Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2000-02-14 AgendasCITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PRE - COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 14, 2000 — 5:30 PM For the Meeting conducted at the North Richland Hills City Hall - Pre - Council Chambers 7301 Northeast Loop 820. NUMBER ITEM ACTION TAKEN 1. Discuss Items from Regular February 14, 2000 City Council Meeting 5 Minutes 2. 1 2000 -022 Discuss Cancellation /Rescheduling of March 13 City Council Meeting 5 Minutes 3. 1 2000 -024 Discuss Dates for Council Budget Review 5 Minutes 4. 1 2000 -019 Discuss Request to Allow a Touring Vehicle /Limousine Permit in North Richland Hills 10 Minutes 5. 1 2000 -017 Cost of Services Report: Parks and Recreation Analysis and Recommendations 30 Minutes 6. 1 2000 -021 Review Interlocal Agreement with the Regional Transportation Council for Development and Operation of Commuter Rail Service 10 Minutes 7. *Executive Session — The Council may enter into closed executive Session to discuss the following: Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters as Authorized by Government Code § 551.074 (10 Minutes) Salary for Municipal Court Judge 18. 1 Adjournment — 6:50 pm *Closed due to subject matter as provide by the Open Meetings Law. If any Wjonjs contemplated, it will be taken in open session a Ir 8 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 14, 2000 — 7:00 PM For the Meeting conducted at the North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers 7301 Northeast Loop 820, at 7:00 p.m. The below listed items are placed on the Agenda for discussion and /or action. Items on the consent agenda will be voted on in one motion unless a Council Member asks for separate discussion. 2. The Council reserves the right to retire into executive session concerning any of the items listed on this Agenda, whenever it is considered necessary and legally justified under the Open Meetings Act. 3. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need assistance should contact the City Secretary's office at 427 -6060 two working days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. NUMBER ITEM ACTION TAKEN 1. Call to Order 2. Invocation — 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Special Presentations a.) Recognition of Customer Friendly Service NRH Employees 5. Removal of Item(s) from the Consent Agenda City Council Agenda 2/14/00 Page 2 6. Consent Agenda Item(s) a. Minutes of the Pre - Council Meeting February 14, 2000 b. Minutes of the City Council Meeting February 14, 2000 GN 2000 -10 C. Calling City Council Election - Resolution No. 2000 -06 GN 2000 -11 d. Changing Time of February 28 Regular Council Meeting PW 2000 -07 e. Approve Agreement for Engineering Services with Knowlton-English- Flowers, Inc. for the Johnson Ground Storage Tank Rehabilitation and Repainting - Resolution No. 2000 -07 7. PZ 99 -26 Public Hearing to Consider the Request of Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. for a Zoning Change on a portion of lot 3R3, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition from OC Outdoor Commercial to C1 Commercial (Located at the 8700 block of Grapevine Highway) - Ordinance Number 2449 8. PZ 99 -27 Public Hearing to Consider the Request of Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. for a Special Use Permit to Allow a Gas Station on Property Zoned C1 Commercial. The subject Parcel is Proposed Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition (Located in the 8700 block of Grapevine Highway - Ordinance No. 2450 9. PS 99 -29 The Request of Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. to Replat Lots 2R2 and 3R3, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition, into Lots 2R2R and 3R3R and creating Lot 6 (Located at 8707 Grapevine Highway). 10. PW 2000 -08 Vacate a Portion of Two Utility Easements Located on Lot 2R2R and Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition - Ordinance No. 2454 City Council Agenda 2/14/00 Page 3 11. PZ 99 -47 Public Hearing to Consider the Request of James Handy for a Special Use Permit to Allow a Self- Service Car Wash on Lot 4R, Block 1, Walker Branch Addition, in a C1 Commercial District. This Property is Located at the Northwest Corner of Grapevine Highway and Harwood Road - Ordinance No. 2457 12. PZ 99 -44 Public Hearing to Reconsider the Request of Mary Jane and Edward Lett for a Zoning Change on Tracts 2A3, 2AB3, and 2A3C1, W. C. Newton Survey Abstract 1182, Addressed as 7591 and 7601 Precinct Line Road from AG- Agricultural to PD- Planned Development for a Wedding Chapel and Other Associated Accessory Wedding Chapel Uses - Ordinance 2448 13. PZ 99 -36 Appeal Public Hearing to Consider Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1874 to Add Article 12, Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Requirements PZ 99 -36 - Ordinance No. 2455 14. PS 99 -44 Request of Lego Custom Homes for an Amended Plat of Lots 16R and 17R, Block 10 Oak Hills Addition. The property is addressed as 7216 and 7220 Spring Oak Drive 15. GN 2000 -12 Public Hearing to Consider Extending Ordinance No. 1994 Juvenile Curfew Ordinance for Three Years - Ordinance No. 2453 16. GN 2000 -13 Park and Recreation User Fees - Ordinance No. 2456 17. GN 2000 -14 Proposed Deep Water Well at 8333 Davis Boulevard; L.C. Tubb Jr. Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 1 f 6y 18. a) Citizens PresentationPjS, b) Information and Reports 19. Adjournment INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR 00 -022 Date: February 14, 2000 Subject: Discuss Cancellation /Rescheduling of March 13 City Council Meeting The NLC Conference in Washington will pose a conflict with the regular scheduled March 13 City Council meeting. The majority of Council will be attending the NLC Conference in Washington, March 10 - 14. We are asking Council to either reschedule or cancel the first meeting in March. The consensus of the Council will require official action at the February 28 City Council meeting. Below we have listed a few rescheduling options: ♦ Monday, March 6 at 7:00 pm ♦ Tuesday, March 7 at 7:00 pm ♦ Thursday, March 16 at 7:00 pm ♦ Friday, March 17 at 11:00 am or 2:00 pm ♦ Monday, March 20 at 7:00 pm Staff does not anticipate a conflict with regards to platting or zoning issues that would be affected by the cancellation of the March 13 City Council meeting. However, should there be an emergency arise with respect to a platting or zoning issue, we can schedule a brief meeting to hear these particular items. With that in mind, Council can agree on a tentative date., should we need to meet for the above mentioned scenarios. Contingent on Council consensus, Staff will place an action item on the February 28 meeting to either officially cancel or reschedule the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Hutson City Secretary ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. +Date: February 14, 2000 . Subject: 2000/2001 Budget Retreat Schedule We need to reserve the facility for the 2000 /2001 Budget Retreat with City Council as soon as possible. We are proposing to hold the budget retreat at Garrett Creek Ranch where we held it last year. The schedule we used last year beginning on a Friday at 12:00 (noon) and continuing till Saturday, seemed to work much better for most of the Council, than the traditional Saturday, Sunday approach. We would propose to do that again this year. The dates that normally fit best would be July 28 and 29, as we would have information from the Tarrant Appraisal District on our property values and so forth. However, that is also the weekend for the TML Association of Mayor and Council Members meeting. We know that most of the Council will want to attend that. In the alternative we have a couple of other weekends we would like to ask your consideration of; these are as follows: • Friday, July 21 and Saturday, July 22 • Friday, August 4 and Saturday, August 5 Both of these dates would work with regard to appropriate times for follow -up public hearings and proper filing of the Budget for public display. At this point, the staff's preference would be August 4, 5. However, we could certainly work with either of these weekends. We request Council direction on which weekend is preferred, so that reservations can be made for the facility. Respectfully submitted, Larry J. unningham City Manager LJC /Id ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. Date: February 14, 2000 Subject: Discuss Permitting of Limousine/Tquring Vehicles IR 00 -019 We have received an inquiry from a citizen who is interested in establishing a specialized type of limousine or touring vehicle service in North Richland Hills using an antique vehicle to provide service for special events such as weddings, proms, and other special occasions. He is proposing that the service be provided by a group of individuals from his church, and that all proceeds from the operation go to his church. The purpose of this report is to review the major requirements of establishing such a business with you, and to receive your input regarding allowing such a service in North Richland Hills as well as establishing an ordinance to regulate this type of business. Sections 215.073 & 215.0735 of the Local Government Code allow municipalities to regulate this type of service and prescribe qualifications of an operator of a vehicle that uses the public streets in the municipality. The State Transportation Code authorizes cities to impose a permit fee for services of this type. Establishing an ordinance and permit process regarding this type of service will allow the City to insure a minimum standard for vehicles used in this capacity, and will prevent our City from being inundated with requests to operate limousine services within our City through the creation of certain requirements. An ordinance regulating limousines and touring vehicles would establish minimum safety requirements for vehicles operating in this capacity by requiring that the vehicle meet minimum Texas vehicle safety standards, be reasonably clean and sanitary, and be kept in good repair. Such an ordinance would also require that every vehicle used to provide limousine /touring vehicle service be permitted through the City, and that every driver is properly licensed through the State. The permit process would require that any person wishing to establish this type of business within the City make application in writing which should include the name, address, telephone number and true owner of the business as well as the state license number, types and seating capacity of each vehicle. The ordinance used in our research of this issue requires a permit fee of $60 to $90 per vehicle and grants each permit for one year provided that the company complies with the terms of the ordinance. The issuance of a permit is usually decided based on the following factors: ➢ financial history of the applicant; ➢ the number, kind, age and type of equipment to be used; ➢ the probable effect of increased service on traffic; ➢ whether the safe use of the streets will be endangered; ➢ the character, experience and responsibility of the applicant; ➢ the applicant's ability to perform the service; ➢ adequate insurance for the vehicles and operators; and, ➢ requirements that all drivers be properly licensed and insured according to state laws. ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS In order to insure that North Richland Hills does not become a center for limousine and taxi service in general, it is proposed that any ordinance include certain requirements. For example, the ordinance could require that any business operating in this capacity be based in North Richland Hills and that requests for service must be originated from within North Richland Hills. In addition, we might want to consider limiting this type of service to antique vehicles according to the State's definition of such vehicles, or to luxury sedans capable of carrying eight passengers and being no more than five years of age. The State Transportation Code defines an antique vehicle as a passenger vehicle that is at least 35 years old. I believe a touring vehicle /limousine ordinance would be workable and even beneficial if proper requirements and public safeguards are provided. We look forward to reviewing this information with you Monday, and hearing any comments and suggestions you might have on how to proceed. If you wish staff to proceed in establishing such an ordinance, a draft ordinance will be prepared for your review and placed on the agenda for the next pre - council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Larry J. Cunningham City Manager Beyond Horizons, Inc. February 8, 2000 Mr. Larry J. Cunningham, City Manager City of North Richland Hills North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Dear Mr. Cunningham: As discussed with you earlier, I have purchased and rebuilt a 1958 London Cab. Purpose of this venture is to make available to wedding parties at the North Richland Hills Baptist Church for use as an alternative in lieu of a limousine. Other churches in North Richland Hills will be provided an opportunity to use this service as well. Fees for this service will be competitive with regular commercial limousines servicing the area. The collected funds will be paid to the church with approximately one -half of the fees dispensed to Beyond Horizons, Inc. to cover insurance and operational expenses for the cab. Volunteer drivers for the London Cab will be members of the Dudley Jackson Sunday School Class of North Richland Hills Baptist Church. Designated volunteer drivers will undergo special training for this type of vehicle and for proper etiquette and procedures. All of the drivers will be licensed under Texas laws. The cab will be insured by a comparable amount of insurance as other commercial limousines. Domicile of the cab will be the North Richland Hills Baptist Church facilities, and it will operate primarily for the benefit of the churches and people of North Richland Hills. To execute this plan will require issuance of a permit by the City of North Richland Hills authorizing pick -up of these specific passengers and transporting them, in some cases, to outside locations; i.e., Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, hotels, or reception facilities. We will not solicit passengers outside the North Richland Hills area. City officials in other municipalities with whom I have spoken will respect the licensing authority from North Richland Hills, and no other license will be required. In Tarrant County we have discovered that most vehicles for this type of service are registered in the cities of Fort Worth or Arlington. As stated earlier, this enterprise is just another means of providing a source of donations to aforementioned churches and to provide a unique alternative for wedding parties in North Richland Hills. We appreciate your consideration in granting the requested license for this special purpose. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely yours, .Jack Bean 721 Heritage Hills Drive Fort Worth, TX 76109 INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. Date: February 14, 2000 Subject: Cost of Services Report: Parks and Recreation Analysis and Recommendations IR 00 -017 This past year, DMG Maximus, Inc. was commissioned to complete a Fee Study of citywide services. Included in the Parks and Recreation study was the full cost of delivering general fund programs and services. Parks and Recreation thoroughly studied the report and is recommending fee adjustments. The recommendations have been reviewed with the Finance Director and City Management. The proposed changes are based on several criteria, including the DMG Study, Neighboring Cities Fee Comparisons and the department's Revenue Policy. The Revenue Policy provides for consistency in the development of fees and charges. For pricing purposes, programs and services are classified -under one of the following service levels: • Public Goods — includes parks, trails, and open space which benefit the public at large. • Merit Goods — includes youth at risk programs, recreation centers and special events, which benefit both the community and those who participate. Public Goods — includes recreation classes, aerobic programs and rental facilities, which primarily benefit those who participate. Based on these classifications, fees are recommended at levels of cost recovery appropriate to their classification as public, merit, or private goods. For example, Public Goods typically have little cost recovery since they provide an overall benefit to the community and are funded through taxpayer support. On the other hand, Private Goods have a higher determination of cost recovery since the individual primarily benefits. The following attachments outline the proposed fee recommendations. The fees are proposed to be effective May 1, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, Vickie Loftice Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS N E O v �L a O L v d O O O N / M L � U. a) L y C O O C a) U c _o Co vi U C co Co o D Q N •o E f° U N a) y C co •— y m co 2 d ai L 0 E To CU cc c Q N E y (o U � N w Q � N O � Co 0 E-0 a) C � a) E O U �. Q L y �+ O m C > O O d N S y a) U U � o co co (1) a) 0 . a y U C 0 w a) " N N N br L 9u , co y y (R 0 Co Q c w O a) O in U w 0 n y N O in y O ., «. a >E,Y O) y" �, y 0 V a) O .. a U a O U U O C U O . C vi a) _ •` co D O C U C Co C a) N ` U 0 () y N U O U o N U 18 a) Co w O U >. () U) �. y' (o O y 'o -D L 'Q cn -0 O -O O N 2rm r. F: O •a c O Co y 4? (D � E X —_ Co N - C6 t- Co N Lo N E— a Lo y y L C cr, Q > N a) > O 'O O O y A a) U C w co vi 3 a`Ui U C c0) aUi N 0 a)) N 4 N O 0) CL c0000 0 a) y co a � ayi s `� E cc-4 o M -0.0 0 ° a00 U Lo V64 C Qm a> co a) a) o"- o '�- 5 o �y64� �� Lo o� O m 5 o� m a (D O i >. 0 h 4? a) W O C L -= L o y N O O N y L y .. LLo �o Co O y fo y _ Lo j-0 y y y ' r- 0 >+.— U 0` V Co ) O w C y :o U -o - W c y Lo C O (o X C .Q t U 0 L L O O C co C y s Z dG� O Q >> Q c N z Q U y N y Q U v a) :.i L LE c O O C N C .Q fo Q) Q) CO CD .0 . r CL y a) r � Q G O >> E U a Q L E O Co CL y in a) Q U C a) i N d o ,> O c U d L% = > d •L d o ai U L _Q d o U co >, d o Co N y C U� L "0 C O) a)E cu `o Y Eo m C 03 E C y o E C EoC co C C EoC co c C i x X ar O dm•C�0 a) a) C U5 w- O a O O O O >' L� O^ co d O o) O a d cu �- N (M 0 0 0 c ma cu `� O c ` O O.- O 0. a cod ` O Q) C0.- " 0 .- M C W ui �0 �E� �Qa s0'C) 0 a ` .0 -D c �w zzwd ZCL m O a N Lo vcmo (o a d L6 CL z o cu c >. o M o 0 0 + c +- o o Co o C) 'e v o 0 co 0 O-2 O O o C) 0 o o 0 0 U') O Cl O CO o --a r.► + p 0 \ 0 \o 0 \ \o 0 \o 0 \° 0 \o 0 \° 0 \° \o 0 O O 4) O N O I-- Co CD Ln u Co Ln 0 In o r O r N M N LO O� LO ? L L L a� O r- O M M O) L') LO Co co 0 co U') co LO Co M M co N N N I .— O O 0 cn O � O r LL 64 to 64 64 64 64 64 (Al 64 64 64 64 60). 64 64 64 60 604 C � -' mm o r� rn Co °N O O U�Lo M N L L o LO •* ' m, a U. Lo 64 co 64 co 64 0o 64 co 69 co 69 69 64 0) 64 M N 64 64 V) 64 t� 64 N 69 U) U) ^ in y L O 4) w 0 O i w LL d y 41 LL L v L LO C d �+ d y - LL LL O d C c c y y c c N 0 a o co y c °—) _ :r �= 4) In O 'D O O_ 0- L la C ()0 y y E In H c = O L_ U w N c L C U) Q C7 z z > Q LL 3 C7 li = C7 in N z 0 a) L y C O O C a) U c _o Co vi U C co Co o D Q N •o E f° U N a) y C co •— y m co 2 d ai L 0 E To CU cc c Q N E y (o U � N w Q � N O � Co 0 E-0 a) C � a) E O U �. Q L y �+ O m C > O O d N S y a) U U � o co co (1) a) 0 . a Fee Recommendations Continued Facility Rentals Parks and Recreation Facility Rental rates have only increased one time during a 12 year period. Today, our rates are priced significantly below private market value and lower than most metroplex Parks and Recreation Departments. As a result, rentals are booked weeks and sometimes months in advance. The con- stant use, combined with thousands of people using the facility, contributes to the deterioration of the carpeting and facility. The revenue generated from facility rentals is not proportionate with main- tenance and management costs. The Recreation Supervisor estimates that 30% of the day is spent managing and booking rentals. The DMG Maximus, Inc. Fee Study reported similar findings and have suggested in their final report that rental rates be increased by 91 % to achieve full cost recovery. As outlined in the Revenue Pol- icy, facility rentals are considered private services whose primary benefits are to the individual and not the public at large. Therefore, facility rentals should recover all direct and a portion of indirect costs. During Hours of Operation Type of Facility Current Price Proposed Price Classroom (Small) $9/ per hour $17/ per hour Classroom (Medium) $13 /per hour $25/ per hour Assembly Room $23/ per hour $44/ per hour Gymnasium $35 full court/per hour $50 full court/per hour $20 1/2 court/per hour $30 1/2 court/per hour Residents: Minimum Rental 2 hours After Hours Rentals Non - Residents: Minimum Rental 3 hours Type of Facility Current Price Proposed Price Classroom (Small) $21/ per hour $37/ per hour Classroom (Medium) $25 /per hour $45/ per hour _ Assembly Room $35/ per hour '$64 per hour Gymnasium $47 full court/ per hour $70 full court/ per hour Residents: Minimum Rental 3 hours Non - Residents: Minimum Rental 4 hours r AL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR 00-021 Date: February 14, 2000 Subject: Interlocal Agreement with the Regional Transportation Council for Development and Operation of Commuter Rail Service This same interlocal agreement is being presented for approval to all the Mid- Cities which are affected by extension of the Trinity Railway Express through the Mid- Cities to Fort Worth. This includes Arlington, Bedford, Colleyville, Euless, Grand Prairie, Grapevine, Haltom City, Hurst, as well as North Richland Hills. This agreement has been reviewed and discussed previously by these cities and North Richland Hills at the Regional Transportation Council Meeting last September. All cities were in favor of the agreement, but some had comments. Most comments have been addressed in this final draft. The main items covered in the cost sharing agreement are listed below. 1. North Richland Hills will participate in ongoing operation and maintenance costs of the Trinity Railway Express. 2. North Richland Hills will pay $55,000 (1.1 %) of the total annual amount of $775,000 from the Mid - Cities group. 3. Payment will start when the rail service is completed to the Fort Worth Ninth Street Station (estimated to be in October 2001). 4. Annual payment will vary up or down based on independent audit of transit riders showing percentage from North Richland Hills. 5. A preliminary feasibility study will be conducted and a report produced on the use of the Union Pacific Corridor for future commuter rail service. 6. Effective date is when executed by both parties. 7. Ending date for agreement is September 30, 2004 and may be renewed. 8, The agreement may be terminated at anytime if both parties agree. A couple of minor corrections were noted when staff reviewed the agreement. The notation of "TREMC" in the last line of 5.3 on page 4 should be "TREMS ". Also, 6.3 on page 5 should be modified to read "..., the cities participating in this cost sharing process agree to pay as a arouD a total fixed amount of $775,000 annually... ". The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and has no objection to the wording. Respey1fully spbmil�ed i regory V'J:,Dic We0s, P.E., Public Works Director ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS CITY OF To: From: Subject: Date: Ref: RICHLAND HILLS Legal Office MEMORANDUM City Manager City Attorney Draft of Interlocal Agreement — Trinity Railway Express February 4, 2000 CMM #00 -006 The policies for the proposed commuter service will be under the control of the Board of Directors of Dart and the Executive Committee of the T. In reading the agreement, we may lose sight of that. The Council needs to know that it is committed until September, 2004. There is no unilateral right to cancel or withdraw. I find no objection to the wording of the agreement. R x McEntire P.O. Box 820609 * North Richland Hills, Texas * 76182 -0609 7301 Northeast Loop 820 * 817 -581 -5501 * FAX 817 -581 -5516 North Central Texas Council Of Governments TO: Members of the Regional Transportation DATE: January 28, 2000 Council Trinity Railway Express Monitoring Subcommittee Selected City Managers FROM: Michael Moms, P.E. Director of Transportation SUBJECT: Transmittal of Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing in the Trinity Railway Express Corridor Included in this transmittal is the cost sharing agreement, outlining a process for participation by the interested local governments in the operating costs needed for the extension of the Trinity Railway Express service through the Mid - Cities area to Fort Worth. All of the comments and concerns that were raised at the September 1999 meeting of the Regional Transportation Council Trinity Railway Express Monitoring Subcommittee were considered as the revised draft agreement was prepared. On those issues where there were differing opinions, the agreement was drafted to reflect the majority view. In summary, the agreement is a four - year "plus" agreement, beginning in 2000 and continuing until September 30, 2004. Contributions will not begin until the service begins operation to at least the Ninth Street Station in Fort Worth, anticipated for October 2001. The amount to be contributed from the nine participating local governments would be fixed at $775,000 annually. Each local government's share would be based on an annual audit of the ridership. These audits would be funded by the North Central Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG), and the first one would be conducted approximately six months after the service begins. The Regional Transportation Council, with recommendation from the subcommittee, will appoint one representative from the Trinity Railway Express Monitoring Subcommittee to serve on the Trinity Railway Express Advisory Committee. At this time, we would ask that you consider this document the final version and begin to discuss it with your attorneys and councils. We would like to have all agreements signed by each city by the end of March. If you have any questions or concerns about this agreement, please do not hesitate to call me at (817) 695-W40. q7' Thank you for your dedication to regional transportation. % 7f ff� MIA, JD:lr Enclosure cc: Roger Snoble, DART John Bartosiewicz, FWTA Mike Eastland, NCTCOG Julie K. P. Dunbar, P.E. 616 Six Flags Drive, Centerpoint Two P. O. Box 5888. Arlington, Texas 76005 -5888 (817) 640 -3300 FAX: 817- 640 -7806 ® recycled paper http://www.nctcog.dst.tx.us INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Between THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL and THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS for DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE WHEREAS, the North Central Texas Council of Governments and the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) have actively worked to implement commuter rail service in the area and facilitate the contribution by cities that are not members of a Transit Authority to the operational costs of commuter rail services; and, WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Council Trinity Railway Express (TRE) Monitoring Subcommittee was appointed by the RTC to meet on an as- needed basis to monitor policy issues related to the THE service and the collection of operating funds for the service; and, WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to the citizens of the City of North Richland Hills to have access to commuter rail service connecting the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth with each other and with Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport to relieve traffic congestion, provide transportation opportunities, and aid in attaining federal air quality standards; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the Interiocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (hereinafter referred to as "DART') and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the 7), both metropolitan transportation authorities created and existing pursuant to Article 1118y, Texas Revised Civil Statutes (hereinafter referred to jointly as the 'Transit Authorities "), may exercise jointly the power to provide governmental services for the public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 1182k, Texas Revised Civil Statutes, all railroad - related activities by public agencies, separately or jointly exercised, are public and governmental functions for the public purpose and necessity; and, WHEREAS, the Transit Authorities have entered into an Interlocal Cooperative Agreement to define their respective rights and responsibilities regarding the provision of commuter rail service along the Trinity Railway Express Corridor and have begun commuter rail service as the Trinity Railway Express; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows: Article 1. DEFINITIONS: 1.1 `Commuter rail service" means operating passenger trains for commuters by, or under the control of, the Transit Authorities. 1.2 "Capital improvement" means any addition to the asset base of either Transit Authority (1) for the sole benefit of and utilization by the commuter rail service, or (2) representing the proportionate share of joint facilities benefiting, or utilized on behalf of, Commuter Rail Service. 1.3 "Maintenance of way" means the labor, material, tools, and equipment required to maintain all aspects of the railroad tracks, structures, signals, and communications. 1.4 "Boards" means the Board of Directors of DART and the Executive Committee of the T. 1.5 "Best efforts" means one party's use of all reasonable exertions to fulfill the obligations of that party under this Agreement. It does not mean an obligation to attempt to fulfill the obligations of any other party. 1.6 "Capital costs" means the costs to plan, engineer, design, purchase, and construct the facilities, equipment, and systems for the commuter rail service that may be depreciated in accordance with standards set by the Federal Accounting Standards Board. Article 2. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS: 2.1. North Central Texas Council of Governments and Regional Transportation Council: The North Central Texas Council of Governments (hereinafter referred to as "NCTCOG ") is the metropolitan planning organization for the North Central Texas region including Dallas, Fort Worth, and the City of North Richland Hills. The North Central Texas Council of Governments is authorized by law to conduct coordinating and technical studies as may be required to guide the unified development of the area, eliminate duplication, and promote economy and efficiency through areawide planning. The Regional Transportation Council, comprised primarily of local elected officials, is the regional transportation policy body associated with the North Central Texas Council of Governments, and has been and continues to be a forum for cooperative decisions on transportation and is charged with the responsibility of preparing and maintaining the metropolitan transportation plan and transportation improvement program for the Dallas -Fort Worth Metropolitan Area in accordance with applicable federal regulations. 2 2.2. Trinity Railway Express Monitoring Subcommittee: The Trinity Railway Express Monitoring Subcommittee ( TREMS) was created by the RTC to monitor and advise on the provision of commuter rail services by THE between the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. 2.3 Trinity Railway Express Advisory Committee: DART and the T have created the Trinity Railway Express Advisory Committee ( TREAC) to assist the Boards on policy, budget issues, and service levels for TRE. A representative from the TREMS shall be appointed by the RTC to the THE Advisory Committee. A representative from the Trinity Railway Express Monitoring Subcommittee shall be nominated by the subcommittee and appointed by the Regional Transportation Council to the Trinity Railway Express Advisory Committee. 2.4 Companion Agreements: The RTC will enter into companion agreements with the cities identified in Attachment 1. The RTC will also enter into a companion agreement with the Fort Worth Transportation Authority and the Dallas Area Rapid Transit to disburse the funds collected by the RTC from the cities listed in Attachment 1, including the City of North Richland Hills. Article 3. POLICY: 3.1 Trinity Railway Express Advisory Committee: Policies, service levels, fares, and budgets are presented and reviewed by the TREAC prior to final approval by the Boards. Notice of all TREAC meetings and agendas and copies of supporting agenda materials shall be provided to the cities listed in Attachment 1. 3.2 Boards: All policies for the commuter rail service shall be adopted by the Boards of the Transit Authorities, and those contracts reserved by statute for award by the Boards remain with the Boards. These include, but are not limited to, budget approval, service levels, service extensions, procurement, and fares. The budget for the service and spending authorizations will be as provided annually by the Boards. 3 Article 4. CAPITAL COSTS: 4.1. Capital Costs of Fixed Facilities and Equipment: The Transit Authorities shall separately contribute the capital for, and own the capital improvements, including all equipment, stations, rail cars, and locomotives. 4.2 The Trinity Railway Express Monitoring Subcommittee may review and comment upon the planning and design of all line improvements to and on the THE Corridor. 4.3 If the City of North Richland Hills or TREMS requests additional improvements not accepted by the Transit Authorities, the City of North Richland Hills or TREMS may individually fund such improvements. Article 5. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: 5.1. Service Schedules: Service levels shall be determined by the Transit Authorities. Pursuant to this Agreement, service on Monday through Friday shall be at least four trains eastbound and four trains westbound in both the AM and PM peak ridership periods. 5.2. Service Quality: The Transit Authorities shall develop and establish the procedures to implement and ensure that the highest possible quality of service, consistent with the budget, is provided. 5.3. The City of North Richland Hills or TREMS may suggest or request changes or additions to the service schedules at any time, but such is especially encouraged during the formation of the annual THE budget. Any suggested or recommended service not adopted by the Transit Authorities may be separately funded by TREMC, provided equipment, facilities, and crews are available. Article 6. COST SHARING FOR CONTINUING OPERATIONS: 6.1. General: The parties recognize that the commuter rail service contemplated under this Agreement will create ongoing costs for operation of the service and maintenance of the assets used in its provision, as well as other recurring expenses. Such costs include the Director of Trinity Railway Express, Commuter Rail Service Operator, maintenance of way costs and capital assessments, dispatching costs, insurance, security on trains, administrative costs, and revenue collection. 4 6.2. There will be no operating funds collected from the City of North Richland Hills until the THE extension to Fort Worth's Ninth Street Station in Downtown Fort Worth is operational, anticipated to take place October 2001 (FY 2002). 6.3 Starting in the first fiscal year of operation and continuing for the duration of this Agreement, the cities participating in this cost sharing process agree to pay a fixed amount of $775,000 annually to provide the operating funds outlined above. 6.4. The initial city allocation of costs will be based on the allocation shown in Attachment 1 and will be revised solely from an independent audit of transit riders. 6.5. The funds in the first fiscal year of operation will be prorated based on the opening day of service. 6.6 NCTCOG will fund and conduct an annual audit of the boardings and alightings of the service, to be used to adjust the city allocation for that year and to use the audit as a starting allocation for the next fiscal year. It is anticipated that the audit would occur six months after the opening service to the Ninth Street Station. 6.7 The parties agree that the City of North Richland Hills will contribute its share of the costs, as outlined in Attachment 1, for FY 2002, and as revised from the aforeoutlined annual audit, for FY 2003 and 2004. 6.8 The City of North Richland Hills will make a 50 percent payment at the six - month mark of the appropriate fiscal year with a final payment due following the audit at the end of the fiscal year. Article 7. FURTHER STUDY: 7.1 A feasibility study for double tracking the THE service between Dallas and Fort Worth will be completed as soon as possible. Frequent off -peak service and service extensions into the Dorothy Spur and Burlington Northern corridors are contingent upon this capacity. 7.2 A preliminary feasibility report of the use of the Union Pacific Corridor as defined in the Mobility 2025 Plan will be completed by the end of FY 2002. If feasible, service would be implemented as soon as possible after that date. 7.3 A feasibility study of the development of commuter rail service along the Dorothy Spur will be completed by the end of FY 2003. 5 Article 8. TERM AND TERMINATION: 8.1 Effective Date: The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date on which it is executed by the parties. 8.2 Term: This Agreement shall be in effect until September 30, 2004, and may be renewed by written agreement of the parties. 8.3 Mutual Termination: The parties may terminate this Agreement by mutual agreement at any time. 8.4 New Transit Authority: In the event any city identified on Attachment 1 joins an existing transit authority or becomes or forms a new transit authority with a dedicated source of funding for transit, the obligations under this Agreement for that city shall cease on the day the funding begins and be transferred to the new transit funding source. The $775,000 fixed amount shall be reduced by the amount shown on Attachment 1 for the withdrawing city. Article 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS: 9.1. Force Maieure: It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties to this Agreement that, if the performance of any provision of this Agreement is delayed by reason of war, civil commotion, act of God, governmental restrictions, regulations or interferences, fire or other casualty, court injunction, or any circumstances which are reasonably beyond the control of the party obligated or permitted under the terms of this Agreement to do or perform the same, regardless of whether any such circumstance is similar to any of those enumerated herein, the party so obligated or permitted shall be excused from doing or performing the same during such period of delay, so that the period of time applicable to such requirement shall be extended for a period of time equal to the period of time such party was delayed. 9.2. Contractual Relationship: It is specifically understood and agreed that the relationship described in this Agreement between the parties is contractual in nature and is not to be construed to create a partnership or joint venture or agency relationship between the parties. Nor shall any party be liable for any debts incurred by the other party in the conduct of such other party's business or functions. 9.3. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts. Each such counterpart shall be deemed an original of this Agreement, so that in making proof of this Agreement, it shall only be necessary to produce or account for one such counterpart. 9.4. Complete Agreement: This Agreement embodies all of the agreements of the parties relating to its subject matter, supersedes all prior understandings and agreements regarding such subject matter, and may be amended, modified, or supplemented only by an instrument or instruments in writing executed by all of the parties. 9.5. Captions: The captions, headings, and arrangements used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not in any way affect, limit, amplify, or modify its terms and provisions. 9.6. Governing Law and Venue: This Agreement and all agreements entered into in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are, and will be, executed and delivered, and are intended to be performed in the County of Dallas and the County of Tarrant, State of Texas, and the laws of Texas shall govern the validity, construction, enforcement, and interpretation of this Agreement. In the event of litigation between the parties hereto, their successors or assigns, with regard to this Agreement and any subsequent supplementary agreements or amendments, venue shall lie exclusively in either Tarrant County or Dallas County, Texas. 9.7. Severability: In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be for any reason held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision(s) hereof, and this Agreement shall be revised so as to cure such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision(s) to cant' out as near as possible the original intent of the parties. 9.8. Changed Circumstances: If future federal, state, or local statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or action render this Agreement, in whole or in part, illegal, invalid, unenforceable, or impractical, the parties agree to delete and /or to modify such portions of the Agreement as are necessary to render it valid, enforceable, and /or practical. Each section, paragraph, or provision of this Agreement shall be considered severable, and if, for any reason, any section, paragraph, or provision herein is 7 M 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14. determined to be invalid under current or future law, regulation, or rule, such invalidity shall not impair the operation of or otherwise affect the valid portions of this instrument. Enforcement: If any party initiates an action to enforce any provision of this Agreement or for damages by reason of an alleged breach of any provision hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the other parties all reasonable and necessary costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with such action. Survival: All of the terms, conditions, warranties, and representations contained in this Agreement shall survive, in accordance with their terms, and shall survive the execution hereof. Incorporation of Exhibits and Schedules: All Exhibits and Schedules attached hereto are by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof for all purposes as if fully set forth herein. Reference: The use of the words "hereof," "herein," "hereunder," and words of similar import shall refer to this entire Agreement, and not to any particular section, subsection, clause, or paragraph of this Agreement, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Further Assurances: Each party agrees to perform any further acts and to sign and deliver any further documents which may be reasonably necessary to cant' out the provision of this Agreement. Notice: Whenever this Agreement requires or permits any consent, approval, notice, request, proposal, or demand from one party to another, the consent, approval, notice, request, proposal, or demand must be in writing to be effective and shall be delivered to the party intended to receive it at the address(es) shown below: If to TREMS: Trinity Railway Express Monitoring Subcommittee Regional Transportation Council Go North Central Texas Council of Governments Attn: Michael Morris, P.E. Post Office Box 5888 Arlington, Texas 76005 -5888 E3 If to the City of North Richland Hllls: IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in duplicate original at Arlington, Tarrant County, Texas, the day of , 2000. ATTEST: CITY Mayor NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Attorney D Executive Director Z O W w CL x w0 >m. LL QO J V Q Z > Fm — Z F- F- 0 O a.+ V O a O U c i Q. 0 U ATTACHMENT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O +•+ N 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O U Otn�0eLeeW 'tm L O C4tONTZ r r r r a� Q = OR C! Lq Lq d I ' N U L CL U) N m _ > U) N M.- L > ci c O amUW 12 t 0 (,D= � O Z Employee Recognition The following employees were recognized by the public for their customer friendly service to the citizens of NRH. Phyl Baloga, Economic Development Greg Oldenburg, Citicable Chris Schwartz, NRH20 Steve Norwood, Assistant City Manager Mary Ann Townsend, Animal Services Code Enforcement Employees Cheri Hansen, Teen Court Coordinator Bob Nelson, Public Works Diane Key, Utility Billing David Lopez & Chuck James, Public Works Mary Beth Harvey, Animal Control Scott Walker & Make Curtis, Public Works Jimmy Cates, Public Works Betty Osborne, Finance Tim Hightshoe, Parks Department MINUTES OF THE PRE - COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE PRE - COUNCIL ROOM AT CITY HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 — JANUARY 24, 2000 — 6:00 P.M. Present: Charles Scoma Mayor JoAnn Johnson Mayor Pro Tern Lyle E. Welch Councilman Russell Mitchell Councilman Frank Metts, Jr. Councilman Don Phifer Councilman T. Oscar Trevino, Jr. Councilman Larry J. Cunningham City Manager Randy Shiflet Deputy City Manager Steve Norwood Assistant City Manager Greg Vick Managing Director of Community Services Patricia Hutson City Secretary Alicia Richardson Assistant City Secretary Rex McEntire Attorney Greg Dickens Public Works Director Marcy Ratcliff Director of Planning Larry Koonce Finance Director Jim Browne Parks & Recreation Director Tom Shockley Police Chief Thomas Powell Support Services Director Andy Jones Fire Chief Paulette Hartman Adm. Assistant to the City Manager Mike Curtis Assistant Public Works Director Vickie Loftice Assistant Parks Director Ed Dryden Building Official Absent: Matt Milano, Ph.D. Councilman ITEM DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT CALL TO ORDER Mayor Scoma called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. DISCUSS ITEMS Agenda Item No. 8 — PZ 99-41 - Councilman Trevino NAN FROM REGULAR questioned the location of the zoning request. Ms. JANUARY 24, 2000 Ratcliff clarified where the property was located. CITY COUNCIL MEETING ,, 2000 -09 DISCUSS The Council was advised that Charter GREG V. CHARTER Communications is increasing basic cable rates COMMUNICATIONS effective February 1. The City has one year from the RATE INCREASE I time the increase is implemented to act upon the rate Pre - Council Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 2 ITEM DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT increase. Council was asked whether they desired to intervene and have the rate increase reviewed by a consulting firm or to let the rate increase take affect with no review. COUNCILMAN MILANO PRESENT AT 6:04 P.M. After discussion, the consensus of the Council was to pursue reviewing the rate increase by an outside consulting firm and to join with other cities served by Charter in reviewing the rates. IR 2000 -08 DISCUSS The Council scheduled a joint meeting with the STEVE N. /MARCY A JOINT MEETING Planning and Zoning Commission for February 28 to DATE WITH review the proposed comprehensive plan. Because PLANNING & this is a regular Council meeting date, Council ZONING ON THE instructed staff to place an item on the next agenda to COMPREHENSIVE change the meeting time for the regular Council PLAN meeting to 6:00 p.m. The work session will follow the regular meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m. Pre- __ Council meeting will start at 5:00 p.m. The Council requested that Staff provide them with a briefing during the Pre - Council meeting. Council also asked that the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission be invited to the 5:00 Pre - Council meeting. I 2000 -10 Staff presented the proposed changes to the user NAN DEVELOPMENT fees for the Building Inspections, Planning and Public AND INSPECTION Works Departments. The proposed fees were USER FEES compared to permits and fees in other cities. The Staff addressed concerns and questions of the Council. Some of the concerns expressed by the Council were 1) the need to control the City's costs and to reduce costs so that the City is not passing on to the customer any more costs than necessary; 2) the City Manager was asked to look at the turn around on the quality of work in the Building /Planning Department; 3) the need to recover costs; and 4) the need to remain competitive in the market place. The Council took action on the proposed Development and User Fee ordinance during the regular Council meeting. Pre - Council Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 3 ITEM I DISCUSSION I ASSIGNMENT ADJOURNMENT Mayor Scoma adjourned the Pre - Council meeting at 6:49 p.m. Charles Scoma — Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Hutson — City Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 — JANUARY 24, 2000 - 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Scoma called the meeting to order January 24, 2000 at 7:01 p.m. Present Charles Scoma JoAnn Johnson Lyle E. Welch Russell Mitchell Frank Metts, Jr. Don Phifer Matt Milano T. Oscar Trevino Jr Staff: Larry J. Cunningham Randy Shiflet Steve Norwood Greg Vick Patricia Hutson Alicia Richardson Rex McEntire ROLL CALL Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman City Manager Deputy City Manager Assistant City Manager Managing Director of Community Services City Secretary Assistant City Secretary Attorney 2. INVOCATION Ms. Wendy Dorman — Student Council Secretary — North Ridge Middle School gave the invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. City Council Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 2 5. REMOVAL OF ITEM(S) FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Trevino removed item 6E, PW 2000 -06. 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED A. MINUTES OF THE PRE - COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 1999 B. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 10, 1999 C. GN 2000 -04 - SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1994 JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE FOR THREE YEARS D. PU 2000 -05 - AWARD BID FOR ROOF REPLACEMENT TO TEAM DESIGN IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,900 Councilman Phifer moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Johnson to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda. Motion to approve carried 7 -0. 6E. PW 2000 -05 APPROVE PURCHASE OF RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR THE RUFE SNOW DRIVE WIDENING PROJECT APPROVED Councilman Trevino abstained from discussion and voting. Mr. Greg Dickens, Director of Public Works summarized PW 2000 -05. Mayor Pro Tern Johnson moved, seconded by Councilman Metts to approve PW 2000- 05. Motion to approve carried 6 -0, with Councilman Trevino abstaining. City Council Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 3 7. PZ 99 -34 - CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW OF LOTS 2R, 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, DAVIS -NORTH TARRANT PARKWAY ADDITION — THORNBRIDGE CROSSING AND ZONED C1 — COMMERCIAL. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH TARRANT PARKWAY AND DAVIS BOULEVARD IN THE 8400 BLOCK OF DAVIS BOULEVARD APPROVED Mr. Robert Katzen, applicant, explained the nature of his request. Council discussed landscape buffering and lighting issues. Ms. Marcy Ratcliff, Director of Planning, summarized Staff's and Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: to remove the 16 parking spaces at the rear of Lots 3 and 4, that face toward the single family development in the Thornbridge Additions and to minimize the height of the two light poles along the southern driveway entrance of Lot 4, which is due north of the single family Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Thornbridge Phase IV -A. Mayor Pro Tern Johnson moved to approve PZ 99 -34 as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission with the following provisions: to minimize the height of the two light poles along the southern driveway entrance from 30 feet to 10 feet high; delivery trucks to operate between the hours of 8:00 am and 10:00 pm; both dumpsters to be located at the northeast corner of the building; landscaping to include evergreen bushes to extend 15 foot and provide solid screening within 2 years; and replace dead landscaping within 3 months. Councilman Trevino seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 6 -0. 8. PZ 99-41 - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF CARRERA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FOR A ZONING CHANGE ON TRACT 4P1, OUT OF THE A.G. WALKER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1630 FROM R- 7 -MF -MULTI FAMILY TO C -2- COMMERCIAL. (LOCATED AT 4004 FLORY STREET) - ORDINANCE NO. 2447 APPROVED Mr. Luis Carrera, 3930 Meredith, Dallas, TX, explained the nature of his request. Ms. Ratcliff summarized case highlights and recommendations of the Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Scoma opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wishing to speak to come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Scoma closed the public hearing. City Council Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 4 Councilman Metts moved to approve PZ 99 -41, Ordinance No. 2447. Councilman Phifer seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 7 -0. 9. PZ 2000 -01 - CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF JOE WADE FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOT 1, BLOCK 1, EATON ADDITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SWC OF HARMONSON ROAD AND RUFE SNOW DRIVE APPROVED Mr. Joe Wade, 6429 Diamond Loch, explained the nature of his request. Ms. Ratcliff summarized PZ 2000 -01. Planning and Zonings recommendations to approve included the following conditions: (1) Provide a brick or cut stone finish to the eastern elevation of Building # 1 facing Rufe Snow and (2) Relocate the Dumpster to in- between building #2 and #3 or to the end of building #3. Councilman Trevino moved to approve PZ 2000 -01. Councilman Phifer seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 7 -0. 10. PS 99 -37 - CONSIDER REQUEST OF SKYLINE NORSTAR USA L.P., FOR A FINAL PLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, SILVERADO ADDITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT HARWOOD ROAD AND IS THE SITE FOR PHASE II OF SILVERADO APARTMENTS AS APPROVED UNDER PD -25 APPROVED Mr. Sam Finley, applicant, explained the nature of his request. Councilman Phifer moved, seconded by Councilman Milano to approve PS 99 -37. Motion to approve carried 7 -0. City Council Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 5 11. GN 2000 -05 - YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT ON STATUS OF ACTIVITIES TO DATE APPROVED Mr. Tony Ortega, Youth Advisory President, presented the status of activities to Council. Also present were committee members Bethany Dobson, Blair Stewart, Vanessa Trevino and Melissa Johnson -Staff liasion. Councilman Trevino moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Johnson to approve GN 2000 -05, the Youth Advisory Committee's mid -year report. Motion to approve carried 7 -0. 12. GN 2000 -06 - APPROVE AND ADOPT THE 2000 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN APPROVED Mr. Dwayne Leslie, Parks & Recreation Board President, summarized the 2000 North Richland Hills Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Ms. Julie Perkins, Carter & Burgess, gave Council a slide presentation highlighting top ten needs, high priorities from the overall recommendations (identified by citizen survey, public meetings, youth surveys conducted in the schools, Park Board, Park System Master Plan Executive Committee, and staff) and recommendations for future land acquisition, park expansion and park development. Council discussed item with Mr. Jim Browne, Director of Parks & Recreation. Mayor Pro Tern Johnson moved to approve GN 2000 -06 with the provision that a copy of the plan be given to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their input with comments forwarded to Council at the February 28 joint work session. Councilman Trevino seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 7 -0. 13. GN 2000 -07 - APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AND INSPECTION USER FEES - ORDINANCE NO. 2451 APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff summarized the GN 2000 -07, Ordinance No. 2451. City Council Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 6 Council discussed various fees and charges. Councilman Trevino moved, seconded by Councilman Welch to approve GN 2000 -07, Ordinance No. 2451. Councilman Mitchell requested an amendment to maintain residential property fees at $100.00. Councilman Trevino denied the amendment. Motion to approve carried 6 -1; with Councilmen Welch, Metts, Phifer, Milano, Trevino and Mayor Pro Tern Johnson voting for and Councilman Mitchell voting against. 14. GN 2000 -08 - APPOINTMENT TO TEEN COURT ADVISORY BOARD, PLACE 2 APPROVED Councilman Mitchell moved to appoint Ms. Janet Golightly to Place 2 on the Teen Court Advisory Board, term expiring June 30, 2000. Councilman Metts seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 7 -0. 15. RECONSIDER ACTION ON PZ 99-44 - ORDINANCE NO. 2448, CONCERNING REQUEST OF MARY JANE AND EDWARD LETT FOR A ZONING CHANGE FOR TRACTS 2A3, 2AB3, 2A3, W.C. NEWTON SURVEY ABSTRACT 1182, ADDRESSED AS 7591 AND 7601 PRECINCT LINE ROAD FROM AG- AGRICULTURAL TO PD- PLANED DEVELOPMENT FOR A WEDDING CHAPEL AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WEDDING CHAPEL USES APPROVED Mr. Larry Cunningham, City Manager explained that Council had initially heard request at the City Council meeting on January 10 and Council denied the request by a vote of 2 -4. An inquiry was made regarding reconsideration of this item. Per the Council Rules of Procedures a Council member who voted with the majority may make a motion to reconsider an item no later than the next official meeting of the Council. The motion to reconsider can be seconded by any member and will require a majority vote to carry. If approved for reconsideration this item will be placed on February 14 City Council agenda for Council consideration. Councilman Welch asked to reconsider action on PZ 99 -44. He has additional information that he believes his colleagues need to hear regarding PZ 99 -44. Councilman Metts moved to reconsider GN 2000 -09. Mayor Pro Tern Johnson seconded the motion. City Council Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 7 Motion to approve carried 6 -1; with Councilmen Welch, Mitchell, Metts, Phifer, Trevino and Mayor Pro Tern Johnson voting for, and Councilman Milano voting against. 16. PW 2000 -06 - APPROVE "NO PARKING ANYTIME" ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 4400 -4500 BLOCK OF BOOTH CALLOWAY ROAD AT RODGER LINE DRIVE - ORDINANCE 2452 APPROVED Mr. Greg Dickens, Director of Public Works summarized the request for a "No Parking Anytime" zone on the 4400 -4500 block of Booth Calloway Road at Rodger Line Drive. He advised Council that staff received numerous complaints with regards to sight restrictions from Rodger Line Road entering Booth Calloway intersection. A traffic study confirmed the sight restrictions and the Police Department is in agreement with the "No Parking Anytime" signs. Adjacent property owners were notified of the City's intent to place "No Parking Anytime" signs. A favorable response was received from North Hills Hospital. Allen Samuel's Dodge is concerned with the loss of parking spaces for employees and patrons. Mr. Bill Denton, 7740 NE Loop 820, voiced his concern about the loss of parking. He is fully supportive of the City's intent to protect vehicles and pedestrians. He did request that Council consider (a) decreasing the distance of 145 feet from Rodger Line to 70 or 90 feet; or (b) eliminate parking completely from Allen Samuel's exit to the corner but in return open east side for parking. Councilman Trevino moved, seconded by Councilman Phifer to approve PW 2000 -06, Ordinance No. 2452. Motion to approve carried 7 -0. 17. A. CITIZENS PRESENTATION Mr. Marlin Miller, 5109 Susan Lee Lane, is concerned with North Richland Hill's water supply. Ms. Avis Jones, 6532 Riddle Drive, voiced her concern with the deterioration of her neighborhood. Neighbors are parking recreational vehicles on the street. She would like the Council to pass an ordinance to ban the parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas. City Council Minutes January 24, 2000 Page 8 B. INFORMATION AND REPORTS Mr. Chris Swartz, NRH2O Aquatic Manager, presented the NRH2O Family Water Park 1999 Season report. 18. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Scoma adjourned the meeting at 9:37 pm. Charles Scoma - Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Hutson - City Secretary CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 2/14/00 Subject: Calling City Council Election - Resolution No. 2000 -06 Agenda Number: GN 2000 -10 The attached resolution calls for a City election to be held on May 6, 2000 for the election of Mayor, Council Person to Places 2, 4, and 6 and Municipal Judge for two -year terms of office. The resolution calls for the election to be conducted in accordance with the Texas Election Laws. It establishes the voting locations, provides for the appointment of Election Officials, and provides for early voting procedures. In accordance with State law, filing will begin on February 21, 2000 and end on March 22, 2000, and early voting will begin April 19, 2000 and end May 2, 2000. The resolution authorizes the City Secretary to procure voting machines for the election and to contract with the Tarrant County Elections Administrator for early voting and other miscellaneous voting services. The City will hold its election jointly with the Birdville Independent School District as we have done the past several years. Recommendation: To approve Resolution No. 2000 -06. Source of Funds: Bonds (GO /Rev.) Operating Budget Other %�G�2`IU000t, Department Head Signature Finance Review Account Number Sufficient Funds AVailable Manager Si Finance Director RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -06 BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, by the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills that a City election be called for the election of Mayor, Council Persons to Place 2, 4, and 6, and Municipal Judge for two -year terms and that the City hold its election jointly with Birdville Independent School District in accordance with Section 271.002, Texas Election Code. Section 1. That said election be held on the 6th day of May 2000, A.D., between the hours of seven o'clock a.m. and seven o'clock p.m. Section 2. Qualified persons may file as candidates by filing with the City Secretary between the hours of eight a.m. and five p.m., Monday through Friday, beginning February 21, 2000, and ending on March 22, 2000. Each application for a place on the ballot shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $150.00 payable to the City or a petition seeking the candidate's name to be placed on the ballot in lieu of the filing fee. Such petition must be signed by qualified voters of the City with at least one hundred fifty signatures. Forms for the petition shall be furnished to potential candidates by the City Secretary. Section 3. The location of polling places for this joint election are designated pursuant to Section 271.003 of the Election Code and the Council finds that the following locations can most adequately and conveniently serve the voters in this election and that these locations will facilitate the orderly conduct of the election: 'RECINCT Precinct One (includes County voting precincts 3214, 3324, 3333, 3041, 3364, 3350 & 3366) Precinct Two (includes County voting precincts 3215, 3140, 3325, 3326, 3289, 3424, & 3425) Precinct Three (includes County voting precincts 3209, 3063, 3049, 3177, 3367, 3387, 3507, & 3527) VOTING LOCATION City Hall, 7301 Northeast Loop 820 Dan Echols Senior Adult Center (City Hall Annex), 6801 Glenview Drive Bursey Road Senior Adult Center, 7301 Bursey Road Section 4. The following Election Officials are appointed to serve at the polling places: Precinct One: Presiding Judge Alternate Presiding Judge /Clerk Precinct Two: Presiding Judge Alternate Presiding Judge /Clerk Precinct Three: Presiding Judge Alternate Presiding Judge /Clerk Gerry Cozby Bill Weihs Neta Mason Kay Littrell Kathy Graves Cherie Redenbaugh Section 5. Each Presiding Judge shall appoint not less than two nor more than six qualified clerks to serve and assist in holding said election; provided that if the Presiding Judge herein ,ppointed actually serves, the Alternate Presiding Judge shall be one of the clerks. Section 6. Early voting will held on weekdays beginning on April 19, 2000 at 8:00 a.m. and ending on May 2, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. Such early voting shall take place in the office of the City secretary in the North Richland Hills City Hall (the Pre - Council Room and City Council Chambers shall be considered an extension of the City Secretary's office for early voting purposes) at 7301 Northeast Loop 820, North Richland Hills, Texas. The City Secretary or her designee, shall be responsible for conducting early voting, both in person and by mail and has the authority to contract with Tarrant County for early voting services and other miscellaneous voting services. Section 7. In accordance with Section 87.004 of the Texas Election Code, the Presiding Judge at City Hall and at least two (2) election clerks shall also serve as the Early Voting Ballot Board to count the ballots received in Early Voting by Personal Appearance and Early Voting by Mail. Section 8. All resident qualified electors of the City shall be permitted to vote as said election, and on the day of the election, such electors shall vote at the polling place designated for the Election Precinct in which they reside. Section 9. The election shall be conducted pursuant to the election laws of the State of Texas. The City Secretary is directed to procure voting machines, if available, for the election of May 6, 2000, and voting machines are hereby adopted as the method of voting at such election. Section 10. This resolution will be construed along with Resolution No. 96 -11, passed on February 12, 1996, so as to give effect to both resolutions. PASSED AND APPROVED this 14th day of February 2000. /_1»CZ60:1 1 Mayor ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: C_ Attorney fo the City Resolution No. 2000 -06 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 02/14/99 Subject: Changinq Time of the February 28 Regular Council Agenda Number: Meeting GN 2000 -11 At the January 24 Pre - Council meeting, the Council scheduled a work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission for February 28 to follow the regular Council meeting. The consensus of the Council was to change the time for the February 28 regular meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in order to begin the work session around 8:00 p.m. In order to change the meeting time to 6:00 p.m. Council needs to take official action. Recommendation: To change the meeting time of the February 28 Council meeting from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Source of Funds: Bonds (GO /Rev.) Operating Budget Other Department Head Signature Finance Review Account Number Sufficient Funds Available Finance Director City Manager SJgnature Page 1 of 1 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: _Public Works Department Council Meeting Date: 2/14/00 Subject: Approve Agreement for Enqineerinq Services with Agenda Number: PW 2000 -07 Knowlton- English- Flowers, Inc. for Johnson Ground Storage Tank Rehabilitation and Repainting /2000 — Resolution No. 2000 -07 The project is proposed to be bid and constructed in the 1999 /2000 fiscal year. Staff has requested and reviewed an agreement with Knowlton - English- Flowers, Inc. (KEF) to perform design services for this project. Some revisions were made to the proposed agreement after negotiations. The agreement outlines the scope of work as the following services. -Field surveys and inspection for design. - Provide recommended paint system, cathodic protection system, and repairs to meet State criteria. - Design of plans and specifications for project. - Provide cost estimate based on final plans. - Provide construction project administration. A more detailed description is shown as Attachment "A ". KEF would like to start as soon as possible. A "completion schedule" is shown in Attachment "C ". The project should be ready to bid in May or June of 2000 barring any major structural problems with the tank. KEF will invoice us at the hourly rate paid their employees times a 3.34 multiplier which includes allowance for fringe benefits, overhead, and profit. The charges will not exceed $30,000 for basic engineering services. The engineer's total maximum fee of $30,000 is 8.11 % of the construction budget. The original scheduling of this project was shown in the 1999/2000 Capital Projects Budget to be in fiscal year 2000/2001. The repainting of the Davis Boulevard Elevated Storage Tank was shown to be in 1999/2000. The Johnson Tank budget is$400,000. The Davis Tank budget is $450,000. Due to the accelerated corrosion of the Johnson Tank, staff would like to do it first and delay the Davis Tank until next fiscal year. Recommendation: To approve Resolution No. 2000 -07. Finance Review Source of Funds: Bonds (GO /Rev.) Operating Budget Other re Account Number 02 -23 -20 -6000; 99 -02 -23 -020 Su dent Funds vai a e, 406 -0000- 712 -79 -00 Manager Director Page 1 of _ RESOLUTION NO. 2000-07 that: BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, 1. The City Manager be, and is hereby authorized to execute the attached Agreement for Engineering Services with Knowlton, English & Flowers, Inc. for the Johnson Ground Storage Tank Rehabilitation and Repainting /2000, as an act and deed of the City. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 14th day of February, 2000. Charles Scoma, Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary APPROVED LE ALITY: Adorn Adornq for the/City APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: NRHSHAD_ Y GROVE RD o I III: Street Map R(��� ? P"W'~ z W NO I� � LL- BU S RD. w 6 1 > p s m W STAR ES RO Z 0 0 N GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET ' I p� O I'— U U 0 I ? o HI. TOWER DR. w I w O a z =� U �CHAPMAN -jD R i' MA II 1 T.J_E-S=8 VD M I D- GI- T -I -ES BLVD. •acs... 1---� /L i 'I � I ~ —� � �.r —t"� l �• -7 La 11 1 OP 1 I m HA 7 RD v N )� C7' A 10 I BEDFORQ SS 0 GL'' N w � ! 1 n � PIPELINE RD. LJ I I GL ENV I EW DR. o n 1 b a 00 1 ■ fa■o�_a■e i(� 1, ao 0I � � Johnson Ground Storage Tank ° BROAD ' ,E. GQ.P Rehabilitation and Repainting ..P.,— ,.. - q14411. o.w uur ■.Iw. 3"t... IOI01 26 S•0 11 12:27:26 FfW4v 0 I N•: 0006 AY l c..6•tr..u.■q.. ■1 PLO T:.Am..na Contract # 3 -584 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2000, by and between THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, hereinafter called the OWNER, and KNOWLTON- ENGLISH- FLOWERS, INC., a corporation hereinafter called the ENGINEER. RECITALS This AGREEMENT is applicable to the furnishing of Basic and Special Engineering Services by the ENGINEER to the OWNER for the design and construction of JOHNSON GROUND STORAGE TANK REHABILITATION AND REPAINTING / 2000, hereinafter called the PROJECT. CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKINGS SECTION I EMPLOYMENT OF ENGINEER The OWNER agrees to employ the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER agrees to furnish the Basic and Special Engineering Services in connection with the PROJECT as stated in Section II following, and for having rendered such services the OWNER agrees to pay to the ENGINEER compensation as stated in Section VI following. SECTION II CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF SERVICES The BASIC ENGINEERING SERVICES to be rendered by ENGINEER, include and are limited to the following: A. Establish the scope and advise the OWNER, of any geotechnical, soil, foundation, or other subsurface investigations or any special surveys or special testing which, in the opinion of the ENGINEER, may be required for the proper execution of the project, and assist the OWNER in arranging for the conduct of such investigations and tests. The performance of these investigations and tests is not a part of the ENGINEER'S Basic Services and will not be included unless specifically authorized in writing.) B. Furnish to the OWNER, where required by the circumstances of the assignment, the engineering data necessary for applications for routine permits by local, state, and federal authorities (as distinguished from detailed applications and supporting documents for government grants -in -aid, or for planning advances not included in Basic Services). C. Develop the project design combining the application of sound engineering principles and economy which shall be manifested by completed Construction Contract Documents, (Plans, Specifications, etc.) and assist OWNER with submittal of such Documents to local, state and federal agencies for approval as may be applicable. D. Prepare detailed cost estimates identifiable with the proposals of authorized construction, which shall include summaries of bid items and quantities on the unit price system of bidding wherever practical. The ENGINEER shall not be required to guarantee the accuracy of these estimates. E. Furnish to the OWNER all necessary copies of approved Construction Contract Documents (plans, specifications, notice to bidders, proposals, etc.). All sets of Construction Contract Documents in excess of 30 are to be paid for separately. F. Assist the OWNER in the advertisement of the project for bids. G. Assist the OWNER in the opening and tabulation of bids for construction of project and recommend to the OWNER as to the proper action on all proposals received. H. Assist in the preparation of formal Contract Documents and in coordinating their execution by the respective parties. Represent the OWNER in the Non - Resident administration of the project. In this capacity, the ENGINEER shall have the authority to exercise whatever rights the OWNER may have to disapprove work and materials that fail to conform to the Contract Documents when such failures are brought to the ENGINEER'S attention. (This function of ENGINEER shall not be construed as supervision of the project and does not include on -site activities other than occasional site visits to observe overall project conditions or when specifically requested by OWNER to visit on -site for a particular matter. It particularly does not involve exhaustive or continuous on- site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the work or material; nor does it place any responsibility on ENGINEER for the techniques and sequences of construction or the safety precautions incident thereto, and he will not be responsible or liable in any degree for the Contractor's failure to perform the construction work in accordance with the Contract Documents). Consult and advise the OWNER; issue such instructions to the Contractor as in the judgment of the ENGINEER are necessary; and prepare routine change orders as required. K. Review samples, catalog data, schedules, cut and fill calculations (cut sheets), shop drawings, laboratory, shop and mill tests of material and equipment and other data which the Contractor is required to submit, only for conformance with the design concept of the project and compliance with the information given by the Contract Documents; and assemble written guarantees which are required by the Contract Documents. Prepare or review monthly and final estimates for payments to Contractors, and furnish to the OWNER any necessary certifications as to payments to Contractors and Suppliers. M. Conduct, in company with OWNER, a final inspection of the project for conformance with the design concept of the project and compliance with the Contract Documents, and approve in writing final payment to the Contractors. N. Revise contract drawings, with the assistance of the Resident Project Representative to reflect available information as to how the work was constructed. Furnish a set of prints of these revised drawings to the OWNER. O. Include all direct non -labor costs associated with Items A. through N. above. P. Prepare a Scope of Work for this project, which is outlined in Attachment "A ". SECTION III AUTHORIZATION OF SERVICES No professional services of any nature shall be undertaken by the ENGINEER under this agreement until he has received written authorization from the OWNER. SECTION IV PERIOD OF SERVICE This AGREEMENT shall be effective upon execution by the OWNER and the ENGINEER, and shall remain in force until terminated under the provisions hereinafter provided in Section X. 2 SECTION V COORDINATION WITH THE OWNER The ENGINEER shall hold periodic conferences with the OWNER, or its representatives, to the end that the project, as perfected, shall have full benefit of the OWNER'S EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTING NEEDS AND FACILITIES, AND BE CONSISTENT WITH ITS CURRENT POLICIES AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. To implement this coordination, the OWNER shall make available to the ENGINEER for use in planning the project, all existing plans, maps, field notes, statistics, computations and other data in his possession relative to existing facilities and to the project. SECTION VI THE ENGINEERS' COMPENSATION For and in consideration of the Basic and Special Engineering Services to be rendered by the ENGINEER, as cited in Section II above, the OWNER shall pay and the ENGINEER shall receive the compensation hereinafter set forth: BASIC ENGINEERING SERVICES Compensation for the Basic Services: Preliminary Design, Final Design and Construction Phases of the PROJECT, shall be based on employee hours spent working on the project billed at the hourly rate paid to the employee (Attachment "B ") times a "Multiplier" which compensates the ENGINEER for fringe benefits, overhead, and profit as well as itemized direct non -labor and sub - contract expenses at a cost plus 10 %. The total compensation to the ENGINEER for the Basic Services will not exceed $30,000 without additional negotiation and authorization. The "Multiplier" for this Contract shall be 3.34. Payment to the ENGINEER shall be due in monthly installments made upon receipt of an invoice from the ENGINEER outlining the amount of hours worked by each employee, the employee's hourly rate, the Multiplier, and the total amount charged for each employee. The compensation for engineering services stated does not include sales tax. If the State of Texas imposes a sales tax on engineering services during the time of this contract, then the Owner agrees to pay the sales tax as an extra payment, above and beyond the agreed compensation for engineering services. SECTION VII REVISION OF REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS The revision and re -work of reports, plans, specifications and other documents during the formative stages as an orderly process in the development of the project to meet the needs of the OWNER shall be considered as part of the Basic Services; however after a definite plan has been approved by the OWNER, if a decision is subsequently made by the OWNER, which, for its proper execution involves extra services and expenses for changes in, or additions to the drawings, specifications or other documents, or if the ENGINEER is put to labor or expense by delays imposed on him from causes not within his control, the ENGINEER shall be compensated for such extra expense which shall be considered as Special Services. SECTION VIII OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Original documents, plans, design and survey notes represent the product of training, experience, and professional skill, and accordingly belong to, and remain the property of the ENGINEER who produced them, and the Owner regardless of whether the instruments were copyrighted or whether the project for which they were prepared is executed. The OWNER shall be furnished with three sets of as -built bluelines, one set of labeled aperture cards of as -built plan sheets, and a CD -ROM containing a reproducible copy of all reports, original drawings, estimates, field notes, and data. The OWNER will use these plans and data in connection with the project only as a source of information as to construction. Any electronic copies given out by the OWNER will not contain the ENGINEER's seal. 3 SECTION IX COMPLETION SCHEDULE AS OUTLINED ON ATTACHMENT "C" SECTION X TERMINATION Either party to this AGREEMENT may terminate the AGREEMENT by giving to other 30 days notice in writing. Upon delivery of such notice by the OWNER to the ENGINEER, the ENGINEER shall discontinue all services in connection with the performance of this AGREEMENT and shall proceed to cancel promptly all existing orders and contracts insofar as such orders or contracts are chargeable to this AGREEMENT. As soon as practicable after receipt of notice of termination, the ENGINEER shall submit a statement, showing in detail the services performed under this AGREEMENT to the date of termination. The OWNER shall then pay the ENGINEER promptly that proportion of the prescribed charges which the services actually performed under this AGREEMENT bear to the total services called for under this AGREEMENT less such payments on account of the charges as have been previously made. Copies of all completed or partially completed designs, plans and reports prepared under this AGREEMENT shall be delivered to the OWNER when and if this AGREEMENT IS TERMINATED, but subject to the restrictions, as to their use, as set forth in Section VIII. SECTION XI LIABILITY The ENGINEER agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold City whole and harmless against any and all claims for damages, costs, and expenses of persons or property that may arise out of, or be occasioned by, or from any negligent act, error or omission of ENGINEER, or an agent, servant, or employee of ENGINEER in the execution or performance of this Contract, without regard to whether such persons are under the direction of City agents or employees. The ENGINEER agrees to carry an errors and omissions type of professional liability insurance policy and will furnish the OWNER a certificate of insurance if requested. SECTION XII SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNMENTS The OWNER and the ENGINEER each binds himself and his successors, executors, administrators and assigns to any other party of this AGREEMENT and to the successors, executors, administrators, and assigns of such other party, in respect to all covenants of this AGREEMENT. Except as above, neither the OWNER nor the ENGINEER shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this AGREEMENT without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall be constituted as creating any personal liability on the part of any officer or agent of any public body which may be a party thereto. SECTION XIII SPECIAL CONDITIONS Special conditions, under the AGREEMENT, include and are limited to those listed hereinafter; the conditions shall become part of the AGREEMENT: Other provisions contained in the written "Authorization of Services ", issued by the OWNER, under Section III, and accepted by the ENGINEER, shall become part of the AGREEMENT. 4 EXECUTED IN 3 counterparts (each of which is an original) on behalf of ENGINEER by its PRESIDENT, as shown below, and on behalf of the OWNER by its CITY MANAGER (thereunto duly authorized) this day of , 2000. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS KNOWLTON- ENGLISH - FLOWERS, INC. By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ":ity Attorney By: .- ATTEST: )C vV ' 5 ATTACHMENT "A" SCOPE OF WORK Coordination of inspection of the tank. 2. Recommendation of type of repainting and repair work required. 3. Recommendation of automatic cathodic protection system required to prevent corrosion on the interior submerged surfaces of the water tank. 4. Preparation of specifications and contract documents for advertising for bids. 5. Prepare "Opinion of Probable Construction Costs" (ENGINEER's Estimates) for the proposed tank repainting and rehabilitation work, based on current estimated unit prices which are representative of similar types of construction in the North Richland Hills area. In the event that the ENGINEER's Estimate of construction costs exceed the established construction budget of $370,000 for this project, then the ENGINEER shall prepare an Alternate Bid Proposal to be included in the Construction Contract Documents which is based on a "Value Engineered" reduced scope of construction as required for construction costs to stay within the available funds for the project, or as directed by the OWNER. 6. Perform construction project administration functions for this project, as outlined in Section II of the AGREEMENT, which shall include conducting a pre- construction conference with the Contractor; furnishing horizontal and vertical control data to the Contractor, (who will be responsible for laying out the project and preparing his own "cut sheets" as may be required); for preparing monthly letters of recommendation of Contractor requests for partial payments; for answering questions regarding interpretation of the plans and contract documents which might arise during construction; for reviewing shop drawings, lab reports, and cut sheets as required; and for making periodic visits to the project site throughout the construction period. ATTACHMENT "B" HOURLY RATES PAID TO EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF RATES Principal 38.00 to 39.90 (Richard Albin, P.E., R.P.L.S.) Design Engineer 32.10 to 33.71 (Phil Philipp, P.E.) Design Technician 24.00 to 25.20 (Jack Shawhan, C.E.T.) CADD Technician 20.70 to 21.74 (Joel Hays) Clerical 13.20 to 13.86 (Linda Davidson) 7 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. ATTACHMENT "C" COMPLETION SCHEDULE TASK Award Engineering Services Contract Design Surveys and Tank Inspection Inspection Report and Recommendations 50% Complete Plans and Specifications 90% Complete Plans and Specifications 100% Complete Construction Plans Advertise for Bids 1 DATE OF COMPLETION February 14, 2000 March 6, 2000 March 20, 2000 April 3, 2000 April 17, 2000 May 1, 2000 When Directed by OWNER after Completion of Plans CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 02/14/00 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider the Request of Race Trac Agenda Number: PZ 99 -26 Petroleum, Inc. for a Zoning Change on a po Addition from OC Outdoor Commercial to C1 Grapevine Highway). Ordinance No. 2449 Lion of lot 3R S, Block 2, Walker Branch Commercial (Located at the 8700 block of CASE SUMMARY Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. is requesting a Zoning Change on a portion of lot 3R3, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition from OC Outdoor Commercial to C1 Commercial (Located at the 8700 block of Grapevine Highway). The request runs concurrent with PS 99 -29, a replat of Lot 3R3 and 2R2 creating Lot 6. As it is currently zoned, the proposed Lot 6 would be half OC Outdoor Commercial and half C1 Commercial. The change would zone all of Lot 6 to C1 Commercial. The proposed Lot 6 is also divided in two by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The portion zoned C1 Commercial is designated High Density Residential and the portion zoned OC Outdoor Commercial is designated Low Density Residential. All of the recreational uses in this vicinity including Mountasia and NRH2O are designated Low Density Residential by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Also associated with this request is PZ 99 -27, a request for a SUP to allow a convenience store on Lot 6 once it is completely zoned C1 Commercial. SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USES The subject property is designated as High Density and Low Density Residential. Future Land Use I Current Zoning/ Existing Uses North: High Density Residential C1- Commercial Vacant South: Public U — Institutional Tarrant College East: Low Density Residential OC — Outdoor Commercial West: High Density Residential C1 - Commercial Vacant RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission at their public hearing on January 13, 2000, recommended approval of PZ 99 -26 to rezone the Lot 6, Block 2, Walkers Branch Addition to C1 Commercial by a vote of 7 to 0. To approve Ordinance No. 2449 & PZ 99 -26 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Finance Review Source of Funds: Account Number Bonds (GO /Rev.) Sufficient Funds Available Operating Budget O h ! Finance Director - —eef a Deplartment ad Signature 46ity Manager S' na re L: \Cases \PZ Cases\PZ 99 -26-41 Racetrac Zoning Change.doc Page 1 of 1 R -7 -W D -27 2245 PZ 99 -26 Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. Zoning Change OC to C1 Ik: L Q�J C -2 G` 19816 a � 3 OC x 1863 c V � PD-24 = r r 2197 V jfp4 � 2239 c z M. L C -1 1369 k i L L L R -7 -MF NORTH - -- - - RICHLAND ( MATCH LINE - SEE Crid: 90 -424 Page: D8 ) ADOPTED: March 22, 1993 C HILLS NRH City of North Richland Hills APPLICATION FORA 7301 NE Loop 820 ZONING DISTRICT CHANGE North Richland Hills, Texas (Please print or type all responses) 817 -581 -5500 f ART 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of applicant / agent: Yn;tch Doffs er RACe /rAC Petroleacrr» lnc. Street address of applicant / agent: 30a 7edi do t o &tA r-' City / State / Zip Code of applicant / agent: Telephone number of applicant/ agent. 6m rna. , Gn 30082 ??0- 4 31 - ?(ooc PART 2. PROPERTY INFORMATION Street address at location where zoning district change is being requested: Legal Description of Property where zoning district change is being requested: or-ftor1 o-F Lot 3X 3 Block 2 Walker Qranc -A i4d.41H.n Cuifent zoning classifieaiim, Proposed zoning classification: Proposed,use o qpe property. OG C -! Con✓ pence 5ivre rwi 4-h 5�rvsce5764 fio» Reason forzoning district change: hP yio pwfi., ber'na A&, 2 or7,'— t.^�i ►4 e 5 fo c.o n ye ;. 'i'G>! yG Survey or map attached as required by application: Affidavit attached from property owner if applicant is not owner. Yes 11-7 No [� Yes F7 No _ .RT 3. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name of property owner 5tt vcr) 1e, y e -h r Street address of property owner. 2-00S Wooc/6 Ank Zie. City/ State/ Zip Code of property owner. Telephone number of property owner. Collc vNfe- Tx, -76034 Note: Attach Metter or affidavit from property owner if different from applicant / agent: l hereby certify that I am, or represent, the legal owner of the property - 9 � �- p described above and do hereby submit this request for approval of a Date: ! 9 zoning district change to tj Plannin and Zoning Commission for consideration,. i i Print Name: r�l �, niDT /SGf (� Signatu _ VT PART 4. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing. Taxes Paid? Yes Ease A(urr�ber. Gor+ 'ItT (1 / L No 9 -0 CCJ� T _t (/ Date of City Council Public Hearing: Fee: Yes No $300.00 Zoning District Change Approved: F7 Yes F7 No F7 Yes No This application will not be Ca ions of Approval: scheduled for public hearing until application fee is received. Zoning District Change CD - 407 (2/97) Draft Copy 7. PZ 99 -26 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF RACE TRAC PETROLEUM, INC. FOR A ZONING CHANGE ON A PORTION OF LOT 3R3, BLOCK 2, WALKER BRANCH ADDITION FROM OC- OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL TO C1- COMMERCIAL. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE 8700 BLOCK OF GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY. APPROVED Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. is requesting a Zoning Change on a portion of lot 3R3, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition from OC Outdoor Commercial to C1 Commercial As it is currently zoned, the proposed Lot 6 would be half OC Outdoor Commercial and half C1 Commercial. The change would zone all of Lot 6 to C1 Commercial. The proposed Lot 6 is also divided in two by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The portion zoned C1 Commercial is designated High Density Residential and the portion zoned OC Outdoor Commercial is designated Low Density Residential. All of the recreational uses in this vicinity including Mountasia and NRH2O are designated Low Density Residential by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff recommends approval of PZ 99 -26. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing and asked the applicant forward. Mr. Paul Padilla, TransSystems, presented this request, stating he would answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Seeing no additional proponents and no opponents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Davis, moved to approve PS 99 -26. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes January 13, 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 2449 AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 2, SECTION 200, OF ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 1874, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 14,1999; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has received a request for a change in zoning district boundaries; and WHEREAS, after appropriate notice and public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council for amendment of Ordinance No. 1874 and the Official Zoning Map by rezoning certain property as set forth herein; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: 1. THAT, in Case Number PZ 99 -26, the following described tract as shown on Exhibit "A" shall be rezoned: A tract of land proposed to be known as Lot 6, Block 2, containing a portion of Lot 3R3, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition, Tarrant County, Texas, is hereby changed from OC- Outdoor Commercial to C1- Commercial. 2. THAT, the Official Zoning Map be redrawn to incorporate this zoning district boundary amendment and the herein described ordinance number be affixed to the property described herein. 3. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. That it is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the section, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such invalid or unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. Ordinance 2449 Page 1 of 4 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS 13th DAY OF JANUARY 2000. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission / k i Secretary, Planning arid ZiAing Commission PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 141th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000. Mayor Charles Scoma City of North Richland Hills, Texas ATTEST.• City Secretary City of North Richland Hills, Texas APPROVED AS TO CONTENT.• la ng ire for f I APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL/7Y- Ordinance 2449 Page 2 of 4 Ordinance 2449 Page 3 of 4 Exhibit "A" {metes and bounds} Ordinance 2449 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 02/14/00 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider the Request of Race Trac Agenda Number: PZ 99 -27 Petroleum, Inc. for a Special Use Permit to allow a convenience store with gasoline sales on property zoned C1 Commercial. The subject parcel is proposed Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition (Located in the 8700 block of Grapevine Highway). Ordinance No. 2450 CASE SUMMARY Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. is requesting a Special Use Permit on Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition for a convenience store on property proposed to be totally zoned to C1- Commercial. As defined by Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, self - service sale of automobile fuel is an accessory use of a convenience store. Access to the site is provided by a single approach that will be shared with future development to the west. An 18 -foot ingress /egress easement is dedicated to provide access to any future development to the rear of the site. There are 18 parking spaces provided; only 16 are required. There are 20 fueling spaces located under the canopy. The 25' fire lane provides adequate access for fire response to the site and the building. The applicant has provided a total 30 -foot landscaped setback from the property line along Grapevine highway. There are two landscaped islands extending into the paved area that are planted with Cedar Elm Trees. The site is in compliance with the Landscape Regulations including parking lot screening and landscape percentage, 15% is required and 29% has been provided. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission at their public hearing on January 27, 2000, recommend approval of PZ 99 -27 on proposed Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition by a vote of 5 to 0. To approve Ordinance No. 2450 and PZ 99 -27 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Finance Review Source of Funds: Account Number Bonds (GO /Rev.) Sufficient Funds Available Operating Budget t r Finance Director —IV r��.&tp X /U41— De artment d Signature City Manage Sig ture L: \Cases \PZ Cases \PZ 99 -27-41 Racetrac SUP.doc Page 1 of 1 ___...--- -..__. .._....._ ._.._. _ ._._.-.-- ............. ..... .. -. MATCH LINE - SEE Crid: 90 -432 Page_- D6 - - - -- --- - - -T -C -- 2360 PZ 99 -27 Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. Special Use Permit for Convenience Store TC 2360 xq RICHLAND ( MATCH LINE - SEE Cr {d: 90 -424 Page 08 ) ADOPTED: March 22. 1993 HILLS NRH City of North Richland Hills ; APPLICATION FOR A 7301 NE Loop 820 ro (Please print or type all sponses) SPECIAL USE PERMIT North Richland Hills, Texas 817 -581 -5500 rMM i 1. Ar!`LII.AN I INt-UKMATIUN .Name of applicant /agent: i Mich No its e r - RAce?raG PG'�!'o 1 I u r+� n c Street address of applicant / agent: 300 %lGtino �o Coco% City / State / Zip Code of applicant / agent SI" r2j 93OOQ Telephone number of applicant/ agent jj/W , 2. f {O — IV /(v 60 PART 2. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name of property owner.• 5fG ver, A Hesfer Street address of property owner. 2 vo 6� W oo c,15 -�vck Drive City / State / Zip Code of property owner Telephone number of property owner.- Co He v; Ile x ?(? 03 4 Note: Attach letter or affidavit from property owner if different from applicant / agent: Survey or map attached as required by application: Affidavit attached from property alm&if applicant is not owner. jes No Yes No PART 3. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Current zoning classification: Proposed use of the property: C - � Cori ven% ,cc, Sibre w ;7% Seorvke, 6114Haei ascribe the nature of the proposed activity and any particular characteristics related to the use of the property: __ n Je h, eh CP. S Iprr;� W ;� SL✓Vi C¢. S tit ��o n Attach site plan which conforms with requirements included in this packet: Attach affidavit from property owner if applicant is not owner. Yes No L No I hereby certify that I am, or represent, the legal owner of the property �� �_ w described above and do hereby submit this request for approval of a Date: y Special Use Permit to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. Print Name: TG �n NO TTJ e� Signature: PART 4. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing: Taxes Paid? Case Number: 17 Yes No -P Z ! 1 Date of City Council Public Hearing: Liens Paid? Fee: Yes No $300.00 This application will not be Special Use Permit Approved: Yes i� No Assessments Paid? Yes No renditions of Approval: scheduled for public hearing until application fee is received. special Use Permit CD - 414 (2/96) Draft Copy 8. PZ 99 -27 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF RACE TRAC PETROLEUM, INC FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONVENIENCE STORE ON PROPERTY ZONED C1- COMMERCIAL. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS PROPOSED LOT 6, BLOCK 2, WALKER BRANCH ADDITION AND IS LOCATED IN THE 8700 BLOCK OF GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY. TABLED Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. is requesting a Special Use Permit on Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition for a convenience store on property proposed to be totally zoned to C1- Commercial. Mr. Johnson explained that access to the site is provided by a single approach that will be shared with future development to the west. An 18 -foot ingress /egress easement is dedicated to provide access to any future development to the rear of the site. There are 18 parking spaces provided; only 16 are required. There are 20 fueling spaces located under the canopy. The 25' fire lane provides adequate access for fire response to the site and the building. The applicant has provided a total 30 -foot landscaped setback from the property line along Grapevine highway. There are two landscaped islands extending into the paved area that are planted with Cedar Elm Trees. The site is in compliance with the Landscape Regulations including parking lot screening and landscape percentage, 15% is required and 29% has been provided. Staff recommends approval of PZ 99 -26. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Padilla, TransSystems, presented request, stating he would answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Mr. Davis asked why the proposed parking lot landscaping is only 1/3 of what is required. Mr. Padilla explained that the landscape calculations do not include the open green space on the portion of the lot, which will remain undeveloped. After much discussion regarding the proposed landscape, Ms. Ratcliff stated that the calculations shown on the landscape plan presented are not accurate, explaining that the square footage of parking area shown is too large. She believes the applicant can easily revise the plan. P & Z Minutes January 13, 2000 Draft Copy Seeing no additional proponents and no opponents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, moved to Table PZ 99 -27 until the January 27, 2000 meeting, allowing the applicant time to revise the landscape plan. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes January 13, 2000 Draft Copy 5. PZ 99 -27 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF RACE TRAC PETROLEUM, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONVENIENCE STORE ON PROPERTY ZONED C1- COMMERCIAL. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS PROPOSED LOT 6, BLOCK 6, WALKER BRANCH ADDITION AND IS LOCATED IN THE 8700 BLOCK OF GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY. This is a continuation of the public hearing to consider a request by Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. for a Special Use Permit on Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition for a convenience store on property zoned C1 Commercial. The Public Hearing held on January 13 was tabled by the Commission due to errors on the landscape plan's notes regarding the percentage of parking lot landscaping provided. Staff's interpretation of "parking lot" does not include driveways, fire lanes, or fueling stations. A parking lot is considered any expanse of pavement meant for the parking of vehicles and the maneuvering of vehicles into and out of parking spaces (parking spaces and isles). The notes on the landscape plan as presented on January 13 were inaccurate. The applicant had calculated all of the paved area, including the fueling stations, fire lane, and driveway, as parking lot. Staff had made the calculations in October 1999, and found the landscape plan to be in compliance. Unfortunately, the notes on the landscape plan included in the packet did not get corrected. The applicant has provided a total 30 -foot landscaped setback from the property line along Grapevine Highway. There are two landscaped islands extending into the paved area that are planted with Cedar Elm trees. The site is in compliance with the Landscape Regulations including parking lot screening and landscape percentage (15% required — 29% provided). Access to the 'site is provided by a single approach that will be shared with future development to the west. An 18 -foot ingress /egress easement is dedicated to provide access to any future development to the rear of the site. There are 18 parking spaces provided where 16 are required. There are 20 fueling spaces located under the canopy. The 25 -foot fire lane provides adequate access for fire response to the site and the building. The Replat and Zoning Change for this property are scheduled to be considered by City Council on February 14. Should the SUP be recommended by the Planing and Zoning Commission, Council would also hear it on the 14tH Staff recommended PZ 99 -27, a Special Use Permit for a convenience store to be located at Lot 6, Block 6, Walker Branch Addition, be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. P & Z Minutes January 27, 2000 Draft Copy Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Padilla, TransSystems, presented the request, explaining the landscape plan had been corrected and he would answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Seeing no more proponents, and no opponents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to approve PZ 99 -27. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes January 27, 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 2450 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 1874, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO AUTHORIZE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CONVENIENCE STORE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, after appropriate notice and public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council for amendment of Ordinance No. 1874 by changing said Zoning Ordinance as set forth herein; now therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: 1. THAT, in case number PZ 99 -27, a Special Use Permit be hereby authorized for a Convenience Store in a C -1, Commercial District on property described as Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition. 2. THAT, development of this property shall be consistent with the site plan attached as Exhibit "A." 0 SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. That it is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the section, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such invalid or unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. 4. Ordinance No. 2450 Page 1 of 3 SAVINGS CLAUSE. That Ordinance Number 1874, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, save and except as amended by this Ordinance. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS 27th DAY OF JANUARY 1999. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission s Secretary, Planning and Zoning Commission PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000. Charles Scoma, Mayor City of North Richland Hills, Texas ATTEST.• City Secretary City of North Richland Hills, Texas APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ead APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Ordinance No. 2450 Page 2 of 3 Ordinance No. 2450 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 2/14/00 subject: Consider the Request of Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. to Replat Agenda Number: PS 99 -29 Lots 2R2 and 3R3, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition, into Lots 2R2R and 3R3R and creating Lot 6 (Located at 8707 Grapevine Highway). CASE SUMMARY: Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. is requesting to replat Lots 2R2 and 3R3, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition into Lots 2R2R and 3R3R and creating Lot 6 which would contain 1.24 acres fronting Grapevine Highway. A portion of an existing utility easement that runs through the middle of proposed Lot 6 will bq vacated by separate ordinance. A vacation of easement form has been provided by the applicant with the appropriate approvals from the franchise utilities. There are two concurrent related applications, PZ 99 -26 requesting to rezone the proposed Lot 6 to C1 Commercial, and PZ 99 -27 requesting a Special Use Permit for a convenience store on Lot 6. Public Hearings for these two items are also scheduled on this agenda. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting of January 13, 2000, recommended approval of PS 99 -29 a replat to be known as Lots 2R2R, 3R3R, & 6, Block 2 Walker Branch Addition by a vote of 7 to 0. Conditions attached to the approval have been satisfied by the applicant. To approve PS 99 -29 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Source of Funds: Bonds (GO /Rev.) Operating Budget O her ' �( ) Head Signature Finance Review Account Number Sufficient Funds AVallable Manager Director L: \Cases\PS Cases \PS 99 -29 -41 Racetrac.doc Page 1 of 1 1 _. _._...__. MATCH LINE - SEE Grid: 90 -432 Page: D6 ) - -- -- T -C - -- 2360 PS 99 — 29 RACE TRAC PETROLEUM, INC. - REPLAT LOTS 2R2 and 3R3, BLOCK 2, WALKER BRANCH TC 2360 RICHLAND ( MATCH LINE - SEE Crsd: 90 -424 Page DB ) ADOPTED: March 22. 1993 HILLS City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 Application for Subdivision Plat Approval North Richland His, TX 76180 i 817- 581-5515 (Pisa" ati al ) Application Type: Preliminary Plat Final Plat �! Replat Short Form Amended Plat Property Owner Information: Name of Property Owner: st�o ye r7 he r Phone No. Address of Property Owner. 2.005 (,V o o c/ S f-oc k City: [,o /lC V Vi//?O- State: T Zip: 17(c'0 3 Proposed Subdivision Name: ,(A(J-t 1 kc/- BrGt in C ti /- �c�l,' !�, D» No. of Acres in Plat: 12.9 No. of Lots in Plat 3 Authorized Agent Information: 'Note: An affidavit signed by the property owner is required when the agent is not the property owner' Name of Authorized Agent: /l),'fche // /lo.efsger- Phone No. (TLo�3 _7600 Address: /CGtCe / G G ft'o/ ut� / 300 T' )-70/0 Coarf- City: -S /n Vm a— State: C -74 Zip: 3 00 8Z Surveyor / Engineer Information: /► Name of Firm: �ah �yS�Y» 5 /11r` Dora A100 Phone No. 33 9 -8` 54 Address: .500 WeSt SeJer► b75'"GZf , SG.i fG � 00 City: State: Zip: / 0 Z Contact Person: Pqr�` �adr�l�� o/e GQrG -n nrt c� IF Plat Fee Calculation: �5 All Preliminary Plats All Replats, Short Form Plats, and Final Plats All Amended Plats a. Application Fee: $120.00 a. Application Fee: $120.00 a. Application Fee: (none) b. $1.50 per residential lot b. $1.50 per residential lot b. County plat filing lee. $58.00 or $5.00 per commercial acre: or $5.00 per commercial acre: -5 Total Fee: 558.00 Total Fee: c. $65.00 for each street intersection: d. County plat ft fee: $58.00. ' Additional AMg fees may be applicable Total Fee: $14 l 00 for oversize or extra documents rime Waiver Request: (optional) The applicant is aware that action on this plat may not take place for more than thirty (30) days and waives all time requirements for approval of the plat. Signature: I certify that / am, or represent, the owner of the property described above and hereby submit this subdivision plat to the City of North Richland Hills for consideration. late: �p Q ? Your name (Printed Name): / 'r r fG%e // / y ps9C� Signal, Subdivision Plat Application 4 ` I f CD - 418 (1 - 98) Draft Copy 6. PZ 99 -29 CONSIDER REQUEST OF RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC. TO REPLAT LOTS 2R2 AND 3R3, BLOCK 2, WALKER BRANCH ADDITION, INTO LOTS 2R2R AND 3R3R, AND CREATING LOT 6. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8707 GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY. APPROVED Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. is requesting to replat Lots 2R2 and 3R3, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition into Lots 2R2R and 3R3R and creating Lot 6 which would contain 1.24 acres. This plat application was tabled at the December meeting due to major issues associated with the Grading Plan that the applicant had not been able to resolve in time. The outstanding issues included: 1. OFF SITE EASEMENTS A notarized letter of permission from affected property owners needs to be obtained for all offsite grading. The letter shall describe the limits of off -site grading or reference a dated grading plan sheet. 2. OFF SITE DISCHARGE Lot 6 is shown to discharge to lot 2R2R. A notarized letter of permission from the owner of Lot 2R2R is required. Since then, letters have been provided from the adjacent property owner accepting runoff from the site and providing a temporary grading easement. The Staff Engineer has recommended that this plat not be forwarded to City Council until a vacation of easement form has been provided. Staff recommends the P &Z approve PS 99 -29 provided the plat not be forwarded to City Council before the vacation of easement form is provided. Mr. Lueck, seconded by Mr. Blue, moved to approve PS 99 -29, subject to engineer's comments and provided the plat doesn't go to the City Council until a Vacation of Easement form has been provided to the staff of Public Works. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes 5 January 13, 2000 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Public Works Department Council Meeting Date: 2/14/00 Subject: Vacate a Portion of Two Utility Easements Located on Agenda Number: Lot 2R2R and Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition — Ordinance No. 2454 PW 2000 -08 Lot 6 is the location for the proposed Race Trac gas station. It is located on Grapevine Highway northeast of the Villas on the Green apartments and will take a southerly portion of the existing driving range (see attached sketch). An existing 10 -foot wide utility easement and a 7.5 -foot wide utility easement are located diagonally across Lot 2R2R and Lot 6, Block 2 of Walker Branch Addition. They are requesting the 10 -foot utility easement and the 7.5 -foot utility easement be vacated and abandoned. There are no public utilities in the easements and all franchised utilities have signed a release. The developer has dedicated additional easements, as required with the plat for Walker Branch Addition, Block 2, Lots 2R2R, 3R3R, and 6. Recommendation: To approve Ordinance No. 2454. Source of Funds: Bonds (GO /Rev.) Operating Budget Other Signature Finance Review Account Number Sufficient Funds Available Finance Director Manager S' nat re Page 1 of _ ,•patlsas DF _ _ F iE TR7 3.7 A, ii - - - -- ------- - - - - -- J6 1 1( 37 2 ei 3 3 14 4 L If 6 { w 15 1 7 5 ,e ao e e . 21 • 2 i W 10 Z j 47m 11 1 •,. lz 1z • i 13 j u• t3 2 15 ; 1A 7.73 A< 16 17 1 = 16 I I ,noel 21 r time s 6 t7 e . I '• i e � j 71A 10 , 1 ,y 23 It : I 24 12 25 ANC R 13 • H 26 e ,. , 15 1 SAL 15 17 1 16 �1 AA ADDN ADO 1 14.504 AC 111 C OSS s M 1.3Ne • 7 21 6 6 .0813 • .M08 • 1.1161 • RAISAL DISTRICT TR.S 40.47 a IB 12.8 K ,2) / 1 _'PLKER � O EY3 211 P-165 �P, �_ N 22.245. NO /. 2R2 4.141 B /VV / `Y 14 �P -t TR.5B 21.35 K — — — — — — — — — 3RI ` 1 2 Tom= B 4 ^" � 0 CN mN This tax map was oompRed solely for the use of Tarrant Appraisal Distrlat who assume* no responsibility for the content or occurocy other than the use intended v 3Rx IN TR 136 TR � 4a zoo o �. 1.5 e1 ♦ ` 1 q, 3 ` IRf 1 / 5.513 • / Q ' 4 ' / \ / t \ \ i A i� : CII L-0 a rKT 108 em 3m ' ,[7[R, loo ORDINANCE NO. 2454 WHEREAS, there exists a 10 -foot utility easement and a 7.5 foot utility easement located on Lot 2R2R and Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition, to the City of North Richland Hills; and WHEREAS, the 10 -foot easement is described in Volume 388 -154, Page 22; and WHEREAS, the 7.5 -foot easement is described in Cabinet A, Slide 3915; and WHEREAS, there are no water or sanitary sewer mains located in these easements and the developer, as required with the plat for Walker Branch Addition, Block 2, Lots 2R2R, 3R3R, and 6 has dedicated additional easements; and WHEREAS, the franchise utility companies have approved the release; and WHEREAS, the City and the owners agree that the said 10 -foot utility easement and 7.5 -foot utility easement should be released and the dedication of such easement vacated; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, that: 1. The dedication of that certain portion of a 10 -foot utility easement as recorded and described in Volume 388 -154, Page 22 and a 7.5 -foot utility easement as recorded and described in Cabinet A, Slide 3915, located on Lot 2R2R and Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition, North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas, and as described and shown in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" attached, is hereby vacated in favor of the owners. PASSED AND APPROVED this 14th day of February, 2000. APPROVED: Charles Scoma, Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY ///� I/- Rex McEntimq, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: a, - Exhibit "A" Legal Description for Utility Easement Vacation Being a portion of a 10 foot wide Utility Easement as shown across the certain Lot 2R2, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition, an addition to the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 4001, Plat Records, Tarrant County, Texas, ( said 10 foot wide Utility Easement originally filed for record across that certain Lot 2, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition as recorded in Volume 388 -154, Page 22, said Plat Records), and being a portion of a 7.5 foot wide Utility Easement across that certain Lot 3R3, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition, an addition to the City of North Richland Hills, according to the plat recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 3915, said Plat Records and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a '/2" iron rod found for the southeast corner of said Lot 2R2, common to the southwest corner of said Lot 3R3, and being on the northwesterly right of way line of State Highway 26 (Grapevine Highway) a 110 foot wide public right of way; THENCE South 44 °45'21 "West, with said right of way line, common to the southeasterly line of said Lot 2R2, a distance of 14.21 feet to a point for corner and being on the westerly line of the aforesaid 10 foot wide Utility Easement; THENCE North 00 °01'57 "East, departing said right of way line and with said westerly easement line, a distance of 326.85 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 44 °45'21 "East, departing said westerly easement line, pass a 5/8" plastic capped iron rod stamped "Transystems" set on the easterly line of said Lot 2R2, common to the westerly line of said Lot 3R3, at 14.21 feet and continuing in all a distance of 24.87 feet to a point for corner and being on the easterly line of the aforesaid 7.5 foot wide Utility Easement; THENCE South 00 °01'57 "West, with said easterly easement line, a distance of 326.85 feet to a point for corner on the southeasterly line of the aforesaid Lot 3R3, common to the aforementioned northwesterly right of way line of State Highway 26; THENCE South 44 °45'21 "West, with said common line, a distance of 10.66 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 0.1313 acre or 5,720 square feet of land. Job No. 19901059 See Exhibit `B" attached r _ �_ V Y U O N N 0 0 LU 0 a 0 Q. Exhibit "B" q 6,0 1 0 $ 0 GRAPHIC SCALE EQUALS I INCH TO 60 FEET F� O~ Yoo UQo J LLJ m Q � N m �NQ O � Z 3m Q U of �A. IO'UTILITY ESMT, VOL .388-154. PG. 22, P.R.T.C.T 7.5'UTILITY EASEMENT, CAB. A, SLIDE 3915, P.R. T.C. T. / N 44 °45'21 "£ 24.87x 14.21' / h 01: PROPOSED BLOCK 2 / 112" I.R.P .......... 518" C.I.R.S. 7 S 44'4521"W (BASIS Of BEARINGS) CAB. A, SLIDE 3915, P.R. T.C. T. S 44.4521 "W 10.66' \S 44.4521 "W 14.21' STATE HIGHWAY No. 26 GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY . 110' R. 0. W. � N ZU Y U �cr- O Or J mUW in �QO � Mct V o Q �YW OO 3m QL Q o U 4 / .......... 518" C.I.R.S. 7 S 44'4521"W (BASIS Of BEARINGS) CAB. A, SLIDE 3915, P.R. T.C. T. S 44.4521 "W 10.66' \S 44.4521 "W 14.21' STATE HIGHWAY No. 26 GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY . 110' R. 0. W. � N ZU Y U �cr- O Or J mUW in �QO � Mct V o Q �YW OO 3m QL Q o U 4 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 02/14/00 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider the Request of James Handy Agenda Number: PZ 99-47 for a Special Use Permit to allow a self - service car wash on Lot 4R, Block 1, Walker Branch Addition, in a C1 Commercial District. This property is located at the northwest corner of Grapevine Hiahwav and Harwood Road. Ordinance No. 2457 CASE SUMMARY Mr. James Handy has submitted a special use permit request to construct a self -serve car wash facility on Lot 4R, Block 1, Walker Branch Addition. The parcel is at the northwest intersection of Grapevine Highway and Harwood Road, located behind the existing Taco Bell, City Garage, and an under construction convenience store. The Lot has no direct street frontage. It was platted in 1997 with access easements provided from the Taco Bell, convenience store, and shopping center properties. The lot contains approximately 60,967 square feet, however, at this time the applicant proposes to develop only 27,621 square feet. Two separate six -bay structures are proposed: one for washing, one for drying. The developed portion of the lot by itself meets the requirements of the landscape regulations. Surrounding Future & Existing Land Uses The subject property is designated as Commercial. Future Land Use North: Commercial South: Commercial East: Commercial West: High Density Residential Existing Land Use Richland Oaks & Richaven Addition C'store /City Garage Taco Bell/ Shopping Center Silverado Apartments RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission at their public hearing on January 27, 2000, recommend approval of PZ 99-47 by a vote of 5 to 0 with the condition that any company logo flag flown is limited to 20 feet in height and does not exceed the size of the Texas and U.S. Flags. To approve Ordinance No. 2457 and PZ 99-47 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Finance Review Source of Funds: Account Number Bonds (GO /Rev.) Sufficient Funds Available Operating Budget 0th Finance Director ead Signature L: \Cases \PZ Cases \PZ 99 -47-42 SUP Walker Car Wash.doc ity Manager Page 1 of 1 2, 1 20 i H a n E E 5 F% 'J IRISH DR IC'," 6 ��jjtt 7 .b 8 9 A I n I p l \P,`j`� 6 a n a 9 LS l g -- 31 30 125 28 7 126 25 I 2a 23 22 27 i 20 9 3: A v „ ST PATRICK ST 35 O, TX I 3 6- C I I 9 Iq tl p }e i In 37 Z u N .0 }e PZ 99-47 I ' 35 b LOT 4R, BLK 15 WALKER BRANCH U SPECIAL USE PERMIT /CAR WASH w C7 a„ I Ci`+�AKV _�-� C�21 20 I V �C -2v. C -2 26 _4_ LV R I I I7 a 15 x 13 N .0 }e PZ 99-47 I ' 35 b LOT 4R, BLK 15 WALKER BRANCH U SPECIAL USE PERMIT /CAR WASH w C7 a„ I Ci`+�AKV _�-� C�21 20 I V �C -2v. C -2 26 _4_ LV R i F n �* J5 3E 37 38 I 3g 70 i 2 3 ° i< 6 j G. 34 •� / — O EMERA TRxC 3R 19R ,x.\ i A aP 7R 1OR 2° }" I 8 6 A ` EMERALD CIR �� u >e '� 26 _ 26 ii 25 I 24 I 23 I L^ 3: x z, 2C /' 15 \ I 5R a ; 20 5p y sR �" 21 R -3 4Q 23 1 PD -125 ° 25 2219 26 I 21 23 .� q I 1 R -3 C -1 C -1 1332 ,Rxe E11T wR- PD -25 rt-i 19 1 PD -27 2245 C - I P D —24 2197 �P w Atir C-2 223' TR.xCI TR.xR, I Ci`+�AKV _�-� C�21 �C -2v. C -2 26 _4_ LV R i F I TRxBU 2067 2 � , i � 1R. •� / 1 F TRxC 3R 19R ,x.\ i A aP 7R 1OR to / le sR A 8p sr 2 I 51 F 5R s2 -R 0 1 5p y sR �" F 1341v�'�, I D�yr I � \ .5 sp 3 R I2P IR 3R � R I ♦ 5 \'' u JERRIE 10 DR x OQ. R R 3R °k 5. EF n O 1 c i .G0.0.1� I5 HA�WOOD N r 0 a •J E _ / r .. , 4444. _ — --- . e \ P JO'o 00. it iCwINC C -I / I \J. �" J.f\ •P \ q �. \ • rc"" Lo T/\ ��,.�� 10/ / 0 �P' \ JC _n1 ;�••r_. '+ tiE. �:.. �. FEE- '��•► ,/ � 1,•• .�E �"'�.', / 'y4.' •A�\VTi!a c: 53_:j �j ,��rO'�Lt 40, a ^pi 60 g67sF , �� , 1 ti ,mac•, l �C r �f 0 0/ In 6I'9� zp I __ w, ^S _,; N, &•, A :•.c r1. -.N• -R•u.a.� . —� /Fr � S.89-39'47 -W. 155.00' ' ^o - , WE ---- - - - - -- 499'39 — ia3: rr I 6�..... lr DR•IN• �• ' i"�- -- +3 FOOT DR•LVACE E• LI Nf u f4;Eu[Nr PER PLAT SC f 70 gE`RSLIOE 3214 13D t.C.r IBC _ •— ` I •MpN•NCE +\ y :� : '- - -- -WO RED (�— 56.990 :004FE FEET ` : I % 1 r t:r.t,1' ;,' IQ?.in•) i I !.'NE. - -I W '^I m i'i l'.Ii 5 1 Imo.+ Q ay�j:, ���, ����• / `�\ 1 -+(- -- r r• - u a ! ` pal .lY•.j 1 ::i11AF •I I EEI MINIM' o ¢i j . f O �1 4T m °V- a 1 Zt•NEQ C-t �� `� �e���' se?�',;i, ���;%I!, Gtr' l �� i O r- TESCO GUY AND a0 " g ANCHOR PERMI f VOL . 5048 PG 383 r• � \ �d by �� �1oE J� / D.R. T C r. 25 F00T E,V401NG LINE + -� - _ + � \ / / --- III- -- _ , S.e9 3V'.- w _'7' ,. --:.eo IS' $•W T•Rr SE+.fi EASENENr 54 FOOT PVEh Ir �\�vQd +i3 ?ORAw•C( ANJf— PER PLAT C49 •. SuDE 3214 / ACCESS EASEMENT,'- •140 �/\U^uTY E•SENfNr I /�Y�� \ / / cr 89'39'4J 'E °'— �T-':F -rvA, 155.005 rS1 ,TO 1 S.89'39'47'W, 236.19' .p � ` lo' N9BItnY AND � rt,fY \ t C t EASEuErr H A \HOOD R _ UNJT: EAS[uEmr .:G _;:`: t•' VOL 5113. PC. 450 0.0 T.C. r. •`'� '� _ e :c N e9.301'30•E. 1 a -�o City of North Richland Hills H APPLICATION FOR A 7301 NE Loop 820 SPECIAL USE PERMIT North Richland Hills, Texas or type an responses) 817- 581 -5500 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION 3plicant / agent (/l/ -�MES Street address of applicant / agent TIP— City / State / Zip Code of applicant / agent. Telephone number of applicant / agent: PART 2. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name of property owner Street address of property owner: City / State / Zip Code of property owner.- Telephone number of property owner.- LLAC, -752-19 Z /ef -- .S2-(, -7COI Note: Attach letter or affidavit from property owner if different from applicant/ agent: iurvey r map attached as required by application: Affidavit atta ed from property owner if applicant is not owner: J Yes No ! Yes �' No PART 3. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST -ent zoning classification: Proposed use of the property: )escnbe the nature of the proposed activity and any particular characteristics related to the use of the property: ;2� y A H CD Attach site plan which conforms with regdirements included in this packet: Attach affidavit from property owner if applicant is not owner: ' Yes No j Yes hI No I hereby certify that / am, or represent, the legal owner of the property n described above and do hereby submit this request for approval of a Date: f �- g J Special suit to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. Print Name: %} %3 %ES / / 1411'7 Signature: PART 4. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ' Date of Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing: Taxes Paid? I Case N�{mber. (� Yes No U 7 7 Public Heating: Use Permit Approved: Yes No of Approval: 7-7" Yes 77 No Yes DEC 1 5 1553 - $300.00 1 This application will not be scheduled for public heanng until application fee is received. Draft Copy 7. PZ 99-47 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF JAMES HANDY FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SELF - SERVICE CAR WASH ON LOT 4R, BLOCK 1, WALKER BRANCH ADDITION, IN A C1- COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY AND HARWOOD ROAD. Mr. James Handy has submitted a special use permit request to construct a self - serve car wash facility on Lot 4R, Block 1, Walker Branch Addition. The parcel is at the northwest intersection of Grapevine Highway and Harwood Road, located behind the existing Taco Bell, City Garage, and an under construction convenience store. The Lot has no direct street frontage. It was platted in 1997 with access easements provided from the Taco Bell, convenience store, and shopping center properties. The lot contains approximately 60,967 square feet; however, at this time the applicant proposes to develop only 27,621 square feet. Two separate six -bay structures are proposed: one for washing, one for drying. The developed portion of the lot by itself meets the requirements of the landscape regulations. Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission approve PZ 99 -47, Special Use Permit for a self - service car wash on Lot 4R, Block 1, Walker Branch Addition. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Mr. James Handy, applicant, explained the building will be constructed of stone around the lower part of the building and brick from there up. The facility will be staffed with one full time employee. Mr. Handy proposes to have flagpoles, located just west of the Taco Bell and will be landscaped around it. The flag poles will be lit with mercury vapor for added visibility. Seeing no additional proponents and no opponents the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tolbert stated that he would like to see the flag poles limited to 20' in height, and he doesn't have a problem with the signage proposed for the dedicated sign easement. P & Z Minutes January 27, 2000 Draft Copy Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Nehring, moved to approve PZ 99-47, provided any flag with a company logo is limited to 20' and does not exceed the size of the Texas or USA flag. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes January 27, 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 2457 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 1874, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO AUTHORIZE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR WASH IN A C -1 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, after appropriate notice and public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council for amendment of Ordinance No. 1874 by changing said Zoning Ordinance as set forth herein; now therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: 1. THAT, in case number PZ 99 -47, a Special Use Permit be hereby authorized for a Car Wash on property platted as Lot 4R, Block 1, Walker Branch Addition in a district zoned "C -1" Commercial. 2. THAT, development of this property shall be consistent with the site plan attached as Exhibit "A." 3. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. That it is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the segtion, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and of any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such invalid or unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. Ordinance No. 2457 Page 1 of 4 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE. That Ordinance Number 1874, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, save and except as amended by this Ordinance. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2000. hairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary, Planning and 7pning Commission PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 14th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2000. Charles Scoma, Mayor City of North Richland Hills, Texas ATTEST.• City Secretary City of North Richland Hills, Texas APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: -7 Fa/s Depa e t Head Ordinance No. 2457 Page 2 of 4 APPROVED AS TO FORWAND LEGALITY: Attorney fl6r the Ordinance No. 2457 Page 3 of 4 Exhibit "A" of Ordinance No. 2457 {metes and bounds} Ordinance No. 2457 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 02/14/00 Subject: Public Hearing to Reconsider the Request of Mary Jane Agenda Number: PZ 99-44 and Edward a or a Zoning Change on tracts 2A3, 2AST, and 2A3C1, W. Newton — Survey Abstract 1182, addressed as 7591 and 7601 Precinct Line Road from AG- Agricultural to PD- Planned Development for a Wedding Chapel and other associated accessory wedding chapel uses. – Ordinance 2448 CASE SUMMARY Mary Jane and Edward Lett are requesting to rezone three tracts of land containing approximately 5.77 acres on Precinct Line Road from AG- Agricultural to PD- Planned Development for a wedding chapel and other associated accessory wedding chapel uses. The property is currently developed with a single family structure and a one story frame building. See the attached letter describing the proposed use and phasing. He is requesting a Planned Development District designation to address the concerns expressed with his application earlier this year. Please see the attached Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of PZ 99 -12 from the May 13 and May 27 meetings. The total building coverage is proposed to be 10, 943 square feet, which is 4% of the lot. The total proposed landscaped area is 207,481 square feet, which is 83 per cent of the lot. The applicant is required to provide 70 off - street parking spaces for the ultimate development. He will develop the off - street parking lot per phase of development. Surrounding Future Land Uses and Existing Land Uses The subject property is designated as Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use Plan. Surrounding Land Use Existing Zoning & Land Uses North: Low Density Residential AG – Single Family Residential South: Low Density Residential & Commercial AG – Undeveloped East: City of Hurst Future Church Site West: Low Density Residential AG – Single Family Residential M The property is adjAcent to the Little Bear Creek, which is under the regulations of the Little Bear Creek Flood Plain Control Ordinance No. 2091. The applicant is requesting two driveway entrances 242 feet apart. The Public Works Design Manual allows only one drive approach. Staff recommends that if this application is approved, the ordinance should include a limitation on the hours of operation for outside activities. Like the City's Public Parks, outside activities should end by 11:00 p.m. Finance Review Source of Funds: Account Number Bonds (GO /Rev.) Sufficient Funds Operating Budget Other Finance Director � Defartrtt d Signature it Manager Si�nat e L: \Cases\PZ Cases\PZ 99 -44-44 -Lett PD Wedding Chapel.doc Page 1 of 2 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Attached to the application is a specific outline of the purpose, permitted uses, permitted structures and amenities, lot and area requirements, and general conditions for the proposed development. Additionally, the applicant and Staff developed a list of issues that were clarified as to what they intend with the development. The information is formulated into the ordinance. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission at their public hearing on December 9, 1999, recommended approval of PZ 99-44 to rezone the subject property from Agricultural to Planned Development for wedding chapel and other associated accessory wedding chapel uses by a vote of 7 to 0 with the following conditions: • The development is tied to the site plan. • The ordinance include the proposed regulations submitted by the applicant with the exception that wooden decorative fencing not be allowed. • Include a notation on the site plan that all the pavilions and gazebos will be built in accordance with the Little Bear Creek Flood Plain Control Ordinance No. 2091. • The future land use plan be amended to reflect the subject property as commercial • The site plan be amended to show either a living screen or a masonry screening wall along the northern property line outside of the Little Bear Creek Corridor. • Recommend City Council waives the zoning case fees the applicant has already paid. All of the conditions recommended by the Commission, with the exception of waiving the fees, are incorporated into the attached ordinance. City Council voted January 10, 2000 to approve PZ 99 -44 by a vote of 2 -4, which failed for the lack of a majority vote. City Council on January 24, 2000 voted to reconsider PZ 99 -44 at the February 14, 2000 meeting. Staff met with Mr. & Mrs. Lett to again review their proposal after the January 24th Council hearing. The Left's are now agreeing to additional standards for the Planned Development. The development standards agreed upon by the applicant since the previous hearing are listed below. All of these revisions have been incorporated into the draft ordinance: • A minimum of 80% masonry for the small chapel (would prefer Hardi - Plank). • A 100% masonry requirement for the large chapel and wing in front of house. • Masonry materials on the existing house and large chapel will be consistent. • Roof -line of existing house will match and blend with improvements and will allow a large covered patio to be constructed at rear of house. • Phase I: large chapel, breezeway, reception building, existing house, Gazebo, pavilions and required off - street parking to be completed within fifteen (15) months of plat approval. Red barn will be screened with a living screen. Landscape islands provided at the south end of the parking lot and will meet the landscaping requirements. • Phase II: The little white wedding chapel and required off - street parking will be completed within five (5) years of the plat approval. • The second drive approach will be completed in Phase II. CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM L: \Cases\PZ Cases \PZ 99 -44-44 -Lett PD Wedamy %,napei.aoc Page 2 of 2 �i7.CB TR.E I�TR.0 MA1 AG 'z5A •R 5 i � V .:. 15ASA •V a - -» W. "2EA ?EAa ' A G LR.SAA . r. TR2 R act �ni CT ' R - 2-1 sPo o 'Qv�F a A G C-1 °aC • Q.� 2151 �P i- C - _2 C -1 r s A 2151 V r HI LEAH CIR NI _ ? = r PZ 99-44 � M 7601976057 7591 PRECINCT LINE ROAD I—= REQUEST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RE- - a -� ZONING Z ra3r as , 3 - 3 \R- �1`AlTi of NWC -RAC 3 ° ' ✓" ti,���g s y y a.c �t O O -1 25 13 /. -\ C _ R -3 115.9 �I -= 1452 m, MACT _ _ - s p R:2 G G O 1 637. - Q,�� s j - 3 w z 21 is E: a, — 1' JA 10 _ 16 ty 11 9 pd 3 e �CCOW DR n R- 3 s y e „ cn 7RaA, 2 is 14 �p 436, e Q .- _- -- .'_ —_ - -! 7c of ormatlon Services - GIS Division 19 Jan 99 17:16:36 Tuesday - - _ls No. 0016 amC zatlas.map -ml. zouos.grid.aml plop oa bn.rtl '993 CURRENT THROUGH: Ordinance 2360, January 11, 1999 ZONING MAP Grid: 90 -440 Page: 04 ORDINANCE NO. 2448 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 1874, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED, TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed a rezoning request on a tract of land identified in Case Number PZ 99-44; and WHEREAS, the developer has indicated an interest in establishing the proposed development as a planned development district under the guidelines of the North Richland Hills Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the development conditions of this tract of land do not provide adequate opportunities for development under available existing zoning district regulations; and WHEREAS, after appropriate notice and public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of North Richland Hills has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council for amendment of Ordinance No. 1874, as amended, by establishing a Planned Development District and by changing said Zoning Ordinance as set forth herein; now therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: 1. r THAT, in Case'Number PZ 99-44, on tracts 2A3, 2AB3, and 2A3C1 out of the W.0 Newton Survey, Abstract 1182 and proposed to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, The Little White Wedding Chapel, addressed as 7591 and 7601 Precinct Line Road the following described property, attached as Exhibit "A ", shall be rezoned from "AG" - Agricultural to establish a Planned Development District with specific development regulations as herein described: 2. THAT, the purpose of this Planned Development District is to provide for wedding, special occasion and bridal boutique facilities. The permitted uses and development regulations for this planned development district shall be as follows: 1. Permitted Uses: Both indoor and outdoor wedding ceremonies and receptions, retail sales and rental of or wedding /formal apparel, wedding Ordinance No. 2448 Page 1 of 5 consulting /counseling, floral arrangements, catering services, special occasion events, group /professional meetings, travel arrangements, and photography services constructed in accordance with the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations attached as Exhibit No. B. 3. That, the following lot and area regulations shall govern the development of the Planned Development District development on said property, as follows: Description Sizes Minimum Lot Area 4.5 acres 196.020 Minimum Lot Width 585 feet Minimum Lot Depth 322 feet Minimum Enclosed Unit Size 100 square feet Minimum Outdoor Unit Size (gazebo) 64 square feet Minimum Front Building Line 20 feet Minimum Side Building Line 5 feet Minimum Rear Building Line 10 feet Maximum Height of Roof Structure (including steeple) 45 feet 4. That, all provisions of Ordinance No. 1874, the Zoning Regulations of the City of North Richland Hills, as amended, which are not in conflict with the terms of this Planned Development shall remain applicable on said property, and the following general conditions shall apply to this property to guide development: Development Phasing: a. Phase f includes additions of the large chapel, breezeway, reception building to the existing house and associated required off - street parking to be completed within fifteen (15) months of the final plat approval. The red barn will be screened with a living screen. The gazebo and pavilions will also be constructed. Additionally landscape islands will be provided at the south end of the parking lot (end of Phase 1) along Precinct Line Road meeting all the landscaping requirements. b. Phase II includes the development of the little white wedding chapel and associated required off - street parking will be completed with five (5) years of the final plat approval. Development of required off - street parking will include the development of the second (south entrance) driveway entrance on Precinct Line Road. Ordinance No. 2448 Page 2 of 5 2. Privacy Fencing: a. A wooden or masonry screening fence shall be required along the northern property line with the exception of the area located within the Little Bear Creek Flood Plain. b. Due to the heavily wooded area to the south and west of the subject property, which will act as a buffer zone, no screening or fencing will be required along those property lines. c. Decorative fencing will be allowed along the front of the property within the landscape setback and will be no higher than 5 feet. Composition of fence can be masonry, man made material or a combination thereof. 3. Parking: Required parking for complex to be based solely on pew seating count at 18 inches per person. 4. Drive entry separation: Drive separation to be less than 300 feet, as shown on the site plan, due to the existing little Bear Creek and culvert. 5. Landscape Credits: Landscape credits for the tress along Little Bear Creek to be applied toward PD 99 -44. 6. Masonry Requirements: a. Phase I (addition of large chapel & wing in front of existing house): Minimum masonry requirement 100% of each building elevation. The brick on the existing house will be painted or stained to match the chapel elevations. b. Phase II (small chapel to the rear of the property): Minimum of 80% masonry coverage of each elevation. The masonry material proposed is hardi plank. 7. Food Service: If food is prepared on site under control of occupants, kitchen design, appliances and food preparation will meet city ordinances. Outside catering w4 be permitted in compliance with city ordinances. 8. Accessory Buildings: Gazebos, pavilions, arches etc. are permitted. 9. Hours of Operations Limitations: a. No Outdoor Operations between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. b. Indoor Operations are not limited. 10. All the structures, pavilions and gazebos will be built in accordance with the Little Bear Creek Flood Plain Control Ordinance No. 2091. '4 That, the Zoning Map of the City of North Richland Hills be amended to reflect this planned development district. Ordinance No. 2448 Page 3 of 5 6. That, the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan be amended to change the land use from low density residential to commercial. 7. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. That it is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the section, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such invalid or unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. 8. SAVINGS CLAUSE. That Ordinance Number 1874, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, save and except as amended by this ordinance. 0 EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force from and after its passage. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1999. J / Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary, Planning and Zoning Commission PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 14th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2000. Mayor, City of North Richland Hills, Texas Ordinance No. 2448 Page 4 of 5 ATTEST: City Secretary City of North Richland Hills, Texas APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Liu -�&kL Depa ent r ead \ 01 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Attorney for the City Ordinance No. 2448 Page 5 of 5 20. PZ 99-44 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF MARY JANE AND EDWARD LETT FOR A ZONING CHANGE ON TRACTS 2A3 AND 2A3, W.C. NEWTON SURVEY, A -1182, ADDRESSED AS 7591 AND 7601 PRECINCT LINE ROAD FROM AG- AGRICULTURAL TO PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A WEDDING CHAPEL AND OTHER ASSOCIATED ACCESSORY WEDDING CHAPEL USES. APPROVED Mr. Edward Lett is requesting to rezone three tracts of land containing approximately 5.77 acres on Precinct Line Road from AG- Agricultural to PD- Planned Development for a wedding chapel and other associated accessory wedding chapel uses. The property is currently developed with a single family structure and a one story frame building. Mr. Lett is proposing to develop a wedding chapel and use the existing house with future additions. He is requesting a Planned Development District designation to address the concerns expressed with his application earlier this year. The applicant proposes to develop a small chapel and reception building replacing the existing small frame structure and to phase the parking lot construction as the development expands. The small chapel extends into the Little Bear Creek Flood Control area. Mr. Lett has noted the chapel will be elevated on piers. This would be allowed in the Little Bear Creek Flood Control area as long as the lowest chord is 18 inches above the ultimate base flood elevation. The pavilions do not pose a problem as long as they are not fenced in or enclosed in any form or fashion and that the finished floor elevations shall be within 6 inches of the natural ground. The required 6 foot masonry fence at the rear of the property is a problem. The area is heavily treed and placing a 6 foot masonry wall is in violation of the Little Bear Creek Flood Control Ordinance. In the amendments proposed to Article 10, Fencing, staff has recommended that fencing requirments in the Little Bear Creek Corridor be exempted. If the amendments are approved then this will be a non - issue. The site plan shows two driveway entrances on the subject property, approximately 242 feet apart, which is a violation of the Public Works Design Manual. The requirement for driveway placement distance on a minor arterial thoroughfare is 300 feet. The applicant is requesting approval of his driveways with this site plan. The southern most drive can not be developed further south because of the Little Bear Creek Corridor. The residential property to the north has an existing driveway on its southern boundary, which is just north of this development. Staff is recommending one driveway entrance for this development in accordance with the Public Works Design Manual. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to be allowed to use the existing septic system in lieu of tying into the City's sewer at this time. Staff recommended that P & Z Minutes 26 December 9, 1999 the applicant be tied into the city sewer with this development just like all other new developments. The total building coverage is proposed to be 10, 943 square feet, which is 4% of the lot. The total proposed landscaped area is 207, 481 square feet, which is 83 per cent of the lot. The applicant is required to provide 70 off - street parking spaces for the ultimate development. He will develop the off - street parking lot per phase of development. Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request to rezone tracts 2A3, 2AB3, and 2A3C1, W. C. Newton Survey Abstract 1182, addressed as 7591 and 7601 Precinct Line Road from AG- Agricultural to PD- Planned Development for a Wedding Chapel and other associated accessory wedding chapel uses because the property is designated as low density residential on the Future Land Use Plan and the uses proposed, including retail sales, consulting and catering services, are more intensive when combined on one property. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Mr. Edward Lett presented his case, explaining that the only front fencing would consist of PVC material in a picket style and will only be 4' in height. Trenda Trett of Virtu Design Studio, representing the applicant also spoke in favor of this request. There were no opponents and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tolbert, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to approve PZ 99-44 to rezone the property from Agricultural to Planned Development for wedding chapel and other associated accessory wedding chapel uses subject to the following conditions: ♦ The development is tied to the site plan. ♦ The ordinance include the proposed regulations submitted by the applicant with the exception that wooden decorative fencing not be allowed. ♦ Include a notation on the site plan that all the pavilions and gazebos will be built in accordance with the Little Bear Creek Flood Plain Control Ordinance No. 2091. ♦ The future land use plan be amended to reflect the subject property as commercial ♦ The site plan be amended to show either a living screen or a masonry screening wall along the northern property line outside of the Little Bear Creek Corridor. ♦ Recommend City Council waives the zoning case fees the applicant has already paid. P & Z Minutes 27 December 9, 1999 City Council Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 5 Ratcliff advised Council that the applicant was aware of the public hearin Mayor oma reminded Council of the rules of procedure approZbyC l to not recess a lic hearing if the applicant is not present. Mayor Pro Tem nson moved to continue the public hearing a ncil meeting. Councilm Milano seconded the motion. Motion to continue carrie 11. PZ 99-43 - PUBLIC HEARING CO DER THE REQUEST OF GRAYTON KOENIG FOR A ZONING CHAN N TRACT 2A04, ABSTRACT 1266, S. RICHARDSON SURVEY, ADDRESS A 813 GREEN VALLEY DRIVE FROM AG- AGRICULTURAL AND LR -LOC RETAIL 0 R -1 -S- SPECIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE AL - ORDINA E NO. 2443 APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff, summarized PX99 -43. Mr. Grayto/here licant, was available to answer questio Mayor Scoe public hearing and asked for anyone wishi to speak to come forwaing no one wishing to speak, Mayor Scoma clos the public hearing. Council an Metts moved to approve PZ 99 -43, Ordinance No. 2443 as recom coded 7ion tanning and Zoning Commission. Councilman Phifer seconded the motion. o appr ove carried 6 -0. 12. PZ 99-44 - PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF MARY JANE AND EDWARD LET FOR A ZONING CHANGE ON TRACTS 2A3, 2AB3, AND 2A3, W.C. NEWTON SURVEY ABSTRACT 1182, ADDRESSED AS 7591 AND 7601 PRECINCT LINE ROAD FROM AG- AGRICULTURAL TO PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A WEDDING CHAPEL AND OTHER ASSOCIATED ACCESSORY WEDDING CHAPEL USES - ORDINANCE NO. 2448 DENIED Ms. Ratcliff summarized PZ 99 -44. City Council Minutes January 10, 2000 Page 6 Mr. and Mrs. Edward Lett were available to answer questions. Council discussed item. Mayor Scoma opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wishing to speak to come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Scoma closed the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tern Johnson moved to approve Ordinance No. 2448, PZ 99 -44 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the provision that applicant enter into a covenant at such time when sewer service is available. Councilman Phifer seconded the motion. Mayor Pro Tern Johnson amended her motion to include Staffs recommendations: limitation of hours of operation, one driveway entrance and minimum 10% masonry requirement. Councilman Phifer amended his second. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson amended her motion to remove Staffs recommendation of one driveway entrance. Councilman Phifer amended his second. The final motion on the floor is to approve Ordinance No. 2448, PZ 99 -44, with the provision that applicant enter into a covenant at such time when sewer service is available and as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: • The development is tied to the site plan • The ordinance include the proposed regulations submitted by the applicant with the exception that wooden decorative fencing not be allowed. • Include a notation on the site plan that all the pavilions and gazebos will be built in accordance with the Little Bear Creek Flood Plain Control Ordinance No. 2091. • The future land use plan be amended to reflect the subject property as commercial. • The site plan be amended to show either a living screen or a masonry screening wall along the northern property line outside of the Little Bear Creek Corridor. • Recommend City Council waives the zoning case fees the applicant has already paid. Motion also includes Staffs recommendation of no outdoor operations between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am. Councilman Phifer seconded motion. Motion was denied 4 -2; with Mayor Pro Tern Johnson and Councilman Phifer voting for and Councilmen Welch, Mitchell, Metts and Milano voting for denial. J 0 Cx- C u - �71 Vt ------ ----- 27� OWN z/V2 To: The Planning and Zoning Board and City Council of North Richland From: Mr. and Mrs. Edward Lett, 609 Precinct Line Road, NRH, TX 761 Objective: Request to re -zone under a Planned Development the property located at 7591, 7601 and 7605 Precinct Line Road, NRH 76180 to accommodate a wedding facility and gardens. Overview: On May 13, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board of NRH recommended and unanimously agreed that a Planned Development (PD) would be more appropriate than a C -1 re- zoning for the properties located at 7591, 7601 and 7605 Precinct Line Road (approximately 5.75 acres). Since May 13, the property owners, Edward and Mary Jane Lett, have worked diligently with architects, surveyors, and engineers to meet and fulfill all the PD application requirements for NRH. In December 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously accepted the PD plan. The completed project will include at least two wedding chapels, gazebos, pavilions, greenhouse, reception areas, meeting /office rooms, landscaped gardens with arbors, nature walks, park benches, a large parking lot and a bridal /tux boutique. The boutique will be discreetly placed on the grounds so that its fagade and operations will compliment and not interfere with private wedding ceremonies and receptions. Phase I: The initial plan is to re -plat the three tracts (7591, 7601, 7605) into a single tract of approximately 5.75 acres. The tract currently designated as 7591 Precinct Line Road (approximately 4.21 acres) will be utilized as a natural, wooded buffer zone providing greater privacy for wedding couples and their guests. The 7601 tract (.9 acres) has a brick house located in the center of the lot. A large wedding chapel, courtyard, and reception area will be built simultaneously on the east side and in front of the existing house facing Precinct Line Road. The new structure will overlay and incorporate the existing house eliminating the appearance that a residential house was once located there. The large chapel and reception buildings will be constructed of a white shaded brick and the exposed brick on the original building will be stained to match the chapel's white brick color. During construction of the chapel and reception area, an addition, including a southern style porch will be added to the rear of the structure. The interior of the original house will be remodeled to accommodate small parlor weddings, receptions with kitchen facilities and a small bridal /tux boutique. The initial parking lot will be in the shape of a horizontal "L" running south to north in front of the large chapel and reception building, as well as east to west on the north side of the large chapel. The parking lot will also serve as a traffic noise buffer from Precinct Line Road. Behind and to the south of the large chapel, gazebos, pavilions, fountains and garden walks will be developed. Phase II: The 7605 tract (.7 acres) currently has a large workshop, which will be removed and replaced with a small wedding chapel with an adjoining reception area. The owners desire to construct the building out of a combination of "hardy plank" siding and natural stone. This will give the appearance of a small country chapel but still conform to the 80% masonry requirement outlined in the PD. Additional parking will be added to the south of the initial. parking lot to accommodate the added seating. Business Activity: Considering the various sizes and locations of the ceremony /reception accommodations, more than one wedding could be conducted at the same time. Due to parking restrictions and time allotments for each group, a maximum of 210 guests can be accommodated at one time. Most weddings would be scheduled in the afternoons and evenings, with Friday, Saturday and Sunday being the most popular. The bridal /tux boutique will initially be opened on weekends only. Eventually, the shop may open for longer business hours. Special individual appointments may also be necessary. Greenbelt Corridor: Part of the 7591 tract (4.21 acres) includes the Little Bear Creek Corridor. The natural woodlands and rural beauty is a wonderful background for scenic wedding ceremonies and a great backdrop for photographers. However, there is a need to clean the area of trash or items not normally found in forest areas. The owners, Mr. and Mrs. Lett, will consult with the NRH Parks and Recreation Department to plan long -range goals for the area. Management: Edward and Jane Lett, the current owners, will be the owner /operators of The Little White Wedding Chapel property. They have resided in the mid - cities area for over 30 years. During this time they have owned two successful retail businesses and Jane has worked in a family bridal business (full and part-time) since she was 16 years old. Jane is an experienced wedding consultant, who has worked with Eddie to direct and set -up entire wedding ceremonies and receptions. They realize the value of a well designed, attractive establishment that will provide the community with quality and family oriented wedding services, which will support the strong family /community values of North Richland Hills. Dr. Mary Jane Lett rm 0 F � v M. Edward Lett 'F FEB - 9 2000 10 11 NRH APPLICATION FOR A (Please prnf V type all responses) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4RT 1. APPI ►Ce m-r IAI=^MAA A T, i <_,fe of appricant/agent: 4 a 1 " LEA ��� �r) E.� JAf-� - Street address of applicant/ agent: 6-93 Q Al v, c'k-r tAr LN . City/ State /Zip Code of applicant /agent: 7Go�'� PART 2. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION 'Jame of property owner City of North Richland Hills 7301 NE Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 817- 581 -55on aiepnone number of applicant / agent: I? Z S � Street address of property owner. 1.10 jOr C City / State / Zip Code of property owner. Telephone number of property owner Vote: A�,acn letter or alfidavit from property owner if different from applicant /agent: PART 3. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST :urrent zoning classification: Legal Descnptron or Attach Metes d Bounds: >escnbe the narure of the proposed activity and any particular characrenstics related to the use of the property: _ 4 jer o -J , Zl4 04XCAS f%v- W;!`bD0.ocS a 0C'tT-atT'AA ss R!Ergo, V%; :. �aG tfi� /EDD,,,- 07,4'K-4.e w el- ►AP6LS `� I + G 424kc P, ��NS R`6 M s D W�eDpirv(e Rcsr -'A C Rio St-I.i P '�'A��iTaS v�L�aas �.�► ?Piwr w. s Site plan at:acned which conforms with the requirements included in this packet. Affidavit attached from property owner if applicant is not owner. yeS No Yes ! No - ! hereby certify that / am, or represent, the legal owner of the property described above and do hereby submit this request for approval of a Planned Development District to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. Date: Print Name W A Q� GF1'�` Signature: PART 4. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of Planning b Zoning Commission Public Heanng: Taxes Paid? Casmber. q Yes No _ Date of C,ty CounEAro ring: Liens Pat 7.7 Fee: i Yes No $300.00 alarmed Developm: Assessments Paid? No Yes No :�ondrtions of ,- pproval: This application will not be scheduled for public heanng until the application fee is received. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CD -415 (5/97) CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Parks and Recreation Council Meeting Date: 2/14/00 Subject: Appeal Public Hearing to Consider Amending Agenda Number: PZ 99 -36 Zoning Ordinance No. 1874 to Add Article 12, Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Requirements PZ 99 -36 Ordinance No. 2455 The City Council, at their July Budget Retreat, discussed the potential for evaluating and implementing a Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Ordinance. In response, staff prepared a survey and collected ordinances from area cities that have adopted parkland dedication or impact fee ordinances. The City Council, at their August 23, 1999 meeting, reviewed the survey data and a summary of ordinances. The Council concurred with developing a draft ordinance that was not just based on impact fees, but required the dedication of land with the choice of implementing impact fees. The Council also concurred that the City should have the discretion and flexibility to determine if the proposed dedication is acceptable and if the fee should be imposed in -lieu of dedication. There was some debate as to whether non - residential development should be included, however, the Council directed staff to return to the Park and Recreation Board to develop an ordinance with their findings and recommendation. The Park and Recreation Board, at their September 10, 1999 Work Session and again at their September 21, 1999 meeting, evaluated the potential benefits of implementing a neighborhood parkland dedication ordinance. The Board discussed the purpose and intent of the ordinance, possible land dedication requirements and alternatives to land dedication to include cash in lieu of dedication, and unanimously agreed to recommend that City Council consider adopting Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article 12 as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The following requirements are contained in the proposed ordinance: • The requirements of the Article are intended to assure that open space and neighborhood park facilities are available to meet the needs created by development pursuant to the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Source of Funds: Bonds (GO /Rev.) Operating Budget Other/ Department Head Signature Finance Review Acct. Number Sufficient Funds Available CITY COUNCIL ACTION Financi Diradoi Page 1 of 3 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS • The requirements shall be applicable to residential and non - residential development for which a final plat has not already been formally submitted. (Developments with an approved preliminary plat combined with substantially complete engineering work that are approaching final plat status should not be applicable.) • Requirements for residential developments are at a ratio of 1 acre of parkland for every 40 dwelling units. Requirements for non - residential developments are at a ratio of 1 acre for every 50 acres. • The City determines if the proposed dedication is adequate in size, dimensions, character, and minimum area. If not, the applicant shall be required to pay cash in lieu of dedication of land. • The City shall annually establish an acreage land value cost to be used in calculating the fee in lieu of dedication. • Where the City desires land dedication, such land dedication will be shown on the final plat. Where the City requires cash in lieu of land, upon receipt of an application for building permit the City shall calculate the applicable fees due. The proposed Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article was presented to City Council at their September 27, 1999 meeting. The Council discussed these requirements and directed staff to take their comments and questions to the Park and Recreation Board for their consideration and response. The Council also instructed staff to forward the final recommendation of the draft ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include these requirements. After thorough discussion, the Park and Recreation Board, at their November 1, 1999 meeting, unanimously voted to forward the proposed Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include these requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their November 11, 1999 meeting held a public hearing, and then- considered approving PZ 99 -36 to amend Zoning Ordinance No. 1874 to include Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Requirements Article 12. Prior to the public hearing, Mr. Browne, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that the proposed requirements were developed at the request of the Mayor and City Council. Area surveys were conducted and further direction was obtained from the Mayor and City Council. The results were taken to the Park and Recreation Board. The Park Board twice considered this item, responding to issues from City Council. Prior to opening the public hearing, the Commission voiced their concern that they believe that the developers are being taken advantage of, and stated that they are against the concept of the ordinance. Page 2 of 3 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS During the public hearing: • One person spoke in favor of the proposed requirements, explaining the need for the provision of neighborhood park services. • One person opposed the requirements expressing concern of the increased burden on the developers. • One person asked a specific question regarding use of school property. The public hearing was closed and the Commission unanimously denied the motion. Since the Commission denied the request, staff was required to file an appeal in order to allow the City Council to formally consider the item. A public hearing is required prior to formal action by the City Council. The appeal hearing would give City Council an opportunity to review the proposal and to consider the draft language for approval. This complies with City Council Goal #5 enhancing the quality of life with quality parks, open spaces and trails. It also can be referenced in City Council Goal #2 in quality development through the protection of home value and community pride and in City Council Goal #4 in cost effective and quality delivery of quality services. The Council may elect to consider the appeal, hold the public hearing, and then take formal action to approve or deny the item at their February 14, 2000 meeting. Alternately, the Council could table the public hearing and consider the item at a future meeting. The City Council is requested to provide direction to staff, and the following information is provided to assist in formulating a course of action: 1. The proposed ordinance recommended by the Park and Recreation Board. 2. A response to the City Council's issues and questions from their September 27, 1999 meeting. 3. A summary of parkland dedication requirements collected from area cities. 4. An evaluation of anticipated benefits and comparison of needs. 5. Map of Neighborhood Park service zones and a summary of Neighborhood Park service opportunities and constraints specific to each zone. Recommendation: To approve Ordinance No. 2455 amending Ordinance #1874 by the addition of an Article titled Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Requirements as recommend by the Park and Recreation Board. Page _3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 2455 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 1874 BY THE ADDITION OF AN ARTICLE TITLED "NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS "; PROVIDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING THE PRESENT AND FUTURE PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE AND INTENT; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING LAND DEDICATIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS; PROVIDING ALTERNATIVES TO LAND DEDICATION; PROVIDING FOR THE PROCESS AND COLLECTION OF FEES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of North Richland Hills, Texas is a home rule city, acting under the provisions of the Texas Local Government Code and the North Richland Hills Home Rule Charter; and WHEREAS, the City of North Richland Hills Texas has adopted the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan which establishes standards for neighborhood parks, linear parks, and open space; and WHEREAS, new development in the City generates demand for parks and open space facilities to be used by residents of such new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that in order to assure open space and neighborhood park facilities are available and adequate, it is appropriate and in the best interest of the City to amend Ordinance Number 1874 to authorize the appropriate parkland dedication requirements, or fees in lieu of said dedication requirements, and BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, THAT: THAT, the following regulations shall be the minimum standards for development within the corporate limits of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas: Ordinance No. 2455 Page 1 of 6 City of North Richland Hills ARTICLE 12 PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS SECTION 100 PURPOSE AND INTENT The requirements contained in this Article are intended for the purpose of assuring open space and neighborhood park facilities are available and adequate to meet the needs created by such development while maintaining current and proposed park and recreation standards pursuant to the North Richland Hills 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. It is the Policy of the City that when land is dedicated for open space and park and recreational areas, such land should be in close proximity to the development it is designated to serve. Such land shall be of size, character, and dimensions as is necessary to provide usable open space and park and recreational areas. Fees collected in lieu of dedication of land shall be used for the purpose of acquisition and development of park facilities reasonably attributable to the development assessed the fee. SECTION 200 DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Article only, the terms that follow shall have the meaning set forth herein. Terms not herein defined shall have those meanings given them by other Ordinances of the City. Words and terms defined in two ordinances shall be read in harmony unless there exists an irreconcilable conflict in which case the definition contained in this ordinance shall control. 1. AR licant: The property owner, or duly designated agent of the property owner, of land for which approval of a building permit has been requested for development. 2. Building Permit: The permit required for new construction and /or additions to buildings. 3. Development: Any activity that requires the securing of building permit. 4. Neighborhood Park: Public land, with associated improvements typically from 6 acres to 10 acres in size, and providing both active and passive recreational opportunities, as specified in the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. 5. Park and Recreation Facilities: Land and /or facilities used or to be used as a neighborhood park regardless of location, including both the acquisition of land, the construction of improvements thereon and the expenditure of funds incidental thereto. 6. 2000 Parks. Recreation and Open Space Master Plan: The official adopted Parks and Recreation System Master Plan for the City of North Richland Hills and amendments thereto. 7. Property: A legally described parcel of land capable of development pursuant to applicable City ordinances and regulations. Ordinance No. 2455 Page 2 of 6 SECTION 300 APPLICABILITY This Article shall be uniformly applicable to residential and non - residential development of property in the City, which is or will be served by park facilities as herein defined. This Article does not apply to activities involving the replacement, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation or other improvements to an existing residential or non- residential structure, or to rebuilding of a damaged structure, unless such activity results in a change in the type. 2. This Article applies to all property for which a final plat has not been formally submitted to the City for approval. SECTION 400 LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS 1. Residential Developments: Parkland meeting the requirements contained within this Article shall be dedicated to the City at a ratio of one (1) acre of park land for every forty (40) residential dwelling units or prorated portion thereof. 2. Non - Residential Developments: Although non - residential development does not generate residential occupancies per se, it does create environmental impacts, which may negatively affect the living environment of the community. These impacts may be ameliorated or eliminated by providing park or open space areas, which buffer adjoining land uses. Non - residential developments must provide dedicated parks and /or reserved open space at a ratio of one (1) acre of parkland for every fifty (50) non - residential gross acres of development or prorated portion thereof. SECTION 500 CHARACTER AND MINIMUM AREA Land dedicated or otherwise set aside for open space and park and recreational areas shall be of such size, dimensions, topography, and general character as is reasonably required for the type of use proposed, such as open space buffer, active recreation for individual sports, playground, tot lot, picnic area, etc. 2. Land dedicated or otherwise set aside for open space and recreational areas shall be developable up -land, not lying within flood ways or flood plains. 3. If the City determines that the proposed dedication resulting from the calculations pursuant to this Article will not be adequate in size, dimensions, topography, and general character, the applicant shall be required to pay cash in lieu of dedication of land. Ordinance No. 2455 Page 3 of 6 SECTION 600 ALTERNATIVES TO LAND DEDICATION 1. In any case where a dedication is required, the City shall have the right to accept the dedication as submitted for approval, or in the alternative, to refuse dedication of the same, and in lieu thereof to require payment of cash under the formula contained in this article. The City may permit a combination of dedication and fees to be used to fulfill this requirement. 2. Calculation of Fees: The City shall annually establish an acreage land value cost to be used in calculating park fees. This determination shall be based on a reasonable study and investigation performed annually, and may be performed by an independent registered land appraisal firm as to average fair market value, as opposed to tax value, of acreage in the City. This figure shall be the acreage cost under which all park fees are calculated for the fiscal year. a. Residential Dwelling Unit Fees: Fees paid in lieu of dedication shall be based on the determined cost of one (1) acre of land divided by forty (40), for a resulting fee per residential dwelling unit. b. Non - residential Development Fees: The fees payment alternative for non - residential development shall be calculated by dividing the determined cost of one (1) acre of land by fifty (50), for a resulting fee per non - residential acre cost, or prorated portion thereof. In the event the non - residential development is less than fifty (50) acres, the total acreage, net of perimeter right -of -way dedications, shall be divided by 50 to determine the prorated fee payment. SECTION 700 PROCESSING AND COLLECTION OF FEES A. Land Dedication 1. Where review of development applications has resulted in the City's desire for land dedication, such land dedication shall be shown on a final plat and shall contain clear fee simple dedication of that land to the City. 2. The Director of Parks and Recreation or their designee shall make formal recommendation to the City Council to accept or refuse any proposed park land dedication prior to the Council's action on the development. B. Fee Payment in Lieu of Dedication 1. Where review of development applications has resulted in the City's desire for cash in lieu of dedication, applicants for a building permit for development subject to this Article must submit, on a form provided by the City, the proposed number of dwelling units or non - residential gross acres in the development. 2. Upon receipt of an application for a building permit, the City shall calculate the amount of the applicable fee due, pursuant to this Article. The determined cost per acre in effect at the time of application for permit shall be used to calculate the fee. Ordinance No. 2455 Page 4 of 6 I No building permit shall be issued nor shall any construction be allowed to begin until payment of all fees required by this Article has been made. C. Use of Park Fee Funds Fees collected in lieu of dedication of land shall be used for the purpose of acquisition and development of neighborhood park facilities reasonably attributable to the development assessed the fee. Fees collected may also be used for site preparation, the extension of utilities to or within sites, the installation of landscaping, play equipment, or recreation improvements, and attendant engineering and planning costs associated with such park development. 2. All expenditures of fees collected shall be made in accordance with the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. II. Severability Clause That it is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the section, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such invalid or unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. III. Effective Date This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Ordinance No. 2455 Page 5 of 6 DENIED by the Planning and Zoning Commission this the 11th day of November, 1999. 'mission Secretary, Planning an ing Commission APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Mar y Ratcli lanning Director PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council this 14th day of February, 2000. APPROVED: Charles Scoma, Mayor ATTEST: ratncia Hutson, City Secretary APPROVED AS TOEORM AND LEGALITY Rex McEntire, Attorney fo APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Bill Thornton, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Ordinance No. 2455 Page 6 of 6 MINUTES OF THE PRE - SESSION MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS NOVEMBER 11, 1999 — 6:15 PM The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 6:15 PM. PRESENT Chairman Don Bowen Doug Blue Richard Davis James Laubacher Tim Welch Ron Lueck ABSENT Joe Tolbert Ted Nehring CITY STAFF Planning Director Marcy Ratcliff Planner Mark Johnson Recording Secy Valerie Taylor Parks Director Jim Browne Asst Parks Dir Bill Thornton PW Director Greg Dickens Asst PW Dir Kevin Miller Staff presented a brief summary of the following cases: PS 99 -19 Preliminary Plat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Gibson Addition PS 99 -22 Replat of Lots 1 R, 2R, 3 & 4, block 34, Fox Hollow Addition PS 99 -31 Replat of Lots 3D and 4A, Block 3, Woodbert Addition PZ 99 -33 Special Use Permit Request for D &G Specialties PZ 99 -35 Site Plan Review of Lots 5R1 & 27R 1, Block 4, Richland Terrace Addition PZ 99 -36 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Consider Park Land Dedication The Commission after a few brief questions on each item closed the Pre - Session Meeting and retired to the City Council Chambers to begin the Regular Meeting. P & Z Minutes November 11, 1999 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS NOVEMBER 11, 1999 — 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bowen at 7:00 PM. PRESENT ABSENT CITY STAFF 2. ROLL CALL Chairman Planning Director Planner Recording Secy Parks Director Asst Parks Dir PW Director Asst PIN Dir Don Bowen Doug Blue Richard Davis James Laubacher Tim Welch Ron Lueck Joe Tolbert Ted Nehring Marcy Ratcliff Mark Johnson Valerie Taylor Jim Browne Bill Thornton Greg Dickens Kevin Miller 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 14, 1999 MEETING. APPROVED Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to approve the minutes of October 14, 1999. The motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 26, 1999 MEETING. APPROVED Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Laubacher, moved to approve the minutes of October 26, 1999. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes 2 November 11, 1999 5. PS 99 -19 CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF D & G SPECIALITIES INC., FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, GIBSON ADDITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PRECINCT LINE ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD. APPROVED Jim Makens is proposing to preliminary plat two lots, containing 3.75 acres and zoned "C -1" Commercial. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Precinct Line Road and Davis Boulevard. Lot 1, the corner lot is proposed to contain 1.25 acres. A SUP (PZ 99 -33) for a convenience store has been submitted. Lot 2, the remaining portion of the property, contains 2.05 acres. No development is proposed on Lot 2 at this time. The applicant has made the necessary revisions to the plat per the Public Works memo dated October 21, 1999. The remaining comments noted by Public Works concern requirements for submitting the final plat at a later date, engineering and the construction plans and are not associated with the plat. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the preliminary plat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Gibson Addition with the engineering comments as noted by the Public Works memo dated October 20, 1999. Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Blue, moved to approve PS 99 -19 subject to engineer's comments and an access easement to adjacent lot being shown. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes November 11, 1999 6. PS 99 -22 CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF OWEN D LONG FOR A REPLAT OF LOLTS 1R, 2R, 3 & 4, BLOLCK 34, FOX HOLLOLW ADDITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECGTION OF HOLIDAY LANE AND MID - CITIES BOULEVARD. APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained that Owen D. Long has submitted a Replat on Lots 1 R, 2R, 3, and 4, Block 34, Fox Hollow Addition, which contains 5.3 acres. The proposed Replat is located at the northeast intersection of Holiday Lane and Mid - Cities Boulevard. The property is zoned C -1, Commercial and is designated Commercial by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The following outstanding issue associated with this plat: 1. ROW DEDICATION Holiday Lane is a designated C4U on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. The designation requires a 68 -foot ultimate right -of- way. From the centerline, the ultimate ROW requirement is 34 feet. Holiday lane is currently constructed at 24.5 feet. The distance shown on the proposed plat from the back of curb to the ROW line is 5.5 feet, 9.5 feet is required. (See the attached memo from Kevin Miller, Assistant Public Works Director.) The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement and proposes to provide a five -foot utility and sidewalk easement in lieu of the additional four -foot of ROW. Staff recommends approval of the Replat of Lots 1 R, 2R, 3 and 4, Block 34, Fox Hollow Addition with the following provided an additional four -foot of ROW for Holiday Lane be provided on the Plat prior to proceeding to City Council. Mr. Welch, seconded by Mr. Davis, moved to approve PS 99 -22 subject to engineer's comments, waiving the 4 foot right of way dedication along Holiday Lane and allowing a sidewalk easement. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes November 11, 1999 7. PS 99 -31 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF BILLIE & MARIE MELBOURN TO REPLAT LOTS 31) & 4A, BLOOCK 3, WOODBERT ADDITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8224 SAYERS LANE. APPROVED Billie and Marie Melbourne are requesting to replat Lots 3D and 4A, Block 3, Woodbert Addition into one lot containing 27,814 square feet. The subject property is zoned "R -3" Single Family Residential, which requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The applicant has made the necessary revisions to the plat per the Public Works memo dated October 21, 1999. The remaining comments noted by Public Works concern engineering and the construction plans and are not associated with the plat. The outstanding issues associated with this plat include the following: 1. Sidewalks Subdivision Regulations require sidewalks adjacent to all public streets. The owner has requested a waiver to providing a sidewalk, because there are no sidewalks in the area. Staff would recommend a condition of approval include signing a covenant agreeing to pay for construction costs for the sidewalk in the future prior to the plat being filed. 2. Street Lighting Street Lighting is required by Section 1 -06 of the Design Manual. Where a block is 600 feet or longer, at streetlight shall be installed every 600 feet or mid -block whichever is the shortest distance. The owner has requested a waiver to the street light requirements. Staff recommends denying this request. Staff recommends approval of the Replat of Lot 3DR, Block 3, Woodbert Addition with the following conditions: • A condition of approval shall include signing a covenant agreeing to pay for construction costs for the sidewalk in the future prior to the plat being filed. • Denying the request to waive the Street Lighting requirements of the Design Manual. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing and asked for proponents. Mr. Doug Long, engineer, presented request, explaining that a street light may already exist. He believes the surveyor might have overlooked it. He asked the Commissioners to give him until the City Council meeting to find out for sure whether a street light exists. P & Z Minutes November 11, 1999 Marie Melbourn was also a proponent in the case stating that no other sidewalks exists in this neighborhood and that is why they are requesting a waiver to this request. Seeing no additional proponents, and no opponents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to approve PS 99 -31, subject to engineers comments, allowing a covenant for the sidewalks and stating that they would not waive the street light requirement; but allow the applicant to go forward if it is decided that a light is located within 600'. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes _ November 11, 1999 8. PZ 99 -33 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF D & G SPOECALITIES INC, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONVENIENCE STOR43E AND CAR WASH ON PROPERTY TO BE KNOWN AS LOTS 1 & 2K, BLOCK 1, GIBSON ADDITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ASTG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DAVIS BLVD & PRECINCT LINE ROAD. APPROVED D & G Specialties Inc. is requesting a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a convenience store and car wash on proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Gibson Addition. The subject property and the surrounding properties are zoned "C -1" Commercial. The proposed convenience store /car wash will be located on a lot containing 1.252 acres. The building is proposed to contain 4,334 square feet. The site plan shows 29 off - street parking spaces are being provided when only 18 spaces are required. The applicant landscape plan shows over 16% of the total lot is devoted to landscaping. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve PZ 99 -33 for a Specific Use Permit for convenience store with a car wash on proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Gibson Addition at the northeast corner of Davis Boulevard and Precinct Line Road. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing and asked for proponents. Fred Ballinger, architect for the project presented his request. He showed exterior elevations of an existing facility on Denton Highway in Watauga, which are similar to the proposed facility in NRH. Seeing no additional proponents and no opponents, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Blue, seconded by Mr. Welch, moved to approve PZ 99 -33. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes November 11, 1999 9. PZ 99 -35 CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW OF HUGGINS HONDA FOR LOTS 5R1 & 27R1, BLOCK 4, RICHLAND TERRACE ADDITION AND ZONED LOCAL RETAIL. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7651 NE LOOP 820 AND 4701 NANCY LANE. APPROVED Ms. Ratcliff explained that Huggins Honda has requested site plan approval on two lots, which are remaining portions left after ROW for the widening of Loop 820. The applicant would like to use the lots for non - required accessory off- street parking. Twenty -two parking spaces would be provided with a one -way driving lane. An entrance to the parking lot is from an existing driveway on Susan Lee Lane; an exit from the parking lot is from an existing drive on the frontage road of Loop 820. Ms. Ratcliff explained that one November 8, 1999, the City Council granted variances to the landscape ordinance for this proposed parking lot. Staff recommends approval of PZ 99 -35 contingent upon a 6' wooden fence along the northern property line being replaced. Ms. Ratcliff responded to a question, stating that while current ordinances require a masonry- screening wall between the proposed parking lot and the existing single family neighborhood, the City Council at the November 8, 1999 meeting had approved the replacement of a 6' wooden fence, which currently exists. She explained that the Commission has the ability to recommend differently. This case will be heard before the City Council in December. Ron Huggins, applicant, presented his request explaining that he believes the City Coucil approved a wooden fence in lieu of a masonry screening fence because of the limited use of the property and due to the cost difference. He explained that he plans on making drastic visual improvements to the property. Mike Wilson, 4805 Susan Lee Lane, stated that while he wasn't opposed to the use of the property as employee parking, he has several areas of concern, which consisted of: v' Overnight parking of semi - trucks ','the proposed drive approach on Susan Lee Lane an existing un -used pole on the property existing pipelines on the property the need for wheel stops at each parking space to protect the replaced wooden fence from damage. P & Z Minutes November 11, 1999 Additional opponents in this case were: Starline Autry, 4800 Susan Lee Lane Mr. Wakoster, 4808 Susan Lee Lane Mr. Ricky Vinson, 4709 Deville, stated that while he isn't a resident in this neighborhood, he previously lived around Payton- Wright Ford in Grapevine and after seeing this case on Citi -Cable Monday night felt compelled to speak on behalf of the surrounding, existing neighbors. He cited increased lighting, noise & property devaluation. Mr. Huggins stated that lights was a consideration in the planning of the proposed parking lot; explaining that they were trying to take into consideration the impact of the neighbors while still putting employee safety in place, explaining that he is willing to soften the lights towards the neighbors as well as keep a safety lighting feature for employees. Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Lueck, moved to approve PZ 99 -35 subject to: A "No Overnight Parking Sign" If requested, an employee only sign is allowed, not to exceed 6 square feet Wheel stops required on all spaces Allow 3 light poles that are to be no taller than 12' with illumination to not extend beyond the property line on the north; and, The existing pole is removed. The motion carried with a vote of 5 —1. Messrs. Bowen, Blue, Davis, Welch & Lueck were in favor of the motion. Mr. Laubacher was opposed. P & Z Minutes November 11, 1999 10. PZ 99 -36 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1874 TO ADD ARTICLE 12, PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIRMENTS. DENIED. The City Council, at their July Budget Retreat, discussed the potential for evaluating and implementing a Parkland Dedication Ordinance. In response, staff prepared a survey and collected ordinances from area cities that have adopted parkland dedication or impact fee ordinances. The City Council, at their August 27, 1999 meeting, reviewed the survey data and a summary of ordinances. The Council concurred with developing a draft ordinance that was not just based on impact fees, but required the dedication of land with the choice of implementing impact fees. The Council also concurred that the City should have the discretion and flexibility to determine if the proposed dedication is acceptable and if the fee should be imposed in -lieu of dedication. There was some debate as to whether non - residential development should be included, however, the Council directed staff to return to the Park and Recreation Board to develop an ordinance with their findings and recommendation. After thorough discussion, the Council directed staff to present the information to the Park and Recreation Board to develop a draft ordinance and recommendation for Council consideration. The Park and Recreation Board, at their September 10, 1999 Work Session and again at their September 21, 1999 meeting, evaluated the potential benefits of implementing a parkland dedication ordinance. The Board discussed the purpose and intent of the ordinance, possible land dedication requirements and alternatives to land dedication to include cash in lieu of dedication, and unanimously agreed to recommend that City Council consider adopting Parkland Dedication Article 12 as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The following requirements are contained in the proposed ordinance: • The requirements of the Article are intended to assure that open space and neighborhood park facilities are available to meet the needs created by developments pursuant to the Park System Master Plan. • The requirements shall be applicable to residential and non - residential development for which a final plat has not already been formally submitted. • Requirements for residential developments are at a ratio of 1 acre of parkland for every 40 dwelling units. Requirements for non - residential developments are at a ratio of 1 acre for every 50 acres. • The City determines if the proposed dedication is adequate in size, dimensions, character, and minimum area. If not, the applicant shall be required to pay cash in lieu of dedication of land. • The City shall annually establish an acreage land value cost to be used in calculating the fee in lieu of dedication. P & Z Minutes 10 November 11, 1999 • Where the City desires land dedication, such land dedication will be shown on the final plat. Where the City requires cash in lieu of land, upon receipt of an application for building permit the City shall calculate the applicable fees due. The proposed Parkland Dedication Article was presented to City Council at their September 27, 1999 meeting. The Council discussed these requirements and directed the staff to take their comments and questions to the Park and Recreation Board for their consideration and response. The Council also instructed the staff to forward the final recommendation of the draft ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission in order to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include these requirements. After thorough discussion, the Park and Recreation Board, at their November 1, 1999 meeting, unanimously voted to forward the proposed Parkland Dedication Article to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include these requirements. Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission approve PZ 99 -36 to amend Zoning Ordinance No. 1874 to add Article 12, Parkland Dedication Requirements. Ms. Ratcliff introduced Jim Brown, Parks and Recreation Director and asked for his presentation. Jim Brown stated at the Mayor's and City Council's request, this item was moving forward. Area surveys were conducted and further direction was obtained from the Mayor and City Council. The results were taken to the Parks and Recreation Board. The Board twice considered this item, responding to issues from City Council. Bill Thornton, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director covered the highlights of the ordinance, benefits and purpose of it. He gave the intent and purpose of the proposed ordinance, stating he would answer any questions. The Commission believes they are asking for too much land and that the developer is being taken advantage of. Mr. Thornton stated that numerous cities are using the same ratio and this ratio was also used in the development of Thornbridge East. Mr. Lueck stated that six words come to his mind; confiscation, confiscation, confiscation, and bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy. He doesn't believe this should be used as a hidden tax. We think it might be taxing the developer; but it's really taxing the homebuyer. P & Z Minutes 11 November 11, 1999 He is not necessarily against a ratio of obtaining parkland, but he is against having a mandatory dollar figure that, if for some reason, some bureaucracy doesn't want a piece of land, then we charge money for it. He stated he is against the concept. Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing. Proponents were: Dewayne Leslie, Chairman of the Park and Recreation Board, stating he sees the need for parkland in the city, explaining that available funding doesn't exist. He knows the developer will claim it burdensome, however, he believes the burden is put on the builder only, and that's only an additional 1 %. Doesn't see this as extra taxes; but a service to be provided to the citizens. Opponents consisted of: Doug Long, developer, expressed concern of the increasing burden on the developers. They can't continue developing if they have to continue giving more and more away. Stated developers were not notified of these open meetings regarding this item — and input should have been sought, at least in the early stages. He hasn't had a chance to even review the ordinance. Mr. Starline Autry, 4800 Susan Lee, asked why the city hadn't approached BISD to upgrade their unused areas and save some money. Smithfield Elementary is a prime example of a tremendous amount of unused property that would accommodate a park perfectly. Jim Brown stated that numerous studies indicate that where the addition of park amenities increase property values, which benefit the city. He explained that the school property is being looked at. This ordinance really only impacts a small part of the city since not that much area left to develop. The Little Bear Creek Corridor Ordinance has no requirement for park dedication. Developer has the option to keep or dedicate. Public hearing closed. Mr. Davis believes that the Parks Master Plan is wonderful and wonders is it the city's right to take property from individuals for parks? He doesn't think so — especially when uncompensated. In his opinion the end result is the new homeowner will pay for that park. He is opposed. Mr. Lueck, seconded by Mr. Davis moved to deny PZ 99 -36. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes 12 November 11, 1999 11. MISCELANEOUS REPORTS There was nothing to report. 12. ADJOURNMENT Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Don Bowen, Chairman P & Z Minutes - November 11, 1999 Ted Nehring, Secretary 13 Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Ordinance Response to Discussion of Council Issues and Questions Historical Perspective The City Council, at their July Budget Retreat, discussed the potential for evaluating and implementing a Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article. In response, staff prepared a survey and collected ordinances from area cities that have adopted parkland dedication or impact fee ordinances. The City Council, at their August 27, 1999 meeting, reviewed the survey data and a summary of ordinances. After thorough discussion, the Council directed staff to present the information to the Park and Recreation Board to develop a draft ordinance and recommendation for Council consideration. Staff asked the Council several critical questions to assist the Park and Recreation Board in developing the ordinance. These questions were: 1. Do we develop an ordinance based on impact fees only? 2. Do we want to develop an ordinance requiring land dedication with the option for a cash fee? 3. Do we include non - residential development in the ordinance? The City Council concurred with continuing to develop a draft ordinance that was not just based on impact fees, but required the dedication of land with the choice of implementing impact fees. The Council also concurred that the City should have the discretion and flexibility to determine if the proposed dedication is acceptable and if the fee should be imposed in -lieu of dedication. There was some debate as to rather non - residential development should be included, however, the Council directed staff to return to the Park and Recreation Board to develop an ordinance with their findings and recommendation. The Park and Recreation Board, at their September 10, 1999 Work Session, evaluated the potential benefits of implementing a parkland dedication ordinance. The Board discussed the purpose and intent of the ordinance, possible land dedication requirements and alternatives to land dedication to include cash in lieu of dedication. Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Ordinance - Response to Discussion of Council Issues and Questions The Park and Recreation Board, at their September 21, 1999 meeting, unanimously agreed to recommend that City Council consider adopting Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article 12 as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The following requirements are contained in the proposed ordinance: • The requirements of the Article are intended to assure that open space and neighborhood park facilities are available to meet the needs created by developments pursuant to the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. • The requirements shall be applicable to residential and non - residential development for which a final plat has not already been formally submitted. • Requirements for residential developments are at a ratio of 1 acre of parkland for every 40 dwelling units. Requirements for non - residential developments are at a ratio of 1 acre for every 50 acres. • The City determines if the proposed land dedication is adequate in size, dimensions, character, and minimum area. If not, the applicant shall be required to pay cash in lieu of dedication of land. • The City shall annually establish an acreage land value cost to be used in calculating the fee in lieu of dedication. • Where the City desires land dedication, such land dedication will be shown on the final plat. Where the City requires cash in lieu of land, upon receipt of an application for building permit the City shall calculate the applicable fees due. The Board discussed applying non - residential developments to the Article and determined that although non - residential development does not directly generate residential occupancies, it does create environmental impacts which may negatively affect the living environment of the community. The Board concurred that these impacts may be ameliorated or eliminated by providing park and open space areas which buffer the adjoining land uses, and therefore is recommending that non - residential developments be included in the Article. The Park and Recreation Board also discussed the use of fees collected in lieu of dedication of land. The Board agreed that these fees shall be used for the acquisition and development of neighborhood park facilities reasonably attributable to the development assessed the fee, and that all expenditures be in accordance with the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The proposed Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article was presented to City Council at their September 27, 1999 meeting with a recommendation from the Park and Recreation Board to forward the proposed Article to the Planning and Zoning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include the Park Dedication Article. The following comments and questions were raised by the City Council: Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Ordinance - Response to Discussion of Council Issues and Questions City Council Question or Concern and Staff /Park Board Response 1. Why should a developer be required to dedicate land within Little Bear Creek or some other area of the City, and still be required to dedicate additional land? The Little Bear Creek Flood Plain Management Ordinance and the proposed Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article are two completely different ordinances with two completely different purposes. The purpose of the Little Bear Creek Flood Plain Management Ordinance is to establish a flood plain control mechanism to prevent channelizing the Little Bear Creek corridor and to preserve its flood plain as a natural drainage way in concert with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. The ordinance is designed to leave the drainage way in its natural state where possible to control erosive velocities, prevent excessive downstream discharges, and preserve the natural effect of the stream. Developers can, and do, reclaim as much acreage as possible from the flood plain while not raising the flood plain elevation so as to cause flooding problems along the corridor. An ancillary benefit of not channelizing the drainage way is the use of the non - reclaimed floodplain as a drainage and public access easement to ensure proper drainage maintenance. Developers are not required to dedicate the non - reclaimed flood plain. They may do so at their own discretion. Property remaining in the drainage and pedestrian access easement consists of non - developable flood plain and therefore the Little Bear Creek Flood Plain Ordinance does not achieve neighborhood parkland dedication. Developable upland property is required for the necessary elements to provide neighborhood park services such as playgrounds and picnic pavilions. The purpose of the Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article is to ensure that neighborhood park facilities are available and adequate to meet the needs of the neighborhoods created by such developments, and that every city should provide infrastructure to include open space and quality development. Therefore, as mandated by the Texas Supreme Court, the dedication of land should be in close proximity to the development it is designated to serve, and should be reasonably attributable to the development assessed the dedication requirement. By this ruling, we cannot assess a fee or dedication requirement for a development in one area of the City, and apply that fee or dedication as credit to another area of the City. Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Ordinance - Response to Discussion of Council Issues and Questions 2. Why should a developer not be given credit for dedication requirements associated with the Little Bear Creek Flood Plain Management Ordinance? The proposed Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article includes requirements for land proposed for dedication that is of acceptable size, quality and character to be developed to provide neighborhood park amenities. Property that lies totally within a non - reclaimable flood plain will not support the development of such park amenities. Allowing credit for flood plain property is achievable, however the proposed ratio of dwelling unit to parkland would most likely not be sufficient to provide any or enough developable parkland. The Forest Glen East subdivision is a good example to use in demonstrating this scenario. The entire subdivision consists of 141 dwelling units and would produce 3.25 acres of required parkland dedication at the proposed ratio of 1 acre per 40 dwelling units. It is important to note that the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan identifies the appropriate size for a neighborhood park as being 6 to 10 acres. The proposed 3.25 acres falls considerably short of this size requirement. Offering additional credit for adjacent flood plain property would further reduce the developable land needed to provide neighborhood park amenities. The proposed ordinance allows for the alignment of the proposed dedication to take advantage of flood plain property. Under the Forest Glen East scenario, the proposed 3.25 -acre dedication could be aligned with the Little Bear Creek Corridor flood plain property to provide neighborhood park services to the subdivision with adjacency to the flood plain. This is exactly what was accomplished at the Thornbridge subdivision. The flood plain property was combined with a small parcel of upland to provide neighborhood park services. 3. Why were non - residential properties included in the ordinance? As stated above, the premise of any Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article is founded in the understanding that every community should provide infrastructure to its residents and this infrastructure includes open space and quality environment. Currently, non - residential developments are obligated to contribute their share of infrastructure costs, which typically have included roads, utilities, bridges, power lines, etc. Logically, the cost of providing open space as a part of the infrastructure should be shared appropriately with non - residential developments. The 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan identifies specific park service zones. The cost of providing open space and park facilities remains the same regardless of including non - residential developments in the Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article. By not sharing the cost of this infrastructure with non - residential developments, a greater encumbrance will be placed on residential developments. Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Ordinance - Response to Discussion of Council Issues and Questions Although non - residential development does not directly generate residential occupancies, it does create environmental impacts that may negatively impact the living environment of the community. Additionally, non - residential developments do promote a symbiotic relationship with residential growth as demonstrated by the Town Center concept. These impacts may be ameliorated or eliminated by providing open space areas that buffer adjoining land uses and provide quality of life amenities that attract new businesses and their employees all of which supports economic well- being. In fact, open space conservation is a one -time investment that can boost property values and swell tax coffers long after the land is paid for. According to a National Park Service survey, corporate CEO's say the quality of life for employees is the third -most important factor in locating a business, behind only access to domestic markets and availability of skilled labor. The Journal of Park and Recreation Administration reports that owners of small companies ranked recreation, parks /open space as their highest priority in choosing a new location for their business. 4. Does the developer forego any tax benefits when the City requires the dedication of parkland? Arlington structured their ordinance so as to allow for this tax benefit. Regardless of the requirement, a tax benefit is still achievable. However, the City of Arlington has moved from a park land dedication ordinance to a "Park Development Fee" ordinance. Their ordinance is structured as follows: • Through the City's Park Master Plan, Arlington adopted park services zones. • They calculated the cost of providing the parks and open space within each zone, including land and construction costs. • This cost is divided equally between the total expected dwelling units in each zone, and a per - dwelling unit impact fee is assessed. • A developer may request an offset against development fees for contributions of land located within the service zone. By contributing land, the development impact fee would be reduced appropriately. 5. How is the per acreage land value cost established? According to the proposed article, the City shall annually establish an acreage land value based reasonable study. The draft ordinance states that the City may use an independent firm to aid in establishing this value, but it is not required. Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Ordinance - Response to Discussion of Council Issues and Questions 6. We should not be maintaining private parks. The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to assure that public neighborhood park facilities are available and adequate to meet the needs created by such development pursuant to the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan identifies a complete system of parks including neighborhood parks, community parks, large city parks, linear parks, and special use parks. The Plan specifically identifies neighborhood parks as the backbone of the municipal park system. The optimum size of a neighborhood park is 6 to 10 acres. If adjacent to an elementary school, 6 acres is a minimum. If independent from a school site, 7 acres is a minimum. The ideal location will serve residents within a one -half to two- thirds mile radius and be connected or part of a linear park. Neighborhood park amenities include playgrounds, level open spaces for team practice games, multi - purpose courts, and picnic areas with tables, pavilions, drinking fountains, and trails. It is important to note that neighborhood parks are designed for families and children and that walking or bicycling is the desirable way to reach them. As such, no street or thoroughfare in excess of two lanes should be included within the service zone of the park. While the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan identifies a network of public neighborhood parks linked by greenbelts where possible, developers sometimes elect to provide private parks that are developed and eventually maintained by the homeowner's association. These private facilities are separate and independent from the public park system as documented in the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Reference has been made as to the extent of neighborhood parks in the City of Colleyville. That city has developed, and is maintaining, 3 neighborhood parks, the most recent of which was on land that was dedicated to the City. These parks are located within residential subdivisions and provide neighborhood park amenities that are open and available to the public. In addition to the neighborhood parks being provided by the city in accordance with Colleyville's master plan, developers of several upscale residential developments have elected to provide private parks that are neither developed nor maintained by the city. In North Richland Hills, the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan identifies a complete network of public neighborhood parks, linked by greenbelts or trails where possible. The recent 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Needs Assessment shows that over one -half (52.2 %) of those responding reported that they would prefer that a park development fee be collected from residential developers for acquisition and improvement of neighborhood parkland. Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Ordinance - Response to Discussion of Council Issues and Questions The lakes and open space in Meadow Lakes and Diamond Loch are private areas maintained by private associations, and are not representative examples of public neighborhood parks. Thornbridge Neighborhood Park is an excellent example of a small neighborhood park located centrally in a neighborhood, connected to a trail system and providing several of the park amenities as listed above. Parallel residential roads and loop streets provide public access and visibility and enhance the appearance and usability of the park. Maintenance and operations costs for a typical neighborhood park will range from $35,000 to $45,000 annually depending on specific site amenities and size of park. The 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan is implemented through the Park and Recreation Facilities Development CIP Budget. Maintenance and Operations for facilities developed through the %z cent Sales Tax Capital Improvement Program are maintained and operated with funding from this source. As parks and facilities are scheduled for completion, anticipated funding for maintenance and operations is allocated to match the completion timeline for the proposed facility. This is demonstrated in the Park and Recreation Facilities Development Long -Range CIP on the Revenue /Expense Worksheet. "In survey after survey, homebuyers identify nearby open space and trails as among the top features in choosing a home. In Oakland California, a 3 -mile greenbelt was found to add $41million to the surrounding property values. A developer in Front Royal Virginia who donated a 50 -foot wide 7 -mile long easement along a popular trail sold all 50 parcels bordering the trail in only 4 months. Homes bordering a trail and park in Seattle, Washington sold for 6 % more than other houses of comparable size" The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space The Trust for Public Land In North Richland Hills, the residential lots adjacent to Green Valley Park sold first and for a premium. Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Ordinance - Response to Discussion of Council Issues and Questions Parkland Dedication Ordinance Summary Parks and Recreation staff contacted the following cities to prepare a survey of Parkland Dedication and Park Impact Fee Ordinances: Southlake Plano Flower Mound Colleyville Fort Worth Arlington Keller Allen Deer Park Grapevine Highland Village Euless Coppell Denton Irving Lancaster Desoto Rowlett Carrollton Bedford Hurst Below is a detailed summary from the cities that have adopted or are in the process of adopting Parkland Dedication/ Park Impact Fee Ordinances. SOUTHLAKE The Park and Recreation Dedication Requirements are based on Southlake's Land Use Plan and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The park land dedication requirement for residential development is 1 acre of parkland for every 40 dwelling units. This ratio is derived from the Open Space Master Plan that provides for 21 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The non - residential requirement is one acre of parkland for every 50 non- residential gross acres of development. The ordinance provides for a fee in lieu of parkland dedication. The fees are based on a formula and currently come to $1,500 per residential dwelling unit and $800 per gross acre of non - residential development. Also in the ordinance is a detailed fee schedule including fees for preliminary plats, final plats, mapping, and street name change. Southlake does not have a Park Impact Fee Ordinance. The estimated annual revenue from the Parkland Dedication Ordinance is $100,000. COLLEYVILLE The Parkland Dedication Requirements are derived from the 1998 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Master Plan provides nine acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The ordinance requires one acre of parkland for every 36 residential dwelling units. It also requires that the subdivider dedicate 0.028 acres of parkland for every dwelling unit with no tract of dedicated parkland containing less than 7 acres. The non - residential ratio for parkland dedication is one acre of parkland for every 56 non - residential gross acres of development. The current calculated fees in lieu of parkland dedication are $1,260 per residential dwelling unit and $800 per non - residential developed acre. If a subdivision contains less than 100 units, the subdivider pays $310.11 per dwelling unit in lieu of parkland. The ordinance includes a detailed explanation of the approval processes and the creation of a Parkland Dedication Committee. KELLER The Keller Park and Open Space Master Plan was referenced in the creation of Keller's Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The City of Keller recently lowered the parkland to dwelling unit ratio and doubled the fee in lieu of parkland dedication. The new residential ratio is one acre of land for every 30 dwelling units. The fee in lieu of parkland dedication is $1,000 for residential development. A special fund has been created to manage the fees collected in lieu Parkland Dedication Ordinance Summary and Comparison Chart of dedication. The money in the fund is spent exclusively on neighborhood park development. If the developer's money is not used in five years he is entitled to a refund. This ordinance does not provide for parkland dedication from subdividers or non - residential development. Keller estimates that the Parkland Dedication Ordinance will bring in $560,000 in revenue next year. GRAPEVINE The City of Grapvine's Parkland Dedication Ordinance does not reference a master plan. The ordinance creates an Open Space Committee comprised of the Director of Parks and Recreation, a designated Parks and Recreation Board member, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and a member of the City Council. The City Council person is a non- voting member of the committee. For most residential development one acre of parkland dedication is required for every 145 dwelling units. The residential fee in lieu of land varies by residential classification. The highest fee is for zero -lot residential construction at $1,416 per dwelling unit. The fees for subdivisions are described in a fee schedule. Non - residential development is not specifically addressed in this ordinance. Grapevine is rapidly approaching build -out and no longer includes estimated revenue from this ordinance in its budget. The annual revenue collected from money in lieu of land is negligible. COPPELL The Parkland Dedication Ordinance is based on recommendations included in the Park and Recreation Master Plan. The introduction of the ordinance very specifically states that the purpose of the ordinance is to provide recreational areas in the form of neighborhood parks as a function of subdivision development. The developer is required to dedicate one acre of land for every 100 residential dwelling units. If the number of dwelling units to be developed is less than 100, a fee in lieu of land will be paid. The fee is $1,285 per dwelling unit. Cash payments may be used only for acquisition or improvement of a neighborhood park located within the same zone as the development. The ordinance provides for the development of a fund to receive fees and a policy for the right to refund. Also included are additional requirements of dedicated parkland. The fee in lieu of land generates an average of $514,000 in annual revenue. LANCASTER The City of Lancaster does not currently have a Parkland Dedication Ordinance in place. They are in the process of researching ordinances of other cities. The current recommendation for parkland dedication is one acre for every 100 dwelling units. The fee in lieu of land is currently $200 per dwelling unit. CARROLLTON The Comprehensive Plan is referenced as a guide in the creation of Carrollton's Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The city is divided into 21 service areas and each has its own account. A developer in a particular service area must dedicate land within that service area or pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication into that service area's account. Fifteen of the twenty-one service areas have a fee of $300 per dwelling unit for residential and subdivision development. Carrollton does have an acreage to dwelling unit ratio for parkland dedication. If a developer chooses to dedicate land, the City examines the value of the property and compares it to the fee in lieu of parkland had the developer opted to paid it. The decision to accept the land is based on that comparison. This ordinance also has a right to refund clause. Parkland Dedication Ordinance Summary and Comparison Chart PLANO - This City of Plano does not have a Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The "Plano Park and Recreation Fee Article" is, specifically, a Park Impact Fee Ordinance. The fees were derived from the Parks and Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Plano. The city is divided into 13 service areas. Fees collected within each service area are spent on the development of park facilities in those areas only. The ordinance creates a Park Improvements Program that identifies the park facilities and their costs, which are to be financed by park impact fees. Park fees may only be spent for park facilities identified in the Park Improvements Program. The fee established for single - family development is $467.47 per dwelling unit, and the fee for multi - family development is $323.96 per dwelling unit. As with the Parkland Dedication Ordinances, the fees collected can not be used to maintain, repair, or operate the existing park system. This ordinance includes a right to refund clause. The estimated annual revenue collected through park impact fees is $1,975,738. From its inception in November of 1993, Plano has collected $11,031,206 as of May 31, 1999. FORT WORTH Fort Worth's Park Dedication Policy is part of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Dedicated tracts of land must be at least five acres. If a tract is less than five acres, the fee in lieu of parkland will be required of the developer. The acres to be dedicated is calculated using the following formula: ((2.5 Acres) x (No. of Units) x (Persons /Unit)) /1000 Population = Acres to be dedicated The number for Single Family Detached /Duplex is 3.25 Persons /Unit and the number for Multi - Family is 2.0 Persons /Unit. These numbers are current as of December 27, 1995, when the policy was last updated. The amount of the fee in lieu of parkland dedication is determined by one of two methods. The value of the required property as determined by the Tarrant Appraisal District is used as the fee, or a State of Texas certified real estate appraiser may be hired by the Developer /Owner to determine the value of the property if he /she is approved by the City. The ordinance also describes the requirements of the land to be dedicated and includes a right to refund clause. Parkland Dedication Ordinance Summary and Comparison Chart Parkland Dedication Ordinance Comparison Chart PARKLAND DEDICATION City Single- family lot Multi- family Unit Non - residential Southlake 1 acre /40 DU 1 acre /40 DU 1 acre /50 GA Colleyville 1 acre /36 DU 1 acre /36 DU 1 acre /56 GA Keller 1 acre /30 DU 1 acre /30 DU None Grapevine 1 acre /145 DU 1 acre /145 DU None Coppell 1 acre /100 DU 1 acre /100 DU None Lancaster 1 acre /100 DU 1 acre /100 DU None Carrollton None None None Plano None None None Fort Worth see formula ** see formula ** None FEE IN LIEU OF LAND* City Single - family lot Multi- family Unit Non - residential Southlake $1,500 $1,500 $800 Colleyville $1,260 $1,260 $800 Keller $1,000 $1,000 None Grapevine $1,416 $1,416 None Coppell $1,285 $1,285 None Lancaster $200 $200 None Carrollton $300 $300 None Plano * ** $467.47 $323.96 None Fort Worth TAD land value TAD land value None Notes: DU = dwelling units GA = gross acres of development * Fees are per dwelling unit for residential and gross acres for non - residential ** ((2.5 Acres) x (No. of Units) x (Persons /Unit)) 11000 Population = Acres to be dedicated * ** The numbers for fee in lieu of land are the numbers used in the park impact fee Parkland Dedication Ordinance Summary and Comparison Chart EVALUATION OF ANTICIPATED BENEFITS AND COMPARISON OF NEEDS In order to calculate the anticipated benefits from adopting the proposed ordinance, the estimated land value cost per acre need to be determined. The proposed dedication requirement is based on a ratio of 1 acre per 40 dwelling units. The land value cost is used in determining an appropriate fee collected in -lieu of the land dedication requirement. For purposes of this exercise, staff used a per acre value of $27,500. This was calculated from and average of current land values from applicable areas of the City. Anticipated Benefits The attached drawing depicts the service zones that identify the need for neighborhood park services throughout the City. Of the 29 zones, neighborhood park services are provided or will be provided in 11 zones. These neighborhood park services are provided, or will be provided, in existing neighborhood and community parks. Of the remaining 18 service zones, 15 occupy areas of the City that are already completely built out (residential land). School sites that could provide neighborhood park services in the future are located within most of these 15 zones. Therefore, 3 service zones remain which platted, of which the City could derive dedication requirements. contain undeveloped land or land not yet substantial benefit from adopting parkland The Neighborhood Parkland Dedication Article can possible contribute funding or a portion of land that will need to be combined with City resources to meet neighborhood park needs in areas that large scale development is not possible or probable. The anticipated benefits generated from residential development within these service zones are described as follows: Neighborhood Park Service Zone 4 — North Tarrant Parkway on the north, Smithfield on the west, Davis on the east, and Green Valley drive on the south. Remaining residential property to develop is comprised of 38 acres of residential single family land anticipated to allow 4 units /acre. This will yield approximately 152 units. 38 acres x 4 units /acre = 152 units. Given 1 acre /40 units, the land dedication requirement would be 3.8 acres. 152 units / 40 units = 3.8 acres. Evaluation of Anticipated Benefits and Comparison of Needs The fee in lieu of land would be based on 152 units at a rate of $688 per unit, yielding $58,976 that would be applied toward acquiring land and developing a park within the zone. 152 units x $688 1unit = $58,9 76. The anticipated cost for providing this neighborhood park in today's dollars is $480,000 as follows: Land (6 acres @ $30,000 per acre) $180,000 Construction Costs $300.000 $480,000 The anticipated 152 lots are estimated at $38,000 to $42,000 per lot and will provide homes valued at $200,000, generating $5,776,000 - $6,384,000 in gross lot revenues. Home sale gross sales is estimated (average value $200,000) at $30,400,000. Gross revenues from lot and home sales combined are estimated at $36,176,000 - $36,784,000. The park development fee is $58,976 (.0016 %). Neighborhood Park Service Zone 14 — Hightower on the north, Rufe Snow on the west, Little Ranch on the east, and Chapman on the south. Remaining residential property to develop is comprised of 87 acres of residential single family land anticipated to allow 4 units per acre. This will yield approximately 348 units. 87 acres x 4 units /acre = 348 units. Given 1 acre /40 units, the land dedication requirement would be 8.7 acres. 348 units / 40 units = 8.7 acres. The fee in lieu of land would be based on 348 units at a rate of $688 per unit, yielding $239,424 that would be applied toward acquiring land and developing a park within the zone. 348 units x $688 1unit = $239,424. The anticipated cost for providing this neighborhood park in today's dollars is $450,000 as follows: Land (6 acres @ $25,000 per acre) $150,000 Construction Costs $300.00 0 $450,000 Evaluation of Anticipated Benefits and Comparison of Needs The anticipated 348 lots are estimated at $25,000 to $35,000 per lot and will provide homes valued between $150,000 and $180,000, generating $8,700,000 - $12,180,000 in gross lot revenues. Home sale gross sales is estimated (average value $165,000) at $57,420,000. Gross revenues from lot and home sales combined are estimated at $66,120,000 - $69,600,000. The park development fee is $239,424 (.0036 %). Neighborhood Park Service Zone 15 — Mid - Cities on the north, Rufe Snow on the west, The City Service Center on the east, and the Cottonbelt Railroad on the south. Remaining residential property to develop is comprised of 38.693 acres of multi - family land allowing 16 units /acre. This will yield approximately 619 units. 38.693 acres x 16 units /acre = 619 units. Given 1 acre /40 units, the land dedication requirement would be 15 acres. 619 units/ 40 units = 15.4 acres. The fee in lieu of land would be based on 619 units at a rate of $688 per unit, yielding $425,872 that would be applied toward acquiring land and developing a park within the zone. 619 units x $688 1unit = $425,872. The anticipated cost for providing this neighborhood park in today's dollars is $822,720 as follows: Land (6 acres) $522,720 Construction Costs =U-02 $822,720 This multi - family tract is the only residential property within Neighborhood Park Service Zone 15. The remaining unplatted property is comprised of industrial and commercial tracts. While the proposed 38.693 acres will generate 619 dwelling units (a density greater than the total population of some of the other 28 Neighborhood Park Service Zones), multi - family developments generally provide open space and neighborhood park services such as playgrounds, sidewalks and other recreational amenities. The provision of these amenities and "recreational" open space should be considered in determining an appropriate assessment to provide park services in accordance with the 2000 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. Evaluation of Anticipated Benefits and Comparison of Needs VW1: +'�"Z) w, IL liplWMEW, - Linda -, - Spurlock Park V A1 UO IL��l•: lorif Thornbridge Park Flingimm! !h Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SERVICE AREA DISTRIBUTION Area Opportunities & Constraints 1. Residential land is built out in this area. Commercial land is also completely platted. No school facilities are available within the service area. There are very limited acquisition opportunities, possibly within the commercial area along Davis Boulevard. This area contains fairly new development, therefore there is little opportunity for redevelopment at present. 2. Residential land in this area is built out. Brandonwood Neighborhood Park, in the Brandonwood Subdivision, will provide 2 acres of parkland and neighborhood park services. There is very limited acquisition opportunity. No school facilities are located within this service area. 3. Little Bear Creek property can be developed to provide neighborhood park services. Very limited acquisition opportunity. No school facilities are located within this service area. Possibly look at land east of Bursey Senior Center. 4. Little Bear Creek Linear Park provides access and potential for neighborhood park services. There are 79 acres at the old Green Valley Raceway, which is currently unplatted, however the amount of flood plain /floodway is 11 acres and B.I.S.D. has acquired 30 of the 79 acres. This property may provide opportunities via Parkland Dedication Ordinance (yielding 3.8 acres) or via acquisition. 5. Neighborhood park services provided by Thornbridge (Neighborhood) Park in this area. 6. Neighborhood park services provided by Northfield (Community) Park and Little Bear Creek (Linear) Park in this area. 7. Neighborhood park services provided by Green Valley Community Park in this area. 8. Residential zoned property in this area is built out. There are no obvious acquisition opportunities. Neighborhood services at Cross Timbers Park are on the perimeter of this service area. The addition of neighborhood park service amenities at Foster Village Elementary is recommended. 9. This area is fully built out. The Parks and Recreation Department is aware of one small tract of land, which is currently for sale in this zone. No school facilities are located within this service area. Neighborhood Park Service Area Distribution Area Opportunities & Constraints 10. This area is fully built out. The acquisition or lease of the undeveloped B.I.S.D. property at Rumfield Road, Stonybrooke and Royal Ridge should be pursued (approximately 9.12 acres). 11. This area is fully developed or platted and is bounded by Precinct Line Road and the railroad tracks. No school facilities are located within this service area. Large, single family lots could be evaluated for acquisition. 12. This area is fully developed /built out. Smithfield Elementary School should be evaluated for possible addition and /or expansion of neighborhood park facilities and services. One small parcel around Smithfield and Chapman may be available. 13. Residential area is fully built out in this service area. Cottonbelt Trail runs through this service area. Smithfield Middle School provides neighborhood park service opportunities worth evaluation. One or more small tracts of land may be available. 14. This service area is bisected by Chapman Drive which acts as a physical barrier. The southern half of this service area has access to neighborhood park services at Richfield Park. The northern half of this zone has Hightower as a barrier but a 90 acre unplatted tract may provide opportunities via parkland dedication ordinance (yielding 8.7 acres) or via acquisition. 15. This service area is bisected by Mid Cities Boulevard. The northern half is served by Richfield Park neighborhood park amenities. The southern half has an opportunity to provide neighborhood park services via the Parkland Dedication Ordinance or acquisition (15.4 acres, but allowances should probably be made for apartment developer recreational activities). 16. This area is built out. Fort Worth Christian provides privately owned open space. 17. Within this service area, Town Center Recreation Center and Park plans include neighborhood park amenities. 18. Neighborhood park services provided by Norich Park and community park services provided by Walker's Creek Park. 19. This area is built out. Iron Horse Golf Course and Cottonbelt Trail are the only open space within this service area. Neighborhood Park Service Area Distribution Area Opportunities & Constraints 20. This area is built out. Holiday Lane Athletic Fields provide open space on perimeter of this service area. No real opportunity for neighborhood park services without buying existing homes or developed properties. 21. This area is built out. Holiday Heights Elementary School provides opportunity to add /enhance neighborhood park services. 22. This area is built out. The only open space or neighborhood park service potential would be on privately -owned Meadow Lakes Homeowner's Association property. 23. This area is built out. Snow Heights Elementary School provides the potential for neighborhood park facility development. 24. This area is built out. No land is available which is not currently developed as residential or commercial property. The Bedford - Euless Road Greenway is within this service area. 25. This area is built out. The Parks and Recreation Department is unaware of any land acquisition opportunities in this service area. 26. This area is served by Linda Spurlock (Neighborhood) Park. 27. This area is built out. Enhance /expand neighborhood park services at Mullendore Elementary School. 28. This area is built out. North Hills Mall Trail and new mall development may provide limited neighborhood park facilities and services. 29. This area is built out. Fossil Creek Park provides neighborhood park services for this area. Neighborhood Park Service Area Distribution CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 02/14/00 Subject: Request of Lego Custom Homes for an Amended Plat Agenda Number: PS 99-44 of Lots 16R and 17R, Block 10 Oak Hills Addition. The property is addressed as 7216 and 7220 Spring Oak Drive. Mr. Joey Bloxom, representing Lego Custom Homes, has submitted an amended plat of Lots 16R (7216 Spring Oak) and 17R (7220 Spring Oak), Block 10, Oak Hills Addition. The property is zoned R3 Residential and both lots are owned by Lego Custom Homes. The amendment would slightly alter the lot line between lots 17R and 16R. Both Lots would still meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the R3 zoning district. The purpose of the request is to bring the newly constructed residence on Lot 17R into compliance with the minimum side building line of six feet. As constructed the house encroaches the building line by approximately one -foot. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning & Zoning Commission, at the January 27, 2000 meeting, recommended 5 -0 approval as submitted. To approve PS 99-44 as submitted. Finance Review Source of Funds: Account Number Bonds (GO /Rev.) Sufficient Funds Available Operating Budget Ot e Finance Director epart t Head Signature tity Manager gn ture K: \Cases\PS Cases\PS 99-01 -41 Walgreens amended.dot Page 1 of 1 All, A G k t, ! LH A G X ISA19 — 1Z Il K_I_R- K�-L—N � 11 Z. Ik ilAl ili tlnA IKYfA3 \� V PS 99-44 - - LOTS 16R & 17R, BLOCK 10, OAK HILLS 1 -5 R -2 7216 & 7220 SPRING OAK DRIVE 207 1998 u? �,��� jm -I CRA -GOB cT A R-2 -15000 AG �o C_, 0q�' r 2151 L 2 51 r I I' I HIAEAH CIR N — J '.1422 O - tfreMl�rsdM�rd1f01�Wr _ = a ,11- CT + 0� R 3 14 I la c EV.E:RGV*DE09R• RD 1 4`.I JUG v I P 145'2 ' R_1' w HIA LEA H �G,423 R -3 1452 W n i - - - -n r 00rD R. 3 1 1 5 9 Q - -� y 0, 1452 it7 7 �� N ��- R -3 ASHCRAfT D'R--2 R`2 W I 1104 1637' ���G Z \ h II I i i n MARTI LN ' I 2 C N CT_ 9 JASON R , s , 1 O W U R R--3L' o - I,In. ! IH In .E \ I \ \ •l�\`•� J \ 51 \ \\ j� \ 1: F .\ ti ; \�N R -2 1936 A v A• : -1 ,ti ° -- \ y Io G 7 F mc11o„ 99 1710 3b I, IHaC , \ '•. / ` ". .s all. n1 ' ht. UUIN is ll,,i ma4'G,t,l .ol a: y•,0 � o'ol OPTED: March 22, 1993 CURRENT THROUGH: Ordinance 2360, nJ�anuary^11, 1999' FROM : BLOXOM FAX NO. : 4285265 Dec. 22 1999 03:00PM P1 U.? sii as 44- MU rA%& ot! totaUUa Yh&bLW$ AND ASJUCIAIBS LA001 Dec -14 -99 10%29A NRH PW &PZ AdminizZraXion 817 4Z7 6404 P -04 P Sc� 1�— 44 RECD DEC 2 21999 f Gpyar NOM R1M00 H% K-f. � M Applicatic in for Subdivision Plat Approval R i � Hft>x7M 817 -9" -Nis c�.�,.rr+AwMwl AAWIMfron 4W '� PteGmmq Fiat ' Rat Plat (� Replat E] Shari FOW ended Rm piaperty► Omer flptlonr�eo.• rv�,►eatprop.rcy o LEG b C �-�, r, 4) R. N.. s� - 9'15 i Aftsm of lPmpedyt owe: 1 p ., �lo� -h e �_ c � 111 L.�s rc oe .0 P7K 61-CA a" W171r '444J.'-k-71, NC. of LOU in mat aer adaw AW& ham: "NbrEa: M anld" alerted by fha W"wfy mftw is mq iW when the w r w Are prgp * oavw hW a of AuMrirM Agent fR" No. Andreas: BurMgror /�ryrneer IOlbrpnatia�; Wee of Ffw. _ Sr !� ftom N& $! commV Pemm Prat Fee carm*fitm: 1rf ��rAr1yl�irb AtrN q1 6 �l0►1 fog. /0118 aeCf7md r�R AV~48d Pimr a. AVAV6w 5�24.4L a ppkzbnAm ilto.00 �;,+10A�1bafie: (aor� p• i1;S0�rrr�iaereMttDf b. $ImP m w,ww rr�ie9R.._ aeeAO� eiS6.00P�r ►MrCi/�Ot� er,ISASAaaw neidear: row n l5ano Tern��: a 85dObNaA� d, CrMtyl►btt�gbrr tSi<.#f' 'bdfiltwd�ppM�AeePD�arhM rawrow 710" Warm Req w4L- (aPgstlNj ns=& AROONsra mdbomV *AWmWrwh"Abutbrmaeawn11inYt�J snCur► �srartlnseegteomaitr�r�p rorNelt�.piet +�ilYruf r nrl, d r�raswrL rhs ei++rd 0►1 OICp61ry dssa Pisdabo.� e�Meea�a+inarII4l�blb�! ►h! b�lr ObafMoiOr Aid�6ne �/w Yovram. {Ma1a�F v Subdhtbloq Plat Application Draft Copy 4. PS 99-44 REQUEST OF LEGO CUSTOM HOMES FOR AN AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 16R & 17R, BLOCK 10, OAK HILLS ADDITION. THIS PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED AS 7216 AND 7220 SPRING OAKS DRIVE. Mr. Joey Bloxom, representing Lego Custom Homes, has submitted an amended plat of Lots 16R (7216 Spring Oak) and 17R (7220 Spring Oak), Block 10, Oak Hills Addition. The property is zoned R3 Residential and both lots are owned by Lego Custom Homes. The amendment would slightly alter the lot line between lots 17R and 16R. Both lots would still meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the R3 zoning district. The purpose of the request is to bring the newly constructed residence on Lot 17R into compliance with the minimum side building line of six feet. As constructed, the house encroaches the building line by approximately one -foot. Staff recommends approval the amended plat of Lots 16R and 17R, Block 10, Oak Hills Addition. Mr. Nehring, seconded by Mr. Welch, moved to approve PS 99-44. The motion carried unanimously. P & Z Minutes January 27, 2000 Department: Police Department CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Council Meeting Date: 2/14/00 . 2 Subject: Pu nhlir HPang�n C'nnciriar Fytanding OrrlinsnrP No 1 AA4 Agenda Number: GN 2000 -12 -- - -- Juvenile Curfew Ordinance for Three Years — Ordinance No. 2453 On July 11, 1994 the North Richland Hills City Council unanimously passed Ordinance No. 1994 adopting a curfew for juveniles. On July 24, 1997 Ordinance No. 2177 was approved extending this legislation for three years. Section 370.002 of the Local Government Code adopted by the 74th Legislature on May 31, 1995 requires that: (a) Before the third anniversary of the date of adoption of a juvenile curfew ordinance by a general - law municipality or a home -rule municipality or an order of a county commissioner's court, and every third year thereafter, the governing body of the general -law municipality or home -rule municipality or the commissioner's court of the county shall: (1) review the ordinance or order's effects on the community and on problems the ordinance or order was intended to remedy; (2) conduct public hearings on the need to continue the ordinance or order; and (3) abolish, continue, or modify the ordinance or order. (b) Failure to act in accordance with subsections (a) (1) — (3) shall cause the ordinance or order to expire. The North Richland Hills Police Department has found that Ordinance No. 1994 has had a positive effect on the safety of our youth and has reduced the probability that unsupervised juveniles will become involved in crimes during late night and early morning hours. Statistical information maintained by the Police Department has revealed that as a result of this ordinance juvenile victimization during curfew hours since 1993 has dropped by 36% and juvenile related Part I Crimes have dropped by over 66 %. Recommendation: That, after the public hearing on Monday February 14, 2000, pass Ordinance No. 2453 extending the operation of Ordinance No. 1994 for three (3) years from this date. Source of Funds: Bonds (GO /Rev.) Operating Budget Other Department Head &ature Finance Review Account Number Sufficient Funds Available City Manager Director Page 1 of 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2453 WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held on February 14, 2000 to determine the need to continue in force and effect Ordinance No. 1994; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the effects of Ordinance No. 1994 on the community and problems the Ordinance was intended to remedy; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered whether or not to abolish, continue or modify Ordinance No. 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, that: 1. The City Council finds that there is a need to continue Ordinance No. 1994 in full force and effect for three more years. 2. The terms of Ordinance No. 1994 establishing a curfew for minors shall continue in full force and effect and such Ordinance shall be in full force and effect until February 13, 2003. 3. The City Manager is ordered to comply with Section 370.002 of the Local Government Code by bringing this same matter to the attention of the City Council prior to February 13, 2003, to determine whether or not Ordinance No. 1994 is continued in force beyond that date. PASSED and APPROVED this 14 day of FEBRUARY, 2000. APPROVED: Charles Scoma, Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary APPROVED-ASJO FORM AND LEg;ALITY: Rex McEntire, Attorney for the City APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: G4ll Thomas R. Shockley, Chief 40olice ORDINANCE NO. 2177 WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held on February 24, 1997 to determine the need to continue irl force and effect Ordinance No. 1994; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the effects of Ordinance No. 1994 on the community and problems the ordinance was intended to remedy; and Whereas, the City Council has considered whether or not to abolish, continue or modify Ordinance No. 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, that: 1. The City Council finds that there is a need to continue Ordinance No. 1994 in full force and effect for three more years. 2. The terms of Ordinance No. 1994 establishing a curfew for minors shall continue in full force and effect and such Ordinance shall be in full force and effect until February 23, 2000. 3. The City Manager is ordered to comply with Section 370.002 of the Local Government Code by bringing this same matter to the attention of the City Council prior to February 24, 2000, to determine whether or not the ordinance is continued in force beyond that date. PASSED and APPROVED this 24th day of February, 1997. APPROVED: ommy Bro n, yor ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FOND LEGALITY: McEntire, Attorney forThe City ORDINANCE NO. 1994 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there has been an increase in juvenile violence, juvenile gang activity and crime by persons under the age of 17 years in the City of North Richland Hills; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that many juvenile crimes and gang related violence could be avoided by adopting the curfew hours set forth in this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, persons under the age of 17 years are particularly susceptible, by their lack of maturity and experience, to participate in unlawful gang- related activities and to be victims of older perpetrators of crime; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the passage of this Ordinance furthers a compelling state interest in protecting juveniles from crime on the streets; and WHEREAS, a curfew for those under the age of 17 will be in the interest of the public health and general welfare of the City. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS THAT: 1. Defining Terms: (1) Curfew Hours mean: (a) 11:00 p.m. on any Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday until 6:00 a.m. of the following day; and (b) 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m. on any Saturday or Sunday. (2) Emergency means an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action. The term includes, but is not limited to a fire, a natural disaster, an automobile accident, or any situation requiring immediate action to prevent serious bodily injury or loss of life. (3) Establishment means any privately -owned place of business operated for a profit to which the public is invited, including but not limited to any place of amusement or entertainment. Curfew Ordinance - Page 1 a (4) Guardian means: (a) a person who, under court order, is the guardian of the person or minor; or (b) a public or private agency with whom a minor has been placed by the court. (5) Minor means any person under 17 years of age. (6) Officer means a police officer of the City of North Richland Hills. (7) Operator means any individual, firm, association, partnership, or corporation operating, managing, or conducting any establishment. The term includes the members or partners of an association or partnership and the officers of a corporation. (8) Parent means a person who is: (a) a natural parent, adoptive parent, or step - parent of another person; or (b) at least 18 years of age and authorized by a parent or guardian to have the care and custody of a minor. (9) Public Place means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops. (10) Remain means to: (a) linger or stay; or (b) fail to leave premises when requested to do so by an officer or the owner, operator, or other person in control of the premises. (11) Serious Bodily Injury means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. 2. Offenses (1) A minor commits an offense if he remains in any public Curfew Ordinance - Page 2 a place or on the premises of any establishment within the city during curfew hours. (2) A parent or guardian of a minor commits an offense if he knowingly permits, or by insufficient control allows, the minor to remain in any public place or on the premises of any establishment within the city during curfew hours. (3) The owner, operator, or any employee of an establishment commits an offense if he knowingly allows a minor to remain upon the premises of the establishment during curfew hours. 3. Defenses (1) It is a defense to prosecution under Section 2 that the minor was: (a) accompanied by the minor's parent or guardian; (b) on an errand at the direction of the minor's parent or guardian, without any detour or stop; (c) in a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel; (d) engaged in an employment activity, or going to or returning from home from an employment activity, without any detour or stop; (e) involved in an emergency; (f) on the sidewalk abutting the minor's residence or abutting the residence of a next -door neighbor if the neighbor did not complain to the police department about the minor's presence; (g) attending an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by the City of North Richland Hills, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor, or going to or returning home without any detour or stop an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by the City of North Richland Hills, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor; (h) exercising First Amendment rights protected by the United States Constitution, such as the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right of Curfew Ordinance - Page 3 I 4. 5. W V-A assembly; or (i) married or had been married or had disabilities of minority removed in accordance with Chapter 31 of the Texas Family Code. (2) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection 2(3) that the owner, operator, or employee of an establishment promptly notified the police department that a minor was present on the premises of the establishment during curfew hours and refused to leave. Enforcement Before taking any enforcement action under this Section, an officer shall ask the apparent offender's age and reason for being in the public place. The officer shall not issue a citation or make an arrest under this section unless the officer reasonably believes that an offense has occurred and that, based on any response and other circumstances, no defense in the Subsection 3 is present. Penalties (1) A person who violates a provision of this Section is guilty of a separate offense for each day or part of a day during which the violation is committed continued, or permitted. Each offense, upon conviction, is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. (2) When required by Section 51.08 of the Texas Family Code, as amended, the municipal court shall waive original jurisdiction over a minor who violates Subsection 2(1) of this Section shall refer the minor to juvenile court. Cumulative Provision This ordinance shall be cumulative of all ordinances of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances in which even the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed. Severability It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or Curfew Ordinance - Page 4 decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality-shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. 8. Penalty for Violation Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits, neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. 9. Effective Date This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED this 11th day of July, 1994. APPROVED: lC/ Tommy Brown, ATTEST: �o �danette Rewis, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Rex McEntire, Attorney for the City Curfew Ordinance - Page 5 0 both organizations and their clients will benefit. Even a coalition of similar or complimentary organizations is more attractive to grantmakers than an independent agency duplicating services or programs that are already available. 5. Confront the risks. Answer any objections up front. If your project is controversial, such as establishing a group home in a residential area, be prepared to answer the challenges to it. d. Have a sound budget. The "bang for the buck" theory is important to grantmaking organizations. Does your proposal demonstrate fiscal responsibility? Does it provide for future funding? 7. Include a report card. Identify the benchmarks and evaluation criteria that will measure the project's success or failure. S. He prepared to defend your proposal. Answer all the "what ifs" before you submit the proposal. 9. Finally, ask yourself, "Would I stand behind this grant award if I were a program officer ?" Be truthful. If the answer is even slightly uncertain, identify which areas of the proposal need work. J NILE CURFEW ORDINANCE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL In a case closely watched by local governments across the country, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has struck down Washington, D.C.'s juvenile curfew ordinance as an unconstitutional infringement of both juveniles' and parents' constitutional rights. Y-- DIUrict of .ol Um ia, No. 95- 2050 (D. D.C. October 29, 1996). This case is important to many Texas cities in that the ordinance here was modeled after the City of Dallas ordinance. Most Texas cities with curfew ordinanecs iu effect use this same ordinance, The court in this case held that the curfew provisions were not in and of thcrnselves unconstitutional. Rather, the basis upon which the provisions were enacted were flawed. The court noted that the city did not enact the ordinance based on statistics showing a significant increase in juvenile crime in the city and the increased likelihood of violent crimes occurring during the curfew hours. The court further noted that the ordinance's legislative history was silent as to whether the city council had considered even the statistics that were presented in the trial record. The court also questioned the city's assumption in the curfew that parental control over the activities of their children had regressed to the point that city intervention was necessary. Although recognizing that some parents in the city had abrogated their responsibilities, the court declined to endorse the city's conclusion that the majority of the city's parents were remiss in those duties. While this case sets no actual legal precedence in Texas, it is likely that it will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for further clarification. If this is the case and the lower court's decision is upheld, many Texas cities may have to re -look at their curfew provisions. UOMMmenralZerviceAgency. Inc. 7 THIS Newsletter panuary, 1997) 13 c t v t lot 0 z AW m it CL as 0 a� v .o a i O E MORMON CD ■ i N 0 O Z O O O O O O O O O O U-) O U") O U') N N V- 4 • • �40 (D U) U) U ca 0 L- U N O N -k 0 7 00 m CD CF) co 00 00 ~ N N a r r- 00 N CO CO N � � N co r I` 00 Ul) V- O 00 (D 0) CO co �N U') ti ti CO N O 00 m N Cfl 1` N r Lid CO -r-- 00 N N 0) O m N Nt d' CO 1` V- N r M Cn 00 1` Ict N CO 0) Lo CO 1` N �- r MORON cn .— E O CO U 4) � E - V C: c - CL 0 L N m U L L co W 0 0 0 Q Q U Q U • • �40 (D U) U) U ca 0 L- U N O N -k 0 7 E _ lot 0 ._ Z s V s lot 0 z .® 0 a V a? a 9 00 N H r ti o� o LO o� o LO M M N N r- V- r W Von Cfl r LO d' r N Q. ttS O cu U to C L- 0 a� U Q3 O z C d d O Z i t lot O Z 0 E V N L � V _ O i a, > E 3 0 M7 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO U) M N V- r a) cn U) CD O cn tLi U� 70 O U N N I- � N -�, O rA (D M ((M M M 00 � ti _ M 0 � M Cfl r ~ qqt NT I"- � q M r r LO (D U) LO 0) CD q M V- TOM M C7 LO CF) CO V- T" ■ ❑ ■ ■ cn o E a) U `2 -C U V E U > Q ♦'d V ( Q (n 2 > _ _ Q > Q U r a) cn U) CD O cn tLi U� 70 O U N N I- � N -�, O rA d D O a Z s .v t lot O Z E N ,E V O .e i E Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C4 U') tt' M N � F a) cz (G .O m U m 0 L- U a) N CU E-- a) O z d') CD M C) M M 00 � ti _ C� Cfl C) M r co ONO r � LO 00 r r LO (D (D U) U') M r U') M T- d'! Tom ■ ❑ U) o E '0 aa)i U Vcn V U cu .L O V 2 C:3) i 2 > 0 E N LE Q > Q U F a) cz (G .O m U m 0 L- U a) N CU E-- a) O z CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Parks and Recreation Department: Council Meeting Date: 2/14/00 Subject: Parks and Recreation User Fees Agenda Number: GN 200043 Ordinance No. 2456 The Parks and Recreation Department, after reviewing the DMG Maximus Study, is recommending user fee increases. This revised Ordinance represents recommended user fee adjustments to those program areas that are listed in the current User Fee Ordinance #2242. Additional background information will be presented at the Pre - Council meeting and is also included in IR 00 -017. The recommended increases have been reviewed with the Finance Director and City Management. The recommendations will be presented during the Pre Council session. The fees are proposed to be effective May 1, 2000. Recommendation: To approve Ordinance No. 2456. I Source of Funds: Bonds (GO /Rev.) Operating Budget Other v V` Dep rtment Head Signature Finance Review Acct. Number Sufficient Funds Available CITY COUNCIL ACTION Page 1 of ORDINANCE #2456 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS that: 1. The Parks and Recreation Department User Fees shall be as follows GYNMASIUM PASS Individual Price $30 annually Resident Discount Price $10 annually Single Day Pass $ 5 per day A discount of 20% is provided to a family of four or more for an annual pass. FITNESS CENTER Individual Price $89 annually Resident Discount Price $53 annually Single Day Pass $ 5 per day A discount of 20% is provided to a family of four or more for an annual pass. FACILITY RENTALS Small Classroom Medium Classroom Assembly Room Gymnasium Field Rentals Gazebo Rentals Sand Volleyball MISCELLANEOUS Adult Softball Leagues Non - Resident Fee for Classes Ordinance No. 2456 $17 per hour $25 per hour $44 per hour $50 per hour full court / $30 per hour half court $12.50 per two hours / without lights $22.00 per one and a half hours / with lights $10.00 per hour $10.00 per two hours $335.00 per 10 Game Season $3.00 per class 2. Any Ordinance in conflict herewith is repealed to the extent of the conflict. 3. The above and foregoing fees shall be reviewed annually and may be changed by the Parks and Recreation Director with concurrence of the Director of Finance. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect on May 1, 2000 as the law and charter in such cases provides. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council this 14th day of February, 2000. ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Rex M ntire, Attorney for the City APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Vickie APPROVED: Charles Scoma, Mayor , Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation Ordinance No. 2456 2 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Public Works Department Council Meeting Date: 2/14/00 Subject: Proposed Deep Water Well at 8333 Davis Boulevard Agenda Number: GN 2000 -14 L.C. Tubb Jr. Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 Staff has received a request for drilling a water well deeper than the 200 feet allowed by Ordinance No. 381. The request is from L.C. Tubb at 8333 Davis Boulevard. In order to supply adequate water economically to irrigate the large amount of landscaping that he has on his 16+ acres of property, Mr. Tubb needs to drill deeper than the 200 feet allowed by Ordinance No. 381 and drill approximately 700 feet deep into the Paluxy Sands acquifer. Ordinance No. 381 was passed on November 8, 1971, with the intent of protecting the potable water acquifer from contamination and discouraging individual wells in the City. Since this request is only for irrigation on a large residential tract, the Council may want to consider approval. With approval, there should be a stipulation that no water from the well be used by the property owner for purposes other than irrigation. Recommendation: To approve this request for a variance to Ordinance No. 381. Finance Review Source of Funds: Bonds (GO /Rev.) Operating Budget Other `EV - /% Head Account Number Sufficient Funds fiVailable Finance Director Page 1 of Page 1 of 2 Information & Reports February 14, 2000 1. Announcements Friday, February 18, 2000 ➢ The City of North Richland Hills is hosting the Texas Municipal League Region 8 meeting ➢ The Edge after school program is having a lock in at the NRH Recreation Center Saturday, February 19 ➢ Parks & Recreation will host the annual KidFish Event at Green Valley Park, for information call 427 -6600 Saturday, February 26 ➢ The Critter Connection will be open at North Hills Mall February 28 - March 3 ➢ Winter Break Camp NRH at the Recreation Center for information call 427 -6600 2. Information ➢ Dallas 2012 Olympic Bid Committee & DFW Regional Sports Commission are recruiting 1000 volunteers to host the U. S. Olympic team trials in track cycling, triathlon, wrestling. The track cycling trials will be held April 254h to 294h, triathlon trials will be held May 274h to 28th, and wrestling will be held June 22nd to 24th. For information on volunteering for these events, contact Ashley Stathatos at 427 -6092 or Vickie Loftice 627 -6624. Volunteers for these Olympic team trials will be accepted through March 2000. ➢ Regional Transportation Council: Mobility 2025 The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (attachment) Page 2 of 2 ➢ North Richland Hills is seeking nominations for the North Richland Hills Volunteer of the Year. Please call Paulette Hartman at 427 -6015 for a nomination form. r!7 Regional Transportation Council f o `, The Transportation Policy Body for the North Central Texas Council Governments © M (Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Dallas -Fort Worth Region) TO: Texas Department of Transportation North Texas Tollway Authority Dallas Area Rapid Transit Fort Worth Transportation Authority Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Impacted Local Governments FROM: Michael Morris, P.E. Director of Transportation Wag DATE: February 4, 2000 SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Mobility 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan On January 13, 2000, the North Central Texas Council of Governments' Regional Transportation Council (RTC) approved Mobility 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan. RTC Resolution R00 -01 is attached for your information. The Mobility 2025 Plan was developed in cooperation with local governments, the Texas Department of Transportation, North Texas Tollway Authority, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Fort Worth Transportation Authority, and other transportation agencies, and meets the conformity requirements of the State Implementation Plan and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Section 7 of the Resolution requires that it be provided to all impacted parties. If you have any questions, please call me at (817) 695 -9240. i hael Morris, P.E. kdc Attachment cc: 1999 -00 UPWP Element 4.01 Project File P. O. Box 5888 • Arlington, Texas 76005 -5888 • (817) 695 -9240 • FAX (817) 640 -3028 http://www.nctcog.dst.tx.us/trans RESOLUTION APPROVING MOBILITY 2025: THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE DALLAS -FORT WORTH METROPOLITAN AREA (R00 -01) WHEREAS, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) has been designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Dallas -Fort Worth Metropolitan Area by the Governor of Texas in accordance with federal law; and, WHEREAS, the Dallas -Fort Worth Metropolitan Area has a population greater than 200,000 and has, therefore, been designated as a Transportation Management Area (TMA); and, WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Council (RTC), comprised primarily of local elected officials, is the regional transportation policy body associated with the North Central Texas Council of Governments and has been and continues to be a forum for cooperative decisions on transportation; and, WHEREAS, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA -21) assigns the MPO the responsibility for carrying out the metropolitan planning process, in cooperation with the State and operators of publicly owned transit services; and, WHEREAS, TEA -21 assigns the MPO the responsibility for approving the metropolitan transportation plan and its periodic updates; and, WHEREAS, TEA -21 requires that the metropolitan transportation plan include a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments with available and projected sources of revenue; and, WHEREAS, Mobility 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan was developed in cooperation with local governments, the Texas Department of Transportation, North Texas Tollway Authority, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Fort Worth Transportation Authority, and other transportation agencies. WHEREAS, as a complimentary effort to Mobility 2025 the North Central Texas Council of Governments has developed the 2000 Regional Thoroughfare Plan in cooperation with local governments and the Texas Department of Transportation; and, WHEREAS, the planning process used in the development of the Plan was conducted in accordance with NCTCOG's approved public involvement procedures, including presentation of the Plan at public meetings and the allowance of a 30 -day comment period prior to RTC approval of the plan; and, WHEREAS, the Dallas -Fort Worth area is a federally- designated nonattainment area for the pollutant ozone, and air quality conformity of the recommendations of Mobility 2025 shall be determined by the MPO; and, WHEREAS, the air quality conformity analysis has indicated that the projects contained in Mobility 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan meet the transportation conformity- related requirements of the State Implementation Plan, the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d)) as amended on November 15, 1990, and the final conformity rule as specified in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans. Programs and Proiects Developed Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93). WHEREAS, the Plan has been recommended for approval to the RTC by NCTCOG's Surface Transportation Technical Committee, Travel Demand Management Committee/Congestion System Management, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED: Sect= The Regional Transportation Council approves the 2000 Regional Thoroughfare Plan. Section 2. That the Regional Transportation Council approves Mobility 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan including the incorporation of the Regional Thoroughfare component of the 2000 Regional Thoroughfare Plan. Section 3. That Mobilitv 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan meets the conformity requirements of the State Implementation Plan and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and endorses those findings. Section 4. The Regional Transportation Council endorses the balanced, approved content in Mobility 2025 which includes: congestion mitigation strategies aimed at reducing drive -alone travel; rail and bus transit systems; sustainable development initiatives; high - occupancy vehicle and managed facility lanes; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; freeways, toll roads, parkways, and regional thoroughfares; and transportation system operations and maintenance. Sect= The Regional Transportation Council endorses the financial element recommendations of the Plan where increases in revenue for transportation are pursued; that the Regional Transportation Council will monitor local, State, and federal legislative initiatives to ensure that revenues increase; and that the Regional Transportation Council will be forced to delete transportation projects and programs from the Plan if revenues do not increase to anticipated levels. Section 6. That Mobilitv 2025: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan recommendations are consistent with the findings of all previously conducted major investment studies in the Dallas -Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. Section 7. That this resolution will be transmitted to all impacted local governments, the Texas Department of Transportation, the North Texas Tollway Authority, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. Section 8. That this resolution shall be in effect immediately upon its adoption. Ron a an Regions Transportation Council Commissioner, Johnson County I hereby certify that this resolution was adopted by the Regional Transportation Council of the North Central Texas Council of Governments for the Dallas -Fort Worth Metropolitan Area on January 13, 2000. B. Glen Whitley, Secretary Regional Transportation CO3A-e( Commissioner, Tarrant County