of by Second party by contract, operation of law
or otherwise, and any attempt on the part of Second Party to do so
or the occurrence of any event which shall have the leqal effect of
causing any such transfer, assignment, conveyance, or other
disposition of such rights and benefits of Second Party hereunder
shall automatically cancel the rights of Second Party hereunder.
8. First Party represents and warrants that this Agreement
has been entered into in accordance with law anci with the full
approval of its city council.
9. second party represents and warrants that this Agreement
has been entered into in accordance with law and with the full
approval of its Board of Trustees.
EXECUTED in duplicate originals on the date and year first
written above.
First Party:
Second Party:
HIGHLAND PARK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT
By: ~~ fir r2-
President, Board of Trustees
ATTEST:
~.t'~~~~1/
city secretary?
A~EST: /.. . .,--;>'
~ // ~
. ,f/ . . I.C 6-- - - -...:>
.'/ superintendent /
'./
/
-4-
-
8
~
on
N
i
~
'U
C'G
LL
."C
CD
u::
~
~
CJ
~
I-
~0
c
CD
E
~
~ ~
o ~
~C ~
CD .L
:E !
~ ~
C'G ~
D.. ~
c
"C ~
C ~
'C'G ~
- ~
J:..
C)ll.
.- :z
% IL
" ,
~EI~f'I.f'IllftCIllol,'lOTeI!~
'OfIl't!n~,~,IlP!l"ll'l',O'
",~"I
ptt.,'DUUECt IUl~
COPYRIGHT 3:J()e
l.
a
~
'!1 ~ r;::l
!A _ ~ ~ :..i
Highland Park Men's & Women's Track & Field Facility
Program of Spaces
623 sf
Girl's Locker Room -
(921/2 height@ 15" x 24")
(4 toilets, 1 shower, 3 sinks and counter space)
Boy's Locker Room -
(20 full height@ 18" x 24")
(2 toilets, 2 urinals, 1 shower, 3 sinks and counter space)
468 sf
Office - 295 sf
Male Coaches Locker Room 226 sf
(4 full height lockers @15" x 24", 1 toilet, 1 shower, 1 sink)
Female Coaches Locker Room 215 sf
(4 full height lockers @15" x 24", 1 toilet, 1 shower, 1 sink)
Fitness Room 603 sf
Th~~w ~~
Ice and Concession Room 77 sf
Mechanical 76 ~
Storage 414 sf
Circulation 139 ~
(Plumbing Chases & Walls induded in the areas above +/- 10%)
TOTAL 3171 sf
F&S Partners Inc. and Jared F11beck, RA, NeARB
May 25, 2006
~
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/2006 AGENDA)
DATE: June 20, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Harry Persaud, AICP, MRTPI, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consideration of an Ordinance amending the comprehensive
zoning ordinance, by amending Section 28-105 (2) (a) to provide fence requirements
.
in side yards in residential districts
Background/Analysis:
In accordance with the zoning ordinance, a fence or wall in the side yard of residential districts must
meet the following requirements:
(1) Where a fence or wall is erected along a side lot line between properties, such fence or wall shall
not exceed seven feet (7’) in height.
(2) Where a fence or wall is erected along a side lot line where such property line adjoins a street
right-of-way (corner lot), such fence or wall shall not exceed eight feet (8’) in height.
Over the past year, many builders have requested variances from the Board of Adjustment for fence
height on corner lots due to the slope of the land and the need for a retaining wall. The Board has
requested staff to look at possibly changing the ordinance to provide for fence height which
incorporates a retaining wall on corner lots abutting a street. The attached ordinance proposes to
amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to add the following language:
“However, if the existing grade of the lot slopes toward the street in such a way that a retaining wall
is necessary, the maximum height of the retaining wall and fence, in the side yard behind the front
building line, shall not exceed ten feet (10’) when measured from the adjacent grade on the street
side, provided that the fence portion shall not exceed eight feet (8’) in height”
Recommendation:
UDADAC considered this item on April 11, 2006 and recommended approval. The Planning and
Zoning Commission held a public hearing and considered this item at its regular meeting on May
15, 2006 and voted unanimously to recommend approval with specific changes.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
66517
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 28-105 (2) (a) TO
PROVIDE FENCE REQUIREMENTS IN SIDE YARDS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED
THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,
the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park and the City
Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas with
reference to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have given the requisite notices by
publication and otherwise, and have held due hearings and have forwarded a full and fair hearing to
all property owners generally, and City Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and
finds that said zoning changes should be granted and that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
should be amended; Now, Therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1.
That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park,
Texas, is hereby amended by amending Section 28-105 (2) (a), in part, by adding the following
sentence:
Side yard
“(2)
(a) … However, if the existing grade of the lot slopes toward the street in such a way that a
retaining wall is necessary, the maximum height of the retaining wall and fence, in the side yard
behind the front building line, shall not exceed ten feet (10’) when measured from the adjacent
grade on the street side, provided that the fence portion shall not exceed eight feet (8’) in height.”
SECTION 2.
All ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3.
Should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section
of this ordinance, or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, be adjudged or held
66517
to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a
whole or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid, illegal or
unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a
whole.
SECTION 4.
That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this
ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas,
shall be punished by a fine to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense,
and each and every day such violation shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate
offense.
SECTION 5.
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.
th
DULY PASSED
by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 20 day
of June 2006.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
(RLD/04/11/06)(65458)
66517
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 28-105 (2) (a) TO
PROVIDE FENCE REQUIREMENTS IN SIDE YARDS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED
THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
th
Duly passed
by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 20 day of
June 2006.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
66517
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/2006 AGENDA)
DATE: June 20, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Harry N. Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consideration of an ordinance approving a change of
zoning on a tract of land approx. 6.236 acres located at 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard
from Single Family SF-1 zoning district classification to Planned Development
District and approving a site plan to allow for a single family home with specific
development standards
Background/Analysis:
Larry Boerder, representing property owner Gerald Ford of 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard, is
requesting a zoning change from Single family SF-1 to Planned Development PD Zoning
District classification on a tract of land approx. 6.236 acres and described as 6601 Turtle Creek
Boulevard. A land use statement submitted by the applicant (attached) proposes to build a
27,000 sq. ft. single home to replace the existing two story home on the subject tract. If
approved the proposed PD will allow for the construction of a single home as shown on the
attached site plan with specific development standards:
Recommendation:
Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and considered this item at its regular
meeting on May 15, 2006 and voted unanimously to recommend approval.
Attachments:
Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
Proposed PD Ordinance
66517
City Council Report
DATE:
June 20, 2006
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager
RE:
PZ -06-008
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Larry Boerder,representing property owner Gerald Ford of 6601 Turtle
Creek Boulevard.
LOCATION:
Site is located at 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard.
REQUEST:
Change the zoning on a tract of land located at 6601 Turtle Creek
Boulevard from Single Family SF-1 zoning district classification to
Planned Development District and approval of a site plan to allow for a
single family home with specific development standards
EXISTING
ZONING:
SF-1
SURROUNDING
LAND USE:
Single Family SF-1
66517
STAFF
COMMENTS:
The applicant is requesting a change of zoning from Single family “SF-1”
to Planned Development PD Zoning District on a tract of land approx.
6.236 acres and described a 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard. A land use
statement submitted by the applicant (attached) proposes to build a 27,000
sq. ft. single family home to replace the existing two story home on the
subject tract. If approved the proposed PD will allow for the construction
of a single home as shown on the attached site plan with the following
development standards:
(1) Maximum building height of 40 feet. The current applicable standard
in the SF-1 zoning district is 35 feet.
(2) A top plate line height of 30 feet. The current applicable standard in
the SF-1 zoning district is 25 feet 4 inches.
(3) A secondary roof pitch to be no less than 1 in 12. On a double pitch
roof the final slope is required to be a minimum of 5:12.
(4) A minimum front yard setback of 130 feet. The existing front yard
set back is 176 feet with a terrace deck extending to within 140 feet.
A notice was published in the Park Cities News and notices were mailed to
property owners with in 200 feet of the subject tract. At the time of this
report two property owners responses were received both in favor of the
proposed change.
ATTACHMENTS:
(1) Application and Land Use Statement.
)
(2PD Ordinance
(3)Site plan and elevation drawings for the proposed development of a
single family home at 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard.
66517
ORDINANCE NO. ___________________________
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. 32 FOR THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, BLOCK 7, UNIVERSITY PARK ESTATES
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING
A 6.236 ACRE TRACT COMMONLY KNOWN AS 6601 TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD;
APPROVING 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 FINE NOT TO EXCEED
THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,
the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park and the City
Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas with reference
to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have given the requisite notices by publication and
otherwise, and have held due hearings and afforded a full and fair hearing to all property owners
generally and to all persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof, and
the City Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and finds that said zoning change
NOW,
should be granted and that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map should be amended;
THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1.
That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of University
Park, Texas, are hereby amended so as to grant Planned Development District No. 32 for the property
described as Lot 7, Block 7, University Park Estates Addition to the City of University Park, Dallas
County, Texas, being a 6.236 acre tract commonly known as 6601 Turtle Creek Boulevard.
SECTION 2
. That the detailed site plan for PD No. 32, consisting of eight (8) sheets,
attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “A”, is hereby approved as the detailed site plan for said Planned
Development District 32, as required by Section 17-101 (2) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
of the City of University Park, Texas. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the
detailed site plan.
66517
SECTION 3
. That the granting of this Planned Development District No. 23 is subject to the
following special conditions:
a. Improvements in this Planned Development District will be constructed in accordance with
the detailed site plan attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, including the architectural elevations, site
plan, landscape plan, and height elevations included therein;
b. There shall be a maximum building height of 40 feet;
c. There shall be a maximum top plate line height of 30 feet;
d. There shall be a secondary roof pitch of no less than 1 in 12; and,
e. There shall be a minimum front yard setback of 130 feet.
SECTION 4
. That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance are hereby repealed and all other ordinances of the City not in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5.
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of
this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the
validity of this ordinance as a whole or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so declared to
be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance and Map as a whole.
SECTION 6.
That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this
ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall
be punished by a fine not to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense, and
each and every day any such violation shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense.
66517
SECTION 7.
That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and
the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED
by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 20th
day of June 2006.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
____________________________________ ____________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
(RLD/5/17/06)
66517
ORDINANCE NO. ___________________________
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. 32 FOR THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, BLOCK 7, UNIVERSITY PARK ESTATES
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING
A 6.236 ACRE TRACT COMMONLY KNOWN AS 6601 TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD;
APPROVING 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 FINE NOT TO EXCEED
THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
th
DULY PASSED
by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 20 day of
June 2006.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
66517
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/06 AGENDA)
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
June 8, 2006
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Bob Livingston, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Request From Southern Methodist University to Purchase Potomac Park
The attached letter from R. Gerald Turner, President of Southern Methodist University,
indicates SMU’s interest in purchasing the Potomac Park property. I have also attached a
map and aerial view of the property. This land is classified as park land by the City.
Therefore, approval of the voters will be required prior to consummating any sale. The
letter indicates SMU’s willingness to cover costs related to the transaction.
If the Council wishes to consider this matter, the City Attorney and City Secretary should
be asked to proceed with a calendar for the process as well as an estimate of the costs. I
anticipate that the ballot issue could be scheduled for the November General Election.
Additionally, staff should proceed with obtaining an appraisal of the property to determine
the actual sale price if voter approval is received.
If you have questions, please let me know.
Attachments (3)
Cc City Attorney
City Secretary
Park Director
Public Works Director
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\SMUPARK060706.doc 11:13 AM 06/08/06
SMU.
RECEIVED J~:l a 6 2006
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Office of the President
June 2, 2006
Mr. Bob Livingston
City of University Park
3800 University Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75205
Re: City Park Land on Potomac
Dear Mr. Livingston:
The University requests that the City of University Park convey to the University the City Park.
land on the south side of Potomac between Airline and Central Expressway. In addition to payment of
the fair market value of the property, the University will reimburse the City for expenses associated with
the sale of said land including appraisal fees, survey costs, and election costs.
The University appreciates the City's consideration of this request. Please let Leon Bennett or me
know how we may assist in this matter.
Sincerely,
y!j-~
R. Gerald Turner
President
PO Box 750100 Dallas TX 75275-0100
214-768-3300 Fax 214-768-3844
t9
City of University Park
-tW;t~.Rr:J..~..
Potomac Park Land Parcels
t9
(9
[u=__
o
0:::
w
Z
-.J
0:::
<(
City of University Park - Potomac Park Land Parcels
(9
AIRLINE RD
N
w+.
s
POTOMAC AVE
~... . -~-~.-:~'. ~.....~. =~;-~f L. ...
=
~
en
z
-.J
CD
~
o
, Legend
c:::J POTOMAC PARK PROPERTY
SEWER MAINS (CG)
WATER LINE (GIS)
AREA - SQFT
WEST STRIP = 26,001.84
EAST STRIP = 8,766.27
MOCKINGBIRD LN
AGENDA MEMO
(06-20-06 AGENDA)
DATE:
June 15, 2006
TO:
Bob Livingston
City Manager
FROM:
Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.
Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Discuss recommendations from advisory committees regarding
inset parking.
Background.
Pursuant to a citizen request, Council directed staff to ask
the Urban Design & Development Advisory Committee (UDADAC) and the
Public Works Advisory Committee (PWAC) to review the issue of inset parking
along the City’s residential streets. Both committees discussed the matter and
came to different conclusions.
?
The UDADAC was concerned about reduction of green space (i.e.,
parkways), which would be replaced by the inset parking, and they felt
that the additional concrete would exacerbate drainage problems
throughout the community. Their recommendation was to not allow any
new inset parking and remove all existing inset parking along the
City’s rights-of-way.
?
The PWAC had common concerns (with those of UDADAC) regarding
aesthetics and drainage, as well as traffic safety issues along streets
where not all of the spaces are inset. They did, however, feel that inset
parking may be appropriate in certain areas, like the area surrounding
Snider Plaza. They recommended that Dennis Wilson speak to the
issue in his Snider Plaza presentation. In the mean time, they felt that
the current policy (no new inset parking and allow existing to remain
as non-conforming use) should suffice.
Discussion.
Staff requests direction from Council on further action with
this issue.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AM Inset Parking 06 20 06.doc 8:16 AM 06/15/06
.
I
I
\D
0
Cl 0
N
C ....
,..,...-I
-- ,..,...-I
~
U -
.-
1- 1-
c..
<( CO <(
C-
O
<( .......,
Q)
0
U')
:::> c
.........
INSET PARKING ADVANTAGES
. Provides better traffic flow along
residential streets;
. Within a 50' ROW, inset parking along
both sides of street would allow (2)
11.5' travel lanes.
INSET PARKING DISADVANTAGES
. Reduces / eliminates parkway landscaping;
. Unless entire block is inset, creates unsafe
traffic conditions;
. Wider street (accommodating better traffic)
will increase average speed of all vehicles;
. Substantially increases impermeable surface
area within City and exacerbates existing
drainage issues.
I -\\
"
..
\ '
i
II
:i~ 1'.,1.
I,
~
~
"
'/
.
,.
'I'
~
IilI ..
'f
~,
.,
,
. ''t
.,~
'.90 .
ft.':'~
.tJ.:
>,
,
"
~,.
.
'''l _~
"
,,~ ,
,
;~,
~,t
,ti
l~
l
1-_ 1
III
Ii ~
.; ~
![
,
1,
.
rr-
.
F!
-/
'l
II
-.;j:'-
jI.",
'f~
.
~
..
'i
~~;"..i.'~ }-;
itf- -~:..
'i;)< '
-;. "'!'~
t' ~ f'
t'~1 ~;
~.'...-'''; >-..
:~~ ~ ~,
"';~
..
~
-. r~ i
. I
',~
",'co
-~
.. -"
0" _~j
~ .
..
,'\"Ii
~
t
,{.
..(
~
if
. "
! ~.~l
0;,.1. ..
r~ ll"'{-:~ :l
~'_ )t ",'"
,.' ,i
1
j
I
i
]
J
(.
I'
.~.
"
.....1c..
.~
f<"';' t.
.;'.{;/~
~ ~ l~~r
...~ -"' ""
" '!"~l
~. ~t~J~
~ '1(' ~~~4
-i~'
,,,....
c
Il~'
"Do.'!
III. dl
,
.,
~ '.
l)
~
III rf
~~
~~
~l
f
l1li
~
" :' ~
</'">'"
;..
~C:t
} ~,
},-
._.~-'!i \.,
're! ~
>\ .
:Ii~'"
'" .' t
.. Ji ."'
.~~ ~~' .
"t"
~;
.{l
,
:~11:~i~, ~i
';'~
J~~
~- ..
1" ..
t:...
y~
(
,l
n
,
,
1
~
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
1
I
I
,'r. f ·
~, 1
,. l
1
. .~
~
",1
I
I
.~
"t
It
?t:,
'\
\i
.<
; 't
l
t
~
,
~ 1.
:i ~
'" ,. ~
71',' i
'~ )oj
~ ,
i; \
~}"\\
1
~ 1.
,\,
, ~
\ ')
!'
I
~
~
.u.'
~.
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/06 AGENDA)
DATE:
June 14, 2006
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Jacob Speer, Assistant Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Lease Agreement with Metro PCS for the Installation of Cellular Equipment
at the Northwest Highway Water Tower Site
ITEM:
As discussed at the June 6, 2006 City Council meeting, representatives of Metro PCS, a
wireless communications provider, approached the City about the possibility of locating
cellular antennae and the associated equipment on and around the water tower in the 3500
block of Northwest Parkway.
Staff expressed concern that the granting of this lease could cause other companies to seek
space at this site. While this proposed lease does not pose major space problems on the
site, multiple cellular carriers would quickly overburden the site. Concerns were also raised
regarding the adequacy of the proposed lease payments, bonding requirements, and security
of the water tower as it relates to cell company access. The bonding and security issues can
be addressed with additional lease provisions. To gauge the market for cellular lease
payments, staff obtained the results of a recent survey done by the City of Rowlett
regarding the payments received by several area cities for similar installations. The results
show that several area cities are receiving lease payments in excess of the $24,000 annual
lease proposed in this agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
If Council is interested in pursuing this lease agreement, staff recommends that the lease
payments be increased to $35,000 annually and that the previously discussed changes be
incorporated into the lease.
ATTACHMENTS:
?
List of lease payments received by area cities for similar installations
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\MetroPCS Lease 06-20-06.doc
8:33 AM 06/15/06
Cell Tower Lease Survey - May 2006
Antenna/dish on Monopole and
City / Town
elevated water antenna on city Other
storage tankproperty
City of Allen$20,000N/AN/A
City of CarrolltonNo Response
City of ColleyvilleCharges the same rate for all types of lease space on city structures - $100.00 per month for each 4 sq. feet of
floor/ground space to house equipment; $1.00 per month for each foot of elevation from ground level to antenna on
each antenna. ***(This method on proposedUP/MetroPCS lease = $41,760)
City of Coppell$24,000N/A$24,000
Contracts renegotiated after 3 years, no less than 3% increase per year
Self-supporting towers:Cingular $14,425.76/Verizon $14,856.73 -
Annual increases of 4% with Cingular and 6% with Verizon
City of DentonN/AN/A
City of FriscoNo Response
City of Grapevine$31,000$18,000N/A
City of IrvingAt this time the City does not allow leases of cell phone towers on City owned property.
City of LewisvilleAt this time the City does not allow leases of cell phone towers on City owned property.
City of McKinney$18,000N/AN/A
City of North Richland HillsNo Response
$6,000 for ground equipment located on City property - all contracts
have a 3% annual escalator
City of Plano$16,800N/A
City of RichardsonNo Response
City of Rowlett$30,000$30,000N/A
City of Southlake$30,120$18,000N/A
typical inflationary adjustment , + 15% every 5 years
Town of Flower Mound$20,400$20,400
SITE LEASE
THIS SITE LEASE (“Lease”) is by and between City of University Park
MetroPCS Texas, LLC
(“Landlord”) and , a Delaware limited liability company
("Tenant").
1. Lease.
(a) During the term of this Lease, Landlord agrees to cooperate with Tenant in
obtaining, at Tenant’s expense, all licenses and permits or authorizations required for
Tenant’s use of the Premises as defined below from all applicable government and/or
regulatory entities (including, without limitation, the Federal Communications
Commission (“FCC”) (the “Governmental Approvals”), and Landlord agrees to cooperate
with and to allow Tenant, at no cost to Landlord, to obtain a title report, and Landlord
expressly grants to Tenant a right to request in advance access to the Property,
accompanied by an authorized Landlord representative, to perform surveys, soil tests, and
other engineering procedures or environmental investigations on the Property, necessary
to determine that Tenant’s use of the Premises will be compatible with Tenant’s
engineering specifications, system design, operations and Government Approvals.
(b) Subject to the following terms and conditions, Landlord hereby leases to
Tenant the use of that portion of the Property sufficient for placement of Antenna
Facilities (as defined below), together with all necessary space and easements for access
and utilities, as generally described and depicted in the attached Exhibit B (collectively
referred to hereinafter as the “Premises”). The Premises, located at 3525 Northwest
Parkway, University Park, Texas 75205, is comprised of approximately one hundred
twenty (120) square feet.
2. Term. Unless terminated as provided herein, the initial term of the Lease shall
be five (5) years from the date of execution by the last party to sign this Lease
(“Effective Date”) until midnight on the last day of the initial term (“Initial Term”).
3. Permitted Use. The Premises may be used by Tenant for, among other things,
the transmission and reception of radio communication signals and for the construction,
installation, operation, maintenance, repair, removal or replacement of related facilities,
tower and base, antennas, microwave dishes, equipment shelters and/or cabinets and
related activities.
4. Rent. Rent will be payable in advance by the Tenant to the City of University
Park at Landlord’s address specified in Section 12 below. If this Lease is terminated at a
time other than on the last day of the term year, Rent shall be prorated as of the date of
termination. All prepaid rent not yet earned as of the date of termination shall be
refunded to Tenant.
(a) Tenant shall pay Landlord rent of Two-Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) per
month, payable per year in advance, for use of the site
1 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
(b) Rent shall be adjusted annually on the anniversary date of the Effective Date.
Rent shall escalate at a rate of three percent (3%) over the Rent in effect for the
immediately preceding year.
5. Renewal. Unless terminated as provided herein, Tenant shall have the right to
extend this Lease for four (4) additional, five (5) year terms (“Renewal Term”). Each
Renewal Term shall be on the same terms and conditions as set forth herein. This Lease
shall automatically renew for each successive Renewal Term unless either party notifies
the other, in writing, of its intention not to renew this Lease, at least one hundred twenty
(120) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term. If Tenant
shall remain in possession of the Premises at the expiration of this Lease or any Renewal
Term without a written agreement, such tenancy shall be deemed a month-to-month
tenancy under the same terms and conditions of this Lease.
6. Interference. Tenant shall not use the Premises in any way which interferes
with the use of the Property by Landlord, or other lessees or licensees of Landlord with
rights in the Property prior in time to Tenant’s (subject to Tenant’s rights under this
Lease, including, without limitation, non-interference). Similarly, Landlord shall not use,
nor shall Landlord permit its lessees, licensees, employees, invitees or agents to use, any
portion of the Property in any way which interferes with the operations of Tenant, except
for a reasonable, temporary period for maintenance or improvement of the Tower or
grounds by Landlord or its contractors, such as painting or shrouding for painting, which
may interfere with the cellular operation. Landlord agrees to use its best reasonable
efforts to prevent or minimize any such interference. Any other interference shall be
deemed a material breach by the interfering party, who shall, upon written notice from
the other, be responsible for terminating said interference. In the event any such
interference does not cease promptly, the parties acknowledge that the continuing
interference may cause irreparable injury and, therefore, the injured party shall have the
right, in addition to any other rights that it may have at law or in equity, to bring a court
action to enjoin such interference or to terminate this Lease immediately upon written
notice.
7. Improvements; Utilities; Access.
(a) Tenant shall have the right, at its expense, to erect and maintain on the
Premises improvements, personal property and facilities necessary to operate its
communications system, including, without limitation, radio transmitting and receiving
antennas, microwave dishes, equipment shelters and/or cabinets and related cables and
utility lines (collectively the “Antenna Facilities”). Tenant shall have the right to replace
or upgrade the Antenna Facilities at any time during the term of this Lease, subject to
submission and approval of an amended Exhibit B. Tenant shall cause all construction to
occur lien-free and in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances. The Antenna
Facilities shall remain the exclusive property of Tenant. Tenant shall have the right to
remove the Antenna Facilities at any time during and upon termination of this Lease.
2 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
(b) Tenant, at its expense, may restrictaccess to the Antenna Facilities with the
construction of a wall, as described and depicted in the attached Exhibit B.
(c) Tenant shall, at Tenant’s expense, keep and maintain the Antenna Facilities
now or hereafter located on the Property in commercially reasonable condition and repair
during the term of this Lease, normal wear and tear and casualty excepted. Upon
termination or expiration of this Lease, the Premises shall be returned to Landlord in
good, usable condition, normal wear and tear and casualty excepted.
(d) Tenant shall have the right to install utilities, at Tenant’s expense, and to
improve the present utilities on the Property (including, but not limited to, the installation
of emergency power generators). Tenant shall install separate meters for utilities used on
the Property. Tenant shall have the right to install necessary conduit and sleeving from
the roof to the point of connection within the Building.
(e) As partial consideration for Rent paid under this Lease, Landlord hereby
grants Tenant an easement in, under and across the Property for ingress, egress, utilities
and access (including access for the purposes described in Section 1) to the Premises
adequate to install and maintain utilities, which include, but are not limited to, the
installation of power and telephone service cable, and to service the Premises and the
Antenna Facilities at all times during the Initial Term of this Lease or any Renewal Term
(collectively, “Easement”). The Easement provided hereunder shall have the same term
as this Lease.
(f) Upon reasonable notification to the Landlord through a designated
representative, Tenant shall have 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week access to the Premises
and its outside equipment at all times during the Initial Term of this Lease and any
Renewal Term, provided the Tenant’s agent or employee must be accompanied by a
designated employee of Landlord if access to the pedestal of the Tower is necessary.
8. Termination. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Lease may be
terminated, without any penalty or further liability as follows:
(a) upon thirty (30) days written notice by Landlord if Tenant fails to cure a
default for payment of amounts due under this Lease within that thirty (30) day period;
(b) upon thirty (30) days written notice by either party if the other party commits
a non-monetary default and fails to cure or commence curing such default within that
thirty (30) day period, or such longer period as may be required to diligently complete a
cure commenced within that thirty (30) day period;
(c) immediately if Tenant notifies Landlord of unacceptable results of any title
report, environmental or soil tests prior to Tenant’s installation of the Antenna Facilities
on the Premises, or if Tenant is unable to obtain, maintain, or otherwise forfeits or
cancels any license (including, without limitation, an FCC license), permit or
3 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
Governmental Approval necessary to the installation and/or operation of the Antenna
Facilities or Tenant’s business;
(d) upon ninety (90) days written notice by Tenant if the Property, or the Antenna
Facilities are or become unacceptable under Tenant’s design or engineering specifications
for its Antenna Facilities or the communications system to which the Antenna Facilities
belong;
(e) upon ninety (90) days written notice by Landlord’s City Council;
(f) immediately upon written notice by Tenant if the Premises or the Antenna
Facilities are destroyed or damaged so as in Tenant’s reasonable judgment to
substantially and adversely affect the effective use of the Antenna Facilities. In such
event, all rights and obligations of the parties shall cease as of the date of the damage or
destruction, and Tenant shall be entitled to the reimbursement of any Rent prepaid by
Tenant. If Tenant elects to continue this Lease, then all Rent shall abate until the
Premises and/or Antenna Facilities are restored to the condition existing immediately
prior to such damage or destruction; or
(g) Tenant agrees to, as of the effective date of the termination, to remove its
improvements, personal property and facilities at its sole expense from the Premises.
9. Taxes. Tenant shall pay any real or personal property taxes assessed on, or
any portion of such taxes directly attributable to, the Antenna Facilities. .
10. Insurance and Subrogation.
(a) Tenant shall provide Commercial General Liability Insurance in an aggregate
amount of Four Million and No/100 Dollars ($4,000,000.00). Tenant may satisfy this
requirement by obtaining the appropriate endorsement to any master policy of liability
insurance Tenant may maintain.
(b) Landlord and Tenant hereby mutually release each other (and their successors
or assigns) from liability and waive all right of recovery against the other for any loss or
damage covered by their respective first party property insurance policies for all perils
insured thereunder. In the event of such insured loss, neither party’s insurance company
shall have a subrogated claim against the other.
11. Hold Harmless. Tenant agrees to hold Landlord harmless from claims arising
from the installation, use, maintenance, repair or removal of the Antenna Facilities,
except for claims arising from the negligence or intentional acts of Landlord, its
employees, agents or independent contractors.
12. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications hereunder
shall be in writing and shall be deemed given if personally delivered or mailed, certified
4 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
mail, return receipt requested, or sent by for next-business-day delivery by a nationally
recognized overnight carrier to the following addresses:
If to Tenant, to:
MetroPCS Texas, LLC
8144 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 800
Dallas, Texas 75231
Attn: Property Manager
With a copy to:
MetroPCS
6501 Windcrest
Plano, TX 75024
If to Landlord, to:
Attn: Finance Director
City of University Park
3800 University Boulevard
University Park, Texas 75205
13. Quiet Enjoyment, Title and Authority. Landlord covenants and warrants to
Tenant that (i) Landlord has full right, power and authority to execute this Lease; (ii) it
has good and unencumbered title to the Property free and clear of any liens or mortgages,
except those disclosed to Tenant and which will not interfere with Tenant’s rights to or
use of the Premises; and (iii) execution and performance of this Lease will not violate any
laws, ordinances, covenants, or the provisions of any mortgage, lease, or other agreement
binding on Landlord. Landlord covenants that at all times during the term of this Lease,
Tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the Premises or any part thereof shall not be disturbed as
long as Tenant is not in default beyond any applicable grace or cure period.
14. Environmental Laws. Landlord represents that it has no knowledge of any
substance, chemical or waste (collectively “Hazardous Substance”) on the Property that is
identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in any applicable federal, state or local law or
regulation. Landlord and Tenant shall not introduce or use any Hazardous Substance on
the Property in violation of any applicable law. Landlord shall be responsible for, and
shall promptly conduct any investigation and remediation as required by any applicable
environmental laws, all spills or other releases of any Hazardous Substance not caused
solely by Tenant, that have occurred or which may occur on the Property. Each party
agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against any and all
administrative and judicial actions and rulings, claims, causes of action, demands and
liability (collectively, “Claims”) including, but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses,
assessments, penalties, fines, losses, judgments and reasonable attorney fees that the
indemnitee may suffer or incur due to the existence or discovery of any Hazardous
Substances on the Property or the migration of any Hazardous Substance to other
properties or the release of any Hazardous Substance into the environment (collectively,
5 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
“Actions”), that relate to or arise from the indemnitor’s activities on the Property. The
indemnification in this section specifically include, without limitation, costs incurred in
connection with any investigation of site conditions or any cleanup, remedial, removal or
restoration work required by any governmental authority. This Section 14 shall survive
the termination or expiration of this Lease.
15. Assignment. Tenant may assign this Lease and any Easement granted herein
upon written approval by Landlord. Upon such assignment, Tenant shall be relieved of
all liabilities and obligations hereunder and Landlord shall look solely to the assignee for
performance under this Lease and all obligations hereunder.
Additionally, Tenant may, upon notice to Landlord, mortgage or grant a security
interest in this Lease and the Antenna Facilities, and may pledge this Lease and the
Antenna Facilities to any mortgagees or holders of security interests, including their
successors or assigns (collectively, “Mortgagees”), provided such Mortgagees agree to be
bound by the terms and provisions of this Lease. In such event, Landlord shall execute
such consent to leasehold financing as may reasonably be required by Mortgagees.
Landlord agrees to notify Tenant and Tenant’s Mortgagees simultaneously of any default
by Tenant and to give Mortgagees the same right to cure any default as Tenant or to
remove any property of Tenant or Mortgagees located on the Premises, except that the
cure period for any Mortgagees shall not be less than thirty (30) days after receipt of the
default notice, as provided in Section 8 of this Lease. All such notices to Mortgagees
shall be sent to Mortgagees at the address specified by Tenant. Failure by Landlord to
give Mortgagees such notice shall not diminish Landlord’s rights against Tenant, but
shall preserve all rights of Mortgagees to cure any default and to remove any property of
Tenant or Mortgagees located on the Premises as provided in Section 17 of this Lease.
Tenant shall keep the Property free from any liens arising out of any work
performed, materials furnished, or obligations incurred by or for Tenant. Tenant shall,
within thirty (30) days following the imposition of any such lien, cause the same to be
released of record by payment or posting of a proper bond.
16. Successors and Assigns. This Lease and the Easement granted herein shall
run with the land, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their
respective successors, personal representatives and assigns.
17. Waiver of Landlord’s Lien. Landlord hereby waives any and all lien rights it
may have, statutory or otherwise concerning the Antenna Facilities or any portion thereof
which shall be deemed personal property for the purposes of this Lease, whether or not
the same is deemed real or personal property under applicable laws, and Landlord gives
Tenant and Mortgagees the right to remove all or any portion of the same from time to
time, whether before or after a default under this Lease, in Tenant’s and/or Mortgagee’s
sole discretion and without Landlord’s consent.
18. Miscellaneous.
6 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
(a) The substantially prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shall be
entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs, including appeals, if any.
(b) Each party agrees to furnish to the other, within twenty (20) days after
request, such truthful estoppel information as the other may reasonably request.
(c) This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties,
and supersedes all offers, negotiations and other agreements. There are no
representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments to
this Lease must be in writing and executed by both parties.
(d) Each party agrees to cooperate with the other in executing any documents
(including a Memorandum of Lease in substantially the form attached as Exhibit C)
necessary to protect its rights or use of the Premises. The Memorandum of Lease may be
recorded in place of this Lease by either party. In event the Property is encumbered by a
mortgage or deed of trust, Landlord agrees, upon request of Tenant, to obtain and furnish
to Tenant a non-disturbance and attornment agreement for each such mortgage or deed of
trust, in a form reasonably acceptable to Tenant. Tenant may obtain title insurance on its
interest in the Premises. Landlord agrees to execute such documents as the title company
may require in connection therewith.
(e) This Lease shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the state of
Texas, and action for enforcement of this Lease shall be brought exclusively in Dallas
County, Texas.
(f) If any term of this Lease is found to be void or invalid, such finding shall not
affect the remaining terms of this Lease, which shall continue in full force and effect.
The parties agree that if any provisions are deemed not enforceable, they shall be deemed
modified to the extent necessary to make them enforceable. Any questions of particular
interpretation shall not be interpreted against the draftsman, but rather in accordance with
the fair meaning thereof.
(g) The persons who have executed this Lease represent and warrant that they are
duly authorized to execute this Lease in their individual or representative capacity as
indicated.
(h) This Lease may be executed in any number of counterpart copies, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute a single
instrument.
(i) All Exhibits referred herein and any Addenda are incorporated herein for all
purposes. The parties understand and acknowledge that Exhibit A (the legal description
of the Property) and Exhibit B (the Premises location within the Property), may be
attached to this Lease and the Memorandum of Lease, in preliminary form. Accordingly,
the parties agree that upon the preparation of final, more complete exhibits, Exhibit A,
and/or B, as the case may be, which may have been attached hereto in preliminary form,
7 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
may be replaced by Tenant with such final, more complete exhibit(s). The terms of all
Exhibits are incorporated herein for all purposes.
(j) If Landlord is represented by any broker or any other leasing agent, Landlord
is responsible for all commission fees or other payment to such agent, and agrees to
indemnify and hold Tenant harmless from all claims by such broker or anyone claiming
through such broker. If Tenant is represented by any broker or any other leasing agent,
Tenant is responsible for all commission fees or other payment to such agent, and agrees
to indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from all claims by such broker or anyone
claiming through such broker.
(k) Subject to other provisions of this Lease, at such time as Landlord desires to
redevelop, modify, remodel or in any way alter the Property and any improvements
thereon (“Redevelopment”), Landlord shall in good faith use its best efforts to fully
accommodate Tenant’s continuing use of the Premises, including but not limited to
providing an alternative, temporary site for the relocation of Tenant’s Antenna Facilities
to the temporary location as required by the Redevelopment at Tenant’s sole cost. Upon
completion of the Redevelopment, Tenant shall relocate Tenant’s Antenna Facilities to
back to an alternate permanent location, said location to be approved by Landlord, said
approval not to be unreasonably withheld.
The effective date of this Lease is the date of execution by the last party to sign
(“Effective Date”).
LANDLORD: City of University Park
By: _____________________________
Printed Name: _____________________________
Its: _____________________________
Date: _____________________________
TENANT: MetroPCS Texas, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
By: _____________________________
Printed Name: _____________________________
Its: _____________________________
8 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
Date: _____________________________
9 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
The Property is legally described as follows:
EXHIBIT B
The location of the Premises within the Property (together with access and utilities)
is more particularly described and depicted as follows:
10 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
EXHIBIT C
Memorandum of Lease
Between City of University Park (“Landlord”) And MetroPCS Texas, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
A Site Lease (“Lease”) by and between City of University Park (“Landlord”) and
MetroPCS Texas, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (’Tenant”) was made
regarding a portion of the following property:
See Attached Exhibit “A” incorporated herein for all purposes
The Lease is for a term of Five (5) years and will commence on the date as set
forth in the Lease (the “Commencement Date”) and shall terminate at midnight on the
last day of the month in which the Fifth anniversary of the Commencement Date shall
have occurred. Unless terminated as provided herein, tenant shall have the right to
extend this Lease for Four (4) additional Five (5) year terms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have respectively executed this
memorandum effective as of the date of the last party to sign.
LANDLORD: City of University Park
11 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
By: _____________________________
Printed Name: _____________________________
Its: _____________________________
Date: _____________________________
TENANT: MetroPCS Texas, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
By: _____________________________
Printed Name: _____________________________
Its: _____________________________
Date: _____________________________
12 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
[Notary block for Landlord]
STATE OF ____________________ )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ___________________ )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ___________________ by
________________________, [title] __________________________________ of
__________________________________ [type of entity], on behalf of said
________________________________ [name of entity].
Dated: _________________________________
______________________________________
Notary Public
Print Name ____________________________
My commission expires __________________
[Notary block for Tenant]
STATE OF _____________________ )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ___________________ )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
_____________________________ by _______________________________, [title]
___________________________________ of _______________________________
[type of entity], on behalf of said _______________________ [name of entity].
Dated: _________________________________
______________________________________
Notary Public
Print Name ____________________________
My commission expires __________________
13 Site Name: University/Williams
Site Number: 4426
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/2006 AGENDA)
DATE: June 20, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Legacy Hillcrest Planned Development request and
provide directions regarding the process.
This item is included on the agenda at the request of Council to allow for further
discussion and direction.
Background/Analysis:
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing at a special called meeting
on March 6, 2006 and considered a concept plan for a total of 290,000 sq. ft. plus 4-8
town homes. P&Z requested the applicant to address the issues and concerns which were
raised by residents and to resubmit the item for further consideration at the April 17th
meeting. The concept plan considered at that meeting was reduced to 260,000 sq. ft.
plus 4-8 town homes. P&Z voted unanimously to recommend denial of the PD zoning
request.
Subsequently, the applicant informed City staff of their intention to move forward with
the request to the City Council. Council considered the scheduling of this item at its
meeting on May 23, 2006 and agreed to hold a public hearing on August 15, 2006.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Legacy Hillcrest.doc 2:36 PM 06/14/06
JAMES C TUBB
Attorney
3407 HAYNIE DALLASTEXAS 75205
,
TELEPHONE - 214/232-8964 FACSIMILE - 214/526-4306
June 1, 2006
Hon. Blackie Holmes
Mayor
City of University Park
3800 University Boulevard
Dallas, Texas 75205
Re: Chase Bank Property; Legacy Investments, L L P
Dear Mayor Holmes:
rd
I want to clarify my comments of May 23 to the Council. They were based on two
documents published by the City of University Park and made available to any applicant applying
for a change of zoning.
Planning and Zoning unanimously denied the current application on April 17, 2006 at the
conclusion of its second hearing. The first hearing was held on March 6, 2006.
One of the documents to which I referred is entitled “Zoning Change Request
Information Packet” (the “Packet”) dated October 2003. It is in the rack at the offices on
th
Worcola with the forms for filing to request a change of zoning. I picked up a copy May 19 and
th
was advised as late as the afternoon of May 19 that it is part of the documentation for an
applicant seeking a change of zoning. A copy is enclosed. I refer to the fifth page (they are not
numbered) in the Packet entitled “Zoning Change Process “ and the last page describing the
procedure before P & Z:
“Any approval will be forwarded automatically to the City Council. If a request is denied
by P & Z, the Applicant may submit a written request to appeal the decision to the City
Council. Such request must be received within 15 working days after denial by P & Z.”
(Emphasis Added).
th
Fifteen working days after April 17 was May 8th.
Another paragraph in the Packet immediately following the above, is entitled “City
Council” and reads in part in the second line ”....In order for the request to be placed on the
Council agenda the applicant must submit (1) full set of 24" X 36" plans”, etc, etc (emphasis
added). listing other required documents. The Packet lists other documents to be filed for review
by P & Z. One is a Traffic Study and other detailed information. To this point it appears the
Applicant must first give notice of appeal and then file certain documents before the matter is
placed on the Council agenda, a logical process.
By setting a hearing date for August 15, 2006 without requiring the applicant to file the
required documents starts the clock running and the residents have no control over the timing of
their review of the package, if and when it is filed. In the past seven (7) months (since the original
filing of a Concept Plan dated October 10, 2005, the developer’s project has gone from 290,000,
then 271,000, 250,000 and 320,000 s.. f. in his October 10, 2005 Concept Plan. Now there is a
new plan of some size. P & Z has not seen the current plan and under the procedure outlined
rd
briefly at the Council meeting May 23 P & Z will never have an opportunity to review it.
The applicable provisions regarding authority of the P & Z are found in the Texas Local
Government Code (the “Code”), and surely the Code , the Ordinances (defined below) and the
Packet must have some relevance. More about the Code later.
rd
I called Harry Parsaud before the May 23 Council meeting. I did not understand what
was happening when I learned through the grapevine that a new hearing date would be set. He
told me the Applicant had requested a new hearing date and said they, the Applicant, would file
thth
their new plan Friday May 26. I called Harry Tuesday May 30 and guess what-the Applicant
th
said since the hearing was not until August 15 they needed more time. Nothing is final in this
process. The residents are like a yo-yo on a string. We find out last and must wait for the
Applicant to decide what he wants to do and when he wants to do it. Nothing is final.
rd
I received a call from a reporter at the Park Cities People the afternoon of May 23. He
told me he had talked to the attorney for the developer that day and was told the square footage
would be 175,000 s. f. in leaseable commercial space. (More about leaseable commercial space
later). It appears the developer had made a decision of some import but has yet to file a plan the
residents can review and study. The press has more information than the rest of us. The argument
may be made “Well. We offered to talk to the residents.” We have had many conversations with
developer’s representatives from February 2001 to October 2005 about smaller developments,
town homes, etc. etc. however, when the time comes to file a plan it has always been larger than
we were told it would be. The developer’s plan has been a moving target for more than five
years..
The story is unfolding through the Park Cities People. Peter Simek reported in the
th
Thursday May 25 edition, that the developer’s new proposal for 175,000 s. f. leaseable
commercial space is based on a calculation that has excluded the hallways. Just another number
that is a moving target. I personally met with Craig Melde, developer’s architect and one of his
partners, at least four times from February 2001 through the summer of 2005 to discuss the
development. My notes are very clear that on February 22, 2005 the meeting revealed a project
of 211,000 gross s. f. . In October it was 320,000 gross s. f.-50,000 s f. more than in 2001,
although there was a foot note that said but no more 305,000 s. f -only 30,000 s. f .more than
2001- a moving target.
What are we to expect if a Concept Plan of gross square feet is ultimately approved
without details and specifics? The devil is in the details to quote Ross Perot.
There is no certainty we will receive copies of a plan and all of the required documents
including the Traffic Study with adequate time to review and respond. Bear in mind the
developer had from February 2001 to October 2005 (even up to March 6, 2006 when P & Z met
the first time) to come up with a plan and yet it still is a moving target after 5 years and four
hearings before P & Z (two in 2001 and two in 2006).
It takes time to raise money to pay traffic engineers and secure information for them to
study and reply or prepare for a hearing. If you will ask the members of P & Z I believe you will
find the City’s Traffic Engineer was no help at all in their determinations as to the traffic issues.
His presentation was essentially a rubber stamp of the Jacobs Engineering traffic report submitted
by the developer. Traffic studies and evaluations are essential in any response by property owners
The residents are burdened with the expense and time of securing professional engineers and
timing is critical to both raise money and review the a Concept Plan and Traffic Study. To this
point the cost to the residents for traffic engineers is over $10,000.00 and the issue has not been
resolved. There appears to be no finality.
rd
On May 23 I also referred to the City of University Park Zoning Ordinance adopted
September 6, 2005. (the “Ordinances”). My specific reference was to Section 15-101- Procedure:
“(3) The Planing and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on any application
for any amendment.....”
..........................................................................................................................................
.
(5) The City Council shall not hold its public hearing or take action until it has received
the final report of the Planning & Zoning Commission; provided however, that the City
Council may provide for the holding of its hearing, after published notice
..................jointly with any public hearing required to be held by the Planning & Zoning
Commission, but the City Council shall not take action until it has received the final report
of the Planning & Zoning Commission.” (Emphasis added).
Also, I want to confirm my discussion with Bob Dillard after the Council had voted to
th
hold a hearing on August 15. I asked Bob if the written objections filed by property owners
th
within 200 feet of the property in question is applicable to the August 15 hearing. He said yes
those objections apply. Those objections require an affirmative vote of 3/4ths of the Council to
override the P & Z denial and approve the “to be filed” plan by the developer.
As an interested resident living within 200 feet of the property in the Legacy
application(s) I want to assure the Council we want to abide by the rules. But, it is not clear to us
what the rules are. If the statements in the Packet are part of the rules and if the current plan “ to
be filed “ sometime in the future is a new plan than the one the considered by P & Z then it looks
to me the Council must allow Planning & Zoning to review the plan “to be filed” before the
Council can act.
If there is no time limit for appealing to the Council from a P & Z denial then when does
the denial by P & Z become final? Stated another way-What are the rules regarding finality?
How long does a property owner have to wait after a P & Z denial to make plans and decisions
on his property? Assume an owner was contemplating selling his home (three in the 3400 block
of Haynie sold after February 2001 and at least three others in the other blocks to the west) and
the question of “full disclosure” is raised. Can he ignore the status of the Legacy application and
sell without telling the prospective buyer that a massive re-development is about to begin across
the street? Does he have liability for failing to disclose? - There does not appear to be any finality
in this process.
The Ordinances provide in Section 8-100 Powers and Duties that the provisions of
Sections 211.007 and 212 of the Code are adopted and made the powers and duties of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Section (4) of the Code states that Planning & Zoning shall
have the power to make its own rules and regulations. It appears to me the Packet states the rules
regarding steps to finality.
If Planning & Zoning required notice of an appeal within 15 working days to proceed to
City Council it seems clear that such is a reasonable requirement to establish the finality of a P &
Z decision. Otherwise there is never any finality and an applicant can pick and choose when he
wants to file with City Council.
Property owners affected by the Legacy application(s) want this matter to be resolved and
the property developed but we want to know the rules. I speak for myself and my property and
do not pretend to speak for the 400 to 500 other people who are interested in the outcome of the
action on the application(s).
If there is no rule /statute/ordinance that establishes finality in zoning matters-there should
be. If such a rule forces the Applicant to start over with P & Z then so be it. He has an economic
axe to grind and should be held to a procedure and process. He has an investment to protect and a
desire to earn a return on that investment. For that return he should be held to a higher and
stricter standard.-there must be finality in the process.
I will not be in Dallas on August 15, 2006. I regret that -I have attended every meeting in
my neighborhood since the summer of 2000 and each meeting since as well as all of the P & Z and
Council meetings. I also have an investment I want to protect. There is no economic return to
us, as a matter of fact a multi-story office building and a large commercial development across
the street from my home is not an economic benefit.
I want to add that Harry Parsaud and his staff are doing an excellent job. They respond
promptly and cordially to every request for information or documentation.
Very truly yours,
James C. Tubb
JCT/st
Encls: As Stated
cc: Bob Dillard-City Attorney .
Robert West-Chairman P & Z
Art Anderson-Winstead Sechrest & Minick-Legacy
Harry Parsaud-City of University Park
Community Development Administrator
c:\holmes52406.wpd
Nina Wilson
From: JCTubb@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 3:08 PM
To: Harry R. Shawver; Sydney D. Carter; Kelly J. Walker; Jerry Grable
Cc: rbiddle@hrepc.com; bill@stainback; jdougroach@earthlink.net; Revwahs@aol.com
Subject: Letter to Mayor Holmes
I want each of you to have a copy of my recent letter to Mayor Holmes, the City Attorney and Chairman West.
I spoke to Harry Persaud yesterday (June 5, 2006) and he adviwed the Huddleston group has not yet filed their
NEW PLAN. A PLAN the Planning & Zoning Commissioin will never see befroe the Council votes to approfve or
deny.. P & Z is the only group uniquely equipped by experience, knowledge and history to ask the right
questions and evalluate the answers.
It is now 14 days after the council has set a date for hearing the NEW PLAN. . It is 10 days after the date
Harry Persaud was advised a NEW PLAN would be filed (May 26th).. I still submit the hearing should not have
been set until the plan documents were filed regardless of when the hearing date is set.
I am also curious as to why August 15th was chosen. Was it after consultation with any body?
Most of you know me. I am not a radical activist. I am nothing more than a home owner and taxpayer. I believe
in following the "RULES", if there are any, but in this instance I submit the RULES have been bent, ignored,
overlooked, broken--take your pick- this process is not proceeding in a consistent and fair manner.
If there is no process for the orderly and timely handling of an appeal from P & Z to the City Council- THERE
SHOULD BE!!
Jim Tubb
6/16/2006
Nina Wilson
From: JCTubb@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:03 PM
To: James H. Holmes; Harry Persaud
Cc: Harry R. Shawver; Kelly J. Walker; Sydney D. Carter; Jerry Grable; bwest@northmarq.com;
bill@stainback; jdroach@earthlink.net; Revwahs@aol.com
Subject: LEGACY/CHASE
Dear Mayor Holmes-
My neighbors have raised some things and called them to my attention. I appear to be the closest thing to a
zoning attorney in our grop so I am speaknig for our neighborhood group "Citizens for Responsibile
Development". To this date we have incured over $10,000 in expenses withitraffic engineeres so will not be hiring
a zoning lawyer at this late date.
First, school starts August 21st and many of our neighbors who oppose this project will not be back from
vacation on August 15th and want to attend the hearings..
Second, We have now seen a Concept Plan filed June 9th in which the Developer asks for four commercial
uses (Office, Bank,Retail and Restaurant) providing for 230,000 s. f. plus a Library of 30,000 s. f. for a total of
260,000 possible s.f in the new plan. There are 4-8 town homes also proposed that is not part of he 260,000 s.
f. The Plan has a foot note stating:
"But not to exceed 217,500 s.f., plus single-family"
However, the "PD Condtions" filed with the Concept Plan state:
"Without specific authorization from the City Council at the Detailed Site Plan stage, the maximum combined
floor area for all uses other than single-family is 175,000 net leaseable or 217,500 total square feet.
The Developer may, but is not required to, submit one or more additonal Detail Site Plan applications
containing between 217,500 square feet and 250,000 square feet. The City Council may (but is not required to)
approve a Detailed Site Plan application with uses which exceed square feet shown above (the four uses
referenced above p[lus the LIbrary) and on the Concept Plan up to a maximum of 250,000 square feet plus
single-family at the Detailed Site Plan stage if the Council determined the additional square footage will
enhance the project....." (Empasis Added).
It is clear that the Developer will probably go to the Council at the P D approval stage asking for 217,500 s.f
under this currently filed Concept Plan -- BUT, later at the Detailed Site Plan stage they will most assuredly ask
for a larger development up to the 250,000 square feet stated in the Concept Plan as filed June 9th.
This is the kind of sleight of hand and maneuvering we have endured in this neighborhood since January
2001and the P & Z has turned them down unanimously twice. The problem is if you do not press them hard and
ask the right questions at the right time the Develpoer may always be holding something back. That is why we
feel the P & Z most be given an opportunity to timely and fully review the new Concept Plan. They have the
background which is very valuable.
You may have read in the Park Cities People of a conversation between the Developer's attorney, Art
Anderson, and Peter Simek a reporter who has been following this project closely. When the Developer's
attorney said the project was scaled down to 175,000 s. f. the reporter asked "How is that? " Well", the attorney
said "If we do not count the hallways then it is only 175,000 net leasable square feet" The devil is in the details.
I will not be at the June 20th meeting. I have a long planned vacation trip and will be of of own. In dischargin of
my duties as the amateur zoning lawyer I want the Council to know we are very dubious of any thing filed by this
Develper. What you see is often not what you get--Ross Perot would say again- "The devil is in the details"
6/16/2006
I am hopefull the Council will cancel the Augsut 15th hearing date and not re-set it until after September 15th to
allow time for all families in all schools (public and private) to return home and commence the Fall semester. .
My immediate neighbors and our group of concerned citizens understand the Council and the Planning &
Zoning Commission have to make stressful and difficult decisions in matters such as this. We ask nothing more
than full disclosure and an open discussion of all issues. Any development of the Chase propery will change the
residential nature of this community forever. Any request for change must be studied and scrutinized closely.
Thanks for allowing me to speak in absentia for myself and my neighbors.
Jim Tubb
.
6/16/2006
AGENDA MEMO
(06/20/2006 AGENDA)
DATE: June 20, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT: Receive a report and discussion of a request from Reynolds Outdoor to
locate Information Kiosks in Snider Plaza.
Background/Analysis:
Reynolds Outdoor is in the business of providing tailor made information kiosks. They
have done kiosks for Downtown Dallas, West Village and Mockingbird station.
Reynolds Outdoor is requesting consideration to extend their program to Snider Plaza.
The kiosks are to be located in the City’s Right of Ways. The Company estimates that
14 to 15 information kiosks will provide a revenue of about $30,000 per year. At the
option of the City, Reynolds Outdoor may prepay a 20 year license agreement at a
discounted rate of $500,000.
Recommendation:
Council may refer this item for the review and recommendation of UDADAC.
Attachments:
Reynolds Outdoor letter of request
Reynolds Outdoor Information Kiosk Proposal
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Kiosk Signs.doc 3:13 PM 06/14/06
1
I
PROPOSAL PREPARED FOR THE
p.
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK
S N IDE R P L A Z A / H ILL eRE ST S T R E E T seA PE
.
Presented by Scott Reynolds
REYNOLDS OUTDOOR MEDIA
May 5, 2006
".
This proposal and the data herein is privileged and confidential and is supplied for the purpose
of assessing the merits of a relationship with the understanding that it wm be held confidential
and not disclosed to third porties.
We are pleased to introduce our
streetscape amenities to the City of
University Park without co~sideration
of any cost to the city, the taxpayers
or the property owners. It is by no
means new, as this has been
established in Europe in cities and
town squares for over 40 years
The orClr,i5C 15 simpie. we irwigcrotc
and :tlrnulotc the :./rcctzClPC through
:;ignlficont CC,Y10rnIC IIWe,II'lcn' o'ld
acclnetlcal1y p1eOA"lg dC5ig'l tho:
b!end:- in o'ld Clc::cntuotc5 :hc
character at the mea with the
ultimate gaol to :'81 /e the pedestrian
experience while generating 0 new
source of InCOlnc to the city
Our program offers tailor-made,
functional information kiosks and
tenant directories that actually create
a new revenue stream for the city
with the design, implementation and
maintenance from a nationally
respected, private Dallas company.
The HOK Planning Group calls our
work "an important step in
publici private interaction and serves
as a good example of how the city
and the landlord interests can work to
create a balanced look and function
to an area:
~ ..:..- ...~;
, "l
~..~~..... . .\r.~
.,..,..-';.. ~.,
~ ,....-./<
-,...." ..""""'" ;:-"'~'::-'-: <"'"--~
-' ...---
I?:'~ i: 't-. I< ,_~..;---"---
.""'.... ...~...' '1!' -
,,,,., , ',,;,,---:>-
.,
~""
.......:-*"
.-..---
.,...;::>...-
--
....:..-< ~
~
~ /",,/.
J
j I
--..-;... .........
r ,itr'
/'
;/
~'1-
.J
1
1
Our information klu,k" ar~d
dirc.~tor'l )o!uliom ~lrc de,igilC:.:l to
blend In Vv ith :.:;nuc:., ,']no
C1CCCfflf';'lodotc the ino;'/iduo: ri,::ccL
of th~~ OfCCJ By rccoqn!.:l'lQ the
cr"/ironrnc",tal, rctoj: ar,d bu~.nc:.,_
ccr.ditionJ. '~\C cHer tadnr-rnodc
crC(1tior~:.. ~~OT \,\ ili cnhor;cc ~ifC
rc>pc'c-tl'.'c 1I~10gC- of he C i." and
venue ,fwd'led
With state-of-the art technology
and fabrication, we develop and
provide the entire scope of the
plan locally: Engineering,
Manufacturing, Installation,
Maintenance, Media Sales and
Service - all in-house with local
employees. Weare able to offer
this free of charge by
compensating for the investment
with the marketing of the
advertising displays.
This marketing is an integrity-
based effort that begins with
protecting the immediate tenant
core. By controlling content we
are able to bring a new vitality to
the area with upscale advertisers
that do not compete with property
tenants - all with appropriate
placement that adds to the area
Instead of detracts from it.
I
J
;',
.;.~
i;:;
\.\
- .
t~
k.;; :
It
I
"'If
f
I
"
,~
I \III.
, ~
J
I
1 \
E
t.:.'
"
t I
I
I
f
I
l
I
]
I
1
I
I
I
With innovative construction, each directory is custom fabricated with ~tate-of-the-art materials to display two to three images.
\
\
With internal illumination, the directories provide more light to pedestrian$rfroperty and sidewalks creating more security that will
add to the nighttime vibrancy, shopping, dining and living experience. \ .
\
Content control is crucial to our program as we prohibit any advertisers that compete with local tenants. Offensive and distasteful
creative is also excluded without exception: we do not accept alcohol, tobacco or sexually oriented business.
Reynolds Outdoor is a local family business providing daily inspection of the directories to ensure a pristine presentation.
;"
@ 2006 Reynolds Outdoor Media kiosk and directory designs are exclusive to Reynolds clients with proprietary de~ign, engineering and custom fabrication.
I
I.
I
I
I
We have identified the following areas for potential information KioSK installation with the following criteria:
\
\
· APPROPRIATENESS: Kiosks are designed to blend in with the surrou~ding area, not detract from it.
\
· ADA ACCOfv\MODA TION: KiosK directories will adhere to ADA rest~tion and will not interfere with foot traffic.
\
\.
· VISIBILITY TRIANGLES: KiOSKS will be positioned outside the visibility triangles to not interfere with vehicle site lines.
.
. .
· FUNCTION: Will the KiOSK provide a functional map or tenant directory while allowing adequate visibility for the advertising.
f'
SNIDER PLAZA
>-
"\
I
\
We can appropriately install approximately 14 - 15 information kiosks 'in the Snider Plaza/Hillcrest area as follows:
\
\\ .
INITIAL SURVEY: \\
Snider Plaza: 8 kiosks
"'
\\',
Hillcrest - South of Danie~ 6 kiosks
HILLCREST SOUTH OF DANIEL
---,
.
HI<S
,
I ,
As part of ~e team responsible for the authoring of the revised Downtown Special Provision Sign
District Ordinance Section 5tA-7.901, I was in favor of the addition of information kiosks to be
placed in public areas. Our vision was to have elements similar to those seen in Paris, France and in
London, England. However, the sidewalk clearances, setbacks, and sight triangles limited the
number gready, and funding was not avaiL1ble to build them.
1 !
Mr. Scott Reynolds, however, accepted this chaUenge and has devised a kiosk to be placed on private
land in such a wa)' as to enhance comers. He initiated this design and has worked diligendy to put
his plan into place with owners and operators. He has thought of every detail, including message
message content issues.
"
I applaud Mr. Reynolds' creativity, innovative thinking, sen'sitivity to the aesthetics and COnlCOL
Rarely do we see this t)'Pe of passion and diligence set to task. He is an asset to our City. As the
Chairperson for the Special Sign District Advisory Committee, I whole-heartedly endorse his proposal.
III Planning Group
~
This is an important step in public/private interaction and serves as a good example of how
the city and the downtown interests can work to create a balanced look and fundion to an
area.
I
II
~.P
On behalf of the board of the Downtown Partnership, please accept this letter with our full support of
your kiosks and their positioning in the Central Business District. We look forward to the
beautification and improvement of the properties accompanying the vibrancy and additional lighting
created from the kiosk displays.
It is our intention to cooperate with you to utilize the kiosks to promote Downtown Dallas activities,
events, arts and retail development to cultivate more of a street-level pedestrian culture to enhance our
efforts in the CBD. This positive function of the kiosks will help in the revitalization of Downtown
Dallas aesthetically as well as economically. /2 r7\J
',. I'M~ fl/~/)
f;r/....~f ,;'-1' ~T~~~'
.' " ,'.J ". J
'I ..} ',. > .'
' },/1/I/' (, I / .
· , >..,.....1... '." . l, / 'J.
/1;'> '/1
) .' 1./.' / "j
" f .. '
tl :'
[J.,. '. .. '. "'. . 'l;.~ ~
!!ill ...
:;;! t
OUR CLIENTS INCLUDE:
. Apple - Bank of America - The Dallas Morning News - ABC - New Line Cinema - Pepsi - Energizer - Nokia - Tag Heuer - Honda .
Disney - GM/Chevrolet - Sewell Cadillac - Pfizer - Paramount - Allstate - WBTV - DART - Citibank - Washington Mutual
i .
I
J
1
-1
INFORMATION KIOSK PROGRAM
Reynolds Outdoor Media will develop custom made proprietary Information Kiosks to integrate into the Snider Plaza and Hillcrest
streetscape to compliment the character of the area at no cost to the City of University Park. Our program will provide a functional
pedestrian improvement and a significant new income stream to the City without time, effort or money with the following benefits:
- Way-finding, Tenant and Parking Area Directories
- Enhancement/street-level beautification of the eclectic village character of Snider Plaza.
'.
- Funding mechanism for the T ownscape, Inc. Snider Plaza/Hillcrest Master Plan
- For a minimum of 14 three-sided kiosks as proposed, Reynolds will provide $30,000 per year in exchange for a 20 year license
agreement. [OPTION: We can pre-pay the 20 year license agreement at a discounted rate of $500,000 upon execution]
E X E CUT ION: To deploy our program efficiently, we propose entering a sole source contract agreement as Reynolds
Outdoor Media is the pioneer and sole provider of our program in the Southwest.
Our experience as the market leader in this endeavor is unparalleled. Our staff is prepared to facilitate a tailor-made program with
an understanding that comes from the only company providing this service on a localleve!. We have uncommon national
advertising relationships and a personal connection with our cities and londlords with the best interests of the community in mind.
~.
Please accept this proposal and the inf'ormation presented herein as privileged and confidential. It is supplied for the purpose of
assessing the merits of a relationship with the understanding that it will be held confidential and not disclosed to third parties.
REYNOLDS. OUTDOOR
3838 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 606
Dallas, Texas 75219
(2141219-7400
>-0
o Q) 0::: 0) (l)
r- E u 0 c= u
-'- .- C'- 0 C
-O.-=: 0 (jj 0 0...... Q)
C 3: ~ -C '';:: 0.. Q) . L:
o c.n .- -+- u 0 > (l)
Q') (l) c.n C -C 0 0..
c'';:: 3: (l) :::> c.n x
+= . U Q) 0 '-'- Q) -0 (l)
o C .~ -0 -C C >-
.... Q') -+- -+- c-+-o -+-
O.S Co 0 0 Q) Q')'c
Q')-+- -C Q)u c:::>
'S; J2 ~ -+- Co C 'c E
C :::>E 'c e3 ';no -c ~ E
Q) .... C 0
-+- .- ::> Q) Q) U
c.n c.n 0-
c.n 0..
lY
PARK ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
May 16, 2006
The Park Advisory Board of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, May 16, 2006
at 4:00pm at City Hall, 3800 University Blvd., University Park, Texas. The following are
the minutes of that meeting.
Committee Members Attending:
William Pardoe - Chairman
Jim Roberts - Council Liaison
Bruce Collins
Darrell Lane
Mac Fuller
Julia Baltser
Jacky Spears
Staff Members Attending:
Bob Livingston - City Manager
Gerry Bradley - Parks Director
Amber Lively - Administrative Secretary
Absent & Excused:
Liz Farley
Lucy McRae
Before the meeting began, Mr. Pardoe presented Jim Roberts with an appreciation
plaque for his years of service on the Park Board. Mr. Roberts will be retiring on
Tuesday, May 23rd.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Pardoe.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Pardoe asked for any comments on or changes to the April meeting minutes. There
being no changes, Mrs. Baltser moved to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Spears and approved unanimously by the board.
Reports
1 . Skate Park at Goar Park
The Parks Department has been approached with a request to build an outdoor
skate park at Goar Park. The request comes from a resident of Highland Park
who feels that a skate park facility is needed in the Park Cities due to the growing
popularity of activities such as skateboarding and rollerblading. In the request,
the citizen feels that Goar Park could be a potential location for such a facility.
Although Staff feels that there is very little room within Goar Park or any other
City park, the request is being presented before the Board as an item for
consideration and to give staff direction on how to pursue the issue.
After hearing the request, Board members briefly discussed the idea of a skate
park facility. It was the consensus of the Board that a skate park facility should
not be built in University Park. The decision was based on the fact that there is
not enough room for such a facility and concern over the liabilities that such a
facility would produce.
2. Recap of April 11th - Architect's Presentations
During the April Park Board meeting, representatives from five (5) architectural
firms were on hand to give brief presentations about each firm's background.
After seeing each presentation, Staff would like to gain some feedback from the
Board to determine which firms would be best suited for which projects.
Mrs. Baltser recommended that Roundtree be used for any potential median
projects. Staff has recommended GGOA for the re-design of Coffee Park since
this firm is currently working on the Northwest Highway Wall. Staff has also
recommended Talley Associates for design services associated with Barbara
Hitzelberger Park (Lovers and Hillcrest). The Board approved staff's
recommendations.
3. Capital Improvement Proiects - Five Year Proaram
Staff has developed a list of potential projects and placed them in priority order
for Park Board review. The goal of the program is to secure funding for projects
over the next five years. Some of the top priority projects already have approved
funding.
Board members briefly discussed the projects that are listed on the plan and
raised a few questions about projects that are currently in the works. A question
was raised as to whether or not any of the listed projects could be done in house
by the Parks Staff. It is Mr. Bradley's recommendation that the work be
outsourced so as to complete the projects in a timely manner. With this, Mr.
Fuller made a motion that the project list be taken to the Capital Improvement
Committee meeting in June for approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lane
and approved unanimously by the board.
4. Entrance Marker Proaram
Staff has been working with GGOArchitects on entrance markers to be placed at
secondary entrances into the City. After reviewing may designs, staff has
narrowed it down to three (3) for the Board's opinion. These markers will be
smaller in size than the ones which are planned for the major City entrances. The
bases will be composed of brick and the sign portion will be made of cast
aluminum. The funding for this project has already been approved.
Board members seemed to favor the design of marker "0". The only concerns
board members had were in regards to the visibility of the markers. Several
questions were raised about the possibility of lighting the markers. It was decided
that Staff would work with the architect to look at how the maker could be
illuminated or use some reflective material "0". Staff plans to bring the item to
City Council on July 6, 2006.
Informational Items
1. Germany Park - HPISD ReQuest
Staff has been approached by the HPISD in regards to amending the existing
Joint Use Agreement with the City. Amendments to the agreement include; the
use of all track lanes exclusively by HPISD during the hours of 3:00 p.m. - 6:00
p.m., Mondays through Fridays during the school year. HPISD also has
requested to construct an additional building on park grounds which would house
locker rooms, a fitness room and office space. At this time, HPISD is trying to
raise money for the project through private donations. A public hearing is
scheduled during the June 20, 2006 City Council meeting.
Work in Progress
Mr. Bradley included a brief outline of current projects being completed by the
Parks Department. This information was included in the agenda packet mailed to
Board members.
Adjournment
There being no further business of the Park Board, the meeting was adjourned
by Mr. Pardoe.
The next scheduled meeting of the Park Board will be held on Tuesday, June 14,
2006 if necessary.
1~~innan
Park Advisory Board
5-2C,ep
Date
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
MINUTES
April 17, 2006
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday,
April 17, 2006, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3800 University
Blvd. University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Attending
Staff Members Attending
Robert H. West - Chairman
Randy Biddle
H. Reed Shawver III
Ed Freeman
Bill Foose
Doug Roach
Harry Persaud - Community Dev. Mgr
Rob Dillard - City Attorney
Jennifer Deaver- Administrative Assistant
Seated
Ed Freeman
Bea Humann
Mr. West opened the public hearing and then read the specifics of the first case.
PZ 06-007 - Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Doug Connally and
Associates Inc., representing the property owner, requesting a replat of Lot 23A, Block
16, University Heights, Third Section, being an Addition of the City of University Park,
more commonly known as 3611 Greenbrier Drive. The replat will subdivide the lot into
two single family lots located in Single family SF-2 zoning district. A variance is not
required for the approval of this replat.
Mr. West inquired if the replat met all requirements of city staff.
Mr. Persaud stated yes and that the staff recommended approval.
Mr. West inquired if there was any favoring I opposing parties that wished to speak.
None came forward, he then closed the public hearing.
Mr. West asked for a motion and Mr. Biddle moved to approve the replat, with a second
from Mr.Foose the replat was approved.
Mr. West then read the specifics of the next case.
PZ 06-002 - Lincoln Property Company, representing Highland Park lSD, requesting
approval of an amendment to Planned Development District PD-17 to allow for a batting
cage facility to be located on Douglas Avenue, North of and abutting the existing Seay
Center. The subject tract is zoned PD-17 and owned by the Highland Park Independent
School District.
Mr. West stated that the Lincoln Property Company, representing Highland Park ISD has
submitted written request to postpone this item for a later meeting. He 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 MF-2, P and 0-2 and owned by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP
Mr. Persaud briefed the commission and audience members via a power point
presentation. He gave details on the different zoned areas and then showed the amended
conceptual plan.
Mr. West elucidated to members of the audience that the public portion of the hearing
was closed and all comments from the community have been noted. He then inquired if
Mr. Art Anderson would elaborate on the changes made to proposed plan.
Mr. Art Anderson, representing Legacy Hillcrest Investments, came forward to present his
case via a power point presentation. He first gave explanation as to what changes were
made from the previous plan. Primarily, those were the additional access on Haynie and
the removal of the proposed hotel. There was also some retail and restaurant space
omitted from the proposed plan. He stated that more traffic study findings suggest these
changes alone would result in the L.O.S. remaining a level B. The L.O.S. at Daniel and
Dickens that was at a C or D would now be at a B and that although Dickens and Lovers
was not studied the L.O.S was at a B at the a.m. peak and increased at the p.m. peak.
Hillcrest and Haynie stayed at a B because of left turn only. He then stated that
improvement on Daniel was helpful having a free flow of traffic. The cueing analysis,
according to Danny Cummings, had no wiggle room and may cause a need for additional
10-25% reduction. He concluded that the proposed plan was indeed reduced by ten
percent (10%) and acknowledged that more reduction may be necessary.
Mr. West stated that he anticipated infinite changes in size. He then stated that although
there were changes made, they seem insignificant for what the community was seeking.
He noted that the current zoning is 108,000 square feet of building space and the
concerns primarily expressed were that of parking needs and an excess of building height.
Mr. Roach stated that he could not fathom an amount of 4,000 additional cars per day as
revealed in the traffic studies.
Mr. Biddle stated that he does not feel that there is any need for more traffic studies to
determine the amount of reduction needed in the plan, however restricting the plans to a
maximum of 220,000 square feet, including the garage / parking areas, with the library
being 35,000 of the said square feet, may be appropriate.
Mr. Foose stated that this plan appears as though it would belong near a highway, not
within a neighborhood, and that even the building in Preston Shery Plaza has a building
with existing zoning of 147,000 sq ft. including office, medical, and retail space.
Mr. Art Anderson stated that the building would have excellent streetscape and
landscaping. The area is a pedestrian plaza and that the entrance to the parking garage
and the offices would be on the Daniel side. He then stated that this project is of high
quality and would be an improvement to the way the existing building appears. He
explained that if the issues were predominantly that of traffic then there is a way to come
to middle ground.
Mr. West stated that all of the issues had been addressed and the real issue is that the
building is out of scale and that buildings of this size may be appropriate for highway
areas. He suggested that the applicant come back with a design creating less traffic and
that the community is not interested in adding even one more car. He suggested that the
request be specific in size and use.
Mr. West then made a motion to deny the request for a zoning change from Multi family
MF-2, Parking P and Office 0-2 zoning district classification to Planned Development
PD -32, without prejudice, with a second from Mr. Roach the request was denied.
Mr. Roach made a motion to approve the minutes with a second from Mr.
Biddle, the minutes were approved unanimously 5-0
There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. West adjourned the meeting.
Approved by:
/~. / ~
~/ krLt N ILr
Robert H. West, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
II; lot
Date I /