Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 02-06-07 WebA G E N D A #2703 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2007 AT 5:00 P.M. 3:00-4:00 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION: UNDER SECTION 551.072, GOVERNMENT CODE, DELIBERATION REGARDING PURCHASE/SALE OF WORCOLA AND FONDREN PROPERTY 4:00-5:00 PM WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW I.INVOCATION – Community Information Officer Steve Mace II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Community Information Officer Steve Mace/Boy Scouts III.INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL – Mayor James H. Holmes, III IV.INTRODUCTION OF STAFF – City Manager Bob Livingston V.AWARDS AND RECOGNITION PROMOTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT CAPTAIN AND SERGEANT DEPARTMENT PIN: PAT BRIGNON, MAINTENANCE TECH II, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, 15 YEARS VI. CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDER: Request to abandon street right-of-way adjacent to 7304 Turtle Creek Boulevard B.CONSIDER: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2007 VII.MAIN AGENDA A.PUBLIC HEARING: To hear request from Southern Methodist University to purchase Potomac Park B.CONSIDER: Retaining services of consultant to review specific building issues in single- and multi-family districts and the need for minimum land development standards to regulate future redevelopment of existing building sites C.CONSIDER: Ordinance for driveway standards and off-street parking requirements in Multi-Family Districts D.CONSIDER: Approval of Engagement Letter with Brown McCarroll, L.L.P., to represent city in connection with TXU’s appeal of city’s ordinance requiring removal and relocation of 138kV transmission line E.CONSIDER: Award of bids for windows for City Hall project, relocated Facilities Maintenance Shop at Peek Service Center and miscellaneous project change orders F.CONSIDER: Transfer of library account money to University Park Friends of the Library th G.CONSIDER: Changing date of March 20 city council meeting 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 were made when that item was 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 REPORTS, BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES A.BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes for September 25, 2006 B.CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE C.COFFEE PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for January 11, 2007 D.EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE E.FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE F.PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for January 9, 2007 G.PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION H.PROPERTY CASUALTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE I.PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for January 18, 2007 J.PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE K.URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE L.ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA MEMO (2/06/07 AGENDA) DATE: January 30, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Robbie Corder, Assistant to the Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider Request to Abandon Street Right-of-Way Adjacent to 7304 Turtle Creek Blvd. ITEM: The owners of the property at 7304 Turtle Creek Blvd., Mr. & Mrs. Guy Marcus, are interested in the purchase of certain right-of-way (ROW) along their Stanford frontage. The south property line adjacent to the Stanford ROW is approximately ten feet (10’) north of the sidewalk. Mr. & Mrs. Marcus request the City abandon a strip four and one half feet (4.5’) wide along the Stanford frontage for sixty-eight and nine-tenths feet (68.9’) for a total of 310.05 square feet. No utilities will be impacted by the proposed sale of ROW, and it is staff’s opinion the City has no current or future use of the subject parcel. If Council directs staff to proceed with the ROW sale, staff will proceed with an appraisal of the property and draft an abandonment ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ROW sale. ATTACHMENTS: Survey 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AGENDAMEMO (11) (2).doc 11:15 AM 01/30/07 MINUTES #2702 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2007, 5:00 P.M. Mayor Blackie Holmes convened the city council into an executive session in the conference room at 3:59 p.m. for a discussion regarding a possible real estate purchase under Section 551.072 of the Government Code. The executive session was closed at 4:22 p.m. No action was voted on or taken during the meeting. Mayor Blackie Holmes opened the regular city council meeting at 5:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Harry Shawver and Councilmembers Syd Carter, Kelly Walker and Jerry Grable. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston, City Attorney Rob Dillard and City Secretary Nina Wilson. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION DEPARTMENT PIN: City Manager Bob Livingston presented Forestry Technician Jose Munoz of the Park Department with his 25-year service pin and thanked him for his years of service to the City of University Park. Maintenance Technician II Pat Brignon was unable to attend and is scheduled for a future meeting. PRESENTATION OF LAKE GRAPEVINE WATER AUDIT: Larry McDaniel, General Manager of the Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utilities District (PC MUD), contracted with Nationwide Water Resources to develop an audit of Lake Grapevine with respect to the water rights held by the MUD, the City of Dallas, and the City of Grapevine. Mr. McDaniel detailed the status of water rights versus lake levels for each community, as it relates to current drought conditions, and stated that the status is very good. Councilmember Walker moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following: CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO REMOVE TWO-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS FROM 3200 BLOCK OF RANKIN: A petition was received from a majority of the property owners in the 3200 block of Rankin, who are in favor of removing the two-hour parking restriction from the north and south sides of the street (8 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except holidays). CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO REMOVE TWO-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS FROM 7000 HILLCREST: A request from Tom Thumb requesting the removal of the two-hour parking restriction along the west side of the 7000 block of Hillcrest (8 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except holidays). Tom Thumb owns the property abutting all of the head-in parking spaces and would be the only one impacted by the change. ORDINANCE NO. 07/01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, REPEALING A TIME LIMIT PARKING ORDINANCE DATED JANUARY 7, 1963 AND ORDINANCE NO. 78/354 WHICH ESTABLISHED TWO HOUR PARKING LIMITS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 7000 BLOCK OF HILLCREST AND IN THE 3200 BLOCK OF RANKIN, RESPECTIVELY; REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF SIGNS AND MARKINGS BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER FINAL PAYMENT TO CUTLER REPAVING, INC. FOR IN-PLACE RECYCLING OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS, PROJECT NO. 42695: The payment was approved in the amount of $27,683.74 for work performed and materials furnished. CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING CLEAN FLEET POLICY: The resolution is an effort towards reducing vehicle pollution and covers ways fleets can positively impact air quality through vehicle acquisitions, maintenance, operations, and compliance verification. RESOLUTION NO. 07/01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN FLEET VEHICLE POLICY TO IMPROVE AIR QUALITY WITHIN THE CITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. UPDATE FOURTH QUARTER STRATEGIC GOALS: On December 14, 2004 the City Council adopted 6 strategic goals and objectives. A responsibility chart was created to track the progress of goal and objective achievement. The objectives completed include: Develop a plan to recognize model citizens in our community; Install attractive uniform signs in each park that give park history, regulations, and hours; Evaluate the need for a specific position on City staff to manage website and cable channel content, handle media contacts, community relations, and produce publications; Consider citywide program for sidewalk maintenance, and Implement customer service/work order system (3-1-1 project). Objectives in progress/ongoing are: Develop traffic and parking improvements; Communicate traffic realities; Develop a Master Plan for Snider Plaza and Miracle Mile areas; Develop a New Resident Orientation program; Identify initiatives based on recommendations from the Park Advisory Committee; Develop a unified design and standards for entrances to the City; Assess the effectiveness of current communication methods and make recommendations for improvements, and Conduct study of improving restrooms in the parks. Objectives not started: Study feasibility of undergrounding Lovers Lane in Miracle Mile. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For January 2, 2007. MAIN AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND ORDINANCE ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 (PD 27), ST. CHRISTOPHER’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH: Planned Development District No. 27 was established in June 2000, for St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church, 2600 Westminster. The applicant has submitted an application requesting an amendment to PD-27 to allow for a 22- foot by 42-foot canopy to be installed over the existing playground equipment. Mayor Holmes opened the public hearing. As there was no discussion on the item, he closed the public hearing. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, ST. CHRISTOPHER’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH: Councilmember Grable moved approval of the amendment to PD 27. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve an ordinance amending PD 27 for St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church. ORDINANCE NO. 07/02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 (PD-27) FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF LAND OF 183.5 FEET BY 177 FEET AND 172.8 FEET BY 171 FEET IN THE JEFFERSON TILLEY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1480, CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2600 WESTMINSTER, UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS; APPROVING AN AMENDED 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. CONSIDER ORDINANCE ORDERING CHANGE OF CERTAIN STREET ADDRESS NUMBER: A request was filed with the city to subdivide (replat) the existing lot at 3533 Asbury into two Single Family Attached (SFA) lots in accordance with the PD-6 zoning classification. However, the current addresses for the adjacent properties, 3535 and 3537 Asbury, will need to be changed to allow for the proper sequence and consistent numbering of properties in that block. Mr. Jim Mills, 3537 Asbury, and Ms. Marge Graves, 3535 Asbury, spoke before the council opposing the change. Ms. Tyler Mosher, 10415 Pagewood, and Ms. Wendi Kaplan, 10505 Barrywood Dr., members of the two families who are planning to build on the site at 3533 Asbury, spoke in favor of the change. No action was taken on the pending ordinance. Councilmember Grable moved that the address for 3533 be retained for the west ½ of the lot and 3531, a new number not already assigned, be used for the east ½ of the lot and that the numbering for the lot east of 3533 Asbury known as 3529 Asbury be addressed at such time it is split, if that should occur. Mayor Holmes seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve changing the street address numbers. Note: After another viewing of the area by staff, it was determined that the lot could not be assigned as moved by the council’s motion; therefore, 3533 Unit A and 3533 Unit B were assigned as the new house numbers. REPORT REGARDING HIGHER DENSITY AND LOSS OF ON-STREET PARKING SPACES IN MULTI-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION: In 2006, the building department permitted five multi-family projects which included 27 units and with 81 bedrooms and 54 off-street parking spaces. All of the projects were permitted for three-bedroom units, which provided two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. In most cases, these multi-family projects were built on sites where duplexes had existed. The result is higher densities in an existing neighborhood creating problems for parking, traffic circulation, sanitation and noise. It appears that current development regulations are either inadequate or have not been designed to deal with these specific issues. The current development trend points to two major issues impacting the neighborhood: the proliferation of driveway approaches with direct access to the street resulting in the loss of on-street parking spaces, and, secondly, multi-family construction is designed and built for three-bedroom units, providing two parking spaces per dwelling unit. The city proposed the following specific alternatives for addressing these issues: Regulate the number and spacing of driveways for multi-family construction; Increase on-site parking requirements in the multi- family districts; Establish overlay district standards for a specific area; Promote design standards in multi-family construction to accommodate on-site parking below grade. Matt Dixon, 3448 Rosedale, presented a power point presentation showing properties at risk for redevelopment. He recommended a delay until a comprehensive street parking plan could be devised and suggested that an advisory committee be created of residents, landlords and developers specifically for the Snider Plaza MF2 area. Ms. Mary Graves, 6716 Hursey, representing eight homeowners, agreed with Mr. Dixon on establishing a parking plan. Donald H. Gale, 3712 Binkley, owner of 11 properties in the MF2 area spoke before the council in regard to his concern about too many restrictions in the city, noting that building heights don’t work, the rules do not permit quality buildings and there is no place for older residents to live in the city after selling their homes. He suggested a committee of citizens, builders and consultants to address the rules. Mayor Holmes agreed and appointed an MF2 Building Advisory Committee consisting of Messrs. Gale and Dixon, Ms. Graves and two builders of Mr. Gale’s choosing to work with Community Development Manager Harry Persaud and return to council with a status th report to the March 20 city council meeting. Council also directed staff to amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance establishing standards for regulating the number and spacing of driveways and to increase on-site parking requirements for multi-family construction and to th present it at the February 6 city council meeting. Council also forwarded this item to the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) for further review and recommendation. REPORT REGARDING RENTAL REGISTRATION PROGRAM: On December 19, 2006, the city council received a report from staff regarding violations of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance specifically relating to dwelling unit occupancy. Council directed staff to hold off on enforcement actions until June 1, 2007 and to notify property owners accordingly. Staff will do a large mail out of notices next week and a utility bill insert for February. However, many cities have established a Rental Registration Program to monitor the condition and occupancy of rental properties, which requires all owners of residential dwelling units to register with the city. Property owners will be required to provide their name, address, phone number, address of rental units, number of units, available parking spaces, etc. At the time of registration, each landlord will be given copies of the city’s Minimum Building and Occupancy Standards. Registration is valid for 12 months and must be renewed annually. There is no fee for registration which may be done on line. The program will provide a penalty for failure to register a rental property and for providing false information. Enforcement will be done on a complaint basis. Mayor Holmes moved to table this item until a future meeting. Councilmember Grable seconded, and the vote was unanimous to delay action at this time. REVIEW STATUS OF PILOT STUDY FOR 25 MPH SPEED LIMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL STREETS: Staff contracted with C&P Engineering for the initial collection of speed data along residential streets in the Pilot Study area. Regulatory signs were placed along the subject streets in conformance with the plan developed by the city’s traffic consultant. Approximately 60 days following the installation of the signs, the city received a few calls suggesting that there were too many signs and requested that we remove some or all of them. After a conversation with our traffic consult, we removed 27 of the 66 signs, all of which were “interior” to the Pilot Study area. The consultant felt that the signs had been up for a couple of months, and the majority of the traffic along the streets is familiar with the new speed limit. The consultant will collect follow-up speed data during late March, and C&P Engineering will compile the results and recommendations into a report for council review in April 2007. CONSIDER ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT WITH ALAN PLUMMER & ASSOCIATES FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF BOOSTER PUMPING STATION IN GERMANY PARK: The addendum to the contract is in the amount $343,056 for design of the proposed booster pumping station in Germany Park. Staff was directed to meet with a neighborhood committee to formalize the exterior appearance of the pumping station. The proposal details the extra services at a cost of $16,930, which relates directly to the time anticipated in designing the exterior elevations of the building. Mayor Holmes moved approval of the addendum to the engineering contract with Alan Plummer Associates. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the addendum in the amount of $343,056. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF BID FOR UPGRADE TO THE ALL HAZARD EMERGENCY WARNING SYSTEM: Bids were taken for an upgrade to the city’s outdoor warning siren system, but there are still many parts of the city that fall into dead zones where citizens cannot hear the outdoor warning system. The upgrade consists of replacing the current rotating type sirens with omni-directional sirens that sound 360 degrees in all directions. This system still maintains the ability to utilize voice commands; but, the new system has the ability to store fifty pre-recorded messages for use over the system as well. The siren located on the Southern Methodist University Campus is owned by Southern Methodist University. Their siren will be upgraded also and is included in the bid price. They will pay approximately $25,000 to the city. American Communications won the bid in the amount of $148,341.25. Councilmember Carter moved acceptance of the bid proposal for the All Hazard Public Warning System in the amount of $148,341.25 less $25,000 from Southern Methodist University. Councilmember Graber seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the bid to American Communications. There being no further business, Mayor Holmes adjourned the meeting. nd PASSED AND APPROVED this 2 day of February 2007. James H. Holmes, III, Mayor ATTEST: Nina Wilson, City Secretary AGENDA MEMO (02/06/2007 AGENDA) DATE: February 6, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager SUBJECT: Receive a report regarding specific building issues in the single family and multi family districts and the need for minimum land development standards to regulate the future redevelopment of existing building sites. Background/Analysis: On October 5, 2006, City Council held a public discussion on the subject of “Regulating the size of single family homes” to which residents and builders in the community participated. At that meeting staff reviewed the current regulations in place for single family construction and explored alternative building standards used by similar communities to further regulate the size of single family homes. On January 16, 2007 City Council received a report and discussed specific issues affecting new construction in the multi family districts. Some residents and builders also participated in that discussion. At that meeting staff reviewed current standards in place for regulating driveways and off-street parking in the multi family districts and proposed amending those standards to resolve specific issues impacting the neighborhoods. Developing minimum standards to improve the quality of development in the multi family districts and regulating the building envelope for single family construction requires specific knowledge, expertise and time to work through the process with builders and residents. Staff is proposing that the City retain the services of a consultant with the appropriate experience to generate customized development standards which are to be adopted and used to regulate the future redevelopment of existing building sites. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City retain the services of a consultant to review current building issues and develop appropriate development standards. Attachments: Summary of Issues 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Summary of issues for Consultant.doc 3:59 PM 02/01/07 AGENDA MEMO (01/16/2007 AGENDA) DATE: February 6, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager SUBJECT: Discuss a draft ordinance providing for driveway standards and off-street parking requirements in the Multi Family Districts and provide directions to staff. Background/Analysis: The current development trends in the multi family districts point to two major issues impacting the neighborhoods. Firstly, the proliferation of driveway approaches with direct access to the street result in the loss of on-street parking spaces. Secondly, multi family construction is designed and built for three bedroom units and provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit, meeting the minimum requirements of the comprehensive zoning ordinance. The proposed ordinance will regulate the number and location of driveways as follows: The aggregate of driveway approaches shall not exceed: (i)One driveway per street frontage per platted lot, provided that additional driveways with a minimum of 100 feet of street frontage, measured from center line to center line, separating them, shall be permitted; (ii)Multiple driveways that provide direct access only to an alley shall be permitted. In addition the proposed ordinance provides for an increase in off-street parking spaces to one space per bedroom plus one additional space per ten bedrooms or fractions thereof, for visitors parking. Recommendation: Since this is an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission must hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to City Council before the ordinance is adopted. Attachments: Copy of Draft Ordinance 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Parking Standards Ordinance.doc 10:58 AM 01/31/07 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 27-100 (1) GENERAL DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS TO REGULATE PLACEMENT OF DRIVEWAYS; AMENDING SECTION 26-100 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN IN UC-1 AND UC-2 DISTRICTS TO REQUIRE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; 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 Section 27-100 Driveways Park, Texas, is hereby amended by amending , in part, as follows: “ Section 27-100 Driveways (2)General driveway requirements: (a)…. (b)The aggregate of driveway approaches shall not exceed: (i)One driveway per street frontage per platted lot, provided that additional driveways with a minimum of 100 feet of street frontage, measured from center line to center line, separating them, shall be permitted; (ii)Multiple driveways that provide direct access only to an alley shall be permitted. ….” 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Parking Standards Ordinance.doc 10:58 AM 01/31/07 SECTION 2. Section 26-100Off-street Parking Requirements Other Than That in UC-1 and UC-2 Districts is amended by amending the chart showing the uses and spaces required for off-street parking, in part, as follows: Section 26-100Off-street Parking Requirements Other Than in UC-1 and UC-2 “ Districts Use Spaces Required …. SF, SF-A, D Minimum of two off-street paved parking spaces per dwelling unit MF Minimum of two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit or one off-street parking space per bedroom, whichever is greater, plus one off-street parking space for each ten bedrooms or fraction thereof, of the multi-family project for visitors parking. ….” SECTION 3. All ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. Should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance, or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a whole. SECTION 5. 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 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Parking Standards Ordinance.doc 10:58 AM 01/31/07 ($2,000.00) for each offense, and each and every day such violation shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and charter in such cases provide. th DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 6 day of February 2007. APPROVED: ____________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/01/25/07)(13249) 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Parking Standards Ordinance.doc 10:58 AM 01/31/07 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 27-100 (1) GENERAL DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS TO REGULATE PLACEMENT OF DRIVEWAYS; AMENDING SECTION 26-100 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN IN UC-1 AND UC-2 DISTRICTS TO REQUIRE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; 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 passedby the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 6 day of February 2007. APPROVED: ____________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Parking Standards Ordinance.doc 10:58 AM 01/31/07 AGENDA MEMO (2/06/07 AGENDA) DATE: January 31, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Robbie Corder, Assistant to the Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Engagement Letter with Brown McCarroll, L.L.P. ITEM: On December 19, 2006, the City Council passed Ordinance 06/35 requiring TXU Electric Delivery to remove and relocate the 138 kV transmission line from its current route connecting the Lomo Alto and Greenville substations outside of the city limits of University Park. Subsequently, TXU filed an appeal with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) claiming the City enacted the ordinance “in excess of its statutory authority.” The appeal requests the PUC grant interim relief, so that relocation activities as specified in Section 2 of Ordinance 06/35 do not have to begin by April 1, 2007. Additionally, the appeal asks the PUC to determine whether the City had property authority to enact Ordinance 06/35 and to hold the provisions of the ordinance void. Staff has received an engagement letter from Marianne Carroll with Brown McCarroll, L.L.P. to represent the City in connection with the TXU appeal. Marianne Carroll would serve as the primary lawyer, and has prior experience representing clients before the PUC. Ms. Carroll’s hourly rate as specified in the engagement letter is $425, with additional fees for associates and legal assistants. The total cost of representation shall not exceed $50,000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approval of the engagement letter with Brown McCarroll to represent the City in connection with TXU’s appeal of the City’s ordinance requiring removal and relocation of the 138 kV transmission line. ATTACHMENTS: Appeal of TXU Electric Delivery. Letter of engagement. Background information for Marianne Carroll. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Brown McCarroll Engagement Agenda Item.doc 10:24 AM 01/31/07 Brown McCarroll - Attorney DetailPage 1of 2 Marianne Carroll Partner Austin • (512) 479-1156 Email:mcarroll@mailbmc.com Legal Experience Ms. Carroll provides regulatory advice and counsel to equity investors, lending institutions and project developers in connection with the development, construction financing, acquisition and sales of electric generating plants in Texas. She represents other clients in the electric power industry, such as generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, and commercial and industrial customers in connection with the review, negotiation, and drafting of legislation, regulations, agreements and protocols affecting participants in the Texas wholesale and retail electric power markets. Ms. Carroll also represents clients before the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) in rulemaking proceedings and contested cases, including transmission line certification applications, and at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Ms. Carroll has been active on behalf of the independent power industry in the numerous proceedings undertaken by the PUC to implement retail customer choice and to restructure the wholesale market in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Ms. Carroll is currently the Executive Director of the Texas Competitive Power Advocates. Significant Engagements • Acquisition of 632 megawatt coal fired electric generating facility in Victoria and Goliad counties, Texas (2006) • Equity investment in 124.2 megawatt wind power project in Sterling, Glascock and Howard counties, Texas (2006) • Acquisition of 11,100 megawatts of nuclear, coal, lignite, and natural gas electric generating facilities in Harris, Matagorda, and Limestone counties, Texas (2005) • Financing of 324 megawatt wind power projects in Taylor County, Texas (2005) • Development and financing of 845 megawatt combined cycle electric generating facility in Rusk County, Texas (1999) • Development and financing of 830 megawatt combined cycle electric generating facility in Grimes County, Texas (1997) • Representation of group of 12 electric generation owners and power marketers in numerous PUC rulemaking and contested case proceedings in http://www.brownmccarroll.com/attorneys_detail_form.asp1/31/2007 Brown McCarroll - Attorney DetailPage 2of 2 which fundamental changes to the ERCOT wholesale market structure were examined and debated, and a nodal market approved (2002-2005) Education •Doctor of Jurisprudence, University of Texas at Austin, 1981 •Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, University of Texas at Austin, 1968 Professional Licenses •Attorney at Law, Texas, 1981 Professional Memberships and Activities •State Bar of Texas Administrative Law section Public Utility Law section •Gulf Coast Power Association, Past Vice President •Austin Bar Association Practice Areas •Utility Law •Administrative Law http://www.brownmccarroll.com/attorneys_detail_form.asp1/31/2007 Brown McCarroll 1. 1. P. III Congress Avenue, Suite 1400, Austin, Texas 78701-4043 512-472-5456 fax 512-479-1101 January 26,2007 Robert Livingston City Manager 3800 University Blvd. University Park, TX 75205 Dear Mr. Livingston: Thank you for selecting Brown McCarroll, L.L.P. to represent you. We appreciate the confidence you have shown in our Firm, and we look forward to the opportunity to represent you. We believe that a successful professional relationship begins with a mutual understanding of expectations about the services we will provide, legal fees, and other important aspects of our representation. With this in mind, it is our practice to specify our engagement arrangements with our clients, and that is the purpose of this letter and the attached Standard Terms of Engagement. Our Firm encourages open and candid communications with clients. Please let me know as soon as possible if you have questions about this letter, the Standard Terms of Engagement, or if you are concerned about any aspect of the representation. Description and Scope of the Representation: Identification of Client Brown McCarroll is being retained to represent the City of University Park, Texas in connection with PUC Docket No. 33742, the Appeal of TXU Electric Delivery Company from an Ordinance of the City of University Park and Request for Interim Relief, and the City of University Park is our only client in this matter. We want to clarify that Brown McCarroll does not represent any other person or entity other than as set forth above. Our representation is limited to this matter, and the Firm has not been retained to represent you generally or in connection with any other matter unless we modify this engagement letter by a subsequent letter agreement. The Firm understands that we are to perform all reasonable services and take all such action as may be appropriate and necessary in our professional judgment to further your interests in this matter. It is understood that the Firm is being retained to provide legal services and that we are not responsible for providing business or financial advice to you. Attorneys Handling Your Representation I will be the primary attorney handling this matter. We also anticipate that there may be other attorneys who will assist in the representation from time to time. The Firm also uses legal Austin. Dallas. Houston. Longview . EI Paso Updated 8-22-06 assistants in providing professional services when we believe that their use will reduce legal costs and improve efficiency. Legal Fees Brown McCarroll generally charges for our services based upon the time and effort devoted to the matter and the hourly rates of the lawyers and legal assistants that work on the representation. My current hourly rate is $425; Chris Reeder's is $350; Cindy Tom's is $200, and our legal assistant's rate is $100. We review our billing rates annually and will let you know in advance if our hourly rates are modified. Costs and Expenses In addition to legal fees, the Firm charges for out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred in representing you. Please refer to the Standard Terms of Engagement for examples of such costs and expenses and how these will be handled and billed to you. Payment of Fees and Expenses Brown McCarroll's statements for fees and expenses are due upon receipt, and we expect that our monthly statements will be paid no later than 30 days after receipt. By entering into this representation agreement, you agree to timely payment of the Firm's invoices for fees and expenses related to the representation. Conclusion Once again, Brown McCarroll is pleased to have this opportunity to represent you in this matter. If you have any questions or concerns about any of the above or the Standard Terms of Engagement, please contact me as soon as possible. If this letter and the Standard Terms of Engagement accurately reflect our agreement, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to me. Very truly yours, ~~._~J~ , Enc!. AGREED AND ACCEPTED AS OF ,2007 2 Updated 8-22-06 3 Updated 8-22-06 STANDARD TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT These are the Standard Terms of Engagement referred to in our engagement letter. Because they are an integral part of our agreement to provide legal services, we ask that you review this document carefully and retain it for your files. If you have any questions after reading it, please contact us promptly. Who Will Provide the Legal Services? In most cases, one attorney will be your principal contact. From time to time, that attorney may delegate parts of your work to other lawyers or to legal assistants or nonlegal professionals in the firm. For example, we do this in order to involve those with special knowledge or experience in an area and to provide service to you in a timely and efficient manner. The Scope of the Representation As lawyers, we undertake to provide representation and advice on the legal matters for which we are engaged, and it is important that we both have a clear understanding of the legal services that the firm has agreed to provide. In our engagement letter with you, we specify the matter in which we will provide representation and the scope of the services we will provide. If there are any questions about the terms of engagement, including the scope of the representation that we are to provide in the matter, please raise those questions promptly with your principal contact at the firm. We cannot guarantee the outcome of any matter. Any expression of our professional judgment regarding your matter or the potential outcome is, of course, limited by our knowledge of the facts and based on the law at the time of expression. It is also subject to any unknown or uncertain factors or conditions beyond our control. Who Is Our Client? It is our policy to represent only the person or entity identified in our engagement letter and not any affiliates. For example, unless otherwise specifically stated in our engagement letter, if you are a corporation or partnership, our representation does not include any parents, subsidiaries, employees, officers, directors, shareholders, or partners of the corporation or partnership, or commonly owned corporations or partnerships; if you are a trade association, our representation excludes members of the trade association; if you are an individual, our representation does not include your employer, partners, spouse, siblings, or other family members. Your Cooperation To enable us to provide effective representation, you agree to: (1) disclose to us, fully and accurately and on a timely basis, all facts and documents that are or might be material or that we may request, (2) keep us apprised on a timely basis of all developments relating to the representation that are or might be material, (3) attend meetings, conferences, and other proceedings when it is reasonable to do so, and (4) otherwise cooperate fully with us. 4 Updated 8-22-06 Our Relationships With Others Our law firm represents many companies and individuals. In some instances, the applicable rules of professional conduct may limit our ability to represent clients with conflicting or potentially conflicting interests. Those rules of conduct often allow us to exercise our independent judgment in determining whether our relationship with one client prevents us from representing another. In other situations, we may be permitted to represent a client only if the other clients consent to that representation. If a controversy unrelated to the subject matter of the representation develops between you and any other client of the firm, we will follow the applicable rules of professional responsibility to determine whether we may represent either you or the other client in the unrelated controversy. In making this determination, we will consider your agreement to the Conflicts of Interest provisions in these Standard Terms of Engagement. In addition to our representation of other companies and individuals, we also regularly represent lawyers and law firms. As a result, opposing counsel in the matter may be a lawyer or law firm that we may represent now or in the future. Likewise, opposing counsel in the matter may represent our firm now or in the future. Further, we have professional and personal relationships with many other attorneys, often because of our participation in bar associations and other professional organizations. We believe that these relationships with other attorneys do not adversely affect our ability to represent any client and, in some circumstances, may enhance our representation. Your acceptance of our engagement letter means you consent to any such relationships between our firm and other lawyers or law firms, even counsel who is representing a party that is adverse to you in the matter that is the subject of this engagement or in some other matter. Conflicts of Interest Increasingly, conflict of interest is a concern for lawyers and their clients today. We attempt to identify actual and potential conflicts at the outset of any engagement, and may request that you sign a conflict waiver before we accept an engagement from you. Occasionally, other clients or prospective clients may ask us to seek a conflict waiver from you so that we can accept an engagement on their behalf. Please do not take such a request to mean that we will represent you less zealously; we make such requests because we take our professional responsibilities to all clients and prospective clients very seriously. Unfortunately, conflicts sometimes arise or become apparent after work begins on an engagement. When that happens, we will do our best to address and resolve the situation in the manner that best serves the interests of all of our affected clients. Because we are a large firm, we may be asked to represent someone whose interests may be adverse to yours. We are accepting this engagement on the understanding that our representation of you will not preclude us from accepting any other engagement from any existing or new client, including litigation adverse to you, provided that (i) such engagement is not substantially related to the subject matter of any services we are providing to you and (ii) in accepting such 5 Updated 8-22-06 other engagement we would not impair the confidentiality of proprietary, sensitive or otherwise confidential information you have provided to us. Rules concerning conflicts of interest vary with the jurisdiction. In order to avoid any uncertainty, our policy is that the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct will be applicable to the representation. Your acceptance of our engagement letter means you agree with that policy, unless the engagement letter specifically states that some other rules of professional responsibility will govern our attorney-client relationship. How We Set Our Fees The basis for determining our fee for legal services is set forth in the engagement letter itself. If you are unclear about the basis for determining your fee, please raise any questions you may have with your principal contact at the firm. Clients frequently ask us to estimate the fees and other charges they are likely to incur in connection with a particular matter. We are pleased to respond to such requests, whenever possible, with an estimate based on our professional judgment. This estimate always carries the understanding that, unless we agree otherwise in writing, it does not represent a maximum, minimum, or fixed-fee quotation. The ultimate cost frequently is more or less than the amount estimated. Charges For Other Expenses And Services As an adjunct to providing legal services, we may incur and pay a variety of charges on your behalf or charge for certain ancillary support services. Whenever we incur such charges on your behalf or charge for such ancillary support services, we will bill them to you as part of your monthly invoice. Accordingly, our invoices usually will include amounts, not only for legal services rendered, but also for other expenses and services. Examples include charges for filing fees, document reproduction, postage, travel and conference expenses, delivery charges, computerized research, and facsimile and other electronic transmissions. Outside expenses will generally be billed at cost, while some in-house expenses (e.g., document reproduction, facsimile, computer services and electronic research) will include a reasonable allocation of overhead. In appropriate cases, reimbursable expenses may also include overtime charges for secretaries and other staff. You authorize us to retain third-parties, such as consultants, experts and investigators, as may be necessary to the representation. Although we advance third-party disbursements in reasonable amounts, we will ask you to pay larger third-party invoices (usually those over $200.00) directly to the third party providing the services. Because we often have ongoing professional relationships with the persons who render such services, we also ask that you pay such bills promptly and send us notice of your payment. Billing Arrangements and Terms of Payment We will bill you on a regular basis, normally each month, for both fees and other charges. You agree to make payment within thirty (30) days of the date of our invoice. 6 Updated 8-22-06 Should your account become delinquent and in the event satisfactory payment terms are not arranged as permitted under the rules regulating our profession, we will be required to withdraw from the representation. In most cases, and except as prohibited by ethical considerations, if your account becomes more than sixty (60) days delinquent, we will cease representation until we can arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement for payment of the delinquent account and the resumption of services. If the representation will require a concentrated period of activity, such as a trial, arbitration, or hearing, we reserve the right to require the payment of all amounts then owing to us and the prepayment to us of the fees and expenses we estimate will be incurred in preparing for and completing the trial, arbitration, or hearing, as well as arbitration fees likely to be assessed. If you fail to timely pay any additional deposit requested, we will have the right to cease performing further work and the right to withdraw from the representation. Payment of our fees and costs is not contingent on the ultimate outcome of our representation. We look to you, the client, for payment regardless of whether you are insured to cover the particular risk. From time-to-time, we assist clients in pursuing third parties for recovery of attorneys' fees and other charges resulting from our services. These situations include payments under contracts, statutes or insurance policies. However, it remains your obligation to pay all amounts due to us within thirty (30) days of the date of our statement. Termination Because our firm has been engaged to provide legal services in connection with the representation specifically defined in our engagement letter, the attorney-client relationship terminates upon our completion of our services related to the representation in the matter. After completion of the representation, however, changes may occur in the applicable laws or regulations that could affect your future rights and liabilities in regard to the matter. Unless we are actually engaged after the completion of the representation to provide additional advice on such issues, the firm has no continuing obligation to give advice with respect to any future legal developments that may relate to the matter. If you later retain us to perform further or additional services, our attorney-client relationship will be subject to the terms of engagement agreed to at that time; in the absence of any specific agreement, these Standard Terms of Engagement shall apply to the further or additional representation. We look forward to the opportunity to complete our representation of you in the specified matter. You may, however, terminate our representation at any time, with or without cause, by notifying us in writing. We will return your papers and other property to you promptly upon receipt of your request for those materials unless they are appropriately subject to a lien. You agree that we will own and retain our own files pertaining to the matter or case, including, for example, firm administrative records, time and expense reports, personnel and staffing materials, credit and accounting records, and internal lawyers' work product such as drafts, notes, internal memoranda, and legal and factual research including investigative reports, prepared by or for the internal use of lawyers. 7 Updated 8-22-06 The termination of our services will not affect your responsibility for payment of legal services rendered and other charges incurred before termination and in connection with an orderly transition of the matter. Document Retention While we try to retain closed files for an extended period of time, we do reserve the right to destroy or otherwise dispose of all files, without further notice to you and in a manner which preserves the confidential and secret nature of their contents. You are to receive, along with the final bill or documents concluding the case, a notice that the file will be retired and stored for a designated retention period. I or the attorney immediately responsible for handling this case will advise you to obtain any papers from the file not previously furnished to you. The file may thereafter, without additional notice to you, be destroyed by the Firm following the designated retention period in which the file is retained. Only upon my written authorization will the file be partially destroyed, destroyed in its entirety, retained for an additional period of time, or returned to you for safekeeping. If you or your company has a Records Retention Policy in place with which outside counsel will need to comply, please let me know so that I may inform our Records Department. In the event you instruct us to return your file to you at the end of the retention period, we will use the last known address in the file to return your file (excluding the work product subfiles); our Firm will not retain a copy. Disclaimer By signing the engagement letter or otherwise indicating your acceptance of the engagement letter, you acknowledge that Brown McCarroll, L.L.P. has made no promises or guarantees to you about the outcome of the representation, and nothing in these terms of engagement shall be construed as such a promise or guarantee. Either at the commencement or during the course of the representation, we may express opinions or beliefs about the matter or various courses of action and the results that might be anticipated. Any expressions on our part concerning the outcome of the representation, or any other legal matters, are based on our professional judgment and are not guarantees. Our Professional Responsibility The code of professional responsibility to which we are subject lists several types of conduct or circumstances that require or allow us to withdraw from representing a client. These include, for example, nonpayment of fees or charges, misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts, action contrary to our advice, and conflict of interest with another client. We try to identify in advance and discuss with our clients any situation that may lead to our withdrawal. If withdrawal ever becomes necessary, we give our client written notice as soon as practicable. Under rules of the Texas Supreme Court and the State Bar of Texas, we advise our clients of the contents of the Texas Lawyer's Creed, a copy of which is enclosed. In addition, we advise clients that the State Bar of Texas investigates and prosecutes complaints of professional misconduct against attorneys licensed in Texas. A brochure entitled Attorney Complaint Information is available at all of our offices and is likewise available upon request. A client that has any 8 Updated 8-22-06 questions about the State Bar's disciplinary process should call the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of Texas at 1-800-932-1900 (toll free). Modification Of Our Agreement The engagement letter and these Standard Terms of Engagement reflect our entire agreement on the terms of this engagement. These written terms of engagement are not subject to any oral agreements or understandings, and any change in those terms can only be made in writing signed by both Brown McCarroll, L.L.P. and you. In Conclusion We look forward to a long and mutually satisfying relationship with you. Again, if at any time you have a question or concern, please feel free to bring it to the attention of your principal contact at our firm. Enclosure: THE TEXAS LA WYER'S CREED 9 Updated 8-22-06 THE TEXAS LAWYER'S CREED -- A Mandate for Professionalism The Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted this Creed, with the requirement that lawyers advise their clients of its contents when undertaking representation. I am a lawyer; I am entrusted by the People of Texas to preserve and improve our legal system. I am licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. I must therefore abide by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, but I know that Professionalism requires more than merely avoiding the violation of laws and rules. I am committed to this Creed for no other reason that it is right. 1. OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. A lawyer owes to the administration of justice personal dignity, integrity, and independence. A lawyer should always adhere to the highest principles of professionalism. I am passionately proud of my profession. Therefore, "My word is my bond." I am responsible to assure that all persons have access to competent representation regardless of wealth or position in life. I commit myself to an adequate and effective pro bono program. I am obligated to educate my clients, the public, and other lawyers regarding the spirit and letter of this Creed. I will always be conscious of my duty to the judicial system. II. LAWYER TO CLIENT. A lawyer owes to a client allegiance, learning, skill, and industry. A lawyer shall employ all appropriate means to protect and advance the client's legitimate rights, claims, and objectives. A lawyer shall not be deterred by any real or imagined fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity, nor be influenced by mere self- interest. I will advise my client of the contents of this Creed when undertaking representation. I will endeavor to achieve my client's lawful objectives in legal transactions and in litigation as quickly and economically as possible. I will be loyal and committed to my client's lawful objectives, but I will not permit that loyalty and commitment to interfere with my duty to provide objective and independent advice. I will advise my client that civility and courtesy are expected and are not a sign of weakness. I will advise my client of proper and expected behavior. I will Texas Lawyers Creed - Page 1 Updated 8-22-06 treat adverse parties and witnesses with fairness and due consideration. A client has no right to demand that I abuse anyone or indulge in any offensive conduct. I will advise my client that we will not pursue conduct which is intended primarily to harass or drain the financial resources of the opposing party. I will advise my client that we will not pursue tactics which are intended primarily for delay. I will advise my client that we will not pursue any course of action which is without merit. I will advise my client that I reserve the right to determine whether to grant accommodations to opposing counsel in all matters that do not adversely affect my client's lawful objectives. A client has no right to instruct me to refuse reasonable requests made by other counsel. I will advise my client regarding the availability of mediation, arbitration, and other alternative methods of resolving and settling disputes. III. LAWYER TO LAWYER. A lawyer owes to opposing counsel, in the conduct of legal transactions and the pursuit of litigation, courtesy, candor, cooperation, and scrupulous observance of all agreements and mutual understandings. III feelings between clients shall not influence a lawyer's conduct, attitude, or demeanor toward opposing counsel. A lawyer shall not engage in unprofessional conduct in retaliation against other unprofessional conduct. I will be courteous, civil, and prompt in oral and written communications. I will not quarrel over matters of form or style, but I will concentrate on matters of substance. I will identify for other counselor parties all changes I have made in documents submitted for review. I will attempt to prepare documents which correctly reflect the agreement of the parties. I will not include provisions which have not been agreed upon or omit provisions which are necessary to reflect the agreement of the parties. I will notify opposing counsel, and, if appropriate, the Court or other persons, as soon as practicable, when hearings, depositions, meetings, conferences or closings are canceled. I will agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time and for waiver of procedural formalities, provided legitimate objectives of my client will not be adversely affected. I will not serve motions or pleadings in any manner that unfairly limits another party's opportunity to respond. I will attempt to resolve by agreement my objections to matters contained in pleadings and discovery requests and responses. I can disagree without being disagreeable. I recognize that effective representation does not require antagonistic or obnoxious behavior. I will neither encourage nor knowingly permit my client or anyone under my control to do anything which would be unethical or improper if done by me. I will not, without good cause, attribute bad motives or unethical conduct to opposing counsel nor bring the profession into disrepute by unfounded accusations of impropriety. I will avoid disparaging personal remarks or acrimony towards opposing counsel, parties and witnesses. I will not be influenced by any ill feeling between clients. I will abstain from any allusion to personal peculiarities or idiosyncrasies of opposing counsel. I will not take advantage, by causing any default or dismissal to be rendered, when I know the identity of an opposing counsel, without first inquiring about that counsel's intention to proceed. I will promptly submit orders to the Court. I will deliver copies to opposing counsel before or contemporaneously with submission to the court. I will promptly approve the form of orders which accurately reflect the substance of the rulings of the Court. I will not attempt to gain an unfair advantage by sending the Court or its staff correspondence or copies of correspondence. I will not arbitrarily schedule a deposition, Court appearance, or hearing until a good faith effort has been made to schedule it by agreement. I will readily stipulate to undisputed facts in order to avoid needless costs or inconvenience for any party. I will refrain from excessive and abusive discovery. I will comply with all reasonable discovery requests. I will not resist discovery requests which are not objectionable. I will not make objections nor give instructions to a witness for the purpose of delaying or obstructing the discovery process. I will encourage witnesses to respond to all deposition Texas Lawyers Creed - Page 2 questions which are reasonably understandable. I will neither encourage nor permit my witness to quibble about words where their meaning is reasonably clear. I will not seek Court intervention to obtain discovery which is clearly improper and not discoverable. I will not seek sanctions or disqualification unless it is necessary for protection of my client's lawful objectives or is fully justified by the circumstances. IV. LAWYER AND JUDGE. Lawyers and judges owe each other respect, diligence, candor, punctuality, and protection against unjust and improper criticism and attack. Lawyers and judges are equally responsible to protect the dignity and independence of the Court and the profession. I will always recognize that the position of judge is the symbol of both the judicial system and administration of justice. I will refrain from conduct that degrades this symbol. I will conduct myself in court in a professional manner and demonstrate my respect for the Court and the law. I will treat counsel, opposing parties, the Court, and members of the Court staff with courtesy and civility. I will be punctual. I will not engage in any conduct which offends the dignity and decorum of proceedings. I will not knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or authorities to gain an advantage. I will respect the rulings of the Court. I will give the issues in controversy deliberate, impartial and studiedyanalysis and consideration. I will be considerate of the time constraints and pressures imposed upon the Court, Court staff and counsel in efforts to administer justice and resolve disputes. SCHEDULE OF CHARGES FOR NON-LEGAL SERVICES ITEM RATE CD Copying $5.00 per CD. Computer Assisted Legal Research (includes but is not limited to): Lexis, Courtlink, PACER, Westlaw Actual cost. Courier Deliveries/Pick-Ups Actual cost. Document Reproduction - Copies, prints and scans $.12 per page copy/print/scan $.90 per page color copy/print DVD Copying $10.00 per DVD. Express Courier: Lone Star Overnight, FedEx, UPS Actual cost. Facsimiles $.20 per page for outgoing transmissions. No charge for incoming facsimiles. File Conversion (pdfto tiff, etc.) $0.03 per page. FinishinglBinding: Deposition $1.00 per item. GBC/Spiral, Velo $2.50 per item. Imaging Black & white $0.15 per page. Color $0.80 per page. Mileage $0.445 per mile. OCR (optical character recognition) $0.03 per page. Office Supplies: Actual cost when quantity is beyond the amount 3-Ring Binders, Boxes or Other Supplies required in the normal course of business. Postage Actual cost for large mailings, certified or express mail. Prints from image $0.06 per page. Retrieving Retired Records $46.00 ASAP trip charge (Austin). $66.00 ASAP trip charge (Dallas). $52.00 ASAP trip charge (Houston). Telephone - Long Distance Actual cost. Trial Exhibits (Copy Center) $20 large. $10 small. Video Digitizing $50.00 per video hour. Video Editing Actual cost. Video Tapes $5.00 per tape. Video Synchronization $65.00 per video hour. Updated 8-22-06 AGENDA MEMO (02-06-07 AGENDA) DATE: February 1, 2007 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider award of bids for windows for the City Hall project, relocated Facilities maintenance Shop at Peek Service Center, and miscellaneous project change orders. Background. I have several items that need Council action for both the City Hall and Peek Service Center projects. The following details of each proposed change should provide background: City Hall Roof. First and foremost is the roof bid for City Hall. If you will recall, the original bid was rejected primarily because of the issue surrounding the inability to match the existing clay tile roofing material. Gallagher solicited new bids with several alternative materials. He was successful in finding materials that would work, BUT, with only one bidder, Creative Roof Systems, and an increase in material pricing, the bid was higher than the original bid. Staff and Gallagher reviewed the details of the roof bid with the Council’s oversight committee, who unanimously recommended approval of the contractor’s bid with an alternative material supplier, US Tile rather than Ludiowici. The bid for the US Tile Roof and appurtenances is $889,850. Chill Water Pump Relocation. The City Hall mechanical contractor made us aware that the chill water pumps could not be installed in the location shown on the plans and keep the existing building in operation – the chill water equipment was proposed to be located where the 9-1-1 room and one of the air handlers currently reside. An alternative location had to be designed, both structurally and mechanically, that would allow the existing mechanical equipment to operate until the old building is vacated for renovation. The redesign and relocation cost are $15,330 and $28,578 respectively. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AM City Hall-Peek Roof Re-Bid FM Shop- Misc CO 02 06 07.doc 3:15 PM 02/01/07 Facilities maintenance Shop Relocation. Council took previous action to reject bids for a stand-alone building to house our Facilities Maintenance operation, which had to be relocated to make room for the new Dispatch Facility at the Peek Service Center. Staff suggested to Council at that time that the $200,000+ cost of that new building could be reduced significantly if the FM shop could be constructed within one of the parking areas on the first floor of this building. Bids were received from existing subcontractors who are constructing the Dispatch facility for a change order costs of $26,925. Miscellaneous Electrical Changes. Several changes were necessary to the Peek Center electrical contractor’s contract to accommodate new Security-AV- Computer contracts at a change order cost of $4,477. Change Carpet Tiles to Non-Static. Pursuant to a recommendation from our IT staff, the carpet tiles in the Dispatch / Emergency Operation Center project need to be changed to “non-static” materials to alleviate problems with computer operations. The change order will net an increase of $12,199. Solid Surface Countertops. Staff initiated this change order from a long-term maintenance perspective. It has been our experience that laminate countertops (as specified on the plans) do not wear in this type of application. We missed that in the review of the plans prior to receiving bids. The change order is in the amount of $3,812. The following spreadsheet and supporting attachments will provide additional details. Discussion. Please see Attachment 1 for a list of recommended actions for the above-referenced bids and change orders. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AM City Hall-Peek Roof Re-Bid FM Shop- Misc CO 02 06 07.doc 3:15 PM 02/01/07 CITY HALL - PEEK CENTER CHANGE ORDERS Attachment 1 CONTRACTCONTRACT LOCATION INCREASEDECREASEPROPOSED COUNCIL ACTION CITY HALL 1Roof BidsBP-07-A$889,850.00Award contract to Creative Roof Systems - $889,850 2Chill Water PumpsRFP-7$28,578.00Award change order to SkiHi Mech-Elec - $21,915 Award change order to Tru-Grid - $3,135 Award change order to Piper-Weatherford - $2,678 Award change order to Groves Electric - $850 3Leo A Daly (Design) Chill Water Pumps$15,330.00Discuss addendum to LAD contract - $15,330 PEEK SERVICE CENTER New FM ShopRFP-1$26,925.00Award change order to Piper Weatherford - $3,442 Award change order to Morris Drywall - $12,072 Award change order to Liberty Park Painting - $6,036 Award change order to Firetrol - $3,875 Award change order to Salve Door - $1,500 Misc Electric ChangesRFP-2$4,477.00Award change order to Abel Electric - $4,477 Non-Static CarpetRFP-4/5$23,650.00Award change order to Prestige Interiors - $23,650 ($11,451.00)Award change order to Spectra Flooring - ($11,451) Solid Surface CountertopsRFP-6$3,812.00Award change order to Medco - $3,812 SUBTOTALS$992,622.00($11,451.00) TOTAL $981,171.00 2/1/2007 PO Box 941209 Plano, TX 75094-1209 2600 Technology Dr., Suite 400 Plano, TX 75074 972.633.0564 972.633.0164 Fax www.gallaghertx.com February 6, 2007 Mr. Bob Livingston, City Manager City Of University Park 3800 University Drive University Park, TX 75205 Re: University Park City Hall Additions and Renovations – 2006 Recommendation to Award – Roofing Package Mr. Livingston: The City of University Park received competitive bids for the City Hall Additions and Renovations, Roofing Package on Thursday, January 18, 2007. Please refer to the following bid tabulation for results. After evaluating the bid, Gallagher Construction Services recommends that the City of University Park extend a contract award to the following company in the specified amount: Alternate #3 BP# Scope Contractor Base Bid US Tile Total Contract BP 07-A Roofing and Sheetmetal CREATIVE ROOF SYSTEMS $ 961,100($ 71,250) $ 889,850 We recommend that the City award this contract contingent upon further negotiations with the City’s Representative and receipt of the required insurance and bonds. Gallagher Construction Services is honored for the continued opportunity to work with the City of University Park on this project. Sincerely, GALLAGHER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Von Gallagher, Vice President cc: Bud Smallwood – City of University Park University Park City Hall Roofing Re-Bid Options Base Bid$ 961,100 Alternate R1 Base Bid$ 961,100 Alternate R1 - Aftermarket Ludowici Tile$ (48,250) $ 912,850Total with Alternate R1 Alternate R2 Base Bid$ 961,100 Alternate 2 - Complete New Ludowici XL Tile$ 16,513 $ 977,613Total with Alternate R2 Alternate R3 Base Bid$ 961,100 Alternate 3 - New US Tile - Clay $ (71,250) $ 889,850Total with Alternate R3 Alternate R4 Base Bid$ 961,100 Alternate 4 - New Gladding, McBean Tile - Clay$ (13,250) $ 947,850Total with Alternate R4 Alternate R5 Base Bid$ 961,100 Alternate 5 - New MCA Tile - Clay$ (33,050) $ 928,050Total with Alternate R5 Alternate R6 Base Bid$ 961,100 Alternate 6 - New Monier LifeTile Concrete Tile$ (141,250) Redesign Fees for Structural Modifications$ 20,000Estimate Structural Modifications to support Concrete Tile$ 75,000Estimate $ 914,850Total with Alternate R6 Page 1 of 11/30/2007 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Gallagher Construction Management Services No. 00007 P. O. Box 941209 Telephone: (972) 633-0564 Plano, TX 75094-1209Fax: (972) 633-0164 TITLE:Chilled Water Pump RelocateDATE:1/2/2007 PROJECT:University Pk-City Hall Add/Renov.JOB: TO:CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARKCONTRACT NO: 3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 ATTN:BUD SMALLWOOD RE:To:From:Number: RFPALLTRADEGCS00001 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Please provide pricing to relocate the chilled water pumps per the ASI drawings issued during our progress meeting on 12/28/06. The documents include the following: 8 1/2"x11" Descriptions (pages 1 thru 4) Dated 12/20/06-ASI No. 2 Full Size Sheets (33 pages) include the following sheet numbers: A1.11, A1.13, A1.14, A1.23, A2.12, A2.13, A2.21, A3.11, A4.06, A4.15, A5.11, S1.03, S1.11, S1.12, S1.13, S3.01, S3.13B, S3.13T, S4.01, S4.03, S5.03, M1.13, M2.11, M2.12, P1.10, P1.11, P1.12, P1.13, E1.13, E1.23, E1.33, E2.11, E2.12 NOTE: These documents also include several other changes. Only include pricing for those changes asscoiated with the chilled water pump relocation. ItemDescriptionStock#QuantityUnitsUnit PriceTax RateTax AmountNet Amount SkiHi 8501.000LS$21,915.000.00%$0.00$21,915.00 True-Grid 000021.000LS$3,135.000.00%$0.00$3,135.00 Piper Weatherford 000031.000LS$2,678.000.00%$0.00$2,678.00 Groves Electric 000041.000LS$850.000.00%$0.00$850.00 Unit Cost:$28,578.00 Unit Tax:$0.00 Lump Sum:$0.00 Lump Tax:$0.00 Total:$28,578.00 APPROVAL: By:By: BUD SMALLWOOD RANDALL EDGAR Date:Date: ® Expedition REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Gallagher Construction Management Services No. 00001 P. O. Box 941209 Telephone: (972) 633-0564 Plano, TX 75094-1209Fax: (972) 633-0164 TITLE:Wood & AC Shop AdditionDATE:1/16/2007 PROJECT:University Pk-Dispatch/Temp PoliceJOB: TO:CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARKCONTRACT NO: 3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 ATTN:BUD SMALLWOOD RE:To:From:Number: RFPALLGCS00001 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Please provide pricing for the additional scope of work as detailed on the attached sheets. The scope of added work is for the finish-out of the Wood Shop, A/C Repair Shop, and Storage on the south side of the demising wall. ATTACHED SHEETS: Dated 1/8/07 CS-1, CS-2 A1.0, A2.1-A2.6, A3.1- A3.4, A4.1, A5.1, E1.1-E1.6, M1.1-M1.3, P1.1, P1.2 ItemDescriptionStock#QuantityUnitsUnit PriceTax RateTax AmountNet Amount Piper Weatherford-Allowance-CO 000011.000LS$3,442.000.00%$0.00$3,442.00 Morris Drywall-CO 000021.000LS$12,072.000.00%$0.00$12,072.00 Liberty Park Painting-CO 000031.000LS$6,036.000.00%$0.00$6,036.00 SkiHi 000041.000LS$0.000.00%$0.00$0.00 Mechanical-Allowance-$19,356 Able Electric-Allowance-$19,953 000051.000LS$0.000.00%$0.00$0.00 Firetrol-CO 000061.000LS$3,875.000.00%$0.00$3,875.00 Allowance-Install Salvaged OH 000071.000LS$1,500.000.00%$0.00$1,500.00 Door Unit Cost:$26,925.00 Unit Tax:$0.00 AbleElectric&SkiHiMechanical Lump Sum:$0.00 MetalBuildingAllowanceisbeing utilized. Lump Tax:$0.00 Total:$26,925.00 APPROVAL: By:By: BUD SMALLWOOD RANDALL EDGAR Date:Date: ® Expedition AGENDA MEMO (02/06/2007 AGENDA) DATE: January 31, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Transfer of library account money to UP Friends of the Library Background Since the mid-1980’s, the City has held donated money intended for a University Park library. The donations originally came from a Cub Scout fund raising effort. The money has been accounted for separately and is credited with interest earnings once a year; the current balance is $28,819.60. Recently the City received a letter from David Ellis, President of Friends of the University Park Public Library (UPFOL). The Friends request that the City’s library account money be transferred to the UPFOL. This will consolidate their assets and relieve the City of the responsibility to hold the funds. A copy of the letter from Dr. Ellis is attached. Recommendation There is no compelling reason for the City to retain the library funds. Staff recommends approving transfer of the money to the UPFOL. A partial year interest credit will be made before sending the funds. Attachments: Letter dated January 17, 2007, from David W. Ellis, MD 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Library money agenda memo 02-06-07.doc 3:50 PM 02/01/07 AGENDA MEMO (02/02/06 AGENDA) DATE: February 2, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Livingston City Manager SUBJECT: CHANGE MEETING DATES The mayor will be unavailable for a city council meeting on March 20 and would like to change the meeting for that date. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss a date for the second meeting in March. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 U:\Docs\Livingston\2007\Memo to change March 20 date for city council.doc 9:25 AM 02/02/07 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 25, 2006 The Board of Adjustment of the City of University Park met on Monday, September 25,2006 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members Attending Staff Members Attending Lon Houseman, Chairman Steve Metzger William Hitzelberger, III Bob Clark John Jackson Roy Kull Present & Seated Mike Maberry Norma Coldwell Bud Smallwood - Director of Public Works Harry Persaud - Community Development Mgr. Mark Hardin - Plan Reviewer Rob Dillard - City Attorney Jennifer Deaver - Building & Zoning Asst. Mr. Houseman called the hearing to order, introduced the board members and staff in attendance, and read the charge of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Houseman asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the August 28, 2006 Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Metzger made a motion to approve the minutes. With a second from Mr. Hitzelberger, the motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Kull then read the specifics of the first case. B.O.A. 06-007 - James Doster, owner of the property situated at 3201 Northwest Hwy, City of University Park, requesting a variance to Section 28-105 (3) of the City of University Park Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow for a 4 feet high wrought iron fence in the required front yard. The subject tract is zoned single family "SF -2" zoning district classification in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Houseman opened the public hearing and inquired if anyone wished to speak. Mr. James Doster, owner / resident of3201 Northwest Hwy. came forward and introduced himself. He stated that he and his family have resided there for ten years and his house faces north. In that time there have been several instances on the property, all of which are logged on the police reports that were submitted with his application. Included in that report were instances of domestic violence, and armed man, a case in which a man spit in his face, among other matters within the report. He then stated that this report contained a summary of the matters involving the locational property hardship and then urged the board to grant his request. Mr. Houseman inquired if the bushes would be placed inside or outside of the proposed fence. Mr. Doster stated that the landscaping would be placed on the outside of the proposed fence. Mr. Houseman inquired if this was a four foot wrought iron fence and Mr. Doster stated yes. Mr. Houseman inquired if it would be a problem if the fire department required a knox box would that pose a problem? Mr. Doster stated no, and that he is currently utilizing the city's Direct Alarm Program. Mr. Clark inquired if Mr. Doster was planning on leaving the Airline Dr. Side of the property open. Mr. Doster stated that he was not. Mr. Metzger questioned why he chose to use the stone landscaping and Mr. Doster stated that Mr. Persaud had suggested it would be appealing to the board. Mr. Metzger inquired when the construction of the Northwest Hwy wall would be completed and Mr. Smallwood stated that completion would be sometime in 2007. Mr. Houseman then inquired if all of the neighbors were in favor of the fence and Mr. Doster stated yes, they all approve of the fence. He then inquired if the city staff had any recommendations, Mr. Smallwood stated no. Mr. Houseman inquired if any of the board members had any further comments. Mr. Clark stated that he does see the property hardship being that of safety and security but expressed concerns of setting precedence for the entire neighborhood. Mr. Houseman stated that he agreed with Mr. Clark but also sees this case as unique and then police records prove that. Mr. Dillard stated that he sees the police record proves there is a security issue, being evidential of a legitimate, locational hardship. Mr. Metzger made a motion to grant the request to allow the applicant to construct and maintain a 4' wrought iron fence in the required front yard encased with landscaping and with the appropriate gate having due regard for police and fire safety to Northwest Drive. With a second from Mr. Kull the motion was approved 6-0. There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Houseman adjourned the meeting. Approved by: Date: -ti}M,~ -,-I "t~/?p" 7 Lon Houseman, Chairman Board of Adjustment Coffee Park Advisory Committee MEETING MINUTES January 11, 2007 The Coffee Park Advisory Committee of the City of University Park met on Thursday, January 11, 2007 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 Jerry Grable - Council Liaison Roy Coffee, Jr. Diane Galloway Gary Olp Lyssa Young Alan Wasserman Staff Members Attending: James "Blackie" Holmes - Mayor Bob Livingston - City Manager Gerry Bradley - Parks Director Amber Lively - Administrative Secretary Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Mr. Pardoe. Introduction As this was the first meeting of the Coffee Park Advisory Committee, Chairman Bill Pardoe began by giving a brief introduction of the goals for the committee. He explained that the majority of the City's parks are highly used by both University Park and Highland Park residents. Coffee Park however, is under utilized. The City now has a great opportunity to renovate the park due to the Northwest Parkway wall project. Mr. Gary Olp of the firm GGOArchitects has been hired by the City to complete the master plan for Coffee park. There are two main goals that the master plan should achieve. First, to provide a barrier free playground that is accessible for all children. Second, to create an area that could serve as a historical timeline of University Park. The agenda for this first meeting is to make everyone familiar with the project and then to briefly discuss any ideas. Mr. Bradley also offered a brief introduction of all the present committee members. Background Mr. Bradley began by giving the committee some background information on the Coffee Park project. Members were shown the existing park conditions. The master plan for the park was developed by first starting with new ideas of what the Park Board wanted to see installed into the location. The main goals were to install fencing along the Hillcrest side for added safety for children, add additional beds for planting, a trail system, new amenities and additional lighting. Mr. alp's contract also includes the development of Artha Garza Park which is across Hillcrest from Coffee Park. The goal here is to tie the design of this area in with Coffee Park and perhaps use it as an entryway into the City. After his background information, Mr. alp was introduced to the committee to go over the concept plan for the park. Concept Plan - Gary DIp Mr. alp began by showing the committee the concept plan for Coffee Park. In creating the concept, several major functions were reworked to create a more open and inviting park area. One major change to the park will be the reorientation of the baseball diamond to the northwest corner of the park. This will open the south side of the park and also help with some drainage issues on the field. Also, the field reorientation would create a buffer between homeowners and active park usage. There will be two entryways along the south end of the park. Both will have park identification and will tie into the trail system that runs throughout the park. Additional parking will also be created along the south side of the facility. A fencing system will be installed along Hillcrest to provide safety for children at the play area. Additional beds will be made to allow for seasonal as well as perennial color planting. The trail system will incorporate berms to allow for some different levels throughout the park. The new play area will have a shade structure which will help separate the playground from the rest of the park. A meditation garden will be installed as a quiet resting place for park patrons. Throughout the park as well as in the entryways, large boulders will be installed. These could possibly offer a place for City history and or artwork if desired. The overall goal of the concept plan was to keep an organic feeling space within a City that is highly developed. Goals for Master Plan - Gerry Bradley In creating a master plan for Coffee Park, Mr. Bradley has been approached by two individuals who would like to incorporate some new features into the park. Mr. Roy Coffee, Jr. approached Mr. Bradley with the idea of incorporating some of the City's history into the park through a timeline or other fashion. Mr. Bradley was also approached by Mr. Chris Murzin about the possibility of creating a "barrier free" playground. For this first meeting, Mr. Bradley would like to discuss the historical aspect. Potential playground structures will be discussed in the February meeting. Mr. Bradley displayed several photos that were taken at Irving's Centennial Park. One of the major features of this facility is a large circular area which serves as a timeline of Irving's history. The timeline is constructed of stone and bronze plaques with the historic detail. Mr. Bradley emphasized the fact that there are numerous materials from which a timeline could be constructed. With this he opened the floor for committee member discussion. Committee Discussion Mr. Coffee began by explaining why he feels that there needs to be some history incorporated in to the park area. Mr. Coffee's father, whom the park was named for, was an instrumental part in the development of University Park. Mr. Coffee himself grew up and still resides within the City. He feels that it is important for the young people of our City to know its history. Also, the park area should tell enough about that history so that a teacher could bring his/her class to the area and give a history lesson. He explained that there have been many important factors that have influenced how the City came to be and it would be ashame to let those factors go to waste and not be shared with the residents. After Mr. Coffee spoke, it was suggested that he as well as Mrs. Galloway begin working on a group of historic events that might be good to use in the park. These major events could serve as a guideline for the other smaller events to be included. All committee members present felt that this was a good starting point and that a historical component was needed in one of the City parks. Members also emphasized the fact that the history should be displayed in a warm, inviting manner. Most felt that the timeline used in Irving seemed to be informative, but uninviting. Mr. Coffee also mentioned that his brother is a sculptor and is interested in creating an art piece for the park. Committee members raised a few more questions in regards to the schedule for completing the plan and the construction. Adjournment Mr. Bradley asked committee members about a possible meeting schedule. All committee members present were in agreement to meet again in a month to look at a potential layout for the playground area. Mr. Bradley will schedule for a representative to be on hand at the February meeting to discuss playground equipment. There being no further business of the Coffee Park Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned by Mr. Pardoe. The next meeting of the Coffee Park Advisory Committee is scheduled for Thursday, February 15, 007, at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall. -' ,1:6'07 Date William Pardoe, Chairman PARK ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 9, 2007 The Park Advisory Board of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 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 Jerry Grable - Council Liaison Julia Baltser Bruce Collins Liz Farley Mac Fuller Carol Seay Jacky Spears Jeff Turpin Alan Wasserman Absent & Excused: Darrell Lane Stan Tucker Call to Order Staff Members Attending: Gerry Bradley - Parks Director Brent Jones - Urban Forester Amber Lively - Administrative Secretary The meeting was called to order by Mr. Pardoe. Approval of Minutes Mr. Pardoe asked for any comments on or changes to the October meeting minutes. There being no changes, Mr. Wasserman moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Baltser and approved unanimously by the Board. Reports 1. Overview of Proiect Timeline The main objective for the January meeting of the Park Board was to brief members on the status of current and upcoming projects. Board members were given a revised copy of the Park Department's Capital Improvement Plan that covers the next five (5) years. The grand total for all projects is approximately $6 million. A large portion of this total includes the funding for the Northwest Parkway wall project. After Board members had a chance to look over the project list, Mr. Bradley briefly gave a description of the projects and their current status. 2. City Hall & Goar Landscape Improvements Bids were received in November 2006 for the landscape portion of Goar Park and the City Hall renovation. The lowest bid received was for $1.3 million which was over the original budget estimate. Staff plans to re-bid the project in late January 2007. Board members had several questions about the components of the project and also whether or not the project could be done in house. Mr. Bradley will bring the concept drawings to the next meeting of the Board. It is Staff's recommendation that the work be completed by the contractor rather than in house. Current construction photos were shown to the Board. 3. Barbara Hitzelberqer Park Mr. Bradley presented members the concept drawing that was approved by both the Park Board and City Council. Staff has received an estimate for the completion of the project which is a little higher than what has been budgeted. The fountain is the most expensive portion of the project. In addition, there are still items included in the plan which could be changed or placed as a bid alternate to lower the overall cost of the project. Mr. Talley should have the plans completed by the end of January. Board members raised the idea of incorporating donation items such as benches and stones into the park to help with the cost. 4. Caruth Park Landscapinq The entry bed on the southeast end of the park has been completed. Mr. Bradley showed Board members the before and after pictures of the area. All work was completed in house by park staff. Lighting will be installed in January 2007 to illuminate the park name. Work will begin soon on the botanical bed that will be placed in the center of the park. Staff will continue to work on a concept plan for a bed to be placed on the northeast corner. 5. Sis Germany Landscape Proiect Sis Germany Park is a small parcel of land owned by the City at Preston and Greenbrier. It is the recommendation of Staff that all plant material be removed to make a fresh start on the park's landscaping. Lettering will be installed on the curved brick wall that is already in place at the site. Mr. Bradley has met with a member of the Germany family, Joan Germany, about possibly installing a sculpture or water feature. Mr. Pardoe worked on Sis Germany when it was first developed in 1973. Since that time there have been no significant changes to the park or its features. 6. Curtis Park Bridqe Mr. Bradley displayed several pictures of the existing conditions on the bridge. The railing and some of the stone work is in much need of repair. The overall structural aspect of the bridge, including the walkway, need to be addressed. Currently there are drainage issues, the railing is deteriorated and does not meet code, and the stone work has started to come loose in certain areas. Staff is going to obtain a quote from a mason for possible repairs to the stonework. Some cedar railing has been purchased by the Parks Department in hopes of repairing the railing. Mr. Bradley emphasized the fact that the total impact of repairs will not be known until the project has begun. 7. Burleson Basketball Court The court has been completed and is open for use. The court is smaller than a regulation size court. The first event held at the court was a basketball clinic hosted by the SMU basketball team. The turnout for the clinic was good. The only portion left to complete on the court is the acrylic coating which will be applied in better weather. Staff is contemplating the idea of installing lighting for the court so that it will be available for evening use. 8. Germany Track Mr. Bradley briefed members on the conditions of the track before it was replaced. The City took on the responsibility of replacing the track surface from the school district. HPISD as well as the Town of Highland Park are expected to contribute some funding for the project. The track surface has been installed. Currently, Staff is waiting for the track lanes to be painted. The goal is to have the facility open by January 15, 2007. Once the track itself is complete, the Parks Department will repair disturbed turf areas and install additional landscape at the two (2) entrance sign beds. 9. Holiday Decorations Mr. Bradley informed Board members that he would like to expand the holiday decoration program over the next five (5) years. Currently he is looking for a large artificial tree for Elena's Park. The artificial tree would be used instead of purchasing a live tree each year. He would also like to purchase a large artificial tree for Goar Park. Staff feels that a tree li~hting ceremony held at Goar Park could be a community event similar to the 4 of July festivities. Board members felt that this would be a good idea since Goar Park is a key point within the City. Mrs. Baltser asked whether or not an actual live evergreen tree could be grown at either Elena's or Goar for future use in tree lighting ceremonies. Unfortunately it is very hard to grow an evergreen tree of this size in our area. Mr. Bradley will bring some examples of possible artificial trees that could be purchased after visiting with vendors in February 2007. 10. City Marker Proqram Mr. Bradley displayed the marker that has been approved by the City Council to be located at key entrances into the City. Board members were shown the potential locations for the first five (5) markers to be installed. A University Park resident is actually in the cast stone business and has agreed to make the first five (5) markers for free. Staff will take pictures of the finished markers before they are installed to get final approval. Board members had several questions regarding landscaping around the markers. Mr. Bradley explained that many locations were small and could not accommodate extensive landscaping. The intent of the program was to provide markers in areas that could not accommodate large landscape beds. 11. Coffee Park Master Plan Mr. Bradley reviewed the concept plan which was approved by the Board and Council. He has been approached by Roy Coffee Jr. about the possibility of incorporating a timeline into the park detailing the history of the City. Mr. Bradley has also been approached by a parent of a special needs child in regards to creating a play area that will be "barrier free" and could be utilized by all children. Staff is currently researching possibilities for both the timeline and components for special needs children. In addition, a committee has been formed to review staff recommendations. 12. Goar Park Entry Bed Mr. Bradley displayed current images of the completed Goar Park Entry bed. The entire project was completed in house by the Parks Department. 13. Tree Ordinance and TFUP Proqram Mr. Bradley informed the Board that the City's tree ordinance has been passed. After construction, a minimum of two (2) designated, six (6) inch caliper trees, whether existing or planted, must be located on the homeowner's property or adjacent parkway. Homeowners will have three (3) options to comply with ordinance. The TFUP program is going well for the year. To date, forty-six (46) trees have been ordered. Planting will begin this week. 14. Equipment Replacement Proqram Mr. Bradley briefed the Board on the current replacement plan for park department equipment. The goal is to replace old and unused equipment with more efficient items. To date Staff has purchased a fertilizer spreader, turf dresser, chemical sprayer, and field maintenance equipment. 15. Plans for Summer Activities Staff is still researching a slide to replace the three (3) meter diving board. Dive In Movies will be held again at the pool during the summer. This year, the movies will be offered for free so that the department will not have to pay rental fees for the movies. Staff is also planning on having a movie night in the park that will be free of charge. A fishing derby is also in the works for Saturday, June 9, 2007. The derby will be held at Caruth Park with the pond being stocked with fish from a local fishery. The event will be open for children from five (5) to twelve (12) years of age. 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 meeting of the Park Board is scheduled for Tuesday, February 13th. ~R~ I.~-~ William Pardoe, Chairman Date Park Advisory Board Public Safety Advisory Committee MINUTES January 18, 2007 The Public Safety Advisory Committee of the City of University Park met on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 6:00 P.M. in the Court Room of City Hall at 3800 University Blvd., Dallas, TX 75205. The following are minutes of that meeting. Committee Members Attending:Staff Members Attending: Robert, Boyd, Chair Gary W Adams, Chief of Police Kirk Dooley David Ledbetter, Fire Chief Dr. Doug Turgeon Syd Carter, Council Liaison Ed Crissey Jerry Grable, Council Member Doug Bruton Jacob Speer, Asst. Public Works Director Jackie Brewer Robert Brown, Administrative Captain Francie Johnsen Dorris Certain, Accreditation Manager Charles Terrell, Jr. Officer A.J. Sherrill Doug Woodward Donna Wilkerson, Administrative Assistatant Amara Durham James Garner Robert Boyd, Chair, opened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. Committee members introduced themselves. Chief Adams introduced staff members present including new School Resource Officer A.J. Sherrill. Officer Sherrill is a five year veteran of the University Park Police Department. He was an officer in Abilene for 10 years prior to coming to University Park. An outside consultant was hired to perform an assessment center. The process included two high school students. When the results of the assessment were presented to Chief Adams, Officer Sherrill had the highest score. Chief Adams also stated that he spoke with Mr. Williams, the Asst. Principal from the high school, and asked for his input. He stated that he felt Officer Sherrill was the better fit for the position. Also, the two high school students involved felt Officer Sherrill would be able to relate to the students better. Officer Sherrill has been in the high school for two weeks and is already building a great report with the students. Capt. Robert Brown has recently accepted the position as Chief of Police in Duncanville. The city council has asked the Public Safety Advisory Committee to discuss Halloween night block parties and send a committee recommendation back to the council. Jacob Speer, Asst. Public Works Director, explained the policy and history of block parties in University Park. In the past, residents would go to Dispatch, inform the dispatcher that they PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2007 Page 1 of 5 would like to have a block party and were told to go to the Friendship lot to pick up signs/cones. The signs/cones were not always returned. Over time, residents became too comfortable with this policy and would help themselves to the signs/cones. The police department had no way of knowing where block parties were taking place. A few years ago, the city began asking for a Block Party form to be filled out. City staff began delivering and picking up the signs/cones. On Halloween night 2006, the city had requests for 46 block parties. This took city crews a total of 3 working days to deliver and pick up the signs/cones. The crews that transported the signs were pulled off of other city work during this time. Some of the requests came in as late at thirty minutes before the start time of the block party. This request was the highest number of block th parties that the city has seen. Historically, July 4, the weekends before school starts and after school is dismissed, and Texas/OU weekend are busiest times for block party requests. Typically, these weekends bring in 15-20 requests. As long as the request is submitted with three days’ notice, city crews have ample time to prepare signs and distribute them. The problem with the high number of party requests this year was that it caused gridlock in the city. Several streets were shut down for blocks. The majority of these block party requests were not for legitimate block parties. They were just to shut down the street to keep traffic off while kids were trick or treating. City staff estimates that 90% of the requests were not for actual block parties. There were three EMS calls on Halloween night between the hours of 6 to 10 p.m. One of these calls was in the northwest part of the city were numerous streets were blocked off. EMS personnel had to get out of the ambulance and move the barricades at each end of the block before continuing on to the call. This resulted in a much longer response time. Fortunately, this time, this did not cause any severe health problems to the patient. The block party instruction packet clearly states to that emergency vehicles must be allowed access to the block and someone must be available at all times to remove the traffic cones and signs if necessary. No one was near the signs to move them for EMS personnel. City staff realizes that there are greater issues at hand. Some UP residents request block party signs in an attempt to keep non-residents from driving the streets on Halloween night. Committee members had many suggestions/recommendations with city staff responding: 1.Have residents pick up/drop off the signage on Halloween to cut down on city expense/time. City staff stated that the problem this would pose would be that no one would know which streets would be blocked off all around town. 2.Require a fee for block parties on this night and use the money to offset the cost of putting more police officers on the street to run radar. Chief Adams stated that the police department usually has more officers working on Halloween, but the call volume also increases on this night. UP does not have the manpower to do nothing but write tickets all night. 3.If EMS has a call, and no one is there to move the barricades, then deny the block the request to have another block party. Staff stated that keeping track of denials and the process of denying someone a block party would be difficult. PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2007 Page 2 of 5 4.Can the city enact a curfew on Halloween? Chief Adams stated that the crime rate in UP does not justify a curfew. 5.Enforce the three-day time frame on the application. If it is not turned in three days in advance, then simply deny the request. Jacob stated that by enforcing this, it still does not help the logistic problem that the city is having on Halloween. 6.A suggestion was made to ask for a deposit to accompany all block party requests. Jacob stated that in the past, the city required a deposit from construction companies to ensure that the lots stayed clean during construction. The $100 deposit was such a small amount, that no one came back to claim the deposit once the job was completed. An audit was conducted and tens of thousands of dollars in deposit fees were found to not be claimed. The record keeping/finance aspect of a refundable deposit is very time consuming. 7.A suggestion was made for EMS crews just to drive over the barricades in the event of an emergency. Chief Ledbetter stated that he would not allow his crews to do this. This can damage the ambulance/fire equipment. 8.A suggestion was made to limit the number of block parties a block can have to two a year. Jacob questioned the logistics behind this idea. Who wants to be the city employee who has to tell a resident no you can’t have a block party? He states that typically blocks that have parties have the same ones year after year: Halloween and the weekends surrounding the start/dismissal of the school year. 9.No two contiguous blocks should be allowed to have the streets blocked off at the same time. This would pose a zig-zag problem for EMS. 10.The suggestion was made to simply do away with Block Parties on Halloween. 11. A suggestion was made to only allow a certain number of Block Parties on Halloween night. Jacob stated that since a majority of these requests were not real block parties, we would have residents upset that they were denied a request for a legitimate party when the next block asked for their street to be blocked off and they were not having a party. They just simply wanted the street closed. 12.A suggestion was made to require the requestor to provide a number for the dispatch center to call if, in the event of an emergency, some one needed to move the barricades. Staff stated that if it is not a block party, then there might not be anyone around to move the barricades. This might be an instance that where Code Red could be activated for a particular block to give notification to move the barricades. 13.The question was raised about changing the speed limits in the city on Halloween to20 m.p.h. Chief Adams stated that this could not be done. 14.A suggestion was made that a Block Party Committee be formed to discuss this issue. One committee member reiterated that the Council had asked this committee to come up with recommendations, not form another committee to make the decision. The question arose on what consequences the city could impose on those who do not follow the rules. Also, who would enforce the rules? Chief Adams suggested that if the committee recommends that block parties/street closures are allowed on Halloween, then the police department will set up a command post in the communications center with a large map of the city. Each street closure would be marked on the PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2007 Page 3 of 5 map and police/ems would be notified of any block closures along the route of their call. This would speed up the arrival times. Councilmember Grable stated that this many street closures pose a problem with our mutual aid requests with Highland Park and Dallas. If HP or Dallas is responding to an emergency in our city, they may not be able to find the fastest alternate route. Also, street closures give a false sense of security to parents. Children are out in the streets after dark and it is simply not safe. Mr. Boyd raised the following question to the committee: Can we all agree that block parties are not stopping non-residents from coming in the city on Halloween? The committee agreed. Committee members discussed that it is not right for residents to look for a way to keep others out of their city. Some are in favor of allowing everyone who wants to come in, to be able to come in. Dr. Turgeon stated that the problems during street closures do not always come from non- residents. He has seen an instance where an angry resident drove around the barricades and over a lawn just to get to his residence. Mr. Boyd then asked the members, by show of hands, to vote on the recommendation from the committee. He asked which members were in favor of denying any street closures on Halloween night, October 31, 2007 as a one time trial, only. All committee members were in agreement. In closing, Mr. Boyd told the committee that Chief Adams was staying on with the city as the Chief of Police. He asked the Chief about the new Captain opening. Chief Adams stated that it would be filled internally and had excellent candidates that had applied. It was also recommended that at some point, the committee discuss the Bush Library and School Safety. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Tuesday, April 10, 2007 The next Public Safety Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for at 6:00 p.m. in the Large Conference Room of City Hall. Recommendation to the City Council from the Public Safety Advisory Committee in regards to Block Party requests on Halloween: The committee recommends, as a one time trial on October 31, 2007, that the city allow block parties to continue on Halloween. These block parties would have no assistance from the city. This meaning that no cones and/or barricades would be provided by the city. The committee recommends that PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2007 Page 4 of 5 the city not allow any street closures on this particular night due to EMS crews’ slower response time to emergencies. No streets may be barricaded or blocked off at any time on Halloween. This poses a safety issue. The committee recommends that no cones/barricades be provided by city crews for block parties on this one day/night only. The committee agrees, should the council direct, to review this policy again next year with an eye toward making the recommendation permanent. _________________________ Robert Boyd, Chair PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2007 Page 5 of 5