HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2000-02-28 AgendasCITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
PRE- COUNCIL AGENDA
FEBRUARY 28, 2000 — 5:00 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 28, 2000
City Council Meeting 5 Minutes
2. 1 2000 -033
Discuss 2000 Bond Sale 5 Minutes
3. IR 2000 -030
Discussion of Developer Agreement with NRH
Town Center 45 Minutes
4.
*Executive Session — The Council may enter into
closed executive Session to discuss the following:
Consultation with Attorney as Authorized by
Government Code §551.071
Roseberry & Reed vs. City 5 Minutes
5.
Adjournment — 5:50 pm
*Closed due to subject matter as provided by the Open Meetings Law. If any action is
contemplated, it will be taken in open session
a5
If, 6�'`�
kSki City S,5Fre ary
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
FEBRUARY 28, 2000 — 6:00 PM
For the Meeting conducted at the North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers 7301 Northeast
Loop 820, at 6:00 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 — Fort Worth Christian
3.
Pledge of Allegiance - Fort Worth Christian
4.
Special Presentations
a.) Proclamation - National Red Cross Month
I 2000 -032
b.) Request for Olympics/Team Trial Volunteers -
Dallas 2012 Committee Representative
I 2000 -027
c.) TRAPS Promotional Award
I 2000 -028
d.) Special Presentation - Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting for the Comprehensive Financial
Report ending September 30, 1998
GN 2000 -23
e.) Presentation of the 1998 -99 Audited Financial
Report
Page 2 of 5 2/28/00 City Council Agenda
NUMBER
ITEM
ACTION TAKEN
5.
Removal of Item(s) from the Consent Agenda
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 -15
C. Set Salary for Municipal Court Judge -
Resolution No. 2000 -05
GN 2000 -17
d. Cancellation of March 13 City Council
Meeting
GN 2000 -22
e. Authorization for Eminent Domain -
Resolution No. 2000 -15
PU 2000 -07
f. Award of Bid to Irricon for Spring Tree
Planting at Various Park Sites - Resolution
No. 2000 -16
PU 2000 -08
g. Award of Bid to Dean Construction for
Construction of Thornbridge Park -
Resolution No. 2000 -18
PU 2000 -09
h. Authorize Purchase of Mobile
Video /Recorder Cameras from Kustom
Signal in the Amount of $35,930
PU 2000 -10
i. Award Bid for Motorcycles to Kawasaki
City in the Amount of $27,657
PU 2000 -11
j. Authorize Emergency Purchase of Vehicle
from Hudiburg Chevrolet In the Amount of
$19,375
PU 2000 -12
k. Award Bid for Directional Boring Machine
to Vermeer Equipment of Texas in the
Amount of $100,725
PU 2000 -13
I. Authorize Contract Extension for Uniform
Cleaning Services with Dove Cleaners -
Resolution No. 2000 -08
Page 3 of 5 2/28/00 City Council Agenda
NUMBER
ITEM
ACTION TAKEN
7. LRC 2000 -01
Public Hearing to Consider the Request of Robert
Leeper for a Variance to the Landscape
Regulations to Allow a Five -Foot Landscape
Buffer from Residential Property where a 15 -Foot
Buffer is Required, on Lot 3R, Block 1, North
Park Plaza Addition. (Property Located at 6500
Rufe Snow Drive
8. PZ 99 -46
Public Hearing to Consider the Request of the
Vincent Association + Architects for U.S.
Restaurant Properties, Inc., for a Special Use
Permit for a Convenience Store with a Car Wash
in a C1- Commercial District. (Property located at
8612 Davis Boulevard at the Southeast Corner of
Precinct Line Road on Proposed Lot 1, Block 1,
Vista Addition ) - Ordinance No. 2459
9. PS 99 -44
Request of Lego Custom Homes for an Amended
Plat of Lots 16R & 17R, Block 10, Oak Hills
Addition. (Property Located at 7216 & 7220
Spring Oak Drive) -
(Postponed at 2/14/00 City Council Meeting)
10. SRC 2000 -04
Public Hearing to Consider Request of Scott
Turnage for a Variance from the Sign
Regulations, Ordinance No. 2374, Section 13, to
Vary from the Non - Residential Monument Sign
Requirements. The Property is Known as Block
25, Snow Heights Addition in an R2- Single
Family District. The Property is Located at 4801
Vance Road Snow Heights Elements School).
11. G 2000 -16
Reconsider Action on PZ 99 -27 - Ordinance No.
2450, Concerning Request of Race Trac
Petroleum, Inc. for a Special Use Permit to Allow
a Convenience Store with Gasoline Sales on
Property Zoned C1 Commercial within 200 Feet
of Residential Property. The Subject Parcel is
Proposed Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch Addition
(Located in the 8700 Block of Grapevine
Highway) (Denied at the February 14 Council
Meeting)
12. GN 2000 -18
Public Hearing for the 26th Year Community
Development Block Grant Program
Page 4 of 5 2/28/00 City Council Agenda
NUMBER
ITEM
ACTION TAKEN
13. GN 2000 -19
26th Year Community Development Block Grant
Program - Resolution No. 2000 -11
14. GN 2000 -20
An Ordinance Prescribing Minimum
Qualifications for Operation of a Limousine
Service; Requiring a Permit for all Vehicles
Owned and Operated by a Limousine Business;
and Requiring Registration of Limousine Drivers -
Ordinance No. 2458
15. GN 2000 -21
Consider Action of TXU Electric Company
Revised Rate Schedule - Resolution No. 2000 -14
16. GN 2000 -23
Reconsider Action on PZ 99 -36 - Ordinance No.
2455, Concerning Amending Zoning Ordinance
No. 1874 to Add Article 12, Neighborhood
Parkland Dedication Requirements
17. PU 2000 -06
Selection of Dr Pepper Bottling Company as
Beverage Company for the Parks and Recreation
System - Resolution No. 2000 -17
18. PW 2000 -09
Review of the Golf Course Master Plan and
Approve Agreement in an Amount not to Exceed
$73,900 for Engineering Services with Dunaway
Associates, Inc. for Iron Horse Golf Course
Drainage /Erosion Improvements - Resolution No.
POSTED
2000 -12
a r
19.
a) Citizens Presentation
Date
ii"j {J
b Information and Reports
Time
120.
1 Adjournment
ity Secretary
By
City of North Richland Hills
Joint Work Session with Planning & Zoning Commission /City Council
February 28, 2000 - 8:00 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 the Update of the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan
Page 5 of 5 2/28/00 City Council Agenda
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR 00 -033
Date: February 28, 2000
Subject: 2000 Bond Sale
In August of last year, the Council approved a debt issuance as part of the 2000 budget.
During budget work sessions staff discussed with Council street and drainage projects
approved by the citizens in the 1985 and 1994 bond elections, as well as other projects that
were approved on the Master Thoroughfare and Parks Master Plan. Attached are the
projects approved by Council at that time and incorporated into the 2000 Capital
Improvements Budget.
The debt issuance will consist of $4,135,000 General Obligation Bonds and Certificates of
Obligation for streets and drainage projects and $900,000 Certificates of Obligation for the
purchase of park land in various zones throughout the City. The total debt issue is
$5,035,000.
Staff has developed a tentative schedule for the sale and delivery of funds:
April 10 Council Resolution authorizing intent to sell Certificates of Obligation
April 17, 18 Meetings with rating agencies
May 8 Council meeting in which competitive bids will be approved
June 13 Delivery of Funds to the City of North Richland Hills
Staff would request Council approval of the calendar and to know as soon as possible which
Council members plan to attend the rating agency meetings on Monday, April 17 and
Tuesday, April 18. Attached is a schedule of Council members who have attended past rating
meetings.
Respectfully submitted,
Y4A,J
Larry Koonce
Director of Finance
Attachment
'I..
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
City of North Richland Hills Page 1 of 2
FY 2000 Debt Issuance
Analysis of Voter Approved 1985 & 1994 General Obligation Bonds
G.O. Bonds Unissued
Streets Drainage Parks
78,000
Total
1985 Election
$ - $ 518,000
$
518,000
1994 Election
$ 5,072,000 $ 1,015,000
$
6,087,000
Total Unissued
$ 5,072,000 $ 1,533,000 $
- $
6,605,000
300,000
General Obligation Bonds to be Issued 2000
$
Project
Streets Drams Perks
$
ID!
Crane
$ 300,000
$
300,000
Rufe Snow Drive - High Lawn
Terrace to Bursey Road C
$
78,000
$
78,000
Laura
$
300,000
$
300,000
Riviera
$
300,000
$
300,000
Tourist
$
209,000
$
209,000
Big Fossil
$
282,000
$
282,000
Bear Creek
$
240,000
$
240,000
North Hills
$
411,000
$
411,000
Walker Branch
$
600,000
$
600,000
Total G.O.s to be Sold 2000
$
1,187,000
$
1,533,000 $
- $
2,720,000
Total G.O.s Unissued After
2000 sale $ 3,885,000 $ - $ - $ 3,885,000
City of North Richland Hills
FY 2000 Debt Issuance
Certificates of Obligation to be issued 2000
Rufe Snow Drive - Fair
Meadows Dr. to High Lawn
Terrace (Watauga
Participation) Revised 12/13/99 $ 822,500
Rufe Snow Drive - High Lawn
Terrace to Bursey Rd (Watauga
Participation) Revised 12/13/99 $ 343,500
Big Fossil $ 249,000
Page 2 of 2
0
$ 822,500
$ 343,500
$ 249,000
ELECTED OFFICIALS ATTENDANCE --
BOND RATING CONFERENCES
1989 (Revenue and Refunding) Tommy Brown
Mack Garvin
1991 Tommy Brown
Richard Davis
Byron Sibbet
1992 (G.O.) Tommy Brown
Linda Spurlock
Lyle Welch
1992 (Sales Tax) Tommy Brown
Jo Ann Johnson
Byron Sibbet
1993 (G.O. /C.O.) Tommy Brown
Mark Wood
1994 (Park Sales Tax) Tommy Brown
June 23 -24, 1994 Ray Oujesky
1995 (G.O. /Sales Tax) Tommy Brown
Lyle Welch
Byron Sibbet
1996 (G.O. /C.O.) Tommy Brown
Mark Wood
Linda Spurlock Sansoucie
Ray Oujesky
1997 (G.O. /C.O.) Tommy Brown
Mack Garvin
Don Phifer
1998 (G.O. /C.O.) Tommy Brown
Lyle Welch
Cheryl Cowen Lyman
1999 (G.O. /C.O.) Charles Scoma
JoAnn Johnson
ii
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. lR on-p2p___
Date: February 28, 2000
Subject:. own Center Development Agreement
The bulk of the Pre - Council Meeting is dedicated to outlining the major issues of the
proposed development agreement between the City and Arcadia. This development
agreement is planned for Council action March 27. We are getting close to a final version
of the agreement but wanted to share the document with City Council to not only educate
and inform but to solicit any input you may have regarding the agreement. The proposed
development agreement is extremely detailed and outlines the responsibilities of the city and
the developer regarding this project. Some of the elements of this agreement address
functions and responsibilities that the city typically has not undertaken in the past. Then
again, this is a very special project that has been given its own land use designation,
separate design standards and its own zoning classification that are different from other
zoning districts and building requirements in the city. This has also been a unique project
from the inception where the city participated jointly with Arcadia on different issues.
The first few pages of the agreement primarily list definitions. There are some of the
definitions that are expanded on in later parts of the agreement, for example; if we state "the
recreation center will be 75,000 square feet" we are not committing to building exactly that,
it could be a little less or a little larger. In the details of the agreement it states that this is
subject to Council approval.
HIGHLIGHTS
As far as the highlights of the agreement the city is not waiving development fees for streets
and drainage or water and sewer. We are assessing them the fee structure that currently
exists, not the fee structure that Council recently approved that will take affect on March 6.
The construction and dedication of the public use improvements primarily referring to water,
sewer, drainage and irrigation systems, streets and streetscaipes will all be built to city
standards. On the streetscapes, irrigation, and parks the city will be taking on additional
maintenance. The primary difference is with the amount of landscaping, rights of ways, etc;
it will be more intensive than the streetscape along Mid Cities Blvd. However, that is typically
a city function where we maintain not only the streets but also the medians. This will be no
different in this development.
Also, a major difference is, we are proposing that the City maintains the commercial core or
the downtown area. This is pretty typical in the new urbanism standards as well as some
existing downtowns. The City will be maintaining the sidewalks and the downtown area,
lighting fixtures, benches and any park areas — common areas in the commercial core. This
is one area where we are still trying to finalize the exact responsibilities and to ensure that
we have proper control and that maintenance functions are considered in the design.
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
K,
Another area that has not been finalized is the installation of the lakes. We are trying to
t- finalize the design standards of the lakes primarily from a maintenance standpoint since the
27 -acre park/lake area will become our maintenance responsibility. We need to insure that
it is designed with maintenance in mind and not purely aesthetics. Also, with the lakes, the
city will be responsible for keeping the water at a certain level and we are asking the
developer to explore the possibility of constructing water wells for the purpose of filling the
lake only, similar to what was done at Iron Horse Golf Course. That would be less expensive
to Will using a water well than using municipally treated water.
We are also working out the details of allowing access to the Town Center on the road going
into NRH2O. By doing this we will be asking them to construct additional parking on the west
side of the road, since we would not want our guests crossing the street from the existing
parking lot on the east. We are still working out some of the design features and
responsibilities of allowing the development to use that as an access.
The Recreation Center and Library status has not changed dramatically since what was
originally communicated during the planning sessions with Andres Duany. Arcadia is
dedicating us four acres for a recreation center. We are also working on a land swap or fixed
price on acreage for the Library. The dates for the Recreation Center and Library
construction are probably not realistic and we are trying to revise those or at least put in
certain conditions once "X" number of homes has been constructed, roads and public
improvements to the site are constructed prior to us constructing the public facilities.
: We are also attaching a very rough draft of the agreement and will get into more details at
the meeting on Monday night. Dan Quinto will give a short 10 -15 minute overview of the
project and status of the development. Steve Norwood will go through the developer
agreement addressing the highlights and will conclude with questions and answers and
soliciting your input, prior to bringing back the recommended development agreement at the
March 27 City Council Meeting. The City will have a major investment in the Town Center
and we want to ensure that we have control over some of the features that are constructed
but also that maintenance issues are addressed.
We look forward to your comments.
Respectfully • -•
Steve Norwood
Assistant City Manager
SPN /ld
Draft No. 5
January 21, 2000
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS TOWN CENTER
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement') is
made by and among THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS (the "City ") and
ARCADIA HOLDINGS, INC. (the "Developer ").
RECITALS:
A. The Developer is developing certain parcels of real property located within the
City, Tarrant County, Texas, as a mixed use residential and commercial
development to be known as "NORTH RICHLAND HILLS TOWN CENTER"
B. The parties hereto desire to document their various understandings and
agreements concerning various aspects of construction and operation of the
Development, on the terms hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the recitals set forth above, and for
$10.00 and other good and valuable consideration paid by each party to the other, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by all parties, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Definitions. As utilized herein, the following terms shall have the meanings
indicated:
"Affiliate" shall mean any limited partnership, joint venture, corporation, trust, or
limited liability company which is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by
any of the respective parties hereto.
"Agreement" means this Comprehensive Development Agreement.
"Association" or "Associations" means, individually or collectively, the non-
profit corporation(s) to be established by the Developer pursuant to the
Declaration to own, manage, administer and supervise the Common Areas in the
Development, and in which the owners of parcels in the Development shall be
members.
"City" means the City of North Richland Hills, Texas.
"City Hall" means the office and administrative facility that may be constructed
in the Development by the City to house future offices of the City, as described in
Paragraph 11 hereof.
"City Impact Fees" means those certain charges and fees permitted to be
assessed by the City pursuant to the Impact Fee Ordinances.
"City Library" means the library facility containing approximately 55,000 to
60,000 square feet of Improvements, with parking areas for 150 to 175 vehicles,
with suitable shelf space to house a library collection of approximately 225,000
volumes, with suitable seating and study carrels, meeting rooms, and computer
training facilities, to be constructed in the Development by the City, as described
in Paragraph 11 hereof.
"City Recreation Center" means that certain recreation facility containing
approximately 75,000 square feet of recreation center amenities and
approximately 25,000 square feet of pool facilities, which facility may include a
double gymnasium, fitness center, weight room, classrooms, dance rooms, aerobic
rooms, pre - school day care room, game room, indoor running and walking track,
outdoor amphitheater, indoor pool(s), banquet and meeting rooms, rock climbing
walls, instruction kitchen, concession area, lockers and showers, and
administrative offices, and such other facilities as may be approved by the City
and the Developer, to be constructed in the Development by the City, as described
in Paragraph 10 hereof.
"Corps" means the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
"COW" means the Commercial Operations and Maintenance Committee
described in Paragraph 13 hereof.
"Common Areas" means the real property or property interests within the
Development which are designated for the common use and enjoyment of all
owners, and shall include any improvements on such real property, all utilities,
utility easements and other easement rights for common use, and may include
streets located within the Development which are intended for automobile traffic
and which are not dedicated to the public.
"Declaration" means those certain Master Deed Restrictions to be adopted with
regard to the Development, which shall establish use restrictions and development
guidelines with regard to improvements constructed within the Development,
shall authorize the establishment of the Associations, shall establish the DRB and
authorize the promulgation of the Design Code and the appointment of the Town
Architect, shall provide procedures for imposition and collection of assessments
from owners of parcels of property within the Development to maintain common
areas and amenities within the Development, and shall supplement the ordinances
of the City with respect to governance of the areas within the Development.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 2 2156.64
"Design Code" means the plan for the development of the Development through
its regulation of land use, architecture and environment, which depicts the master
plan for the Development, establishes setbacks, lot coverages, landscape
regulations and other similar matters, and shall guide the design of buildings and
use of materials for buildings within the Development. Such Design Code shall
also establish procedures for architectural review to ensure compliance with all
applicable provisions thereof.
"Developer" means Arcadia Holdings, Inc., a Texas corporation, and its
successors and assigns, as the developer of the Development.
"Development" means those certain tracts and parcels of real property located in
the City, and being further described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a
part hereof by reference for all purposes.
"DRIB" means the Design Review Board established by the Declaration to
administer the Design Code established or promulgated for the Development
pursuant to the Declaration.
"Final Plat" means a final plat of any Tract contained within the Development
which shall be approved by the City in accordance with its standard procedures
for approval of plats and recorded in the Real Property Records of Tarrant
County, Texas, and which shall be in substantial conformity with any preliminary
plat proposed by the Developer and approved by the City for such Tract.
"Franchise Utilities" shall mean all electric, gas, telecommunication, and cable
television utilities designated and approved by the Developer for providing such
utility services to the Development. The Developer acknowledges that the City
has entered into an exclusive agreement with Trinity Waste Management, Inc. for
garbage collection services.
"Franchise Utility Providers" shall mean those companies and providers that,
individually or collectively, provide any of the Franchise Utilities.
"Furnishings" shall mean any benches, trash receptacles, planters, street trees, or
other similar items added to the Public use Improvements for public use and
benefit.
"Impact Fee Ordinances" mean Ordinances Number and previously
enacted by the City which provide for the assessment and payment of City Impact
Fees for streets and utilities.
"Improvements" mean any buildings, parking structures, shopping centers,
theaters, conference centers, libraries, recreation centers, fitness centers, homes,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 3 2156.64
or other structures that may be erected or constructed within the boundaries of the
Development.
"Infrastructure Improvements" mean any roads, thoroughfares, curbs,
sidewalks, sewers, storm drains, vaults, lakes, parks, entryways, irrigations
systems, lighting systems, and other infrastructure improvements constructed in
the Development.
"Lakes" means those lakes and adjacent common acres shown on the Regulating
Plan.
"Parking Areas" shall mean those areas designated for shared public parking on
the Regulating Plan, as same may be amended or supplemented from time to time.
"Parking Area Structures" shall mean any above or below grade Improvements
that may be erected or constructed by the Parking Authority on any Parking
Areas.
"Parking Authority" means the public improvement district, local government
corporation, or similar entity that will be established by the City and the
Developer to oversee, maintain and regulate all Parking Areas within the
Development, as describe in Paragraph 9 hereof.
"Private Use Improvements" shall mean, collectively, all Infrastructure
Improvements that may be developed and constructed within the Development
but which are not dedicated to public use and are maintained as private property,
although they may be conveyed to an Association as Common Areas for future
use and maintenance.
"Public Improvement Contracts" shall mean all contracts entered into by or on
behalf of the Developer for the construction of any of the Public Use
Improvements.
"Public Use Improvements" shall mean, collectively, all Infrastructure
Improvements that may be dedicated for public use and accepted by the City upon
Substantial Completion thereof, including, without limitation, all streets and
alleys in dedicated rights -of -way, all sidewalks in dedicated rights -of -way, the
parks dedicated to the City, water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer utilities in
dedicated rights -of -way, and furnishings and landscaping improvements in
dedicated parks or in dedicated rights -of -way.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 4 2156.64
"Regulating Plan" means that certain map depicting the approved categories of
Use Classifications for the various Tracts in the Development, which has been
approved by the City and the Developer, and a counterpart of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit `B" and made a part hereof by reference for all purposes.
"Substantial Completion" shall mean, with regard to any Infrastructure
Improvements or Improvements constructed in the Development, the condition of
completion thereof, as certified by the Town Architect, or any other supervising
architect involved in the construction of such item(s), which shall enable such
Improvements or Infrastructure Improvements, as applicable, to be occupied or
utilized for their intended use.
"Town Architect" means the architect appointed by the DRB or the Developer,
in accordance with the Declaration, to review and approve all plans for
improvements proposed for construction within the Development to insure
compliance with the Declaration, the Design Code, and all design guidelines or
requirements implemented or promulgated pursuant to the Declaration.
"Tract" and "Tracts" means, individually and collectively, the separate parcels
or pieces of the Development, as identified on the Regulating Plan.
"Use Classification" means the classifications of zoned use for each Tract in the
Development, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
"Water Park" means the North Richland Hills Water Park adjacent to the
southeastern portion of the Development.
"Zoning Ordinance" means Ordinance Number adopted by the City, as
same may be amended and supplemented from time to time, at the request of the
Developer, in accordance with the applicable procedures of the City.
2. Design of Public Use Improvements and Private Use Improvements. The
Developer shall be responsible, at no cost or expense to the City, for preparation
of all plans and designs for the Public Use Improvements and the Private Use
Improvements to be constructed by the Developer within the Development. The
City shall have the right to review and approve such designs and plans for such
Public Use Improvements and the Private Use Improvements in accordance with
the review procedures and standards of the City. The Developer shall coordinate
the timing of the preparation of plans for such Infrastructure Improvements. As
development of Tracts within the Development are commenced by or on behalf of
the Developer, the Developer or its Affiliates shall coordinate the preparation,
approval and filing of any Final Plat for any Tract within the Development. The
City shall cooperate in timely review of any Final Plat of any Tract within the
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 5 2156.64
Development in accordance with the standard review procedures and guidelines
of the City.
3. Development Fees and Charges. The City acknowledges that the construction
of Public Use Improvements by the Developer and the dedication of such Public
Use Improvements to the City has substantial benefits to the City and the
residents thereof. Subject to the limitation on infrastructure inspection fees
hereinafter provided, the Developer and its designated Affiliates shall pay to the
City all City Impact Fees required by the Impact Fee Ordinances in connection
with the development of Improvements in the Development, subject, however, to
receipt by the Developer and its designated Affiliates of applicable credits in
accordance with the City Impact Fee Ordinances, based on the construction of
such Public Use Improvements by the Developer and its designated Affiliates.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall waive all infrastructure inspection
fees on any Infrastructure Improvements constructed in the Development by
Developer or its Affiliates which are in excess of 3% of the costs of such
Infrastructure Improvements.
4. Construction and Dedication of Public Use Improvements. From time to time,
the Developer shall commence the development of various Tracts within the
Development, and the Developer may contract, at its sole cost and expense, with
such contractors as may be selected for the installation of all Infrastructure
Improvements for such Tracts, which may include both Public Use Improvements
and Private Use Improvements for such Tracts. The Developer shall be obligated
to provide public bidding for any contracts that include the installation of any
Public Use Improvements in accordance with any applicable laws, statutes or
ordinances. The Developer shall supervise and oversee all such contracts and
shall exercise due diligence and good faith efforts to insure compliance by such
contractors with all requirements of the City for the installation and completion of
Public Use Improvements. All such contracts shall provide a warranty on such
Infrastructure Improvements from the applicable contractor that installed such
Infrastructure Improvements, which warranty shall commence upon Substantial
Completion thereof, and the City shall be entitled to inspect all such Infrastructure
Improvements during the course of construction thereof in accordance with the
City's standard procedures for inspection of similar items. Upon Substantial
Completion of the Public Use Improvements by the Developer or its Affiliates
within any Tract, as delineated in the approved Final Plat for such Tract, the
Developer or its Affiliates shall properly dedicate or convey the property
containing such Public Use Improvements to the City, and the City shall accept
such Public Use Improvements for maintenance and become the owner thereof.
5. Special Provisions Regarding Certain Public Use Improvements. The
following provisions shall be applicable to various categories of the Public Use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 6 2156.64
Improvements to be constructed by the Developer or its Affiliates in the
Development, as follows:
(a) Water Improvements. The size of any piping for the water system that
shall be designed to service each Tract in the Development shall be in
accordance with the recommendations of the engineer retained by the
Developer to prepare the plans for such Tract in the Developments. The
location of water taps for water meters to service such Tract will be
provided at the discretion of the Developer. Shutoff valves for each
system will be provided at the beginning of each phase connection of such
system. The Developer shall provide dedicated and separate connections,
valves, meter boxes and meter vaults to the water and the irrigation
systems that service any of the Parks dedicated to the City within the
Development. The water system constructed for each Tract in the
Development shall meet existing City standards and specifications for
such systems. Notwithstanding with foregoing, the City may request
additional improvements to such water system, including increases in the
size of water lines recommended by the engineer retained by the
Developer, or different locations for water taps, valves or meter boxes, so
long as the City bears the cost, if any, of any such changes or relocations
in components to the water system which may be requested by the City.
The Developer will provide water service to refill the Lakes, however, the
City shall be responsible for the cost of water to service the Lakes and all
of the other Public Use Improvements, and all meters that may be required
in connection with any such Public Use Improvements. The Developer
shall provide maintenance bonds required by the City as a condition of
acceptance of such improvements.
(b) Sewer Improvements. The Developer shall follow the recommendations
of the engineer retained to prepare the plans for each Tract in the
Development with regard to the size and material of the components for
the sewer system which shall serve each Tract within the Development,
and such systems shall meet existing City standards and specifications for
such systems. Lift stations, if required on -site to service any Tract, shall
be the responsibility of the Developer. The Developer shall be required to
install only those segments of the sewer system for such Tract in the
Development as may be minimally required to service the Tract under
development. The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City
shall pay all costs of the sewer line described on Exhibit "C" attached
hereto and made a part hereof by reference. In addition, the City shall be
responsible for all costs of maintenance, repair and replacement of any
sewer lines to service any Tract in the Development once same have been
dedicated to the City. The Developer shall provide maintenance bonds
required by the City as a condition of acceptance of such improvements.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 7 2156.64
(c) Drainage Improvements. The Developer will provide all drainage piping
and grading for any Tract under development by the Developer or its
Affiliates in accordance with the recommendations of the engineer for
such Tract in the Development, and such drainage facilities shall meet
existing City standards and specifications for such drainage facilities. The
Developer will be required to build only the drainage facilities and
segments for such Tract that are necessary to meet the minimum
engineering requirements to service the Tract under development. The
Developer shall provide maintenance bonds required by the City as a
condition of acceptance of such improvements.
(d) Irrigation Systems. The Developer will be responsible for the
installation of all irrigation systems to service landscaped areas within the
parks, medians and landscaped areas developed by the Developer or its
Affiliates in the Development, and such irrigation systems will each be
provided with a separate tap to the water system which serves such
respective areas. Such systems will be designed to be serviced by the City
water supply and all necessary power and controllers will be placed in
public areas which permit access by appropriate representatives of the
City. The City shall be responsible for all water charges and meters to
serve such areas. Upon Substantial Completion of such irrigation systems,
the City shall accept same for maintenance, and the Developer shall have
no further responsibility for any such irrigation systems, or any component
thereof, other than the one (1) year warranty that shall be provided by the
contractor who installed such system upon Substantial Completion of such
system.
(e) Streets and Streetscapes. The Developer shall coordinate
the design, construction and installation of all streets in Tracts developed
by the Developer or its Affiliates within the Development. The Developer
shall have the responsibility and authority to control all design issues
applicable to such streets and streetscapes, including, without limitation,
determinations regarding specialty pavement and features on such streets.
All such streets and sidewalks dedicated to the City by the Developer shall
include a two (2) year maintenance bond in favor of the City in an amount
equal to 20% of the cost of completion of such streets and sidewalks. The
City shall review and comment upon plans for any such roads or
thoroughfares in accordance with the standard review and inspection
requirements of the City. In addition, such streets and streetscapes shall
be subject to the following provisions:
(1) Inspections. At appropriate times during the
course of construction of such streets within the
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 8 2156.64
Development, the City shall retain and pay for the services
of an independent testing agency to test the subgrade
quality and paving installation in the streets and rights of
way that shall be dedicated to the City in accordance with
any Final Plat.
(1) Acceptance and Maintenance. Upon
Substantial Completion of such streets and acceptance of
same by City, the City shall assume all maintenance
obligations of such streets, subject to requirements under
the maintenance bonds provided by the contractors that
constructed and installed such streets. Upon expiration of
any such maintenance bonds, the City shall be responsible
for all cleaning, patching and paving of streets and roads
within the Development, and all patches on such streets and
roads shall match existing paving in color and materials.
(1) Traffic Signals. The City and the
Developer shall share the costs and expenses of providing
all traffic signals along any roads or thoroughfares adjacent
to the Development, with each party's appropriate
allocation of such cost to be based on each party's
percentage of the contribution of traffic increase on such
streets or thoroughfares. Such allocation shall be based on a
traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer retained by the
Developer and shall be agreed upon between the Developer
and the City prior to commencement of the construction of
any such streets or thoroughfares. The Developer shall be
responsible, at its sole cost and expense, to pay for and
provide any traffic signals that may be required for any
interior streets included within any Tract developed by the
Developer within the Development.
(1) Street Lights. All lighting systems along
all streets developed by the Developer within the
Development shall be designed and installed under the
supervision of the Developer, at no cost or expense to the
City. The Developer shall determine, in its discretion, all
locations, quantities and qualities of all components of such
lighting systems. The City shall be obligated to pay all
costs of maintenance, repair and replacement of such
fixtures and lighting systems in accordance with
agreements to be entered into between the City and such
Franchise Provider, and the Developer shall have no duty
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 9 2156.64
or responsibility for any repair, maintenance or replacement
of any such fixtures. The City agrees that any replacement
fixtures and lighting systems will match existing fixtures in
style and lighting output.
(1) Furnishings. The City shall have all
responsibility for installation, repair, maintenance and
periodic replacement of all Furnishings that may be placed
and installed upon any Public Use Improvements within the
Development, and the Developer shall have no duties, costs
or expenses relative to any such items.
(1) Signage. The Developer shall, at its sole
cost and expense, provide all traffic control signs in the
Tracts developed by the Developer in the Development,
which shall include all street signs. The Developer shall
select the graphics and colors for all such signs. The
Developer shall submit to the City a proposed amendment
to the City's existing signage ordinance to be applicable to
the "Commercial Core" of the Development, as described
on the Regulating Plan, and such signage requirements for
the "Commercial Core" of the Development are outside the
scope of this Agreement. The Developer has no obligation
to provide any other signage for the Development that may
be requested by the City, but the Developer may elect to do
so, at the cost and expense of the City. All street signs and
traffic signs in the Development shall be installed at the
cost and expense of the Developer, but shall be maintained
by the City. All such signage shall be designed and
installed in conformance with requirements of the City and
the requirements of the Declaration. Any replacement signs
shall be installed at the sole cost and expense of the City,
and shall match existing signage in size, graphics and
colors.
(f) Landscaping. All landscaping in Public Use
Improvements developed by the Developer shall be installed at the initial
cost and expense of the Developer. Upon completion of such Public Use
Improvements, the City Parks Department shall assume all maintenance
obligations with respect to all landscape materials in such Public Use
Improvements. The Developer will consult with representatives of the
Parks Department of the City on plant selections and landscape materials
and shall reasonably consider requests or input of representative of the
Parks Department of the City relative to plant selections or installation, but
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 10 2156.64
final decisions on such landscape materials, selections and installation
thereof will be at the sole discretion of the Developer and the Town
Architect; provided, however, if the Developer and the City strongly
disagree on any landscape issue, upon written notice to the Developer, the
City may require that such issue be referred to mediation, using a mediator
mutually acceptable to the City and the Developer. Each party shall pay
one -half ( %2) of the costs of any such mediator, and each party shall bear
all of its costs incurred in such mediation. The Developer shall insure that
the contractors that install such landscaping materials provide a one (1)
year warranty on installed materials, but maintenance of such landscaping
and materials by the City Parks Department shall commence upon
installation thereof and acceptance of such Public Use Improvements by
the City.
(f) Name Rights. The Developer expressly reserves all rights
to designate names for all streets thoroughfares and other Improvements
within the Development, and the City shall honor such name designations
in the acceptance of all dedications of any such streets, thoroughfares or
other Improvements; provided, however, the City may require a change in
any names selected by the Developer if such names conflict with any
existing names within the City or create similar safety concerns.
(f) Temporary Concrete Batch Plants. The Developer shall
have the right, during the development of any Tract within the
Development, to operate a temporary concrete batch plant within the
Development for a period of up to ninety (90) days during the installation
of streets or thoroughfares applicable to such Tract, with the location of
any such batch plan to be subject to the reasonable approval of the City
Planning Department.
6. Installation of Franchise Utilities. The Developer shall select and coordinate
with the Franchise Utility Providers with regard to the design and installation of
the various Franchise Utilities. If requested by the Developer, the City shall
promptly and expeditiously review the designs, easements and placements of any
Franchise Utilities in order to insure that same comply with all requirements of
the City and properly coordinate with utility and easement locations, to the extent
applicable. No Franchise Utility shall be turned over to the City and all
maintenance of such Franchise Utilities shall be provided by the applicable
Franchise Utility Provider.
7. Installation of Lakes. The Developer shall coordinate the preparation of all
plans for the design and installation of the Lakes and the timely issuance of all
applicable permits for the Lakes that may be required by the Corps or any other
applicable governmental authorities. The City shall timely review and approve
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 11 2156.64
any proposed plans for the Lakes in order to meet scheduling requirements for the
commencement of construction thereof. The parties acknowledge that the Lakes
shall be constructed at the sole cost and expense of the Developer; provided,
however, the City acknowledges that it has made application for a $1,700,000.00
grant to be used in installation of the trail system adjacent to the Lakes, and the
City shall exercise its best efforts and due diligence in seeking to obtain such
grant. If such grant is received, the City shall, subject in all events to compliance
with the terms and conditions of such grant, make such funds immediately
available to the Developer for use in construction of the trail system applicable
thereto, in order to defray the cost of construction thereof. Upon completion of the
Lakes and the adjacent parks and trail systems thereto, as described on Exhibit D
attached hereto, and the filing of the applicable Final Plat which contains the
Lakes, the City shall accept maintenance and operation thereof, and, except to the
limited extent hereinafter provided with respect to landscape materials in the
wetlands areas of the property covered by the Lakes, no owner of any portion of
the Development shall have any further liability or obligation with respect to the
installation or maintenance of the Lakes. The City shall not unreasonably
withhold approval and acceptance of maintenance of each Lake. Upon
verification by the engineer of record for such project of the grades to within
acceptable tolerance, the City will not require any modification or incidental
siltation removal. The City shall maintain the Lakes and the trail system adjacent
thereto in accordance with all easements applicable thereto and all governmental
requirements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer agrees to provide
replacement plant materials for the wetlands areas of the Lakes, if required by the
Corps, for a period of three (3) years following the Substantial Completion of the
Lakes. The Developer shall not be required to supply replacement wetland plant
materials in accordance with the preceding sentence more than once during per
year during such period, and the City shall be responsible, at its sole cost and
expense, for the installation of such replacement wetland plant materials.
8. Water Park Access and Reciprocal Parking. The City shall grant to the
Developer, for the benefit of the Development, a non - exclusive easement for
vehicular traffic through the existing parking area of the Water Park, provided
that the Developer shall agree to pay for all reasonably necessary safety and
traffic control devices to service access through such easement area by the
Developer, its agents, guests, and invitees to the Development. The City shall
also grant to the Developer, for the benefit of the Development, rights to park in
the east parking area of the Water Park in exchange for the Developer providing a
parking easement covering approximately 300 parking spaces to be located in an
easement area adjacent to the Water Park on property currently owned by Texas
Utilities. The granting of such parking easements shall be conditioned upon the
Developer obtaining a suitable construction and parking easement with Texas
Utilities. Such access and reciprocal parking easements shall be in form
satisfactory to the City and the Developer.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 12 2156.64
9. Parking Authority. The parties acknowledge that the Parking Authority
has been or shall be duly formed by the City simultaneous with the execution of
this Agreement. The Developer shall be responsible for all costs of creation of the
Parking Authority, excluding all costs of the City for overhead, payroll or similar
charges. To the extent that the Parking Authority experiences any shortfall in
operating funds for its annual costs and expenses, the shortfall in the Parking
Authority's operating costs for the first two (2) years of its existence shall also be
paid by the Developer. The Parking Authority shall assume management and
supervisory control of the Parking Areas of the Development. At such time as
Tracts are developed that include any of the Parking Areas for the Development,
as designated on the Regulating Plan, the Developer shall cause such applicable
Parking Areas to be dedicated or conveyed to the Parking Authority. The primary
function of the Parking Authority shall be to set and monitor parking policy and
requirements for the Development. The Parking Authority shall have all requisite
and appropriate governmental authority for the issuance of municipal bonds in
order to assist in the financing of construction, improvement, repair and
maintenance costs of Parking Area Structures within the Development, and for the
imposition of fees and charges for the use of such Parking Areas, with the
understanding that no such bonds may or shall be issued by such Parking
Authority until its charter has been approved by the City Council of the City. The
responsibilities of the Parking Authority shall include, but not necessarily be
limited to, the following:
1. Establishment of policy guidelines for all shared parking
requirements for the Development;
Establishing staffing requirements for all Parking Areas
operated or maintained by the Parking Authority;
Review of development plans for proposed Improvements
to be constructed within the Development, or changes in existing
developments, to verify parking requirements and capacities for
such proposed or change developments, and to confirm approval of
such plans if same meet shared parking requirements established
by the Parking Authority;
1. Enter into shared parking agreements with adjacent
property owners to serve the Development;
1. Maintain an updated plan of all available parking (on -site
and off -site) available in the Development;
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 13 2156.64
1. Maintain all Parking Areas, and conduct periodic
inspections of all Parking Areas to determine needs for continuing
repairs or maintenance of Parking Areas;
1. Maintain on -going records of special events scheduled in
the "Commercial Core" of the Development, and develop and
implement parking allocations and management policies for
special events parking requirements;
1. Manage, supervise and finance the construction of all
Improvements on all Parking Areas, including all surface lots and
all above - ground and below - ground parking structures;
1. Develop and implement policies for regulating and
enforcing parking requirements and violations thereof, and
1. Coordinate usage of available Parking Areas in the
Development with parking availability in adjacent properties
owned by the City or any other public entity.
10. City Recreation Center. On or before March 1, 2001, the Developer shall cause
the Tract which will contain the City Recreation Center, as generally described on
Exhibit "E" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference for all purposes,
to be conveyed to the City. The parties acknowledge, however, that as the
planning for the City Recreation Center and the adjacent Infrastructure
Improvements shall progress, the legal description of such Tract may be modified
by the Developer, and the City shall not unreasonably withhold any consents or
approvals of such modifications of the legal description of such Tract. The City
shall cooperate with the Developer in preparation and finalizing any Final Plat for
such Tract. Promptly following the date of this Agreement, the City shall install a
sign on such Tract announcing the future location of the City Recreation Center
on such Tract, with the size, design and location of such sign to be subject to the
reasonable approval of the Developer. In consideration for the conveyance of such
Tract, the City agrees that it shall commence the designs and planning for the City
Recreation Center upon the execution of this Agreement, shall commence
construction of the City Recreation Center on or before March 1, 2001, and shall
complete the City Recreation Center no later than March 1, 2002. The parties
acknowledge that such instruments of conveyance of the Tract for the City
Recreation Center shall contain rights of reverter to the effect that, if the City does
not timely commence construction of the City Recreation Center, ownership of
such Tract shall revert to the party from whom such conveyance was made. In
order to meet such time schedule, the City shall engage an architect to design the
City Recreation Center promptly following the date hereof and shall complete the
major components of the design work for such facility prior to March 1, 2001.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 14 2156.64
The City further acknowledges that if it shall fail to complete the City Recreation
Center in a timely fashion, the Developer shall suffer substantial damages.
Accordingly, the parties agree that all ad valorem taxes owed to the City and
applicable to the property owned by the Developer or Affiliates of the Developer,
shall be abated for all periods elapsing between the date that the City is required
to complete the City Recreation Center and the date that the City Recreation
Center achieves substantial completion and is granted a certificate of occupancy
by the City. All designs for the City Recreation Center shall be in conformance
with the requirements of the Declaration and subject to all required approvals of
the DRB and the Town Architect prior to commencement of construction thereof,
and the City shall be a member of the Association which includes the City
Recreation Center. The City shall also construct, at its sole cost and expense, all
surface parking required by the Parking Authority on the Tract containing the City
Recreation Center and in areas designated by the Parking Authority, in order to
serve the parking requirements for the City Recreation Center.
11. City Library. On or before March 1, 2002, the City shall purchase the Tract on
which the City Library shall be constructed, with such Tract being generally
described on Exhibit "F" attached hereto and made a part hereto by reference for
all purposes. The parties acknowledge, however, that as the planning for the City
Library and the adjacent Infrastructure Improvements shall progress, the legal
description of such Tract may be modified by the Developer, and the City shall
not unreasonably withhold any consents or approvals of such modifications of the
legal description of such Tract. The City shall cooperate with the Developer in
preparation and finalizing any Final Plat for such Tract. Promptly following the
date of this Agreement, the City shall install a sign on such Tract announcing the
future location of the City Library on such Tract, with the size, design and
location of such sign to be subject to the reasonable approval of the Developer.
The City shall purchase such Tract at the "fair market value" thereof as of the date
of this Agreement, and the City shall pay or reimburse the Developer for the
City's allocable share of the cost of all Infrastructure Improvements installed by
the Developer to service or benefit the Tract on which the City Library shall be
located. Such payment shall be made by the City to the Developer within thirty
(30) days following the delivery by the Developer to the City of a written notice
or invoice itemizing the costs to be paid by the City as set forth in the preceding
sentence. The City and the Developer shall equally share the cost of any
appraiser appointed with their mutual approval to determine the fair market value
of such Tract, but each party shall bear the cost of any appraiser appointed solely
by it. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Developer shall sell or donate any
Tract within the Development to Birdville Independent School District, at any
time on or before March 1, 2002, at a per square foot cost which is less than the
price paid by the City for the Tract for the City Library, the price paid by the City
for the Tract on which the City Library is to be constructed shall be reduced so
that it shall equal the amount of the per square foot price at which Developer sold
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 15 2156.64
the Tract to Birdville Independent School District, and the Developer shall
promptly make any required refund to the City of the allocable portion of the
purchase price paid by the City for such Tract. The City shall commence the
planning for the City Library as of the effective date of this Agreement, shall
commence construction of the City Library on or before March 1, 2002, and shall
complete the City Library no later than March 1, 2003. In order to meet such time
schedule, the City shall engage an architect to design the City Library within
twelve (12) months following the date hereof and shall complete the major
components of the design work for such facility prior to March 1, 2002. The
design of the City Library shall be in conformance with requirements of the
Declaration, and subject to receipt of all required approvals of the DRB and the
Town Architect prior to commencement of construction thereof, and the City shall
be a member of the Association which includes the City Library. The City shall
also construct, at its sole cost and expense, all surface parking required by the
Parking Authority on the Tract containing the City Library and in areas
designated by the Parking Authority, in order to serve the parking requirements
for the City Library.
12. City Hall. The parties contemplate that the City may elect to construct and locate
a new City Hall within the Development. Although there are no specific
requirements for the construction and location of a new City Hall within the
Development, the parties acknowledge that they shall each exercise good faith in
any discussions concerning the location of a City Hall within the Development,
subject to agreements on appropriate location for such facility and cost of the
Tract on which same would be located.
13. Commercial Operation and Maintenance Committee. The City shall
participate with the Developer and the Association in the creation of the COMC
to administer and regulate the affairs of the owners of property within the
"Central Core" described on the Regulating Plan. Such body shall consist of six
(6) members, two (2) of whom shall be appointed or designated by the Developer,
two (2) of whom shall be appointed or designated by the Association, and two (2)
of whom shall be designated or appointed by the City. Such COMC shall establish
its own rules and procedures for governance of its affairs and the regulating of
uses of the "Central Core" of the Development, and shall be subject in all respects
to the terms and conditions of the Declaration. Without limitation, the COMC
shall be responsible for the following matters:
1. the establishment of guidelines, regulation
and supervision for parades, street festivals and special events in
such district;
1. the establishment of guidelines, regulation
and supervision for sidewalk sales, sidewalk cafes, retail carts or
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 16 2156.64
street vendors, and any other proposed or anticipated uses of
sidewalks or common areas in such district;
1. the establishment of guidelines, regulation
and supervision of any "farmer's market" located in such district;
1. the establishment of guidelines, regulation
and supervision of thematic programming of streets and
decorations in such district; and
1. such other areas of supervision and
regulation as it may determine for the common benefit of owners
and users of property in such district.
14. Record Documents. Upon completion of any phase of Public Improvements, the
Developer shall cause to be provided to the City at least two blue line copies and
one electronic media copy (AutoCad, Release 14) of the record documents for any
such site developments.
15. Applicability of City Ordinances. Except as may be otherwise provided herein,
and is provided by any other agreements between the parties, the Developer
acknowledges that the Development shall be subject to all ordinances of the City
in effect as of the effective date of approval by the City of the preliminary plat for
the initial phase of the Development, but the Developer, its Affiliates and the
Development shall specifically be exempt from any ordinances adopted by the
City from and after such date that would increase any fees charged by City for
any permits, licenses or approvals for the development of any Improvements,
landscaping, or construction of any Infrastructure Improvements for or in the
Development.
16. Remedies. In the event that any party hereto fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, any of the other party hereto shall have the right to
enforce the terms of this Agreement by specific performance, or by any other
remedies available to such party. The prevailing party in any dispute arising out of
the enforcement of this Agreement shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys' fees, expenses and costs.
17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the
parties covering the subject matter set forth herein. No modifications or
amendments of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the
parties against whom such enforcement is sought.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 17 2156.64
18. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, and all obligations of the parties
created hereunder are performable in Tarrant County, Texas.
19. Successors and Assigns. If required, the City shall adopt an ordinance approving
this Agreement and authorizing the execution of this Agreement by the Mayor or
other appropriate representative of the City. Upon full execution of this
Agreement by all parties hereto, this Agreement shall become a binding
obligation of the parties and this Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall inure
to the benefit of, the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns.
20. Memorandum of Agreement. The parties shall not record this Agreement, but
shall execute, acknowledge and record a memorandum of this Agreement in the
Real Property Records of Tarrant County, Texas, in order to place third parties on
notice of the existence of this Agreement with respect to the Development.
21. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated
herein by reference for all purposes:
Exhibit A
Legal Description of Development
Exhibit B
Regulating Plan
Exhibit C
Description of City Sewer Line
Exhibit D
Description of Lakes (and related Parks and Trail System)
Exhibit E
Description of City Recreation Center Tract
Exhibit F
Description of City Library Tract
EXECUTED by the
parties hereto as of the day of 92000.
CITY:
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 18 2156.64
DEVELOPER:
ARCADIA HOLDINGS, INC.
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -Page 19 2156.64
NRH
CITY Of NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
rnoCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the America" Res Cross is alwa ,4s there, unber the same trwsteb
stimbol, serving our commwit4 anb touching more lives in New wa '4s N
provibinS lifesaving information, training, anb bisaster relief to inbivibuals anb
families for the past s3 bears: anb
WHEREAS, the Reb Cross is a leabing voluntar4 agencvI meeting the neebs
of inbivibuals anb families affecteb N personal emergencies anb bisaster, anb
WHEREAS, the Reb Cross is besignateb bti the Congress of the Vniteb Stares
in the act approveb januar4 f, 1905, as amenbeb, 3G V.S.C. Sections 1 -9, as the leab
voluntar4 agencti responsible for national anb international relief in time of peace
anb to appl-4 the same in mitigating the sufferings causeb bH pestilence, famine,
fire, floobs, anb other great national calamities, anb to bevise anb carr4 on
measures for preventing the same: anb
WHEREAS, the Reb Cross has traineb thousanbs of people in our communitH
in essential skills such as first Ab anb CPR, anb provibeb HIV /AIDS prevention anb
bisaster preparebness information, saving untolb numbers of lives: anb
WHEREAS, March has been besignateb as "Reb Cross Month" N V.S.
Presibential Proclamation to celebrate the achievement of the Reb Cross in the
services it provibes to communities nationwibe;
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Charles Scoma, Maijor of the Cit4 of North Richlanb
Skills, Texas bo hereby proclaim March as:
"RED CROSS MONTH"
in the Cites of Nordh Richlanb Hills anb urge that our communitH acknowlebge anb
support the o »going contribution of the Reb Cross in helping our families prevent,
prepare for, anb responb to emergencies anb bisasters burinS Reb Cross Month anb
throughout the bear.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. 1 Dave hereunto set
M-4 hanb Mb Causeb the seal of the Cites of
North Richlanb Hills to be affixeb this the 28'
ba,4 of pebruarti 2000.
Charles Scoma, Matior
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. 1R Qg_g32
Date: February 28, 2000
Subject:
Request for Volunteers for Olympic Trials
Paul Winston or another representative of the Dallas 2012 Olympic Committee will be
making a brief presentation at the Council meeting requesting that North Richland Hills'
residents volunteer to be a part of the three Olympic Trials that will be held in the next five
months in our area. The City of North Richland Hills has already been working on this matter
and has been getting information out to various individuals in the community encouraging
them to make application for a volunteer for the Olympic Trials. We have forms available
and are coordinating and completing those through our Economic Development and Park
and Recreation Department. Vickie Loftice and Ashley Stathatos are coordinating this in
working with Dallas 2012 Committee.
This special presentation will just be another appeal on behalf of the Dallas 2012 Committee
to solicit citizens to participate as volunteers in the Olympic Trials.
Respectfully submitted,
Larry J. Cunningham
City Manager
LJC /Id
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR 00 -027
Date: February 28, 2000
Subject: Texas Recreation and Parks Society "Promotional Award"
The Parks and Recreation Department has been selected to receive the statewide
"Promotional Award" by the Texas Recreation and Park Society. The award honors
outstanding promotional efforts of a parks and recreation department and was presented at
the TRAPS Annual Institute and Trade Show February 22 -26.
Selection criteria includes overall marketing effectiveness, creativity in marketing
campaigns, reaching target markets, leveraging financial resources, printed brochures and
overall promotional efforts of the marketing division.
It is an honor to receive this award since only one is selected for the entire state of Texas.
Parks and Recreation is appreciative of the support of Mayor and City Council for the
opportunity to provide award winning programs and services to our citizens.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Browne
Director of Parks & Recreation
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR 00 -028
Dater February 28, 2000
Subject: Special Presentation - Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting for the Comprehensive Financial Report ending
September 30, 1998
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City for its Comprehensive
Financial Report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998. The Certificate of
Achievement is a prestigious national award recognizing conformance with the highest
standards for preparation of state and local government financial reports. The Certificate of
Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. The City has received a Certificate of
Achievement for the last 16 consecutive years. Out of 1,400 governmental units in the
State of Texas, fewer than 200 have received this award.
The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program was
established by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) in 1945. The GFOA
instituted the program to encourage all government units to prepare and publish an easily
readable and understandable comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) covering all
funds and financial transactions of the government during they fiscal year. The GFOA
believes that governments have a special responsibility to provide the public with a fair
presentation of their financial affairs. CAFR's go beyond the requirements of generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to provide the many users of government financial
statements with a wide variety of information useful in evaluating the financial condition of a
government.
The Certificate Program provides participants with extensive technical reference materials
to improve their financial reporting techniques. Suggestions and comments from reviewers
also help staff to improve the document.
Another great benefit of the Certificate of Achievement is that it provides a detailed vehicle
by which market analysts, investors, potential investors and others may assess the relative
attractiveness of our City's bonds compared to alternative investment opportunities.
Charles Cox, Director of Finance with the City of Farmers Branch and President of the
Government Finance Officers Association of Texas will be at the Council meeting to present
the Certificate of Achievement to the City. Although no action is needed by Council, we do
commend Jackie Theriot, Accounting Manager, and the Accounting staff for their
professional efforts that have made it possible for the City to again receive this prestigious
award. This is truly a team effort by City Council, Management, and staff.
Respectfully submitted,
xwv,
Larry Koonce
Director of Finance
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Finance Council Meeting Date:
Subject: Presentation of 1998 -99 Audited Financial Report Agenda Number:
2/28/00
GN 2000 -23
The results of the 1998 -99 Annual Financial Report for the City will be jointly presented by
Finance Director Larry Koonce and a representative of the independent audit firm of
KPMG Peat Marwick. Larry Koonce will review the year -end results and fund balance data
for the various Funds (General, Enterprise, etc.) as well as other financial impacts. The
representative from Peat Marwick will present the overall results and be available to
respond to questions regarding the report.
The auditor's opinion is again an unqualified opinion or a "clean" opinion. This means that
they have found the Financial Statements of the City of North Richland Hills to present
fairly our financial position.
Included in the Council packet is a copy of the financial report and attached to the cover
sheet is a summary of the various City Funds showing the results of the changes in Fund
Balances from 1998 to 1999. The General Fund undesignated balance was $6,247,500.
City Council's goal is to have at least 60 days of operations in reserve. This ending
balance represents 87 days of FY 2000 General Fund budgeted operating expenditures.
The City exceeded its budgeted goals for fiscal year 1999 adding over $5.1 million to
Operating Fund Balances citywide. All funds ended in positive balances allowing the City
to increase its reserves, improve its cash flows, complete capital projects and protect the
City's investment in infrastructure.
Overall, the City of North Richland Hills' results of operations during the 1998 -99 fiscal
year, as well as the financial position at year -end reflect a sound fiscal condition.
RECOMMENDATION:
To accept the 1998 -99 Audited Financial Report as presented.
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Account Number
Bonds (GO /Rev.) Sufficient Funds Available
Operating Budget
Other Finance Director
Depa ment Head Signature J V City Manager.Sig ature
City of North Richland Hills
FUND SUMMARY
Fiscal Year 1999
Page 1 of 2
Fund
FY 98 Balance
FY 99 Balance
Change
General Fund
Unrestricted
$
4,852,969
6,247,500
$
1,394,531
Promotional Fund
$
176,823
$
217,500
$
40,677
Donations Fund
$
322,023
$
430,456
$
108,433
Special Investigation Fund
$
85,334
$
252,955
$
167,621
Drainage Utility Fund
$
296,601
360,395
$
63,794
Parks & Recreation Facilities Development
Fund
Reserved for Park Capital Projects
$
3,668,979
$
3,192,540
$
(476,439)
Crime Control District Fund
Reserved for Transition (2001)
$
1,600,000
2,319,726
$
719,726
Reserved for Public Safety Computer
$
192,423
$
702,939
$
510,516
Total CCD
$
1,792,423
$
3,022,665
$
1,230,242
Water & Sewer Operating Working Capital
$
7,433,030
$
8,000,699
$
567,669
Golf Fund Working Capital
$
612,556
$
1,109,109
$
496,553
City of North Richland Hills
FUND SUMMARY
Fiscal Year 1999
Page 2 of 2
Fund
FY 98 Balance
FY 99 Balance
Change
Aquatic Park Fund Working Capital
Reserved for Infrastructure Maintenance
$
867,944
$
871,133
$
3,189
Reserved for Master Plan Improvements
$
583,113
$
586,909
$
3,796
Reserved for Park Insurance
$
195,000
$
270,000
$
75,000
Reserved for Debt Service
$
-
$
188,574
$
188,574
Total Aquatic Park Fund Balance
$
1,646,057
$
1,916,616
$
270,559
Support Services Fund
Building Services
Reserved for Multi Year Building Upkeep Plan
$
472,779
$
642,150
$
169,371
' uipment Services
Reserved for Multi Year Equipment
Replacement Plan
$
842,793
$
1,426,216
$
583,423
Total Support Services Fund
$
1,315,572
$
2,068,366
$
752,794
Insurance Reserve for Claims & Premiums
$
1,774,273
$
2,295,318
$
521,045
Information Services
Reserved for Computer Replacement
$
780,935
$
1,188,268
$
407,333
Reserved for Telephone System Replacement
$
410,000
$
-
$
(410,000)
Total Information Services
$
1,190,935
$
1,188,268
$
(2,667)
Total Change in Fund Balances FY 1999
$
5,134,812
At the time of the writing of this cover
sheet, the final figures and summary
are complete. However, KPMG has
sent the CAFR to the print shop for
printing and KPMG will most likely
not receive the printed documents
until late tomorrow. KPMG will
courier the CAFR to each of the
Council
evening.
member homes tomorrow
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 — FEBRUARY 14, 2000 — 5:30 P.M.
Present: Charles Scoma
JoAnn Johnson
Lyle E. Welch
Russell Mitchell
Frank Metts, Jr.
Don Phifer
Matt Milano, Ph.D.
T. Oscar Trevino, Jr.
Larry Cunningham
Randy Shiflet
Steve Norwood
Greg Vick
Patricia Hutson
Alicia Richardson
Rex McEntire
Greg Dickens
Larry Koonce
Marcy Ratcliff
Andy Jones
Jim Browne
Vicki Loftice
Bill Thornton
Paulette Hartman
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tern
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Managing Director Community Services
City Secretary
Assistant City Secretary
Attorney
Public Works Director
Finance Director
Director of Planning
Fire Chief
Director of Parks & Recreation
Assistant Parks Director
Assistant Parks Director
Adm. Asst. to City Manager
ITEM
DISCUSSION
ASSIGNMENT
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Scoma called the meeting to order at
5:35 p.m.
DISCUSS ITEMS
There were no items discussed.
FROM REGULAR
FEBRUARY 14
AGENDA
IR 2000 -022
Because the majority of the City Council will be
PATRICIA
DISCUSS
attending the NLC Conference in Washington on the
CANCELLATION/
March 13 Council meeting, the consensus of the
"ESCHEDULING
Council was to place an item on the next agenda to
--JF MARCH 13 CITY
officially cancel the meeting. The Council further
COUNCIL
agreed that should an emergency arise with respect
MEETING
to platting or zoning issues that will not wait until the
City Council Minutes
February 14, 2000
Page 2
r
ITEM
DISCUSSION
ASSIGNMENT
March 27 meeting, they will meet on March 20 at
7:00 p.m., if necessary. Otherwise, the only meeting
during March will be the regular scheduled meeting
on March 27.
IR 2000 -024
The consensus of the Council was to set the budget
PATRICIA /KAREN
DISCUSS DATES
work session for Friday, August 4 and Saturday,
FOR COUNCIL
August 5. The work session is to be held at Garrett
BUDGET REVIEW
Creek Ranch and will begin around 3:00 p.m. on
August 4.
IR 2000 -019
The City Manager advised that Mr. Jack Bean, a
LARRY C. /PAULETTE
DISCUSS
citizen, was inquiring about establishing a
REQUEST TO
specialized limousine /touring vehicle service in North
ALLOW A
Richland Hills. The City Manager explained that an
TOURING
ordinance and permit process would need to be
VEHICLE/
established by the City Council to establish
LIMOUSINE
requirements and regulate the operation of limousine
PERMIT IN NORTH
services within our City. Mr. Bean explained that he
`CHLAND HILLS
wished to use an antique limousine /touring vehicle to
`-
provide service for weddings and other special
events. The service would be provided by a group of
individuals from his church and the proceeds would
go to the church. The consensus of the Council was
for Staff to develop a touring /vehicle limousine
ordinance for Council consideration at the next
Council meeting.
IR 2000 -017 COST
Ms. Loftice presented the recommendations for the
NAN
OF SERVICES
fees for the parks and recreation programs and
REPORT: PARKS
services. Concerns and issues raised by the Council
AND RECREATION
were: 1) the lowering of the gazebo rental fees; 2)
ANALYSIS AND
consideration of senior citizen discount rates; 3)
RECOMMEND-
evaluate staffing levels to determine if additional
ATIONS
hours of operation can be offered during the early
morning hours. Numerous senior citizens have
expressed a desire to be able to use the facility
during the early morning hours. The City Council
approved the ordinance during the regular meeting
with the exception that the gazebo fee be a flat fee of
$10 for 3 hours use.
ITEM
I R 2000 -021
REVIEW
INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH
THE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION
COUNCIL FOR
DEVELOPMENT
AND OPERATION
OF COMMUTER
RAIL SERVICE
DISCUSSION
The City Manager presented the proposed
agreement to the Council and reviewed some of the
major items in the agreement. The Council was
advised that North Richland Hills will pay $55,000 of
the total annual amount of $775,000 from the Mid -
Cities Group beginning with the completion of the rail
service to the Fort Worth Ninth Street Station. After
the first year, payment will be based on an audit of
percentage of transit riders from North Richland
Hills. The agreement will end on September 30,
2004 and may be renewed. The Council concurred
with the agreement and the agreement will be placed
on the next agenda for action.
ADJOURNMENT Mayor Scoma announced at 6:32 p.m. that the
meeting would adjourn to Executive Session for
deliberation regarding personnel matters (Salary for
Municipal Court Judge) as authorized by Section
551.074 of the Local Government Code.
Charles Scoma — Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson — City Secretary
City Council Minutes
February 14, 2000
Page 3
ASSIGNMENT
STEVE N./GREG D.
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 — FEBRUARY 14, 2000 - 7:00 P.M.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Scoma called the meeting to order February 14, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
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
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
Councilman Mitchell gave the invocation.
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
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 Swartz,
NRH2O, Steve Norwood, Assistant City Manager, Mary Ann Townsend, Animal
Services, Tim Horvath, Code Enforcement, Dena Milner, Code Enforcement,
Cheri Hansen, Teen Court Coordinator, Bob Nelson, Public Works, Diane Key,
None.
City Council Minutes
February 14, 2000
Page 2
Utility Billing, David Lopez & Chuck James, Public Works, Mary Beth Harvey,
Animal Control, Scott Walker & Mike Curtis, Public Works, Jimmy Cates, Public
Works, Betty Osborne, Finance and Tim Hightshoe, Parks Department.
5.
REMOVAL OF ITEM(S) FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVED
A. MINUTES OF THE PRE - COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 24, 2000
B. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 24, 2000
C. CALLING CITY COUNCIL ELECTION - RESOLUTION NO. 2000-06
D. CHANGING TIME OF FEBRUARY 28 REGULAR MEETING
E. APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH KNOWLTON-
ENGLISH- FLOWERS, INC. FOR THE JOHNSON GROUND STORAGE TANK
REHABILITATION AND REPAINTING - RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -07
Councilman Metts moved, seconded by Councilman Mitchell to approve the consent
agenda.
Motion to approve carried 7 -0.
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 NO. 2449
APPROVED
Mr. Paul Padilla, applicant, explained the nature of his request.
City Council Minutes
February 14, 2000
Page 3
Ms. Marcy Ratcliff, Director of Planning, summarized recommendations of the Planning
and Zoning Commission and Staff.
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.
Councilman Phifer moved, seconded by Councilman Mitchell to approve Ordinance No.
2449 & PZ 99 -26 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Motion to approve carried 7 -0.
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
DENIED
Mr. Paul Padilla, applicant, explained the nature of his request.
Ms. Ratcliff summarized the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
and Staff.
Mayor Pro Tern Johnson inquired if a traffic study had been completed on the area.
Mayor Scoma voiced his concern about the future expansion of Highway 26 and
obtaining additional right -of -way.
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 Scoma asked what type of impact the business would have relating to
architecture as it relates to the Town Center District.
Ms. Ratcliff informed the Council that the request is not in the Town Center District.
Councilman Trevino moved to deny PZ 99 -27, Ordinance No. 2450. Mayor Pro Tern
Johnson seconded the motion.
City Council Minutes
February 14, 2000
Page 4
Motion to deny carried 4 -3; with Councilmen Welch, Milano, Trevino and Mayor Pro
Tern Johnson voting for denial and Councilmen Mitchell, Metts and Phifer voting
against.
9.
PS 99 -29 - THE REQUEST OF RACE TRAC PETROLEUM, INC. TO REPLAT LOTS
2112 AND 3R3, BLOCK 2, WALKER BRANCH ADDITION, INTO LOTS 2R2R AND
3R3R AND CREATING LOT 6 (LOCATED AT 8707 GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY).
APPROVED
Ms. Ratcliff summarized the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
and Staff.
Councilman Mitchell moved, seconded by Councilman Metts to approve PS 99 -29 as
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Motion to approve carried 7 -0.
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
APPROVED
Mr. Greg Dickens, Director of Public Works, summarized PW 2000 -08.
Councilman Mitchell moved, seconded by Councilman Milano to approve PW 2000 -08,
Ordinance No. 2454.
Motion to approve carried 7 -0.
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
APPROVED
Mr. James Handy, applicant, explained the nature of his request. He asked if Council
would consider raising the poles to 30 feet in order for customers to locate his business.
City Council Minutes
February 14, 2000
Page 5
Ms. Ratcliff summarized the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission
and Staff.
Councilman Milano asked if this was a creative effort on applicants part to have a pole
sign.
Ms. Ratcliff advised Council that it is permissible under the ordinance.
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 PZ 99 -47, Ordinance No. 2457 with the
provision that the flag poles extend 30 feet. Councilman Trevino seconded the motion.
Motion to approve carried 7 -0.
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
APPROVED
Mr. and Mrs. Lett explained the nature of their request.
Councilman Metts had concerns that the small chapel would not be 100% masonry and
how much would be Hardi - Plank. He is in favor of applicants signing a covenant to tie
into sewer.
Ms. Ratcliff summarized the recommendations and request as it relates to city codes
and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Mayor Scoma opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wishing to speak to
come forward.
Mr. Edward Lett read into record a letter in favor of the Left's request from neighbor Bill
Simmons (letter attached).
Mayor Pro Tern Johnson moved to approve PZ 99 -44, Ordinance No. 2448 with the
provision that fees associated with the proposal be waived. Councilman Welch
seconded the motion.
City Council Minutes
February 14, 2000
Page 6
Motion to approve carried 4 -3; with Councilmen Welch, Metts, Phifer and Mayor Pro
Tern Johnson voting for and Councilmen Mitchell, Milano and Trevino voting against.
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
DENIED
Mr. Scott Turnage, Vice Chairman - Park & Recreation Board, summarized the request.
Mayor Scoma recessed the meeting at 8:42 pm
Mayor Scoma reconvened the meeting at 8:48 pm
Mr. Bill Thornton, Assistant Director - Park & Recreation presented Council with a
detailed presentation of the Parkland Dedication requirements.
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.
Council discussed item.
Councilman Phifer moved to deny PZ 99 -36, Ordinance No. 2455 in its current form.
Mayor Pro Tern Johnson seconded the motion.
Motion to deny carried 4 -3; with Councilmen Mitchell, Metts, Phifer and Mayor Pro Tern
Johnson voting for denial and Councilmen Welch, Milano and Trevino voting against.
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
TABLED
The applicant was not available.
Councilman Mitchell moved to table PS 99 -44 to the February 28 City Council meeting.
Councilman Metts seconded the motion.
Motion to table carried 7 -0.
City Council Minutes
February 14, 2000
Page 7
15.
GN 2000 -12 - PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO.
1994 JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE FOR THREE YEARS -
ORDINANCE NO. 2453
APPROVED
Mr. Tom Shockley, Chief of Police, provided Council with a presentation of stats and
information background.
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.
Councilman Metts moved, seconded by Councilman Mitchell to approve GN 2000 -12,
Ordinance No. 2453.
Motion to approve carried 7 -0.
16.
GN 2000 -13 - PARK AND RECREATION USER FEES - ORDINANCE NO. 2456
APPROVED
Ms. Vickie Loftice, Assistant Director - Park & Recreation, summarized GN 2000 -13,
Ordinance No. 2456.
Mayor Pro Tern Johnson moved to approve GN 2000 -13, Ordinance No. 2456 with the
provision that the gazebo rentals are a $10.00 flat fee. Councilman Trevino seconded
the motion.
Councilman Trevino asked that Staff look into a resident gym pass and resident fitness
discounts for senior citizens. He would like Staff to do some research to see if it would
hurt to have a senior citizens discount of 10% - 15 % across the board.
Mayor Pro Tern Johnson revised her motion to include a 3 hours use for the $10.00 flat
fee. Councilman Trevino seconded revision.
Motion to approve carried 7 -0.
17.
GN 2000 -14 - PROPOSED DEEP WATER WELL AT 8333 DAVIS BOULEVARD; L.C.
TUBB JR. ADDITION, LOT 1 BLOCK 1
APPROVED
City Council Minutes
February 14, 2000
Page 8
Mr. L.C. Tubb, applicant, explained the nature of his request.
Mr. Dickens summarized staff's recommendations.
Councilman Milano suggested that an executed covenant stating the uses and
restriction of the deep well for irrigation be tied to the land when it sells.
Mayor Pro Tern Johnson moved to approve GN 2000 -14 with the following stipulations:
that there be a covenant that there will be no commercial sale of water; at the time the
land is sold the covenant would go as part of the deed; and to follow the restrictions and
regulations of a 200 foot well. Councilman Trevino seconded the motion.
None.
18.
A. CITIZENS PRESENTATION
19.
B. INFORMATION AND REPORTS
Regional Transportation Council: Mobility 2025 - The Metropolitan Transportation Plan
(Announced before Item No. 12)
North Richland Hill is seeking nominations for the North Richland Hills Volunteer of the
Year. Please call Paulette Hartman at 427 -6015 for a nomination form. (Announced
before Item No. 12)
Dallas 2012 Olympic Bid Committee & DFW Regional Sports Commission are recruiting
1000 volunteers to host the U.S. Olympic Team trials. For more information contact
Ashley Stathatos at 427 -6092 or Vickie Loftice at 627 -6624.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
(Announced after item 16)
Parks & Recreation will host the annual KidFish Event at Green Valley Park, for
information call 427 -6660.
The Critter Connection will be open at North Hills Mall on Saturday, Friday 26.
Winter Break Camp NRH at the Recreation Center February 28 - March 3, for
information call 427 -6600.
City Council Minutes
February 14, 2000
Page 9
19.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Scoma adjourned the meeting at 10:30 pm.
Charles Scoma - Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson - City Secretary
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Administration Council Meeting Date: 02/28/00
Subject: Setting Salary for Municipal Judge - Agenda Number: GN 2000 -15
Resolution No. 2000 -05
On December 30, 1999, Judge Oujesky sent a memorandum to the Mayor and City
Council requesting consideration be given to increasing the salary for the Municipal Judge
position. The Texas Government Code states that the governing body "shall set the salary
of an elected judge no later than two weeks before the election filing deadline ". The
election for this position will be May 6, 2000, with a filing period from February 21, 2000
through March 22, 2000. Establishing a salary for the position at this time will comply with
State law.
Based on direction of the City Council during the February 14th Executive Session, the
attached resolution will establish the monthly salary for the Municipal Court Judge at
$4,146.00, effective January 1, 2000.
Future consideration for salary adjustments for the Judge will be determined during the
annual budget retreat as are the salaries of other employees. Any percentage adjustment
will be incorporated into the annual budget that becomes effective on October 1s of each
year and any additional compensation can be determined during the period prior to the
election - filing deadline.
The attached resolution will establish the monthly salary for the Municipal Court Judge at
$4,146.00 and authorize annual adjustments in the same manner as other municipal
employees. It should be noted that the only time this salary can be reduced is before two
weeks prior to the election - filing deadline. Any such reduction would become effective
upon the next election or reelection of the Judge.
RECOMMENDATION:
To approve Resolution No. 2000 -05.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
/ J
�J
Department Head Signature
Finance Review
Account Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Finance Director
Page 1 of _
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -05
WHEREAS, the Government Code requires the City Council to set the salary of the
Municipal Judge two weeks before the election filing deadline; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the value of the services rendered by
the Municipal Judge and compared the value with the actual pay of other municipal judges
in the area of North Central Texas; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that a fair monthly salary for the Municipal Judge of
the City of North Richland Hills is $4,146.00.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, that:
1.
The salary of the Municipal Judge of this City is set at $4,146.00 per month,
effective January 1, 2000.
r:7
Pursuant to Chapter 30 of the Government Code, this salary may not be diminished
during the term of office of the Municipal Judge elected at the May, 2000 election.
3.
Any increase in the pay of the Municipal Judge will be considered and acted upon
in the annual budget. Setting the salary of the Municipal Judge in the annual budget is
intended to satisfy the requirement of Chapter 30 of the Government Code.
0
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its date of passage and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 28th day of February, 2000.
APPROVED:
Charles Scoma, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
//
Rex McEntinb, City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Randy Shiflet, De uty City Manager
W
D
�N
Li
7
J
CL
Z
C�
G
C)
CD
0
NN
z
Tl-
11
r-
C14
4
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
O
-00
CN
OOO
Coco
M
O
O
co
000
�
LO
O
O)
tt
O
't
G a)
7 >
'-t
-
N
O O
y C
E
.y
m
to p
O N U
cn
w O T
3 a)
O O
n co
w
y a)
C
C
>
p) O
L
Q)
O
CD
Cn
2 m
a
M a)
'
a)
m
E m N v
W
W
W
E a0') a)
c
W
W
0
°�°
L
L
L
.o
L
m
47Y`
L
a)
.Nm.
w > C
N
L
m
m
m
a
p
Lo
co
L
a)
m
m
7
'Ca C
C
a
C
co
C
C
C
E
C
E
E
C
C
E
C
a)
E
CD
Ca
cnZ
O
m
m
M
in
0
Z
0
w
0
Z
0
Z
yZZZ
0
0
0
>
O N y N
n
N
E
C ' E '�"
Q a)
O a Y
E oo
L a
CD
CD
C
a)
C
a)
C
N
C
O
C
N
C
Q)
a)
C
m
C
a)
C
a)
C
E
.V
CD
aC.•C.C.nU
a)
_T
t O
w-
o
'o
'o
'o
-C.0
CD
o CL --Z 3
E E L
CL
p o
3
U
o co
CD V a) �o
nnnnV
a)
Cc U
O C
++
�' O
Q
W
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
W
Q
Q
Q
Q
W
LLLL
ch aa)) -o m
u-
LL
N y
L) Q n L
al~i~aaam
co O
�° o
cn
> O m m
b-
a-
L U
: 1--
co
O
00
co
O
1--
00
M
-
to
IT
In
O
'ct
M
-•:
co
M
O
1`
co
N
CD
CD
W)
fl-
I-
r-
Co
00
Cl)
M
00
O
1-
d'
1`
co
, CD
Cl)
Co
CO
CD
M
U)
N
'�t
CO
M
CO
y a) n
Co ' a
L
(n
tm = >,
'
a)
U m
p
0 c C n. m
O O V >,
>
C) 7)
1L0 a) cc
O
F- U
co
m m
m00M:
o
c>(j�
a? a;
co
M
O O
z z
^
O
O
O
O
ti
CO
M
co
0
O
M
�
M
co
O
1,-
to
0)
O
O
LC)
1l-
�
f-
Lo
CUD
M
M
Co
O
d'
ti
rt
�
'
a0
CD
jM
co
CD
co
CO
M
)o
N
�T
co
M
co
r
Tr C
Z- M
CD
g-
N
CO
U
U
U
U
co
N
N
N
0
z� r;
U
U
U
O
a)
rn
rn
(D
a)
()
(3)
0)
a)
a)
a)
a)
>
>
a)
CT
70
O)
iv
O)
a
CA
C)
0)
O)
cT
0)
M
M
CT
�.
7
7
7
7
7
>>
7
7
m
m
nn-)
m
C
C
C
v
v
o
3
o
o
m
o
o
o
o
o
o>>
o
UUU�
UUUUUUg�U
<0
fo
fo
M
CC1
f6
CO
m
<a
fo
O
a)
cu
aana
naanaa�
'U
'U
R)
n
'U
'U
'U
U
`
L
U
C
C
C
C
C
G
C
G
C
C
aJ
G
„cZ,c�>
cU
m
a)
a)
m
O
v
=
_
=
CT
yx,
CT
c
O
O
L
O
U
Cn
a)
O
p
Cn
'3
C-n
Cn
�
U.LCnUo
o
L
C
c
0WU22JJ��
_
3
3
m
Tl-
11
r-
C14
4
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
O
7
O
t
O
G a)
7 >
EO)
O O
y C
E
m
to p
O N U
w O T
3 a)
O O
n co
c
C
y a)
C
C
>
p) O
L
Q)
O
CD
Cn
2 m
a
M a)
'
a)
m
E m N v
m
m
E a0') a)
c
U
c E ID 0
0
°�°
L
.o
a) LO m
m
47Y`
a)
.Nm.
w > C
N
L
cu
y
7 a)
s
a
p
Lo
L
a)
m
7
'Ca C
C
a
co
'a
'o a) : m
rn
co
>
m
U O _ Cn
a)
CD
~
co
m
co O w
_ F-
O y CD
O
>
O N y N
n
N
E
C ' E '�"
Q a)
O a Y
E oo
L a
CD
L
m m
cu
0
Q)
U
E
�° •o cc m
f0 Lo a)
o w
p
j
a)
_T
t O
O) CD
C L N
m
3=
o CL --Z 3
E E L
CL
p o
3
U
o co
CD V a) �o
fo C
a)
Cc U
O C
++
�' O
C7
a) W
a N
CD
L L:
> y 6R
L
N a)
-O
O w
N
3 fl
ch aa)) -o m
M
c
N y
L) Q n L
Cn
O m
co O
�° o
cn
> O m m
w cco
L U
p O � CT9
�' .0
--
3 cu
Co L C Y
O Cn
cn 3 o a)
a)
@ a)
N
m
F
n
co
:m �
p
p
a) N
i
D
O
_`
a I--
a)
O�
a
'O fn
G 7 y
.n
7
y a) n
Co ' a
L
(n
tm = >,
'
a)
U m
p
0 c C n. m
O O V >,
>
C) 7)
1L0 a) cc
F- U
m m
m00M:
o
c>(j�
a? a;
G
O O
z z
^
Tl-
11
r-
C14
4
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
O
Government Code
CHAPTER 30. MUNICIPAL COURTS OF RECORD
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL LAW FOR MUNICIPAL COURTS OF RECORD
(h) A municipal judge is entitled to a salary from the
city,
the amount of which is determined by the governing body of the
city and may not be diminished during the iudge's term of office.
The salary may not be based directly or indirectly on fines,
fees or costs that the Ludge is required by law to collect
during the term of office. The governing body shall set the
salary of an appointed judge before his appointment, and shall
the election filing deadline.
Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 811, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 31,
1987. Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Government Code Sec. 30.486 by
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 8.02, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 2/28/00
Subject: Cancellation of March 13, 2000 Council Meeting Agenda Number: GN 2000 -17
At the February 14 Pre - Council meeting, the Council discussed that there would not be a
quorum present at the March 13 City Council meeting due to a number of the Council
members attending the NLC Conference. The consensus of the Council was to cancel the
March 13 meeting. The City Council therefore needs to officially take action canceling the
March 13 City Council meeting.
Recommendation:
To cancel the March 13 City Council meeting.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
ra, Avxf - °tJ/
Department Head Signature
Finance Review
Account Number
Sufficient Funds Avallatile
Finance Director
City Manag r ignature
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Legal Council Meeting Date: 2/28/2000
Subject: Authorization for Eminent Domain; Resolution No. 2000 -15 Agenda Number: GN 2000 -22
The City has been unable to reach any type of agreement for the right -of -way and
temporary construction easement needed on Parcel 2, RUFE SNOW WIDENING
PROJECT. That tract is owned by Spiritas, Inc. of Dallas. Resolution No. 2000 -15
authorizes the use of eminent domain in the event that the property cannot be purchased
through negotiation.
Recommendation:
To pass Resolution No. 2000 -15.
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Account Number
Bonds (GO /Rev.) Sufficient Funds Av-ailabie
Operating Budget
Other
---- Finance Director
eo— 11101,0,0
epartment Head Signature ity Manager S gna re
Page 1 of
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -15
WHEREAS, the widening of Rufe Snow Drive Project is for a public purpose, which
the Council so finds; and
WHEREAS, the right -of -way and construction easements needed for said project
are needed to further a public purpose, which the Council so finds.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, that:
1.
The City Attorney is authorized to continue negotiations for Parcel No. 2 consisting
of 12,311 square feet of right -of -way and 9,691 square feet of temporary construction
easement with Spiritas, Inc. In the event it cannot be purchased through negotiation of
the parties, then the City Attorney is authorized to exercise eminent domain to acquire the
needed property.
2.
This authorization is for a public purpose, which the Council so finds.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 28th day of February, 2000.
APPROVED:
Charles Scoma, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Parks and Recreation
Department:
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Council Meeting Date:
Subject: Award Bid for Spring Tree Planting at Various Parks to Irricon
eso u Ion No. 2000 -16
2/28/00
Agenda Number: PU 2000 -07
Formal bids were solicited for the Tree Planting Project. Five bids were received, and the results are
outlined below:
Irricon $88,767
Innovative Irrigation and Landscape, Inc. $92,202.87
Miller- Sierra Contractors, Inc. $105,095
Sprinkle and Sprout $144,969
Landscape Design and Construction $52,495 (Did not meet minimum specifications)
The specifications called for trees to be planted at Richfield Park, Walker's Creek Park, Norich Park,
Green Valley Park, Bursey SAC, City Hall, Mid - Cities Boulevard, Bedford - Euless Road, Cross
Timbers Park, Linda Spurlock Park, and North Electric Trail.
Funding was allocated in the approved 1999/00 CIP Budget for this project in the Miscellaneous
Park Development and Cross Timbers Park accounts.
The project also included planting additional trees to provide a greater aesthetic impact at Linda
Spurlock Park. The funding for these additional trees, in the amount of $17,000, is available from the
$59,000 savings in the project balance.
The bid submitted by Landscape Design and Construction was disqualified because it did not
include the required bid bond in their bid package. Irricon submitted the lowest most qualified bid in
the amount of $88,767.
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 "raising the standards for
landscaping and establishing community pride and identity ".
Recommendation:
To award the Spring Tree Planting contract to the low bidder, Irricon, in the amount of $88,767 and
pass Resolution No. 02 00-16 authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract.
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Acct, Number
125- 0000 - 604.79 -00
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Su cientFunds
Available 09 -92 -16 -6000
09-92-24-6000
09 -92 -24 -6000
71
- 71
.Operating Budget
09 -92 -27 -6000
17, 00
Other
owaoi
City Manager
Department. Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -16
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, that:
1.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract with Irricon for the Spring Tree
Planting Project, as the act and deed of the City.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 28th day of February, 2000.
--;6 D
Charles Scoma, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex Mc ntire, Attorney for the City
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Jim Browne, Director of Parks & Recreation
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Parks and Recreation Council Meeting Date: 2/28/00
Subject: Award of Bid for Construction of Thornbridge Park Agenda Number: PU 2000 -08
to Dean Construction — Resolution No. 2000 -18
The bids for the construction of Thornbridge Park were received on Wednesday, January
26, 2000. We received 14 bids as follows:
Dean Construction
$373,600
TLB
$385,174
RBI, Inc.
$400,104
Miller Sierra Contractors
$405,218
Ed A Wilson, Inc.
$410,500
Inform Construction
$439,000
Irricon
$444,370
PI Construction
$449,337
KB Alexander
$469,884
Mid -State Construction
$475,000
Sprinkle N' Sprout
$478,936
MA Vinson Construction
$499,000
Northstar Construction
$525,000
Marathon Contractors
$598,000
Dean Construction submitted the low bid in the amount of $373,600. Dean Construction
was the contractor for Green Valley Park and is the contractor for the construction of Cross
Timbers Park.
Our $300,000 budget for the project was established and funded by the TPWD Grant that
was based on the estimated value of the donation of approximately 33 acres of land by the
developer. The developer has already transferred 11.9 acres, and has confirmed that he
is preparing the property transfer documents for the immediate donation of the remaining
±21 acres.
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Account Number 125 - 0000 - 604.79 -00
Bonds (GO /Rev.) Suffic' Funds Available
Operating Budget
Other L4ZZL6An udget Director
Finance Director . �r&
Department Head Signature city Mana i nature
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Upon evaluating the low bid, approximately $60,000 can be attributed to the fill and
grading work necessary to correct massive erosion problems along the drainage ditch.
However, immediately before the plans and specifications were to be made available for
pickup by perspective bidders, the developer stated that he was unwilling to perform any
more work. Since correcting the erosion was essential, we included the re- grading work in
the plans and specifications for the Park, acknowledging that this additional work could
potentially exceed the budget. The only other area attributable to the higher than expected
bid was the irrigation system cost provided by bidders.
Funding for the $73,600 amount over the budget is available from the Unspecified Park
Fund account balance which is comprised of savings from other projects and sales tax
collections above budgeted amounts.
This complies with City Council Goal #2 "enhancing community pride and identity" and City
Council Goal #5 in "providing quality parks, open space and trails".
Recommendation:
To award the contract for the construction of Thornbridge Park to Dean Construction in the
amount of $373,600, amend the CIP Budget to reflect the additional expenditure and pass
Resolution No. 2000 -18 authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Page Z- of ?
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -18
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS,
that:
1.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract with Dean Construction
for the construction of Thornbridge Park, as the act and deed of the City.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 28t' day of February, 2000.
APPROVED:
Charles Scoma, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
Z / G
Rex McEntire, 4(torney for the City
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Z��
Bill Thornton, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Thornbridge Neighborhood Park
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project provides for critical neighborhood park services in the northeast area of the city. A TPWD
Grant will be submitted for design and construction of the proposed park to
be constructed on land
donated to the city. The value of the donation of the land will provide for the city's chare of
the
matching grant. Improvements include design and construction of a playground, picnic pavilion, practice
backstop, trail, landscaping and irrigation.
PROJECT STATUS
Beginning
Ending
I2J_&
DAM
Grant Preparation
10/97
1/98
Professional Services (In- House)
8/98
1/99
Construction
FINANCIAL DATA
12/99
4/00
uction
$300,000
$0
$73,600
$73,600
Change to
1999/2000
Total
Total
$0
$73,600
Funding Source
Amount to
1999/2000
1999!2000
Revised
Remaining
Project
Date
Budget
Budget
Budget
Budget
Cost
Sales Tax
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$73,600
TWPD Grant Funds
$300,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$300,000
Total
$300,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$373,600
Project Expenditures
Professional Services
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Constr
IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET
Routine park maintenance.
Projected Annual
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
2003/2004
2004/2005
$30, 000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
530,000
330,000
Operating In pact
uction
$300,000
$0
$73,600
$73,600
$0
$373,600
Total
$300,000
$0
$73,600
$73,600
$0
$373,600
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Finance / Police Department Council Meeting Date: 2/28/2000
Subject: Authorize Purchase of Mobile Video /Recorder Cameras Agenda Number:
From Kustom Signal in the Amount of $35,930
PU 2000 -09
In the 1999/2000 approved budget, Council appropriated funds for the purchase of eight
mobile video /recorder cameras to be installed in Police vehicles. These units will replace
equipment that has become unreliable because of age and in constant need of repair.
These are the first units to be seen in the program presented at the Budget Retreat by
Chief Tom Shockley where planned equipment replacement will be budgeted on an annual
basis.
At the April 12, 1992 meeting, Council awarded the contract for this equipment to Kustom
Signal, Inc. for the Eyewitness In -Car Video system. As the fleet has increased, cameras
were purchased and installed in the new vehicles. In order to keep the equipment in the
Police Department fleet compatible, this equipment should be purchased from Kustom
Signal. They are the sole manufacturer and supplier of this equipment.
The total cost for eight mobile video/ recorder cameras will be $35,930.
Recommendation: To authorize the purchase of mobile video /recorder cameras from
Kustom Signal, Inc. in the amount of $35,930.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Finance Review
Account Number 130 - 8004 - 531.74 -05
Suffici Funds Availa e
�_____Rudget Director
Director
Page 1 of
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Finance / Police Department Council Meeting Date: 2/28/2000
Subject: Award Bid for
Amount of $27
to Kawasaki City in the
Agenda Number: PU 2000 -10
In the 1999/2000 approved budget, Council appropriated funds for the purchase of three
motorcycles for the Police Department. Formal bids were solicited for 2000 year model
motorcycles and the results are outlined below.
Kawasaki City $27,657
PFC- Plano Fun Center $30,114
Honda West Kawasaki $31,497
This equipment will be additional equipment needed for three new officers. This will make
a total of eight motorcycle officers and ten motorcycles. The two additional motorcycles
are kept for training, parts and special events where additional officers can be utilized on
motorcycles. Kawasaki City met all the specifications and general conditions of the bid
and can deliver the equipment in 60 days.
Recommendation: To award the bid for three 2000 year model motorcycles to Kawasaki
City in the amount of $27,657.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Finance Review
Account Number 001- 8004 - 531.74 -10
Budget Director
Finance Director
Manager Signature
Page 1 of
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: linance / Support Services Council Meeting Date: 2/28/2000
Subject: Authorize Emer
Purchase of Vehicle from
Hudiburg Chevrolet in
Amount of $19,375
Agenda Number: PU 2000 -11
A City van that was driven by the marshals was recently wrecked and totaled. Since
Municipal Court has three marshals and only one vehicle, Staff is requesting Council to
authorize the emergency purchase of a Chevrolet Impala. Staff obtained three bids for a
Chevrolet Impala that would meet our specs and be available off the dealers lot. The
results are listed below.
Hudiburg Chevrolet $19,375
Showcase Chevrolet $20,033
Classic Chevrolet $20,391
The four -door Impala is the basic vehicle that is currently being purchased for City use, it
will cost less than a van and it meets the needs of the marshals. In order for the marshals
to continue to perform their jobs in an efficient manner a second vehicle is required.
Recommendation: To authorize the emergency purchase of a 2000 -year model Chevrolet
Impala from Hudiburg Chevrolet in the Amount of $19,375.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Department Head Signature
Finance Review
Account Number 510 - 7032 - 712.74 -10
Budget Director
Finance Director
ana e ' nature
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF '
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Finance / Public Works Council Meeting Date: 2/28/2000
Subject: Award Bid for Directional Boring Machine to Vermeer
it of Texas in the Amount
100,725
Agenda Number: PU 2000 -12
In the 1999/2000 approved budget, Council appropriated funds for the purchase of a
directional boring machine to be used by the Construction Division of the Public Works
Department. Formal bids were solicited and the results are outlined below.
Vermeer Equipment of Texas $100,725
Witch Equipment Company $102,530
Staff discovered during the initial research for the bid process there are limited dealers
who manufacture this type of equipment. The equipment is not available through the State
or the HGAC Cooperative Purchasing Programs. The bid opening was extended once in
an effort to try and find additional sources. In addition to the two bids received, two "no
bids" were received. One company stated they could not meet the specifications and
another did not offer the equipment. Currently these are the only dealers who
manufacturer equipment that can be competitive and meet our specifications.
Recommendation: To award the bid for a directional boring machine to Vermeer
Equipment of Texas in the amount of $100,725.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
,^ \ /7 �
Finance Review
Account Number 407 - 0000 - 712.79 -00
SufBcie .pt Funds Available
----Budget Director
Director
ME
Page 1 of
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Finance
Subject: Authorize Contract Extension for Uniform
rvices to Dove Cleaners — Resolution No.
Council Meeting Date: 2/28/2000
Agenda Number: PU 2000 -13
In the 1999/2000 approved budget, Council appropriated funds for uniform cleaning,
alteration and repair services for various departments. Last year formal bids were solicited
and the contract was awarded to Dove Cleaners. An analysis was performed and it was
determined they provided the most cost effective bid for the City. Dove Cleaners has
offered to extend the contract an additional year at the 1999 bid prices. The specifications
and contract contain a condition that the contract can be extended for two additional one
year terms providing the company has provided good service and met all the requirements
of the contract.
Dove Cleaners has been awarded the contract several times and they have always
provided excellent service. They provide quick service when leaving or picking up
cleaning, drive - through service, and "in by 9 out by 5" turn around for cleaning. All these
services are very beneficial and important for departments that utilize the contract,
particularly the Police Department.
Recommendation: To authorize the one -year contract extension for uniform cleaning,
alteration and repair services to Dove Cleaners and pass Resolution No. 2000 -08
authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Head
Finance Review
Account Number Various
y
Budget Director
lft/ Finance Director
Vr Signature
Page 1 of
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -08
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, that:
1.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract extension with Dove
Cleaners to provide uniform cleaning, alteration and repair services, as the act and deed of
the City.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 28th day of February, 2000.
....• Jii
Charles Scoma
Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex McEntire, Attorney for the City
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Larry Ko ce, Director of Finance
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 02/28/00
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider the Request of Robert Leeper Agenda Number.LRC 2000 -01
for a Variance to the Landscaping Regulations to allow a five -foot landscape buffer from
residential property where a 15 -foot buffer is required, on Lot 3R, Block 1, North Park
Plaza Addition. (Located in the 6500 Block of Rufe Snow Drive)
General Description The applicant has submitted an application to vary from the
Landscaping Regulations of Ordinance No. 2423. The applicant is proposing to develop an
office building containing a total of 4,865 square feet on a lot containing 33,390 square feet
in a C -2- Commercial District. The lot is adjacent to R3 residential properties in North
Park Estates. The site plan shows that 35% of the lot is landscaped area where a
minimum of 15% is required.
Landscape Variance The applicant is requesting a variance to the following section:
Section 23 Buffer Yard Requirement adjacent to Single Family — The minimum width
of the buffer yard is 15 feet and is required to have a six -foot masonry screening wall
and one large tree planted per 30 linear feet, 40% of the planted trees shall be
evergreen.
The applicant is proposing to provide a five -foot landscape buffer and an eight -foot
screening wall from the residential properties in North Park Estates. The applicant intends
to provide the required trees every 30 linear feet and has committed that the remainder of
the site will be in compliance with the Landscape Regulations.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
The applicant can not physically meet the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance
because the property is triangular in shape and thus creates physical hardships due to the
meeting the front building line setback and the 25 foot driving lane requirement.
RECOMMENDATION:
To approve the variance for LRC 2000 -01 to the Landscaping Regulations.
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
i thgr aj
re
L\Cases\Landscape Review Committee \LRC2000 -01-40 Dentist.doc
Account Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Finance Director
2�
Manager i ature
Page 1 of 1
LRC 2000 -01
'711, :"
47 V�
10 0500 RUFE SNOW DRI _
!d 46 -- - -_
16 �- 46 SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST 3 12 t3 i
�cs is
14 >i J Is « e3 67 to ae
16 1 �S / is a a s ° R
t1 l6 n W 7 ' 2 3 4 3 6 7 3 9 n n 2 13 x S S 17 s S 20 l
//I e 17 x'34 ,� 4 3 2 1 a e T 29
to 33 - ► ` o \I' 6 `7 i e 6 r a 9 D ' a n ,E Ss ss 7z J1 Je 26 27 211 a zs l 2J 12 I
n 18 ,[AV a* _, ` 1 a m !n GLENHURST DR
♦f u
a
30 u 10 I1 m a 1 a 1 BERT\ E n.-'� 2 3 4 s e 6 9 n n a u x b e n C
1e Ni 24 a
14 ;n i I �1 ° �� a 1 4 3 �� S 32 JI >D 29 7D Z7 26 a 2. 23 22 1 21 p B S 2
u /n u 7 L �� a p •,, GLENWOOD DR h
3. n
1!323
31 - - �- a a ! f� t 2 3 4 S 6 7 6 9 D n n O
2 /a l 1 ���a,so uj ti
b a �� a 24 a oo 27 �1 �, . -oN > 5 ti -
zo ., NV%`l Cs2 zo..� 24 a z2 a m e e n e
as 6 a 4 3 2 G 1371 2t,'pQ
n 1e ARBORBROOK DR �b2
in n 10 1a t4 n n 9 it to �_ -� �� . .
I 61
,3 PRE f�
as 27 Z QRY AtiA 2 .
' 3o a RRGE�G�( Sr° illy1' _ N L 2s i n e e x a n n x
za . -
_1 a a skl G �p�55 n- SUNRISE OR 57
a 23 ` - - -t � j zo 49 50 I St 1 a2 1 i7 ; 54 55 %
14
-Me za TRIP z9 .
1 24 2 C -1 b q 46 45 4.t 43 42
31
MID - CITIES BLVD.
C-1
1� TR I I 6 • 7R,,, 1 na i
Trim
cm
71.1 I— -
4A F wl
1 : , 3 1� 6 - pjS pgT{��IY to
3 to
15 4 14 19
t6 -� 28 , s S,�pTSE ti SVg� �� 1• C 1 �o.�e°
17
W 3e 4a 4R
6 R -7 -MF
�, rr - 1
° >s x - a a
o n3
s u
1 to Z4 o 23 ! mu2
a aa�' a to
24125 1a �aa '1� ,o �'a� °
zr � s I � 3 C -1
a a 16 �a \ ORCHARD
a Q x
a!
17
b I � 2{ �� 6 - / � to 19 41 Z � 140 1 I
u u �2 a, -- - — -
1 Lt) 6 7 e 9 p 1 3 _ W 1�
6 o
1 — - pg �L �G
2 ' 4 -_i l
1. 1 l�'6_ Y
a I� ' 2e �19 �ie 117'is1 6 S�pY
� I � i I �
_ e e
3D 24 26 I as 127 178 ' 29 30 m �7 J
32 9 TR10
9A 2 ` 9 , I R -7 -MF 1-2
° 1414
7 ° i 9 10 ll lE 13 I l4 ! 1414
3 I to n ,o j —B__i
all L
4 16 �. a a U
30 27 26 I u, I a I a 120 B to 2 I.
to <Ea�
32 to 16 14 n 1u 1. �to o e 7 e I STARDUST DR 0
1L ' m ° 4 u ER I -
40 50 a 1 It n
It 3 �\ ~' Ia 16 1�` 16 11 n 12 11 a 2
�-�-- l t6 I tl 27
�\ '1 17 16 ,9 1
7 t1 112 n 14 16 6 ' /� 1
1 a
° b �
n 6
=- - - - -- -- -- -
_ NORTH - - - -- _ - -
RICHLAND
"KH
(Please print or type all responses)
PART 1. APPLICANT IN
Name of aoolicant
Street address
G-1 OG -
M
Are you the owner of the
property?
Yes No
PART 2. SUBJECT
Subject Property Legal Des
LCIT 3R S1
LANDSCAPE REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION
City of North Richland Hills
7301 NE Loop 820
North Richland Hills, TX
MATION 817 581 -5500
c'S
tom.
Are you the'owner's agent?
Yes F] No
ROPERTY INFORMATIOI
Subject Property Street Address:
G's E1O RJ y`. S+v17W 'DIZI 'i C.
PART 3. REQUEST TYPE
Z.
UP Zp
Telephone number of applicant:
FAX number of applicant:
NOTE: If you are not the owner of the property, you must attach
a letter from the property owner giving you permission to submit
this application.
s=
Interpretation Request Landscape Variance Request Nonconforming Use
Current zoning classification: Note: A map or plot plan of the property and drawings of the proposed
construction must be submitted with this application. The applicants or their
representatives must be present at their scheduled public hearing.
II hereby certify that I am, or that I represent, the legal owner of the property described above and do hereby submit this request for a
variance for consideration by the Landscape Board Review.
Date__5 I 2U O
Print Name _[ 7 Signature
PART 4. FOR OFFICE USE O
Date of Review Board Public Heanng:
Variance Approved:
Yes No
Taxes, Liens and _ Assessments I
0 Yes ❑ No
Date of Final Action:
Case Number
X-' c� , ��- o�
Fees: $175.00
Conditions of Approval: This request will not be scheduled for hearing
until the ap o}'fL is -paid;
K:Vnary\LANDSCAPING1Landscape Application.doc 05199
<21 l
PART 5. DESCRIPTION " REQUEST
List the pertinent section(s) of the Landscape Regulations and indicate the specific
interpretation(s), variance(s), or nonconforming use exception(s) being requested.
r)°rrrzAC4 tSo. 2
-'r A ►�1� tit Qi n
State the grounds for the request and detail any special conditions that cause hardships that in
Your opinion justify the variances or exceptions being requested. Explain any unique
circumstances, if applicable, not considered by the Landscaping Regulations:
'r4l s L-U T .� ►�IYJ
N' � C..11 —•t f 3 � ►? C� ��cS= r—�(: �[ —� ` T j-�(� 1G �.S FT L�l��t c ,1 �
�4 �D° 0�1�.T_ C-A0 t' ► I SID gu I r rat f�c
4 A D 0, i�,�tC- IQ r
KAmary1LANDSCAPING1Landsca 5
pe Application.doc 05/99
CITY OF
NORTH RICHL4ND HILLS
Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 02/28/00
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider the Request of The Vincent Agenda Number: PZ 99-46
Association + Architects for U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for a Special Use Permit for
a Convenience Store with a Car Wash in a "C -1" Commercial District. The property is
located at 8612 Davis Boulevard at the southeast corner of Precinct Line Road on
Proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Vista Addition. Ordinance No. 2459
Case Summary
The Vincent Association + Architects is requesting a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a
convenience store with a car wash on proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Vista Addition (8612 Davis
Boulevard). 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
1.30 acres. The proposed total building will contain 4,571 square feet. The convenience
store is proposed to contain 3,633 square feet and the car wash is proposed to contain
938 square feet. The site plan shows 15 off - street parking spaces are being provided and
15 spaces are required.
A car wash facility in the C -1 District always requires a specific use permit. Convenience
stores in a C -1 District require a specific use permit if they are within 200' of a residential
area. A convenience store is defined as a retail store, not a grocery store, where a limited
amount of prepackaged food items are primarily sold as a quick service facility with self
service gas sales as an accessory use.
The landscape plan shows approximately 26.7% of the total lot is devoted to landscaping
and 15% is required. The applicant's original application indicated a driveway entrance on
Precinct Line Road totally on Lot 1. Public Works recommended the driveway approach
on Precinct Line Road be shared with the adjacent property owner to the south. The
proposed driveway has been revised to reflect a shared driveway entrance. Driveway
approaches on Precinct Line Road are required to' be 500 feet apart. The applicant is
proposing a single monument sign that is in accordance with the Sign Regulations.
PZ 99 -33 approved a Specific Use Permit for a convenience store with a car wash on the
northeast corner of Davis Boulevard and Precinct Line Road. (Lot 1, Block 1, Gibson
Addition)
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
JID 1
ead Signature
Finance Review
Account Number
Sufficient Funds AVallable
Finance Director
City Mana a Signature
\ \NRH_CITY HALL2 \VOL1 \DATA\PZ\Cases \PZ Cases\PZ 99 -46-42 SUP US Restaurant Properties.doc Page 1 of 2
r
0
-4
0
n
F•w
0 0
Z
C � .
b
m
O
O
iF
y
(D
b(D
O
3
W
OD C*
lD
�G
10 0 O
in
1 od
o' x
o 0 0
�'�
o
1- -3 b
Fd
in x�
zDQ�rro°�0�hoaN�
x H
Ch W, 11
`� y9�o
PO) tl 0 a�
o roty0
o �x��� UI
�t7d C�
D
�b a� (D
ED
Zb
P.tj C , x
C+' O
(D
VCD00 `°0x
°
7
C+ ooNb.r
o
cy
a,C+- o
�x�'O�
`~
Z
Z y`°
►�� n
�
fo
0
0
0 o�c
CO
o a 0
ro�
0
o ro
ro
°to
�Q1z
�0
y
fi
H
`C y C
.
V
0
HO
0
(D y �
>1
N
(D
'a
a ID
C
a
�Om00�0
O
fA
0
-4
0
n
0 0
=Z�
b
m
_
WCh
b(D
O
3
z0)
.+
Q
�G
rn
a
1 od
��
�'�
o
� �"
��iy�d
Fd
t°~
�o
o
0(AQ
O
00
C+' O
(D
►i �r r-.. (D
7
(�
Ix
o
cy
010
P.
o
O
F
)
o
fo
D
(U��
CO
�°
0
(D
°to
ado
a.
>1
��
'a
i
O
-4
0
n
0 0
=Z�
m
_
O
3
O
7
.+
Q
0
al_
A
20
x
0(AQ
O
O
D
7
n
O
F
)
o
fo
n
�°
0
(D
a0
��
'a
C
�Om00�0
O
fA
O
0
a
>
fi
r•
w
O
(D
O
EO
rn
o
a
O
0
1
x
N
NNa
�
N
ro
O
eZ
ti
0
W
N-4
(O
C�
((D11
a
a
i
O
0 0
070
=0
a. a
to
500
0(AQ
7
n
0
-0
za
fo
n
�°
C
�Om00�0
O
0
a
>
O
O
EO
o
a
O
1
x
(D
N
O
eZ
W
C�
n
ca
>✓
cD
P,
W
(A
4
V
N
O)
(WO
OD
W
(D
(D
0
0
V
O
-''o
PN
..
(0
cDi
O
14
"-000
O)
O)�
U
m
OD
O
O
O
O
N
Oo
0
0
W
1
1
1�
1
1
1
0
04
09
04
09
0%4
m
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Surrounding Future Land Uses
The subject property is designated as Commercial.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission at their public hearing on February 10, 2000,
recommended approval of PZ 99-46 for a Specific Use Permit for convenience store with a
car wash on proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Vista Addition at 8612 Davis Boulevard by a vote of
7 to 0 with the following conditions:
➢ Require a shared driveway entrance on Precinct Line Road
➢ Approval of the exterior building elevations submitted on February 10, 2000.
The conditions for approval have been met by the applicant.
To approve Ordinance 2459 and PZ 99-46 as recommended by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
L: \Cases \PZ Cases \PZ 99 -46-42 SUP US Restawanr rroperues.aoc Page 2 of 2
Future Land Use
North:
Commercial
South:
Commercial
East:
Commercial
West:
Commercial
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission at their public hearing on February 10, 2000,
recommended approval of PZ 99-46 for a Specific Use Permit for convenience store with a
car wash on proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Vista Addition at 8612 Davis Boulevard by a vote of
7 to 0 with the following conditions:
➢ Require a shared driveway entrance on Precinct Line Road
➢ Approval of the exterior building elevations submitted on February 10, 2000.
The conditions for approval have been met by the applicant.
To approve Ordinance 2459 and PZ 99-46 as recommended by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
L: \Cases \PZ Cases \PZ 99 -46-42 SUP US Restawanr rroperues.aoc Page 2 of 2
- -rtrrar
I-R I AIC TR2
L
TR1C5
T.S-A
TRIC5 TR C5
1L
� I A
PZ 99-4 6
SE CORNER DAVIS /PR
ECINCT LINE ROAD
SUP /C -STORE /CAR WASH /RESTAURANTPZ 99-47
11
�
��II ti��(,
`R,J" l �I TRIC+ 1
Twee
' TRIC I 7R1C1 i TRICe TR1BA
-
.Rt .� KELLER CITY LIMITS
-n.til 'R.,IC TR.B3
49 C-1
+ 4,00 TRll
c� 2'06
2306
I
T ,e� G
,C1 y Y ,5 1 ` TRIIIA
p�
O �R v A 141y63
» -PACT - C -1.
_
TRI73
Z =SATE !
6 7-3 u
TR u
iU J
.9
TR1C TR
RJOF ID
TRIE TRiH TRU,
DR Q� '"AG
TR.Dn Q O p
32
T iRCN ul- iRDN
51 0 37 TR.iT A G /Q/ R�� ti,P�
!1 V 1i TR [Al V � X63 TRIC ITRID TRIE TRIII TAIJ,
4
A G W
rR.EIET n 1
J5 < tcE Z W MURPHY RD
lv
I
u
I
16
J
~
'15
11
AG 6,3
10
20
I 6
21
15A
14
BIB
14A
23
e
C — 2 TRIM
5
V
TRACT F
1
26
3
2T
Z
H is
U
19
1
TRACT
TRDat TR.
A)81
*R.DC2 TR.Q71
TREDI
W
IC
I AG
V
17
Y
12
�
RIM
u
-1
C-1
eDC
-R n[
Ia
D
W
575 Rw
1254 TR%78
rR.(D
20
A:
9
TRW A G
:O
z1
e
c
R.rs
LL
z
T
SHADY GROVE ROAD
7
a i
e
1
i
TA.9A
i
'RAC7 SA
24
5
/
2215
25
4
TR.9g
I
I
3
TRACT 3A
27
2
RAC7 3C1 "FACT .AI
NORTH TARRANT
PKWY
TRACT 3AI
1
2
15
I
u
I
16
IT
I Iz
le
11
A� n
10
20
I 6
21
B
22
7
23
e
24
5
4
26
3
2T
20
1:
IC
b
a
e
5
4
3
T
-iL
I
I
4.
PZ 99-46
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE VINCENT
ASSOCIATION + ARCHITECTS FOR U.S. RESTAURANT PROPERTIES, INC.
FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A CAR
WASH IN A C1- COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
8612 DAVIS BOULEVARD AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PRECINCT
LINE ROAD ON PROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VISTA ADDITION.
The applicant requested the public hearing scheduled on January 27, 2000 be
tabled due to the inclement weather. The Planning and Zoning Commission
voted 5 -0 to table the public hearing to February 10, 2000.
The Vincent Association + Architects is requesting a Specific Use Permit (SUP)
for a convenience store and car wash on proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Vista 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 1.30 acres. The proposed total building will contain 4,571 square feet.
The convenience store is proposed to contain 3,633 square feet and the car
wash is proposed to contain 938 square feet. The site plan shows 15 off - street
parking spaces are being provided and 15 spaces are required.
The landscape plan shows approximately 26.7% of the total lot is devoted to
landscaping and 15% is required. The proposed driveways have been
reviewed, Public Works has recommended the driveway approach on Precinct
Line Road be shared with the adjacent property owner to the south. The
applicant is proposing a single monument sign that is in accordance with the Sign
Regulations.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve PZ 99 -46 for a
Specific Use Permit for convenience store with a car wash on proposed Lot 1,
Block 1, Vista Addition at the northeast corner of Davis Boulevard and Precinct
Line Road.
Chairman Bowen opened the public hearing and called the applicant forward.
Mr. Scott Ballard, applicant, presented request stating that he did not have a
problem moving the driveway should the Commission so desire.
Seeing no additional proponents and no opponents, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Blue, moved to approve PZ 99-46 provided the
driveway along Precinct Line Road is a shared drive with the adjoining
property owner to the southeast and accepting the new elevations. The
motion carried unanimously.
P & Z Minutes
February 10, 2000
'NRH APPLICATION FORA city of �' R`� z "�
rx
SPECIAL USE PERMIT i �`x0°2°
(I or*+r v eyo. r NOM RichWv Kft Twat
PART 1. APPLI Me S17- 381-ssen
ORMATION
wit / aoenr
e vincent Association + Architects
10015 Technology Blvd West Suite 151
:ib / State / Iip Cold of eppbcant / agsnr
Dallas, TX 75220
PART 2. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
ame of nnYU&'%.
repnor►e number of appuCant /agent:
214 - 351 -5400
U.S. Restaurant Properties Inc. , J Scott Ballard
hoer
'Gty / State / Zrp Cods of property owner.
Attactr letter or atsdant hom prpperty owner d dfi%rent hom apdreant /
agent.•
rew"c ay applrcabon.
I X Yes No
mono numpsr of pmpsrty owner
972 -387 -1487 x1r)
7evrt attached ham propertyy owrtsr If applicant is not owner.
X . Yes No
TART 3. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
:urrent zoning ctessrfrcabon: T "opose0 use of ,Ire
Aropsr7y
C- 2
Commercial
the nature of the proposed activity and any particular :lraractenstics ,slated to the use of ttre pn�peny
Thg-rP will be a small restaurant and convient store located
`inside the gas station. The gas station will also have a
�ttaar Site plan whrCh :UnftXrns NnM n
B_ Yes
--- wvw in r713 paC9eC
L_ No
Date: December 13, 1 9 9 9
pnnrName David Porter
PART 4. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Heannq:
If Iran► ompony owner if applicant �s not owner
i Yes No
l Eby awtry that i am, or tipr*.senf. ti» legal owner of me Property
described above and do hwvby subnrt Nis St for approval of a
Specar use Per*rrit ro " °'an'1"'ga►+nrission for eo�aie
_ -_ Yes = Aid -- ......,.� .i / /
is PW?
Yes No
�.rscrel Jse perm,( Approved:_ Assss.Vtrsnts Paid?
Yes No
L_ Yes NO
=o^ v+s of Approval
$300.00
This appmeabw WW not bo
sOneduled for pu06c hos Mg
until appk ahon the is rwe-ed
ORDINANCE NO. 2459
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 WITH A 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 -46, a Special Use Permit be hereby authorized for a
Convenience Store with a Car Wash on property as proposed to be platted as Lot 1,
Block 1, Vista Addition and addressed as 8612 Davis Boulevard 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 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 No. 2459
Page 1 of 3
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.
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 10th DAY OF
FEBRUARY, 2000.
Chairman, Plafinind afid Zoning mmission
Secretary, Planning and Zoning Commission
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 281th DAY OF FEBRUARY,
2000.
ATTEST.•
City Secretary
City of North Richland Hills, Texas
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ffephrtment'He6d7,
Ordinance No. 2459
Page 2 of 3
Charles Scoma, Mayor
City of North Richland Hills, Texas
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Attorney for the City
Ordinance No. 2459
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 02/28/00
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.
This application was originally heard by City Council on February 14, 2000. However, there
was no representation from the applicant, resulting in the application being tabled to
February 28.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning & Zoning Commission, at the January 27, 2000 meeting, recommended 5 -0
approval as submitted.
To approve PS 99-44 as submitted.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Finance Review
Account Number
Sufficient Funds Availaole
Finance Director
C
e d Signature MY -Manager Si 2'a re
KACases\PS Cases \PS 99 -01-41 Walgreens amended.dot Page 1 of 1
AG
AG IA [.
IN.I•.Aa
:.A` I IN.IaAI I IIi HAA I IItnAJ I I—-
-1 -s R -2
207 - 1 199
III.[M,IA \\
i o
N
LH
Z
PS 99 -44
LOTS 16R & 17R, BLOCK 10, OAK HILLS
7216 & 7220 SPRING OAK DRIVE
n
[;O;C:► —
u, 1 R A•i O-N n• � ' dR
CR-�2 =15.00
AG
�°
C-1
r
2151 gO uo-wv rta.arr�a.r
-- – m -- -- — -- --- - =
L i 7- C-1
Iu" Ie >
2151
u �
HIA•LEAH CIR N - --
- -- — — 3 w1�
R• -2 0 u
`wua, L, �''} TAMAA•MI ' ; 3' \ \ 1 422 O
Cl , O�
1430 vD W„ , O R 3.
O
y -E:R;G OWD E -ICM P 1 J —� — F p 145,2
R"1` i HIALEAH CIR S�
I
123
R . 3
\,
F3 i I ., _ ( � � � 1452 " .� � - \1 .I -` \•
Cp
C,
0-1 Q, _
p v ��r R_3 1159 Qs
�U �^ ti R- 3 O 1452
�.. v
ASHCRAfT DIR_2 G
Y'JLlhU
a P
1104 , `1637' - �r,C,
R- 2 LLJ
N Z
MAR l t L
I v� �: �u J 1 ,✓
(li
��� �v �)'vA' < W
� I i I Ali q _
R -3 „
z
IASON
z1 \\ GHQ a Jq (• F {yet NO -
=\ LOw ER
u
1936
II+�C '•� J \ .- \ O , y 'Z..' -.. �..� it _.. �... _- A :hl u, n lio,•
J— 99 17'. li. J5 1„•+
uu,n
OPTED: March 22. 1993 CURRENT THROUGH: Ordinance 2360, January 11, 1999t "� '• ,� .,,,.,, �,,,,. :unc:9.� ^' ��'
FROM : BLOXOM FAX NO. : 4285265 1.� Dec. 22 1999 03:00PM P1
1J.l ts n
P O 10, VU rAd all toLduva rb;b, Ub A.Nll ,SSUCIAUS
Dec -14_99 10:29A NRH PW&PZ Administration 8l7 427 r4ioa Wool
T) sq� 44 o oa
RECD DEC 2 21999
;ao: K.L L a m Appl191M in for Subdivision Plot Approval
NmIhm wHftTxzsleo
917- sa1 -W,s
ApplleeBOR
"] PmIm kmq P w Finat Rat F7 FWplat �Sfwtt Foam 2�AmwWW Plat
pmpeny owe► iteEbalmtlm;
Name of PropNV Oar:
(Aftso
of
PO k—
_�.
f ,ae. C
A w"d subdtwwan -
L045 rG 9 0 mxm
of Awes in tw
-- of t of In Im
AtrihariAd AJoutt ltd;
%6" An 4lf➢di V* ulanedby the WRWVhr DMOM is mgamd when the a raw the WVPWV Off"
Name of Autlloriasd Ago* f'h" No.
Address:
W.
Swelgr °r�@t�fneer �►�ttlOr�; �_�
Nance of Firm:
�-�J ee • Phorw (Va.
Address: , - 5 j c s
...
Co Roan
MAE Pop CdaAQfb": -
AN ftAbmWypgft
a- AAAimion AW
e. Z1,SOwrnl�eefr�er
of Sd.CO pK pp Apr
raw PO
1140.00
ARIL WRL sronFw.MjKawofilaftft
a• k P". 1 .6 1 rm. SINA0
b. $I Mpwnlsid n" bf
er, tfAbAa►etn�noWaoaa: _
CL fIIwAw#8A~ sdwse�ax
d. r.***Iirwrg&W 2 ".
raw Far
To", Wi►'rK Request (apps
rftal am81wrwalarea" wsltispr /trrdrwmw0d %ibrr�orelbatl7snYAm1 ardae►eraimy
�'�IOAMlla/snpid
Q. o
SrT SAQ a iL
2: -7
A�IMAIId phar
;fir, arm f70: oww
� �+N'�s°8 iiw idR.00
turd Air: �Se L0
. ���A�pjykrGi�
far'
l �1#YrNr � rrL d nmra�nt the arwd OM 0
DAL. 12-z
mm P060
subdtrwon Pfst Ap~cm
dew bwak" andhw by
C-a �C O rr 1
a
0
CD- 416(1 -1+3)
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
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 02/28/00
subject: Public Hearing to Consider Request of Scott Tumage Agenda Number: SRC 2000 -04
for a variance from the Sign Regulations, Ordinance No. 2374, Section 13, to vary from
the Non - Residential Monument Sign Requirements. The property is known as Block 25,
Snow Heights Addition in an R2- Single Family District. The property is located at 4801
Vance Road (Snow Heights Elementary School).
Mr. Scott Turnage representing the PTA of Snow Heights Elementary School has
submitted a proposed monument sign to be located at 4810 Vance Road. The PTA
proposes to remove the existing 13 foot pole and replace with a 7.5 foot monument sign.
The proposed sign is proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Vance Road and
Shauna Drive. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the $175 application fee.
Cindy Seale, PTA President, will be at the meeting to present the request.
The proposed sign is shown to be located approximately 7 feet from the property line along
Shauna Drive. The sign dimensions are 8 feet by 4 feet. The sign message area is
approximately 32 square feet. The proposed monument sign does not meet the current
Sign Ordinance Regulations. Listed below are the requested variances.
1. Section 2.C.2 Construction Standards
All freestanding sign structures shall be constructed with or covered with the masonry
material to match the masonry portion of the principle building or shall be constructed of
brick or stone. The applicant is requesting a 100% variance.
2. Section 13.A.3.a.4 Monument Signs - General
The sign message area shall be surrounded by at least 8" of sign structure. The applicant
proposes to provide metal sign structure on the bottom and partially on the side. The
applicant is requesting a 100% variance.
3. Section 12.A.3.c.3.a. Non - Residential Monument Sign Maximum Height
For a sign located in an area less than 10 feet from the property line the maximum height
is 7 feet. The applicant is requesting to vary by 6 inches.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
The PTA is proposing to eliminate an existing non - conforming 13 pole sign and replace it
with a 7.5 foot monument sign. The applicant has noted that to move the proposed sign 10
feet from the property line along Shauna will create a hardship because of an existing tree.
Tree preservation on school property is desirable to preserve the existing landscaping.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Signature
Finance Review
Account Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Finance Director
re
\ \NRH_CITY_HALL2 \VOL1 \DATA \PZ\Cases \Sign Review Committee \SRC 2000 -04 Scott Tumage Snow Heights.doc Page 1 of 2
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
The PTA has been working on replacing the existing pole sign for 4 years. The Sign
Regulations were adopted on March 15, 1999.
RECOMMENDATION:
To approve the requested variances for SRC 2000 -04 at 4801 Vance Road, Block 25,
Snow Heights Addition. To consider the request to waive the application fee.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
L: \Cases \Sign Review Committee \SRC 2000 -04 acwa r wnaye allow neiynrs.uoc
Page 2 of 2
�fl
1R
A4Y 1
C-2
3
— C 11OR�1j - - -13 - - -- - - ---14
ZR J• �0 3 t
1130
3 � 62 JR
O 1�Z
2
z R
W 1�p4
U. 4� C•2 Sj30�1 �hO
.14 1398
y 188 2 �ozi
p
t-- I
NORTH EAST LOOP 820
S
n X
-•1
16 i 17 R -7 -MF
2
C 1
3 12
39� t
1 1
4
LRC 2000 -04 -1 n
20
4801 VANCE ROAD i
SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST I za R 2 3 •�
2 + t6 n + n 4 1 n a 1
1 —R �-� 1 `' � w e 6•p� �W� p
m O D LA29 R4 U e L \ 3 e r 3 v z
y n x �i Q 5 a a T7 6 D
°` LAKES DR 2 0 15 t }} 2 6 4 K i 2 2 ID M A 2 O
< 3 ti 3 9 9 3 v
t
A.
11 \ x 23 8 4 4 3 x x
flR \ r / S
a
2 LR OR 9 U
7 6 S 7 5 7 6 5 a < <
J 3 / 4 �1 KAREN DR -
5
4 IBNV! 1R2A3
1 5 6 D
s pOWRIDGE CT IR2A"
MEN
n °,�e��
td 15 14 1 a\\ 10
+
13 x a is
2 a l
1 TR�A
CAR STON
2 3 7R2Au
4
D �A 5 4 3
1P1'Al
S
• 2 3 4 5 6 R-1
7 1 ILLSIDE CT 1R2A2
7
D 9
6 D
r 1 1 1
An a U x 16 n a
4 2 2 OUAIL RIDGE DR
D >9
H
7te 3 J W
r C 20
4 4 N A
.J O ?7
5 = 31 RKRIDGE DR N
-6 6 EE2 I 6 T
v 2
7 a
J
e eR 1 DIAMOND RIDGE DR
4
9 1 y n D 9 8 7 6 5
6
�i Q'
I 5 �{f�! +� 2 7
e 9 D n a
1
2
3
4
S 6
7
° 9
D
n
a
u
28
27
Zn
a
24
23 zz
21
p t9 D
n
8
-
oa
eye ee
ov
................
................
................
WMIMP
at 3
3 s s a 7 e + 2
2 4
6 R -3 1 0 cog s
x u a ITI
u �x t i
I 2 U x E
I
E 2 I
I
e 3 a s
D n 4 `5 e o
OLIVER OR 7 D c
3 y r
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a D 6
1 2 ° to 6 r
R
1 4
7
7 26 7
7
! n A 4 x U E n 8 7 5_ 6,_- Tt ._ ° -- .
n
n a
a e
e 7
7
D 6
6
e 3 a s
D n 4 `5 e o
OLIVER OR 7 D c
3 y r
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a D 6
1 2 ° to 6 r
R
1 4
7
7 26 7
7
! n A 4 x U E n 8 7 5_ 6,_- Tt ._ ° -- .
*l t
GO SNOW
ISnow Heights I
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
III
,CAN
fir,- -n *: v TV
SIGN ORDER FORM
The J.M. STEWART CORPORATION 1-M -237 -3928
Markl 2201 CANTU COURT, SUITE 217 -218, SARASOTA, FL 34232 941- 378 -4242
FOR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING ORDER, PLEASE CALL YOUR SIGN CONSULTANT TOLL FREE
SIGN SPECIFICATIONS
TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Name as it is to appear on sign:
SNOW HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Sign Specifications:
Model .............. Mascot
Size ............... Standard 4' x 8'
Sgl /Dbl Sided...... Double Sided
Mounting Method.... Anchor Bolts
Cabinet Color...... Royal Blue
Leg Height......... 3' 2"
Internally Illuminated
Faces:
Background Color... Royal Blue
Type........... Translucent Vinyl
Name Color......... White
Draft Color........ White
Symbol Number...... S225 W /COPY
Message Center.....
# of Lines.....
# of Letters...
Vandal Cover...
SIGN
CONSULTANT
Yes
4 Lines of 4 Inc
495 Black Letter
Yes
PRICES
Order Number ..... # 228785
Customer Number..# 1167844
Sign .............$ 4,529.00
Vandal Cover ..... $Included
Symbol ........... $Included
Storage Case ..... $Included
Cowling ..$Included
Total Sale ...... $
Deposit Rec'd .... $
Actual freight charges will
be added to final invoice.
Applicable State Sales Tax
will be added to your invoice
for customers in CA, FL, IA,
IN, NC, SC, SD, & VA.
These Prices Guaranteed for 60 Days only.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
FREIGHT ESTIMATE $ 365. 00��j'" Tt 'k'" * # # * # # # # * # # # # # # # # # # * * * * * * **
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:
TITLE:
H O
D F
S n
SNOW HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLp�
D p
N
O
N
L
��/ ]�(j ✓/
k • � I+ l S� 7h 7(«
� O
1'" IL•
N
SNOW HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
N
Attn: SUE TURNAGE
✓GHG� �'
s o
SNOW HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0
6Cii3 —C1c *3 ark ri r- le ��
N C
6213 Skylark Circle
P
Fevt h, %ISb
Fort Worth, Tx 76180
Ph: 817- 420 -5017
T
0
See Reverse Side for Terms, Ordering Procedure & Warranty Information 4/15/98
.J
-- — •6" O.C. (
�i
c6 IZ- O.G. 7
12" O.C.
J 41.
T I I f
7'S' I l-- . _ _ e.. O.C. - -
X -2'
R :w1 VAVLE RLANK
ELECIRIC:AL COVER
TOR CONNECTION
0; p1owfM
GRADE
�!
UNJiAgRt-vkD N
3' -IJ _ ,_
WMDUIT FFENEEM
4Y:MDR SOLY5
OR E(rKat LFv
KDTT ON
r— —
soma.( st: -TV SIGNS.
AA-C►10 THE acv
1. eS TALC 0
N R ZH( .S4
1
FRAME & LAMP DETAIL
Scale: 318' = 1'
`J
r
-
L
I 6� 7'QY�EIBI
1
i 6- 1•WIIETBi
Hm
3' / H3
( T3fiTiiC I1FT
4
4-4
L—, .s- °um
1 BASE PLATE DETAIL
1
i
Scale: 3/4, =1'
J
»-
I
I
SPECIFICATIONS
FRW E
1 7' ALUMINUM EXTRUSIO);
2. I 1/2' EVIRUDTD AWIAINUM RETAINER
J. 21 GA. GG!VANEA:ED 9.41 TECIICH
4. 1 1/:' c 1 112' L 1/6' AILIMUiUM ANGLE
S. PAILAST . JEFFERSON 256.4106 I RiQUIRZO
6. LAMPS - FV6112 CW/kO 4 :.EOUIRE0
7. SOCKETS KULKA DOUPLF CO`:TACI SNAP IN
LAMP HOLDERS 587G A 553G
S. ELECTRIC OUT PROVISION
9. [' p S' 1 I /d" SQUARE 1UFE /WEIDED AT JOIKTS
IQEJ -COIF 5;AL)
10. 5110' a I 1/2' SELS- TAPPING PO11S 4 PEOU14FO
I1. 6' : 12' S 1;2' PAST PLA:ES 2 RECJIRTD
12. 3/4' a JD' J -POETS A A -0UMED
13, 05 HESAR GRADE 6D OR BETTER LE EACH JOINT
:SUPPLIED BY CLn10ATFR)
IA. CONDUR (SUPPLIED (!Y CUSTOMER)
15. 1/2' D:LAIN HOLE
FACE
A. A td' FANFOAMED FOLYCARPONAT. (U V.1
B. FACE DECORAIIOK FFa J.M. STEWAR: ARTWORK
C. EX)RUCED ALUNIN'JI.1 VANDAL COVER FRAME
D. SIFWARf DIXIE COPY CHANGE TRACK (RIVEIEO)
E. .116' FLA.T. POVICARDONATE VANDAL CO:'ER
FACE - CIEAR IU V.)
F. S:ANLESS SIM HINGE 5 RECUMID
G. - 1/4' S I14' PLANKING WITH 314' SPACING
H. GLIDE AND LOCK PROPS WIIK QUARIER TURN
F- :iINEPS
NOTES
DESIGN FACTOR - 120 MPH
EXTERIOR FIN,SH - PFG OU ;:THANE II (G;AF;)II
RESIS7ANT) :LL;Iss
LAMPS INCLUDED
U.L. APFPOVEO
CABINET FOILED TO STEEL SUPPOR; SYSTEM
ELECTRICAL • 3.T. AYPS, 12C VOLTS
FOUNDAOOK E.NGIKEE61NG SHOULD HE REVIEWED B`.'
LOCAL AUIHOZITIFS DUE TO VAIMKG SOIL 0 WIND
LOAD COND:TIONS
BASE PLATES AFL WELDED TO LEGS AT FACTORY
J.M.5. 11IMFLAIE MUST BE US_D TO SET
ANCH07 11LOL1S 1410 C'OF:CRETE
11�1�•�
To: Marcy Ratcliff, Director of Planning
From: Ed Dryden, Building Official
Date: February 22, 2000
Re: Proposed Sign for Snow Heights Elementary
An application for a monument sign is submitted for Snow Heights Elementary. There are no specific
requirements for a solid base for a monument sign, I think we assume that is how it should be
constructed. The site plan is not specific with respect to the proposed location. However, I have
surveyed the site and have attached a sketch to help with analyzing the request. The current sign is
located in a vision triangle. However, this does not present any issues with respect to the proposed
sign due to the existing nonconforming head in parking on Vance Road. Following is a listing of items
that do not meet the letter of the sign ordinance:
Due to the height of the proposed sign, the sign must be located at least 10 feet from property
lines. This location would place the sign outside of any vision triangle.
2. The proposed sign is not surrounded with a masonry surround.
• Page 1
-. ...-. ■ ■v ■�
Subject Property Legal Description:
'5n'D a Heijit is 4c d ,I , (3 I K !o
Subject Property Street Address:
' / �C)i U"t kc 0 e—
PART 3. REQUEST TYPE
❑ Interpretation Request Sign Variance Request ❑ Nonconforming Use
Current zoning classification: Note: A map or plot plan of the property and drawings of the proposed
construction must be submitted with this application. The applicants or their
representatives must be present at their scheduled public hearing.
II hereby certify that I am, or that I represent, the legal owner of the property described above and do hereby submit this request for a
variance for consideration by the Sign Board Review.
Date_ 2 - % ? • 0 J
Print Name _ S , 7"77- dY — Signature ff ��l�r■ , ,z_
PART 4. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date of Review Board Public Hearing: Taxes, Liens and Assessments Paid? Case Number
❑ Yes ❑ No
Variance Approved:
Date of Final Action:
Fees: $175.00 Non - residential
f—] Yes ❑ NO
$100.00 Residential
Conditions of Approval:
This request will not be scheduled for hearing
until the application fee is paid.
Klmary1SIGWSgn Control Application.doc 05/99
PARTS. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
List the pertinent section(s) of the Sign Regulations and indicate the specific interpretation (s),
variance(s), or nonconforming use exception(s) being requested.
I�Q9�ut5�►rtw ilav�'aue� 4o f e.l u;,reyxejtt 4,,� h1o:tuv►1eAf 5;'00
/1aU4P 1 Dr �ri @./C at IAK-t /► es-s0.4e" ctV tcL
v
State the grounds for the request and detail any special conditions that cause hardships that in
your opinion justify the variances or exceptions being requested. Explain any unique
circumstances, if applicable, not considered by the Sign Regulations:
�iro a::5t'l rte Ik� S ; g n W i
'- i tS D k in j C e U S fy o S Q C -S 1!" A."4
�edesfa 1 . dpusfrueiel or'
VX 4ie* aluMl um 4 eDt4itte-e✓'e 41D rLk'-t4StZx.W
1 S o ex P- u.O i,1s , . g A W l' 11 l e- rz rzc L lecl 4o a 3' x
en I'Le a i s n A 1 �� �v�urir�S 1Qer�f
Q
Wi i
f Ie4-5 e- 5ee a7taC ka e � i u eeL ,1a Jt-tu!i r4G S ".
v J
6
KArnaryOGNS1Sgn Control Application.doc 05/99
Snow Heights Elementary School
4801 Vance Road - North Richland Hills, Texas 76180 -817- 581 -5308 - http: / /www.birdville.kl2.tx.us
2/17/00
CITY OF NO. RICHLAND HILLS
BUILDING PERMIT DEPARTMENT
RE: MONUMENT SIGN REQUEST
To Whom It May Concern:
The Snow Heights Elementary PTA worked diligently to raise the $4,500 purchase price of a new
monument sign to be erected in front of our school. The sign will be very attractive in
appearance, complementing the appearance of our school building and grounds, and will certainly
be a source of pride for our students and faculty. I am sure the school's neighbors and the entire
community will be pleased with the sign's design, which will be a dramatic improvement over the
aging pole sign which now sits in front of our school.
The sign installation will be professionally done by the Birdville ISD Building and Grounds
Department. School volunteer Scott Turnage has been coordinating this project with the district
office and has been advised they will commence installation immediately upon issuance of a
building permit.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please feel free to give me a call if you should
have any questions, at 581 -5308.
Yours very truly,
aan rickel
Birdville Independent School District
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Planning & Inspections Department Council Meeting Date: 02/28/00
Subject: Reconsider Action on PZ 99 -27 - Ordinance 2450 Agenda Number: GN 2000 -16
Concerning Request of Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. for a Special Use Permit to allow a
Convenience store with gasoline sales on property zoned C1 Commercial within 200
feet of residential property. 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
City Council at the February 14, 2000 meeting voted 4 -3 to deny PZ 99-427 submitted by
Race Trac Petroleum, Inc. for a Special Use Permit on Lot 6, Block 2, Walker Branch
Addition for a convenience store within 200 feet of residential property that is now zoned
C1- Commercial
Mrs. Joann Johnson has requested that City Council reconsider action on this request. If
Council votes afFinatively to reconsider action on this request, Staff will schedule a public
hearing on March 27, 2000. Then on March 27, 2000, Council will hold the public hearing
and reconsider their action on the request. If Council does not affirmatively vote to
reconsider the request, the case is denied and the applicant can not come back with the
same request for six months.
Council in reconsidering this request should not discuss the merits or facts of the case.
Council must decide if they would like to talk about this and authorize Staff to set a public
hearing and then discuss the merits and facts of the case.
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Account Number
Bonds (GO /Rev.) Sufficient Funds Available
Operating Budget
O Finance Director
ead Signature ity Manager Isig ture
L: \Cases\PZ Cases\PZ 99 -27-42 Racetrac SUP.doc Page 1 of 1
......... ( MATCH LINE..'.. SEE Grid: 90- 432 - Page.:_D6 %... ..- -- -
2360 T C
2360
PZ 99 -27
Race Trac Petroleum, Inc.
Special Use Permit for Convenience Store
NWKTki ADOPTED: March 22. 1993
RICHLA HLAND i MATCH LINE - SSE Crid: 90 -424 Page: DB J
HILLS
Department: Administration
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Council Meeting Date: 2/28/2000
Subject: 26th Year Community Development Block Grant Program Agenda Number: GN 2000 -18
Public Hearing
In 1996 the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
designated the City as a metropolitan city to receive direct entitlement of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. On June 24, 1996 the City Council accepted the
direct entitlement designation and entered into an agreement with Tarrant County for the
administration of the City's CDBG program. As a result of this designation, the City is
allocated a net amount of approximately $292,800 each year from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the CDBG program.
Each program year, the City must prepare and submit a CDBG program outlining the use
of these funds in accordance with HUD guidelines. Staff has prepared a program for the
26th CDBG program year that proposes to use the 26th Year CDBG funds to begin
reconstruction of Susan Lee Lane from IH 820 to Lola. This project is being proposed
because of the low rating of the condition of Susan Lee and as a result of phone calls
received from citizens regarding the deteriorating condition of this street. Because of the
estimated cost of this project, reconstruction of this street would continue into the 27th year
(2000/2001) CDBG program and would require the dedication of those funds to this
project. Please see the following agenda item for details on the proposed funding of this
project.
HUD requires a public hearing so that the City can receive comments and input from
citizens regarding the proposed 26th year (1999/2000) CDBG program project.
Recommendation
To conduct the public hearing and receive public comments regarding the 26th Year CDBG
program.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
-t)
Department Head Signature
Finance Review
Account Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Finance Director
U
ity Manager "g ture
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Administration Council Meeting Date: 2/28/2000
Subject: 26th Year (1999/2000) Community Development Block Agenda Number: GN 2000 -19
Grant Program — Resolution 2000 -11
Following the public hearing from the previous agenda item, it is necessary for Council to take
action regarding the project they wish to be included in the 26th year (1999/2000) CDBG
entitlement program.
The attached resolution transmits the City's proposed 26th year (1999/2000) CDBG program.
The proposed program consists of one street reconstruction project:
Project Estimated Cost
Susan Lee Lane $673,000
(from IH 820 to Lola Drive)
According to the plan for the use of CDBG funds adopted by the City Council in 1996, Roberta
Lane was scheduled to be reconstructed before Susan Lee Lane. Staff is proposing to use the
26th Year CDBG funds to begin reconstruction of Susan Lee Lane from IH 820 to Lola before
reconstructing Roberta Lane. This change is being proposed because the pavement condition of
Susan Lee is rated worse than that of Roberta and as a result of phone calls received from
citizens regarding the deteriorating condition of Susan Lee. In addition, Susan Lee is classified
as a minor collector street and receives more traffic than Roberta.
The estimated cost of this project is $673,000. This was estimated some time back when the
street construction standards were 6 inch thickness of asphalt. They are now 8 inches or
concrete. To construct to the 8 inches would be an additional $54,000. Sidewalks for both
sides would be an additional $99,000. We suggest keeping this project at $673,000, but taking
bid alternatives for 8 inch thickness and also sidewalks. After evaluating these, Council can
then decide if it is desirable and beneficial to include the additional 2 inches and sidewalks, and
funds can be appropriated if needed.
Moving Susan Lee up in priority will also mean reallocating funding. The $673,000 project can
be funded by using the 26th Year (1999/2000) CDBG allocation of $292,800, funds remaining
from the 24th (1997/1998) and 25th Year (1998/1999) CDBG projects of $160,253, and
approximately $219,947 of the 27th Year (2000/2001) CDBG allocation.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
—4 14 Dep&tment Head Signature
Finance Review
Account Number
Su1 t F nds Av 'labl 'e
Finance Director
ity Manage Si nature
Page 1 of _
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Should Council choose to include the additional 2 inches of asphalt thickness and the
sidewalks in this project, the remaining $72,853 of the 27th Year (2000/2001) allocation
would need to be dedicated to this project, and approximately $80,000 in additional
funding would be needed. These funds could be included in the 2000/2001 CIP Budget, or
come from the 28th Year CDBG allocation, which would extend the completion of this
project into 2001/2002.
Recommendation:
To approve Resolution No. 2000 -11 outlining the 26th year CDBG program.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Page _ of _
Resolution No. 2000 -11
WHEREAS, the City of North Richland Hills will receive direct entitlement
of Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) for the 261h (1999/2000)
CDBG program year; and
WHEREAS, the schedule below represents the City's requested program
for the 26th (1999/2000) CDBG program year; and
WHEREAS, the City would like to begin work on this project as soon as
possible;
Proiect
Estimated Cost
1. Susan Lee Lane $673,000
(from IH 820 to Lola Drive)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, THAT
The schedule above represents the City's CDBG program for the 26th
funding year, 1999/2000.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL on this, the 28th day of February 2000.
Approved:
Charles Scoma, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
Attorney for the City
Department: Administration
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Council Meeting Date: 2/28/2000
Subject: An Ordinance Prescribing Minimum Qualifications for Agenda Number: GN 2000 -20
Operation of a Limousine Service; Requiring a Permit for all Vehicles Owned and
Operated By a Limousine Business; And Requiring Registration of Limousine Drivers —
Ordinance No. 2458
City staff has developed the attached ordinance in response to the City Council's request
that a limousine ordinance be drafted for your review in response to a citizen's request to
establish a limousine service in North Richland Hills.
As proposed, Ordinance No. 2458 requires any and all limousine services and limousine
drivers operating within the corporate limits of our City to be permitted by the City, requires
limousine drivers to register with the City, and establishes minimum standards and criteria
for operating a limousine service in North Richland Hills.
The following are the major provisions of this ordinance:
➢ Any person desiring to establish a limousine service must apply for and be granted a
permit for the operation and for every vehicle owned or controlled by the business. The
cost of a vehicle permit is $75.00 per vehicle.
➢ Any person who will be driving a limousine must be registered with the City as a driver
employed by the limousine service, and pay a fee of $10.00 for such registration.
➢ Drivers must submit verification of a valid Texas Operator's license with appropriate
endorsements if applicable, and background checks will be conducted.
➢ Permits are granted for one year from their effective date.
➢ Permits are subject to forfeiture or cancellation upon violation of any provision of the
ordinance and /or applicable State and Federal laws.
➢ Permits are not transferable.
➢ The City Manager or his designee is authorized to determine the fitness of applicants
and whether a permit should be issued.
➢ Fitness of the owner /operator of the limousine service is based on the need for such a
service, financial history of the applicant, type and condition of vehicles to be used,
probable effect on local traffic, whether the safe use of the streets will be endangered,
and the character and fitness of the applicant.
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
ePTT� 94���
D—epartmiant Head Signature
Account Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Finance Director
ity Manager ig ature
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
➢ Every vehicle permitted under the ordinance must meet minimum State vehicle safety
standards and be rendered for ad valorem taxes.
➢ The operator is required to procure a policy of motor vehicle liability, and furnish a copy
of the policy to the City to be approved by the City.
➢ The City Secretary is authorized to issue permits associated with this ordinance.
If approved, this ordinance will become effective after its date of passage and publication
as provided by law.
Recommendation
To approve Ordinance No. 2458 prescribing minimum qualifications for operation of a
limousine service, requiring a permit for operation, and requiring all drivers to register with
the City.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Page 1 of 6
ORDINANCE NO. 2458
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
PRESCRIBING MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR OPERATION
OF A LIMOUSINE SERVICE; REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR ALL
VEHICLES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A LIMOUSINE
BUSINESS; AND REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF LIMOUSINE
DRIVERS.
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 Council has determined that the establishment of limousine service
regulations is necessary to adequately regulate the safe use of the public streets in the
City, and the carrying of passengers for compensation;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, THAT the following regulations shall be the
minimum standards for operating a limousine service within the corporate limits of the
City of North Richland Hills, Texas:
1. Definitions
As used in this ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning
ascribed to them in this section:
A. Driver or Chauffeur: every person who actually drives or manipulates a vehicle
used as a limousine, whether as owner or agent, or employee of an owner.
B. Limousine: any unmetered late model luxury vehicle or antique vehicle with a
seating capacity for a minimum of four (4) passengers and which vehicle is used
for the transportation of passengers for hire exclusively chartered for a minimum
of one (1) hour per trip carrying such charter passenger(s) to and from
designated points within the corporate limits of the City.
Does not include vehicles rented without drivers, taxicabs, touring vehicles,
publicly franchised buses, or vehicles owned and operated by motels, hotels or
other businesses for the transporting of their guests or employees free of charge.
A limousine shall not have a stoop light or taxi meter, or in any way represent
itself as a taxicab or be marked or operated in such a way as will cause it to be
confused with a taxicab.
C. Late Model Luxury Vehicle: a full size model of a commonly recognized
manufacturer of luxury automobiles, including, , but not limited to, such
Page 2 of 6
manufacturers as Cadillac, Lincoln, Mercedes and Rolls Royce, which vehicle
shall not be more than five (5) years old unless permission for use is granted by
the City Council.
D. Antique Vehicle: any passenger vehicle which is at least thirty -five (35) years old.
E. Owner or Operator: any person who has the control, direction, maintenance or
the benefit of the collection of revenue derived from the operation of a limousine
on or over the streets of the City, whether as owner or otherwise, provided that
the term "driver', as defined in this section, shall not be included in this definition.
2. Applicability
It shall be unlawful for any person to rent, hire or operate a limousine upon the
streets in the corporate limits of the City of North Richland Hills unless the provisions
of this article have first been complied with, and said person has obtained a valid
City limousine service permit for each vehicle and registered each driver employed
by or working in service to said limousine service.
3. Permits
A. Limousine Service and Vehicle Permits in General: Every person desiring to
engage in the business of operating any limousine service shall make
application, in writing, to the City Secretary on a form provided for that purpose,
for a permit to engage in the business specified. Such application shall contain
the name, address and telephone number of the true owner of the business and
the state license number, types and seating capacity of every vehicle to be
operated and such other information as the City Manager deems necessary. Any
change of the state license number of any permitted vehicle shall be reported to
the City Secretary immediately. A permit fee of seventy -five dollars ($75.00) for
each vehicle for which a permit is requested shall accompany the application.
B. Registration of Chauffeur in General: It shall be unlawful for any person to drive
any limousine engaged in the business of transporting passengers upon or over
any street within the corporate limits of the City, without first being registered with
the City as a chauffeur employed by the limousine service. Each driver shall
register with the City Secretary and pay a fee of ten dollars ($10.00) to the City of
North Richland Hills. Such registration shall be valid for twelve (12) months and
shall be accompanied by the following information:
(1) verification that applicant possesses a valid State of Texas Operator's license
with appropriate endorsements if applicable; and,
(2) the full name of the person or owner for whom the applicant proposes to be
employed;
(3) the length of residence of the applicant in the city and the state, and whether
he or she is a citizen of the United States;
(4) the experience, if any, the applicant has had as a driver of a motor vehicle;
Page 3 of 6
C. Issuance of Limousine Service and Vehicle Permits:
(1) No permit to operate a limousine or limousine service shall be issued as
hereinafter provided until the City Manager or his designee has made a
favorable determination on the application of whether the public convenience
and necessity is served by the issuance of said permit.
(2) The City Secretary shall determine whether or not the applicant appears to
meet the requirements of this ordinance. If the applicant appears to have
complied with all the requirements of this ordinance, the City Secretary shall
forward a favorable recommendation to the City Manager to grant a permit.
(3) If the applicant is denied a limousine service permit, the applicant shall have
the right to appeal to the City Council within ten days (10) of the date of such
refusal, which shall be affected by delivering a letter to the City Secretary
requesting an appeal of the City Manager's decision. The City Council shall
hold a public hearing thereon within thirty (30) days after receiving the
request, and, after the hearing, sustain or reverse the decision of the City
Manager. If no appeal is made within ten (10) days of the City Manager's
denial of said application, then the decision of the City Manager is final.
(4) In determining whether or not the public convenience and necessity will be
served, the following factors may be considered:
(a) the need or demand for such service;
(b) the financial history and condition of the applicant;
(c) the number, kind, age and type of equipment and the color scheme to be
used by the applicant;
(d) the probable effect of increased service on local traffic conditions;
(e) whether the safe use of the streets of the City by the public, both vehicular
and pedestrian, will be endangered by the granting of a permit for the
additional service;
(f) the character, experience and responsibility of the applicant and its
owner /operator, and,
(g) whether the applicant is fit, able and willing to perform the service on a
regular and continuous basis.
(5) The City Secretary shall, after the City Manager has determined the public
convenience and necessity for such service, issue a limousine vehicle
operation permit to such applicant upon compliance with the requirements of
this ordinance and shall issue permits for the operation of all vehicles
complying with the requirements of this ordinance and any special
requirements imposed by the City Council. No permit shall be issued unless
every vehicle proposed to be used complies with the minimum requirements
of this ordinance and State vehicle safety standards.
Page 4 of 6
D. Registration of Chauffeurs:
(1) Chauffeurs must show proof of a valid Texas Operator's license with
appropriate endorsements if applicable issued to him or her by the State of
Texas at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the application.
(2) The City Manager or his designee shall investigate or cause to be
investigated the character, experience and qualifications of any driver as may
be deemed in the best interest of the safety, comfort and health of the general
public in the use of the streets by such applicant.
(3) Each driver under this ordinance shall undergo a background check
conducted by the City.
(4) The City Manager or his designee may suspend, revoke or deny the
registration of any chauffeur pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance for
any violation of this ordinance
(5) If registration is denied because of a driver's prior conviction of a crime, the
City shall notify the applicant in writing of the reason for the suspension,
revocation, denial or disqualification; the review procedure provided in this
ordinance; and the earliest date the person may appeal.
(6) In the event a driver is refused registration upon appeal because of prior
conviction of a crime and the relationship of the crime to duties of a
chauffeur, the City shall notify the applicant by certified mail, return receipt
requested, of the following procedure:
(a) A person whose registration has been suspended or revoked or who has
been denied a permit, who has exhausted administrative appeals, may
file an action in a district court in Tarrant County for review of the
evidence presented to the permit authority and its decision.
(b) The person must begin the judicial review by filing a petition with the court
within thirty (30) days after the licensing authority's decision is final and
appealable.
4. General Requirements
A. Each vehicle permitted under this ordinance shall comply with all the safety
requirements imposed by the State of Texas, the United States of America, and
the City of North Richland Hills applicable to the vehicle involved.
B. Before any permit is granted to operate a limousine service or vehicle in the City
shall become effective, the grantee shall procure and furnish to the City
Secretary, and thereafter keep in full force and effect, a policy of motor vehicle
insurance, to be approved by the City. Every such insurance policy shall insure
all of the vehicles owned, leased, contracted, hired, or controlled by the holder of
such permit and used in such limousine service for which a permit has been
authorized. Every such policy of insurance shall be issued by an insurance
agency organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, or having a
valid permit to do business in Texas.
Page 5 of 6
C. The motor vehicle liability insurance coverage must meet the minimum limits
required to establish proof of financial responsibility as follows:
(1) $50,000 for bodily injury to or death of one person in one accident;
(2) $100,000 for bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in one accident
(subject to (1));
(3) $50,000 for damage to or destruction of property of others in one accident.
D. The owner shall have rendered each vehicle for which a permit is sought for ad
valorem taxation and shall have paid all delinquent taxes owing the City upon
every such vehicle.
S. Penalty Clause
Any person, firm or corporation or agent who shall operate a limousine service in
violation of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon
conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction for any such violation, be punished by
a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00).
6. Severability Clause
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the sections,
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 judgement or decree of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect 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.
7. Effective Date
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000.
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Larry J. ningham
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM Al O-VEGALITY:
54
Rex McEnti
City Attorne
Charles Scoma
Mayor
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Administration Council Meeting Date: 02/28/00
Subject: Consider Action of TXU Electric Company Revised Rate Agenda Number: GN 2000 -21 _
Schedule - Resolution No. 2000 -14
On January 25, 2000 TXU Electric made a filing with cities and the PUC to modify, close or
delete certain rate tariffs. The proposed effective date is March 1, 2000. The proposed
changes go into effect on that date unless we suspend the proposal for 90 days, or take
action approving the change subject to PUC approval.
The Tariff Filing does not propose to either increase or decrease any existing charge or
rate, and TXU Electric does not anticipate any change in revenues as a result of these
proposed tariff revisions. The primary purpose of this Tariff filing is to modify, close, or
delete certain existing tariffs in order to facilitate the transition to a competitive retail market
as of January 1, 2002, pursuant to Senate Bill 7 passed in the 1999 Texas Legislature.
The proposal closes certain existing retail tariffs to new customers for services deemed
competitive energy services by the Commission's proposed Substantive Rules. This
includes deletion of a number of rates including time of use rates and real time pricing
rates and the closing of a number of rates to new customers effective March 1, 2000, and
others on January 1, 2001. We could be affected by one change; this would be regarding
the deletion of outdoor lighting tariffs. This is not for streetlights, but all other outdoor
lights. This proposal also closes or modifies optional retail tariffs with contracts that extend
beyond the January 1, 2002 start date of retail competition and it modifies retail tariffs for
basic rates to limit contract terms to December 31, 2001. Last it deletes tariffs that are no
longer being utilized. TXU tells us that we do not have any customers on those rates.
Recommendation:
To approve Resolution No. 2000 -14 suspending the request for 90 days and allowing staff
to either investigate the matter in house or join the city coalition.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
0—Z-1-/
Department Head Signature
Finance Review
Account Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Manager
Director
Page 1 of _
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -14
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS SUSPENDING
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TXU ELECTRIC'S PROPOSED TARIFF
REVISIONS TO PERMIT THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF CITIES SERVED
BY TXU ELECTRIC TIME TO STUDY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING THE PROPOSED CHANGES.
WHEREAS, on or about January 25, 2000 TXU Electric filed with the City
of North Richland Hills its request to close, modify or delete certain retail tariffs
effective March 1, 2000; and
WHEREAS, it is reasonable for the City of North Richland Hills to
cooperate with other cities in a review of TXU Electric's application and to allow
sufficient time for the Steering Committee of Cities Served by TXU Electric to
make recommendations on how to address the Company's filing; and
WHEREAS, PURA §36.108 (a) (1) grants local regulatory authorities the
right to suspend the effective date of proposed rate changes for up to 90 days.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS:
1. That the effective date of the tariff changes submitted by TXU
Electric on or about January 25, 2000 is suspended until May 30,
2000 to permit adequate time to review the proposed changes.
2. That a copy of this suspension resolution be sent to the local
representative of TXU Electric.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 28th day of February 2000.
APPROVED:
Charles Scoma, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex E ntir City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Greg Vick, Managing Director of Community Services and Facilities
Department: Administration
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Council Meeting Date: 2/28/00
subject: Reconsider Action on PZ 99 -36 - Ordinance No. 2455, Agenda Number: GN 2000 -23
Concerning Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1874 to Add Article 12, Neighborhood
Parkland Dedication Requirements
City Council at their February 14, 2000 meeting denied the request to amend the Zoning
Ordinance by adding an article to adopt neighborhood park land dedication requirements.
The vote failed for lack of a majority vote.
Per Council Rules of Procedure, 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.
Councilman Mitchell has requested that Council reconsider action on this request. If
Council votes affirmatively to reconsider action on this request, Staff will schedule a public
hearing on March 27, 2000. Then on March 27, Council will hold the public hearing and
reconsider their action on the request. If Council does not have a majority vote to
reconsider the request, the case is denied.
Council in reconsidering the request should not discuss the merits or facts of the case.
Council must decide if they would like to talk about this and authorize Staff to set a public
hearing and then discuss the merits and facts of the case.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Department Head Signature
Finance Review
Account Number
Sufficient Funds Avallable
nVA )AWN",
Finance Director
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Parks and Recreation Council Meeting Date: 2/28/00
Subject: Selection of Dr Pepper Bottling Company as Beverage Agenda Number: PU 2000 -06
Company for the Parks and Recreation System — Resolution No. 2000 -17
Staff solicited requests for proposals for a beverage vendor for the Parks and Recreation
Department. The proposal included NRH2O Family Water Park and other facilities within
the Parks and Recreation system. Proposals were received, reviewed and negotiated with
Coca -Cola, Dr Pepper and Pepsi Cola. Staff determined that Dr Pepper's proposal best
fits the current needs and requirements of the department.
Coca -Cola did not include in their proposal the required "Bag In Box" system for NRH2O
Family Water Park and required a 10 year contract. Pepsi Cola's proposal did not include
NRH2O Family Water Park (most likely due to their obligations to another area water park)
and offered substantially less in -other areas.
Dr Pepper's proposal is valued at approximately $750,000 over a five -year period and
includes three major components. The largest component is for advertising and marketing
which includes an "on can" offer and radio spots valued at $533,434. The other two
components include athletic field scoreboards valued at $101,566; and cash payments
totaling $115,000.
Some of the highlights of Dr Pepper's proposal are:
• Dr Pepper will provide $20,000 a year for NRH2O marketing support. These funds may
be allocated for concerts, "dive -in" movies and other special events.
• Dr Pepper will provide 50 designated radio spots with 10- second radio tags for NRH2O
between the months of May and August each year.
• Dr Pepper will provide an "on can" offer on 4 million cans each year.
• Dr Pepper will provide cash payment of $3,000 each year for promotional tournaments
at the Richland Tennis Center.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Department Head Signature
Finance Review
Account Number
Su /ffiLl Fit Funds Available
! Budget Director
Manager
Director
Page 1 of 2-
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
• Dr Pepper will provide and install a total of 20 electronic scoreboards at the following
parks: Walker's Creek Park, Cross Timbers Park, Fossil Creek Park, Richfield Park and
Northfield Park.
• Dr Pepper will provide all equipment necessary to vend contracted products and they
will provide all maintenance for vending equipment.
• Dr Pepper will provide complimentary product for up to six special events.
• At no charge, Dr Pepper will supply "point of purchase" equipment to NRH20. Such
items are "point of sale" signs, menu boards, clocks and Dr Pepper promotional
banners.
• Dr Pepper will be the exclusive beverage provider for all facilities included in the
contract.
• Dr Pepper will be listed as a sponsor on the major donor /sponsor board at the front of
NRH20 and their logo will be listed on all permanent billboards and message centers at
other identified facilities.
• Dr Pepper will be listed as a sponsor for specified departmental special events.
• Dr Pepper's logo will be placed in each edition of the 'Time of Your Life" magazine.
• Dr Pepper will receive complimentary tickets for promotional purposes.
Recommendation:
To approve Dr Pepper Bottling Company of Texas as the "beverage vendor" for the Parks
and Recreation Department and pass Resolution No. 2000 -17 authorizing the City
Manager to execute the five -year contract.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Page Z of ?
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-17
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS,
that:
1.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the five -year contract with Dr. Pepper
Bottling Company of Texas for the "exclusive pouring rights" for Parks and Recreation
Facilities, as the act and deed of the City.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 28ti' day of February, 2000.
APPROVED:
Charles Scoma, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex McEntire, Attorney for
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
jX y
Vickie Loftice, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Public Works Department Council Meeting Date: 2/28/00
Subject:
leview of the Golf Course Master Plan and Approve
Agreement in an Amount not to exceed $73,900 for
Engineering Services with Dunaway Associates, Inc. for
Iron Horse Golf Course Drainage /Erosion Improvements -
Resolution No. 2000 -12
Agenda Number: PW 2000-09
Significant erosion has occurred over the years at Iron Horse Golf Course due to upstream
development and existing improvements at the course. As a result of the erosion, the appearance
and playability of the course is diminished and in some locations golf course improvements and
features are threatened. Over the past few years, City staff and golf course management
personnel have been working together to address and correct the areas where erosion and
drainage have caused problems.
On April 27, 1998 (PW 98 -07) Council approved an engineering agreement with Dunaway
Associates, Inc. to develop a Master Plan to identify and prioritize remaining drainage /erosion
improvements and to identify potential future problems. That Master Plan is now complete.
The plan recommends several improvements. The improvements have been prioritized as Priority
1 or Priority 2. Priority 1 recommendations are those projects that need attention at this time.
Delaying these projects will cause more erosion and will be of greater expense to repair in the
future. Priority 2 projects are those projects that are not as critical. Delaying most Priority 2
projects will not cause a significant increase in cost. It is the engineer's suggestion that some of
the Priority 2 projects could correct themselves once the Priority 1 projects are completed. The
Priority 2 projects can therefore be categorized as Priority 2 (immediate) and Priority 2 (future).
A summary of the Priority 1 and Priority 2 (immediate and future) projects as recommended in the
Master Plan is listed below:
Priority 1
1. Construct a total of four (4) 2 -way bridges (12 -feet wide) which span from approximately 60'
to 100' at key low water crossings.
2. Construct a total of approximately 225 feet of a low height gabion retaining wall and a total
of 130 feet of 10' to 12' high gabion retaining wall.
3. Provide erosion repair and extend a concrete apron at one of the low water crossings.
Priority 2
Construct a total of approximately 1000 feet of a low height gabion retaining wall at various
locations along Big Fossil and Singing Hills Creek.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO /Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Department Head Signature
Finance Review
Account Number
Sufficient Funds Av—ailable
Finance Director
ity Manage(Aiiiature
Page 1 of _
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Total estimated cost (design and construction):
Priority 1 $470 080
Priority 2 (immediate) 80,765
Priority 2 (future) 100.000
Total $650,845
After reviewing each recommended project and considering the suggestion from the engineer
concerning the possibility of not having to do some of the Priority 2 (future) projects, a Scope of
Services for an engineering agreement was developed. The scope includes not doing the projects
identified as Priority 2 (future) projects at this time. Staff is recommending that we wait to see if the
new bridges will eliminate the need for some of these Priority 2 projects. A summary of the
recommended Scope of Services is shown below.
1. Provide design survey and necessary soil and geological information.
2. Provide subsurface geotechnical investigations for each site where structural improvements
are necessary. Laboratory analysis will be performed from the samples and a report will be
provided detailing the investigations, analysis, and engineering recommendations.
3. Design plans will be prepared for review, bidding, and construction for:
-Four (4) 2 -way (12 -foot wide) bridges
-200' to 300' of a low height gabion retaining wall
-120' to 130' of a 10 -foot to 12 -foot high gabion retaining wall
- Miscellaneous cart path repair and grading
4. Prepare proposal and bidding documents.
City staff recommends continuing with the same engineering firm that prepared the Master Plan
(Dunaway Associates, Inc.) to assist with the implementation of the recommended "immediate"
projects. This recommendation is based on the firm's familiarity with the projects and their good
performance to date. A fee for the above services is an amount not to exceed $73,900 was
negotiated.
The fee includes the following items that are not generally required for a typical City project.
1. Geotechnical investigations and report.
2. Since this project will consist of 5 different sites, it is similar to 5 different projects.
3. The engineer will be reviewing the designs and shop drawings for the 4 bridges and
coordinating with the bridge manufacturer.
The fee of $73,900 was based on closing the golf course (at least certain areas). City staff has
asked the engineer to develop a plan that would keep the golf course open during construction.
The engineer has agreed to do the additional work for the same fee.
On January 13, 1997 (GN 97 -09) $600,000 was approved to be spent on various drainage /erosion
control improvements at the golf course. A current balance of $275,300 exists. The proposed
budget (design and construction) for the improvements to be made at this time is $550,000. The
additional $274,700 can be transferred from the Golf Course Working Capital Fund to fund this
project. A recommended revised budget is attached.
Recommendation: To approve Resolution No. 2000 -12 and the revised budget as attached.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Page _ of _
GENERAL FUND STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
IRON HORSE GOLF COURSE
Erosion/Drainage Improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project will consist of several proposed drainage and erosion protection improvements adjacent to sections of Big Fossil Creek
and Singing Hills Creek located in the Golf Course. The proposed improvments consist of erosion control (Le., retaining walls), dreging
and elevated bridges at certain key sites.
PROJECT STATUS
Beginning
Ending
Date
Date
Engineering
Construction
312000
7/2000
612000
11/2000
FINANCIAL DATA
Change to
1999/2000
Total
Funding Source
Amount to
1999!2000
1999/2000
Revised
Remaining
ion
Project
0
475,000
475,000
0
Date
Budget
Budget
Budget
Budget
Cost
0
Total
1997 C.O.
$0
$600,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$600,000
Golf Course Working
0
274,700
Capital Balance
0
0
274,700
274,700
Total
$600,000
$0
$274,700
$274,700
$0
$874,700
Project Expenditures
Engineering
$42,700
$0
$75,000
$75,000
$0
$117,700
Construct
IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET
Maintenance due to erosion and drainage should be nominal during the first 5 to 10 years for this project.
Projected Annual
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
2003/2004
2004/2005
Operating Impact
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ion
282,000
0
475,000
475,000
0
757,000
0
0
Total
$324,700
$0
$550,000
$550,000
$0
$874,700
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -12
that: BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas,
if
The City Manager be, and is hereby authorized to execute an Agreement for
Engineering Services with Dunaway Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed
$73,900 for the Iron Horse Golf Course Drainage /Erosion Improvements along Big
Fossil Creek and Singing Hills Creek, as an act and deed of the City.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 28th day of February, 2000.
Charles Scoma, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO LEGALITY:
for tKe C
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Greggfy,W. Xiciens, Public Works Director
Page 1 of 1
Information & Reports March 28, 2000
1. Announcements
February 28 - March 3
➢ Winter Break Camp NRH at the Recreation Center
for information call 427 -6600
March 70'
➢ NRH will host the Channel 8 Family First Event. Events will
be held at the Birdville High School, Iron Horse Golf
Course, and the Blue Line Ice Complex throughout the day
to spotlight the City and BISD. Watch for these events on
Channel 8 news broadcasts Tuesday March 7,2000.
2. Information
➢ 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.
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR 00 -029
Date: January 23, 2000
Subject: Family First Series
Channel 8 approached the city in early February about doing a Family First Series in North
Richland Hills at the new Birdville High School. The event will take place March 7, and will
be a full day of activities. The focus of this event will be something similar to "Severe
Weather, Protecting your Family ". Several activities are being planned around town during
the day. The Channel 8 weather announcers will be the featured speakers. Troy Dungan,
Greg Fields, and Kristine Kohanek will do a number of appearances during the day. Several
appearances will be made at schools during the day. The grand entry will be at Birdville High
School at about noon, and will probably feature all three of the weather people. There will
be planned activities at the schools in the morning and at Iron Horse and Blue Line Ice in the
afternoon.
The picnic will be at the east Birdville High School parking lot and then the Severe Weather
Fair and Family First Town Hall meetings will be in the gymnasium.
We have retained Robin McClure to handle all details of this event for the city and to be our
liaison with Channel 8. We will provide additional details as more activities get finalized. A
chronology of events follows.
Channel 8 has indicated probability of live coverage at noon, 5, 6, & 10, with highlights from
the day included.
10:30 am Greg Fields to speak to Green Valley Elementary second graders
10:45 am Kristine Kahanek to speak to North Ridge Middle students
Noon Welcome Rally on east side of Birdville High School to greet Channel 8
Weather Team. Brief welcome by City of North Richland Hills Mayor
followed by Birdville High School Principal Debbie Tribble, who will
recognize her student participants. BHS will have representatives from the
Golden Motion drill team, cheerleading squad, and band.
Troy Dungan will be arriving by helicopter. The site is being secured and
arranged by Kirk Marcum and BISD officials. Mr. Dungan will leave in the
afternoon and then arrive again for the evening's activities.
12:45pm Luncheon at Iron Horse Golf Course. The Northeast Tarrant Chamber is
coordinating the Luncheon. Year 2000 Chairman Randy Moresi, of North
Hills Hospital, will introduce the Weather 8 Team (for certain to include
Greg Fields and Kristine Kahanek and maybe Troy Dungan), who will
address participants on weather preparedness an opportunity will be
available for city representatives to informally speak about their weather
preparedness.
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
3:30pm Greg Fields will visit Blue Line Ice and the Texas Tornado Team. The team
will be practicing at this time. The Tornado mascot will be available
` throughout the day for events.
5:00pm Channel 8 Family First Picnic in the parking lot of Birdville High School.
Participants are to bring their own food. Channel 8 has indicated that
Chick -Fil -A and a drink vendor will be present at the picnic.
Fire truck, police cars, and any other city equipment that draws public
interest are to be set up in time for the picnic and remain manned until after
the Weather Fair. There is no need for them to stay after the Town Hall
Meeting.
6:00pm Weather Fair, located inside the gym of Birdville High School. Booths will
be on display. Channel 8 is recruiting several weather- related booths and
others are being planned as well.
7 — 8:00pm Weather Preparedness Town Hall Meeting
Birdville High School Gymnasium
Res ully submitt d,
r is
Mana ' g Director of Community Services and Facilities
GTV /Id
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. I_00_031
Date: February 28, 2000
Subject:
Joint Work Session - City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
After the regular meeting on February 28th, City Council has called for a joint work session
with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss land use issues. The meeting will begin
at 8:00pm with Pete Smith, attorney for Nichols, Dillard, Jackson, Hager and Smith to
address some land use laws as well as the most recent and controversial legislation
regarding Vested Rights. Pete Smith is a well -known municipal lawyer and represents
numerous cities in Dallas and Collin counties. He is a frequent speaker-at TML and other
seminars regarding land use. Attached is a hand out that he distributed last month at a TML
Land Use Seminar addressing Vested Rights. Pete will also discuss some basic do's and
don'ts with regard to platting, zoning, and site plan approval. We are scheduling him for
approximately 20 minutes and allowing 10 minutes for questions and answvers. Then, at
approximately 8:30pm we will move into the comprehensive plan discussion with Dan Sefko
the consultant hired to update our plan. This work session on the update of our
comprehensive plan is not meant to bring closure to all planning issues relative to our
comprehensive plan, but is meant to begin the process of moving toward its adoption in early
summer. This joint meeting is also an ideal opportunity for City Council to convey land use
issues to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Since they have just started looking at the
different sectors of the city, this is a good opportunity for them to hear directly from you what
specific areas of interest you have, whether its Precinct Line, Cottonbelt Rail Line,
redevelopment in the southern portion of the city, industrial zoning, land use compatibility
with residential, etc. The Planning and Zoning Commission recently decided to break the city
out into four areas and spend one meeting each month addressing and identifying those
areas that need to be reviewed in that specific area. In February, the Planning and Zoning
Commission started that process and in March they will move to another area of the city and
will continue that process in April and May. Again, this is not to bring closure or be an 'end
all" to land use issues. It is primarily to start the process, convey early on to Planning and
Zoning Commission your concerns, and to discuss the method for public input and the
timetable for future meetings with adoption planned in early summer.
There are a couple of attachments with this IR which include the agenda for Monday
evening, Vested Rights hand out, and the land use issues that Council raised in meetings
with the consultant.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Norwood
Assistant City Manager
SPN /Id
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
JOINT WORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 27, 2000 — 8:00 PM
Purpose and Intent of Workshop
2. Land Use Law — presented by Pete Smith — Nichols, Dillard, Jackson,
Hager & Smith
a. What is vested rights?
b. Do's and Don'ts of Land Use Law
1. Platting
2. Zoning — contract, spot
3. Site Plan
C. Question and Answer
3. Presentation of Planning Issues by Dan Sefko — Dunkin, Sefko &
Associates
4. Discussion of Planning Issues by City Council & Planning and Zoning
Commission — Dan Sefko — Facilitation
5. Future Meeting Schedule
6. Discuss Public Input Process
7. Adjournment
North Richland Hills City Council
Ideas on Amendments to the Future Land Use Plan
❖ Thoroughfare Planning in conjunction with Future Land Use Planning - very
important
➢ Look at uses along N.E. Loop 820 in the far future
■ No residential or industrial land uses or zoning along N.E. Loop 820
➢ Look at transportation modes between the highway, the railroad and businesses
■ Large businesses looking for easier ways for their employees to get to work
➢ Thoroughfare Plan does not address the hike & bike trail or bus routes and how
not to congest traffic
■ Look at Amundson to carry traffic from railroad to Town Center
■ Look at park and ride facilities
➢ Look at opening up the south end of town by connecting Highway 26 to SH 121
in Richland Hills
➢ Look at transportation facilities relative to the schools and stadium
➢ North Tarrant Parkway (NTP) — 7 lane road
■ Do we want residential backing up to NTP?
■ How do we want to make it look? Do we want landscape buffering and
sidewalks?
➢ How will we support traffic in 2012 at the Olympics especially at the Tennis
Center and the Stadium
➢ Grapevine Highway south of N.E. Loop 820 —
■ Will it be widened?
■ Does the city need to start purchasing property?
➢ Railroad Stops
■ Need a detailed study on location and size
■ Suggestion to put a stop north of the E- Systems property close to the Central
Fire Station
■ Suggestion to put a stop near Amundson and Main Street
➢ Bus Service
■ Consider that in the future the city may initiate a bus service: routes & stops
■ Consider businesses funding bus lines from future train stops
■ Consider shuttle running from Smithfield train stop to Town Center
➢ Include Hike & Bike Trails
❖ Review City Council Goals when looking at the Future Land Use Plan
➢ Look at quality of development and how do we improve it
➢ Look at quality of city — look at older areas
➢ Need a common image — Plan must say what our image is
❖ Miscellaneous Comments
➢ Need upscale movie theater
➢ Need more than one commercial category in the land use plan
➢ Require special use permit for religious uses
C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \City Council Ideas on Future Land Use Plan February 2000.doc
➢ OK for 500 to 1,700 units of multi - family
❖ Area 1 (south of N.E. Loop 820) most challenging
➢ Look at the possibilities of developing an enterprise zone
➢ Multi- family and light industrial for revitalization — no automobile uses
➢ Look at City acquiring segments to redevelop for library & recreational uses
➢ Provide buffering between Diamond Loch MF and Townhouses
➢ Goal to make the Baptist Church and Grapevine Highway Area as a Specific
Redevelopment Plan after the Comprehensive Master Plan has been updated
➢ Look at providing more multi family areas at Glenview and Harmonson
➢ Glenview /Booth Calloway is prime site for mixed -use center
➢ Clean -up south Grapevine Highway — strip mall facades
➢ Sees the potential for 3 redevelopment districts along Grapevine Highway (Mall
area, Richland Business Center and the NRH Baptist Church) Look at overhead
utilities along Grapevine Highway
➢ Have TXU evaluate to see how much it would take to put the overhead lines
below ground Annexation Possibilities
➢ Swap some of the open space area by the Birdville Administration Building and
Richland Plaza for the remaining portion of Iron Horse Golf Course and Diamond
Oaks in Haltom City
➢ The old Home Depot site needs hotel or upscale new car dealer
➢ If rec center moves, need to build new rec center for south side of city possibly
uses the old Food Lion
➢ Look at adding some multi family near Richland Plaza to help bring in more
people and potential employees
❖ Area 2 (north of N.E. Loop 820 to Hightower, west of Davis Boulevard to the western
City Limits)
➢ Susan Lee should have a cul -de -sac so that it does not go all the way to N.E.
Loop 820
➢ Rufe Snow to Railroad Tracks should be a redevelopment area
➢ Look at the City Hall alternatives to parking after the widening of N.E. Loop 820 —
possibility of parking areas north of Maplewood
➢ Rufe Snow North of N.E. Loop 820 limited to retail /customer service uses
➢ Antique Mall /Pep Boys site is good location for a hotel
➢ City Hall and Recreation Center may convert to office uses not retail
➢ Restaurants, car dealers, tall office buildings along 820 corridor
➢ Smithfield residential area near Mid Cities should be redeveloped as low intensity
commercial for office and retail uses
➢ Smithfield Road /Main Street Historical Area
■ Decide whether or not we want a historical area
■ If we do, decide when to do something
■ Old town concept with train stop, trolley service, park & ride
❖ Area 3 (north of N.E. Loop 820 to Hightower, east of Davis Boulevard to Precinct
Line Road)
C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \City Council Ideas on Future Land Use Plan February 2000.doc
➢ Potential brownfield area at Amundson and Northeast Parkway
➢ Wetlands area south of Amundson at Davis Boulevard
➢ Odell Street — industrial office/ warehouses by residential areas.
➢ Mid Cities Boulevard at Precinct Line — support commercial uses
➢ Davis Boulevard
■ Has redevelopment pockets that need addressing
■ Has undeveloped areas that need addressing
■ Needs consistency in land uses with more business
➢ Strummer Drive
■ Needs a Neighborhood Commercial District zoning
➢ Look at surrounding land uses of Town Center
➢ Small RV park needed on Davis south of Town Center
❖ Area 4 (north of Hightower to northern City Limits)
➢ Precinct Line north of Amundson
■ See low intensity office uses adjacent to residential —like Harwood Road
■ Low Density Office — no retail
■ Planned Developments with no retail exposure to Precinct Line
■ Some residential backing up to Precinct Line
➢ Bursey Road and Green Valley
■ Allow lighter commercial uses
❖ Tarrant County College
➢ Train students to be able to work immediately after school
❖ Municipal Facilities
➢ Look at locations of fire and police stations to see if we have enough facilities
❖ Support the future economy
➢ Look at future high rise office buildings along N.E. Loop 820
➢ Need to provide for more industrial facilities for uses needing 1,000 to 2,000
square feet
❖ Create a low intensity commercial land use and /or high density residential (zero lot
line) to serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial land
uses
❖ Set as a goal to review the Use Table in the Zoning Ordinance
➢ Mini warehouses should only be allowed in industrial area
❖ Set as a goal to create a neighborhood commercial zoning district that serves as
buffer to residential areas.
C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \City Council Ideas on Future Land Use Plan February 2000.doc
VESTED RIGHTS
"VESTED RIGHTS" when the law prevents governmental interference with a landowner's
completed, partially completed, or merely anticipated development.
THE PROBLEM
Landowners want to continue their projects without regard to and certainly without
concern over subsequent changes in the law. Municipalities want to ensure quality of life,
adequate infrastructure and facilities at the least cost possible.
Today federal, state and local governments impose a significant array of land use, zoning,
and subdivision regulations. The ever - increasing regulations and permitting procedures necessary
to develop property sometimes result in uncertainty for landowners and may exact significant
costs. Local governments are faced with increased fiscal pressures and shift much of the cost of
municipal infrastructure to the developer through zoning and other regulations. As a result,
landowners have turned to measures to ensure that they have a right to use or develop land,
regardless of future changes in governmental regulations impacting their property.
It is not unusual for zoning regulations to change prior to development or while
development of a project is incomplete. Zoning changes may occur during different phases of the
development process. A change in zoning may occur after a preliminary plat is filed, but before
final plat approval, after final approval but before actual development has commenced, or after
construction has started. In such cases, the developer or property owner may challenge the
zoning change under a vested rights theory.
Zoning ordinances are presumed valid and the burden is on the property owner /developer
to show that the zoning ordinance is arbitrary and unreasonable. Haynes v City of Abilene, 659
S.W.2d 638 (Tex. 1983). Thus a property owner or developer challenging a zoning ordinance has
a heavy burden. As zoning is an exercise of the police power, property owners are not ordinarily
entitled to compensation, even for substantial reductions in property value resulting from
rezoning.
Although presumed valid, a zoning ordinance may constitute a "taking" if the regulation
unreasonably impacts the individual property owner. Even if the zoning substantially advances a
legitimate public interest, compensation may nonetheless be required if it impacts too heavily on
the property owner. Generally, the zoning however, must deprive the land owner of all
reasonable use of the land before there is a "taking" which requires compensation.
ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF VESTED RIGHTS
Alternate vested rights theories determine whether a developer obtains a right to continue
development of property in the midst of a changing regulatory environment. The major common
law doctrines are the "constitutionally protected vested rights" and "estoppel ". A landowner's
development rights may also vest pursuant to legislation that sets forth when such rights vest,
-2-
such as when a permit is first applied for or is approved. Additionally, rights to develop property
may vest pursuant to development agreements entering into by the developer and the municipality. --
Constitutionally Protected Vested Rights
Constitutionally protected vested rights doctrine attempts to protect property rights by
recognizing the abrogation of land development rights as a compensable "taking" of private
property under the United States and state constitutions.
Vested Rights Through Equitable Estoppel
Equitable estoppel in zoning cases arises out of equity and involves fundamental concepts
of fairness and justice. A local government exercising its zoning powers will be estopped when a
property owner: (1) relying in good faith, (2) upon some act or omission of the government, (3)
has made such a substantial change in position or incurred such extensive obligations and
expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights which he ostensibly
had acquired. The differences between the doctrine of constitutional vested rights and estoppel
are academic exercises. Estoppel is derived from equity while vested rights reflects principals of
common and constitutional law. Estoppel relates to whether it would be inequitable to allow the
government to repudiate its prior conduct. Vested rights relates to whether the owner has rights
which cannot be taken away by governmental regulation.
The case law is inconsistent and confusing. Among the common elements among the
vested rights theories is the notion that "substantial expenditures" must be incurred in reliance on
government action in order to have a position change sufficient to vest rights. While some states
require a building permit and construction to vest rights, others decide vesting on an "ad hoc
case -by -case analysis, using subjective tests. Three general tests have evolved: (1) the
"proportionate/ratio test" the proportion of money spent before the regulatory or zoning change
against the total cost of the entire project; (2) the "balancing test" weighs the basic right of the
landowner to use land and the expenses incurred toward such use against the public interest; and
(3) construction under a building permit and good faith continuance thereof. Each test is
subjective resulting in uncertainty for developers, lenders and municipalities.
VESTED RIGHTS LEGISLATION
As a result of ad -hoc results, states have attempted to resolve the problem by enacting
vested rights legislation. Some jurisdictions, known as "early vesting" jurisdictions, provide for
vesting of the right to develop upon filing the first required development permit application, while
"late vesting" jurisdictions vest rights upon approval of the final permit. Texas' vested rights
legislation which was repealed in 1997 and reinstated in 1999 provides for early vesting of rights
upon filing of the initial permit application.
The Vested Rights Doctrine is the owner /developer's bar to zoning changes. It is an
effective defense by the owner /developer to unanticipated zoning changes after good faith reliance
on previous law and commencement of development. It is an exception to the general rule that no
-3-
owner /developer may acquire a vested right to a particular land use because local government
may change the zoning laws to further the public health, safety and welfare of the community.
City of Pharr v Tippitt, 616 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. 1981); Connor v City of University Park, 142
S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Civ. App. -Dallas 1940, writ ref d).
Over the past few decades, the law regarding vested rights has undergone several changes.
Originally, the common law aided in determining whether or not a developer /owner's rights in the
development of property had vested. A property owner could establish a common law right to
develop property and complete construction, after a change in zoning by showing: (1) good faith;
(2) reliance on existing laws; and/or a validly- issued building permit; and (3) substantial expenses
or liability incurred, or substantial construction completed, prior to the new ordinance's effective
date. Brown v Grant, 2 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Civ.App. -San Antonio, no writ 1928); Lubbock Poster
Co. v City of Lubbock, 569 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Civ.App.- Amarillo, writ ref d n.r.e 1978) cert. den.
444 U.S. 833 (1978). The property owner had to show more than a mere expectation that the
property's zoning classification would remain the same, even after construction began. The test
of substantial construction or substantial expenses was determined from the work completed after
obtaining a building permit, if one was required. How much construction created a vested right
was unclear and thus brought about differing opinions.
In Texas, like most jurisdictions the developer /owner had to obtain a validly issued
building permit to establish a vested right to complete the project. The permit alone was
insufficient to perfect a claim under the vested rights doctrine. The owner /developer had to prove
substantial expenses or liabilities were incurred. City of University Park v Benners, 485 S.W.2d
773 (Tex. 1972); City of Dallas v Rosenthal, 239 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.Civ.App. -Dallas 1951, writ
ref d n.r.e.)t; City of Hutchins v Prasyka, 450 S.W.2d 829, 833 (Tex. 1970)2. Until the adoption
of the so called Vested Rights Statute, Texas followed the majority rule that an applicant for a
building permit or plat did not acquire a vested right under existing zoning prior to the issuance of
a permit or plat approval.
TEXAS LEGISLATION - HISTORY
The Vested Rights Statute was originally enacted as part of House Bill 4 in 1987 which
created the Texas Department of Commerce. Acts of May 30, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 374,
1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 1838 -39, repealed by Act of June 1, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 1041, §
I An early Texas case, in which the court accepted estoppel and found a city estopped by action of a city official.
Rosenthal expended approximately $100,000 in reliance on the city's permit granting authority to use an ice
manufacturing plant for meat processing. Court held that because city officials inspected the structure over an
eighteen -month period without compliant and because of the expenditures, Rosenthal acquired a vested property
right in the permit, and the city was estopped from invalidating the permit.
2 In 1970, the Texas Supreme Court applied estoppel to a change in zoning of a tract of land from residential to
manufacturing. Prasilka subsequently bought the tract and began preparation of the property for manufacturing
use in reliance on the new zoning map reflecting the change and on a city official's statement that it was correct.
The resolution was later deemed ineffective to change the zoning, and the city sued to enjoin Prasi&a. On appeal,
the court cited Rosenthal as authority that a city may be estopped when justice requires and there is no interference
with the exercise of governmental function, and noted that estoppel "is applied with caution and only in
exceptional cases when the circumstances clearly demand its application to prevent manifest injustice.
-4-
51(b), 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 3966. The purpose of the bill was to consolidate local and state
economic development programs under a new umbrella agency, the Texas Department of
Commerce, and to streamline and facilitate economic development initiatives. Texas enacted this
"early vesting" legislation so that rights would be considered vested when the initial permit
application was filed. Therefore, government regulations existing at the time the permit
application was filed were "frozen" for the length of development. House Bill 4 as originally
enacted did not apply to municipal permitting decisions.
House Bill 4 defined the regulatory agencies to which the statute applied as any agency,
bureau, department, division, or commission of the State or any department or agency of a
political subdivision, but excluded a governmental body. However, the building inspection
department and planning commission were arguably subject to the Act. Thus, developers argued
that House Bill 4 operated as a vested rights statute to require plats or building permits to be
governed by the ordinances in effect at the time the application was first filed.
Under House Bill 4 when a permit application was filed, only those ordinances in effect at
the time of application could be applied to the approval of the permit. In essence, the
owner /developer took a snap -shot of the development regulations at the time the application was
made for the first permit in a series of permits for a project and "locked in" the development
regulations. Any changes to the development regulations would not apply to the application for
the permit for the project. Until Williamson Joint Venture v City of Austin, 912 S.W.2d 340
(Tex. App. -Austin 1995, no writ) it was unclear whether House Bill 4 applied to zoning
determinations by a city.
In Williamson Joint Venture, the issue before the court was whether rezoning constituted
a permit under the Statute. There, land annexed by the City of Austin and zoned for development
of single - family homes, farms and ranches. The former owner of the land applied for and was
granted a rezoning for a more intensive use and which included new zoning categories. The then
property owner filed and received approval of a preliminary plat which expired. The owner did
not file a final plat. The subsequent owner, Williamson, acquired the property at which time the
Austin Save Our Springs (SOS) ordinance was pending. Williamson planned to develop the
property before the SOS ordinance was adopted so as to grandfather the earlier regulations.
Williamson filed a site plan application but did not file an application for final plat approval to
replace the expired preliminary plat. The site plan submitted was designed to comply with the
regulations which were in effect at the time of rezoning. However, the regulations in effect at the
time the site plan was submitted were different. The site plan was never approved and the
application expired after the City of Austin approved the SOS ordinance. The developer sued
claiming it was unfair to require compliance with the more restrictive SOS ordinance
requirements.
The Court applied the Statute as it existed prior to 1995 amendments discussed later. The
Court concluded that a rezoning of property was not a permit under Section 481.143 of the TEX.
Gov'T CODE, the Court stated "zoning and rezoning are legislative acts ". This opinion, however,
was limited to the statute as it existed prior to the 1995 amendment. The term "regulatory
-5-
agency" did not include the City Council and the term "permit" did not include plats and site
plans.'
In 1987, the statute broadly defined a permit to refer to a "license, certificate, approval,
registration current, permit, or other authorization required by law, rule, regulation or ordinance
that must be obtained by a permit in order to perform an action or initiate a project for which the
permit was sought. This definition would include any regulated action by a city other than
legislative action. Accordingly, a permit included any application for development of a project
which was subject to ministerial review and approval. Thus land studies, preliminary plats, site
plans and plats were permits.
Most developments however require approval of various permits at different phases of
development and over protracted periods. What constituted a project and what constituted a
permit, or the series of permits for development, was subject to varying interpretation. The
owner /developer's greatest fear was that the development regulations affecting the property
would change during the process, thus increasing the cost of development, delaying or preventing
completion of the project. Some jurisdictions adopted guidelines and defined projects and permits
and interpreted the statute to allow a separation of the permit approval process for the various
phases of development.
In FM Properties Operating Co. v City of Austin, 93 F.3d 167 (5th Cir. 1996), suit was
filed to invalidate a policy adopted by the Austin City Council which separated the platting and
building permit process so that a developer did not establish statutory vested rights. On the
effective date of House Bill 4, the Austin City Manager submitted an interpretation of the statute
to the City Council treating the land development process as involving two separate projects.d
The City Council adopted the policy which divided land development into two projects each
involving a separate and independent series of permits i.e. that series of permits necessary for
subdividing unplatted, raw land into legal lots; and that series of permits necessary for vertical
construction on existing legal lots.
In 1987, the predecessor landowner purchased acreage, in the Barton Creek Watershed,
and subsequently filed thirteen applications to obtain preliminary subdivision plat approval with
the City. These applications were the first in the series of permits for a subdivision plat approval,
7 The application for a preliminary plat or final plat, if a preliminary plat is not required, should be the first permit
in the series of permits required for development of property. The Court, however, discussed the site plan
requirement under the Austin Zoning Ordinance which must comply with the applicable rules including set back
requirements, dedication of park land, lot size and width, maximum dwellings per lot, maximum height, maximum
building coverage, maximum lot cover, parking, landscaping and tree preservation. Under the Austin Zoning
Ordinance, the approved site plan is prerequisite to building on the property, and thus a site plan is a permit in the
series of permits required for development
Under Austin's House Bill 4 policy, the filing of this initial application freezes those ordinances and regulations
in effect on that date and governs any subsequent permits necessary to obtain final subdivision plat approval.
Similarly, a site plan application is the first permit in the series of permits required for approval of construction on
subdivided property. The filing of a site plan application fi^eezes those ordinances and regulations in effect on its
filing date to govern the rest of the permit process.
lR
according to City policy interpreting the vested rights statute. Two months after the landowner
filed these applications, FM Properties obtained the property and filed its site plan for a large
development project. The site plan was the first permit application in the second series of permits
required for approval of construction on a subdivided property. The City rejected the site plan
because FM Properties failed to file all the necessary documents before the applications expired.
FM Properties refiled the site plan, however, the Save Our Springs ordinance had become
effective. FM Properties sued the City, claiming that the City "arbitrarily and capriciously
rejected the site plan. On appeal the Fifth Circuit upheld Austin's two- tiered policy.'
1995 AMENDMENTS TO VESTED RIGHTS STATUTE
In 1995, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1704 which substantially amended the
Statute. See, Act of May 24, 1995, 74th Leg., RS., ch. 794, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 4147
(repealed 1997). The amendments were pro - developer and restricted the ability of municipalities
to apply the current zoning ordinances and regulations or amendments thereof to development.
Senate Bill 1704 amended the definition of "regulatory agency" to include board, commission or
governing body. All permits required for a project were considered to be a single series of
permits. Preliminary plans and related subdivision plats, site plans and all other development
permits for land covered by such preliminary plans or subdivision plats were considered
collectively to be one series of permits. Preliminary plans, site plans and all other development
permits were to be governed by the regulations and ordinances in effect at the time the application
was made. In fact, the statute applied to projects in progress on the effective date of House Bill 4
in 1987 (eg. preliminary plats which had no expiration date controlled the development from that
time period, at the option of the owner). There were however exemptions under the statute.6
Clearly, under the statute, planning and zoning commissions, City Councils and boards
were regulatory agencies subject to the statute. Also "permits" expressly included preliminary
plans and related subdivision plats, site plans and all other development permits. In addition, only
' The Court ruled that Austin's policy was rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Subdivision of a
tract of land often proceeded construction by a number of years and such activities are often undertaken by different
parties. Assuring compliance at both stages would avoid inferior, and thus potentially hazardous, construction as
well as ecologically and environmentally insensitive development. In essence, Austin defeated the then Vested
Rights Statute by forcing developers to lock in the development regulations at the different stages
e (1) permits or licenses issued in connection with any form of gaming or gambling, (2) permits or license issued
under Title 2, Tax Code, (3) permits or orders issued under programs for which a state regulatory agency has
received authorization, delegation, or approval from the federal government to implement an equivalent state
program in lieu of or as part of the federal program, (4) permits for the construction of buildings or structures
intended for human occupancy or habitation issued pursuant to laws, ordinances, procedures, rules, or regulations
adopting solely the provisions of uniform building, fire, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical codes promulgated by
a recognized national code organization or local amendments to any such codes enacted imminent threats of
destruction of property or injury to persons, unless such permits are less than two years old, (5) municipal zoning
regulations that do not affect lot size, lot dimensions, lot coverage, or building size, (6) regulations for the location
of adult- oriented businesses, (7) state or local laws, including city or county ordinances, rules, regulations, or other
requirements affecting colonias, (8) fees lawfully imposed in conjunction with development permits, (9)
regulations for annexation, (10) regulations for utility connections, (11) regulations to prevent imminent
destruction of property or injury to persons, or (12) construction standards for public works located on public lands
and easements.
-7-
projects commenced after August 1, 1987 were entitled to protection. The 1995 amendments
also eliminated monetary relief by limiting enforceability to declaratory, mandamus and injunctive
relief. While the 1995 amendments clarified the vested rights protection afforded by the statute,
exemptions to the statute were created and questions remained unanswered.
1997 REPEAL OF VESTED RIGHTS STATUTE
In 1997, the Vested Rights Statute was inadvertently repealed by Senate Bill 932 that
reorganized the State's economic development agency. See, Acts of June 1, 1997, 75th Leg.,
R. S., ch. 1041, § 51(b), 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 3966. The sighs of relief and cheers of joy from
local government was only exceeded by the whines and fears of the homebuilders and real estate
attorneys so vested rights was brought back to the legislature's attention and, ultimately, resulted
in passage of new legislation.
CHAPTER 245 TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
The 76th Legislature passed House Bill 1704, which reinstated the former statute with
sweeping changes codified as Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code. The new
chapter basically reinstates Section 481.141- 481.143 of the Texas Government Code.
Generally, Chapter 245 of the TEX. Loc. GOVT CODE ensures uniform requirements
during the approval of a project by a regulatory agency. The new chapter requires that the
approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of an application for permit be governed by the
regulations in effect at the time the original application was filed. §245.002(a) TEX. Loc. GoVT
CODE. In addition, if a series of permits is required for a project, the regulations in effect at the
time the original application for the first permit in that series is filed shall be the sole basis for the
consideration of all subsequent permits required for the completion of the project. §245.002(b)
TEx. Loc. Gov'T CODE. Chapter 245 of the TEX. Loc. GOV'T CODE freezes regulations on the
date the first permit application is filed until the project is complete.
Under Section 245.002(b) of the Texas Local Government Code, all permits required for a
project are considered to be a single series of permits. Preliminary plans and related subdivision
plats, site plans, and all other development permits for land covered by the preliminary plans or
subdivision plats are considered collectively to be one series of permits for a project. § 245.001
TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE. Id In addition, after an application for a project is filed, a regulatory
agency may not shorten the duration of any permit required for the project. §245.002(c) TEx.
Loc. GOv'T CODE.
Definitions
The following definitions are found under § 245.001:
(1) "Permit" means a license, certificate, approval, registration, consent, permit, or
other form of authorization required by law, rule, regulation, order, or ordinance
-8-
that a person must obtain to perform an action or initiate, continue, -or complete a
project for which the permit is sought. e
(2) "Political subdivision" means a political subdivision of the state, including a
county, school district, or municipality.
(3) "Project" means an endeavor over which a regulatory agency exerts jurisdiction
and for which one or more permits are required to initiate, continue, or complete
the endeavor.
(4) "Regulatory agency" means the governing body o1; or a bureau, department,
division, board, commission, or other agency o& a political subdivision acting in its
capacity of processing, approving, or issuing a permit.
The definition of "regulatory agency" expressly includes City Council and by its language
necessarily includes, Planning and Zoning Commission, Building and Standards Commission and
Board of Adjustment. § 245.00 TEx. Loc. Gov'T CODE.
Projects in Progress
Any project in progress on or commenced after September 1, 1997 is subject to the
provisions under Chapter 245. §245.003 TEx. Loc. Gov'T CODE. A project is considered to be
in progress on September 1, 1997 if.
1. before September 1, 1997, a regulatory agency approved or issued one or more _.
permits for the project; or
2. an application for a permit for the project was filed with a regulatory agency; and
A project is also in progress if on or after September 1, 1997, a regulatory agency enacts,
enforces, or otherwise imposes:
1. an order, regulation, ordinance, or rule that in effect retroactively changes the
duration of a permit for the project;
2. a deadline for obtaining a permit required to continue or complete the project that
was not enforced or did not apply to the project before September 1, 1997; or
3. any requirement for the project that was not applicable to or enforced on the
project before September 1, 1997.
§245.003 TEX. LOC. GOVT CODE.
BLOM
Exemptions
The new statute does provide exemptions. § 245.004 TEX. Loc. GOVT CODE provides
that Chapter 245 does not apply to:
1. Permits that are at least two (2) years old, which were issued for the construction
of a building or structure intended for human occupancy, and issued under laws, ordinances,
procedures, rules or regulations adopting only uniform building, fire, electrical, plumbing, or
mechanical codes adopted by a recognized national code organization; or
2. Local amendments to the above codes that are enacted solely to address imminent
threats of destruction of property or injury to persons.
3. Municipal zoning regulations that do not affect lot size, lot dimensions, lot
coverage, or building size, or that do not change development permitted by a restrictive covenant
required by a city.
4. Regulations that specifically control only the use of land in a municipality that does
not have zoning and that do not affect lot size, lot dimensions, lot coverage, or building zones.
5. Fees imposed in conjunction with development permits.
6. Regulations for sexually oriented businesses, colonias, annexations, or utility
connectors.
7. Regulations to prevent imminent destruction of property or injury to persons,
including certain flood plan regulations.
Construction standards for public works located on public lands or easements.
§245.004 TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE.
Dormant Projects
The new statute contains provisions for dormant projects. A project is considered
dormant it the permit for the project does not have an expiration date and no progress has been
made towards the completion of the project. §245.005 TEX. Loc. GOVT CODE. Under
§245.005, "progress towards completion of a project" is defined as being any one or more of the
following:
application for a final plat;
2. a good faith attempt to file an application with a regulatory agency;
incurred costs for project development;
-10-
4. posting of fiscal security to ensure performance; or _
payment of utility connection fees or impact fees for the project.
§245.005 TEX. LOC. GOVT CODE.
Expiration of Dormant Projects
Section 245.005 also provides for the expiration of dormant projects which have been
issued permits. Section 245.005, provides that after May 11, 2000, a city may enact an ordinance
rule, or regulation that places an expiration date on a permit that has no expiration date if no
progress has been made towards completion of the project. §245.005 TEx. Loc. GoVT CODE.
However, if a city imposes an expiration date on a dormant project, the expiration date may not
be earlier than May 11, 2004. Id. For example, if a regulatory agency after September 1, 1997
issued a permit without an expiration date (preliminary plat) and no progress had been made
towards completion of that project, the city, after May 11, 2000, could place an expiration date
on the permit; however, the date of expiration for such preliminary plat could not be before May
11, 2004.
Continuing Problems
Chapter 245 freezes development regulations on the date the first permit application is
filed until the project is complete. Although "project" is defined, the application of the definition
may result in varying subjective interpretations. Local government may claim that the subdivision
of land into lots is a separate project from the construction of a building, each requiring a different
series of permits for development. Landowners however will continue to claim that all aspects of
development event though conducted by different entities over a span of time should be
considered a single project for which a single series of permits applies and not differing layers of
series of permits.
Amending plans and permits also raises questions. Is an amendment to a development
plan or permit a continuation of the project or does it constitute a new project? For example, a
plat is defined by Chapter 212 TEX. Loc. GOVT CODE to include a replat so if property is
replatted to include additional area or for some other minor development reason to accommodate
the original building project, is the replat a permit in a series of permits required for a new project
or merely a continuation of the former? A replat for lots combined or reconfigured to provide a
site for new development or redevelopment should be considered a new project. Similarly, what
if an amending plat is filed to relocate a lot line or for other minor development reason, is the
amending plat the first permit in a series of permits required for a new project?
What if the amending plat or replat are to accommodate major amendments or changes to
the original project, is such amending plat or replat the first permit in the series if permits for a
If a municipality requires and approves a development plan, the development regulations are locked in until the
last building is completed regardless of the size, phasing and mixture of the development
new project? Chapter 245 does not answer these questions but we fear that the interpretations to
be rendered by the landowners and developers will be adopted by the courts given the policy and
reasons for the legislative enactment, a landowner or developer should be entitled to complete the
development and construction of a project without fear of future regulations prohibiting or
impairing completion of such project.
Are permits that were issued without expiration dates valid forever and do development
rights for a project vest forever? Chapter 245 is retroactive to all projects in progress on
September 1, 1997 or for which a permit was filed after such date. This provision operates to
invalidate any action taken by local governments following the repeal of the Vested Rights Statute
in 1997 to place an expiration date on a permit after issuance. As a result any permit issued
before September 1, 1997 without an expiration date continues to be valid if even local
government enacted new development regulations. Development regulations enacted after the
repeal of the Vested Rights Statute, September 1, 1997 may not be applied to a project if a permit
for the project was filed before that date.
Recommendations for Local Government
1. Local government should establish by ordinance, rule or regulation expiration
dates for qualifying dormant projects.
2. Development regulations which do not contain expiration dates for development
permits (site plans, preliminary plats, conceptual or development plans) should be amended to so
that future permits have expiration dates.
Specify the effect of an approval and its relationship to subsequent approvals.
4. Provide procedures for extension and reinstatement of projects.
5. Establish criteria to determine if an amendment is a continuation of a permit for
project in progress or for a new project.
6. Define the differences between minor and major amendments and clearly state
major amendments are new projects.
7. Establish when a project is complete (e.g., issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
acceptance of public improvements, etc.).
8. Make submittal of some preliminary plans voluntary to avoid triggering Chapter
245. (e.g. preliminary plat voluntary; applicant may submit final plat without approval of
preliminary plat).
9. New regulations should be included within ordinance that is exempted from
Chapter 245 such as zoning, SOB'S and trade codes.
-12-
9. Require the landowner /developer to specify the applicable regulations for
development of a project and provide a basis for such conclusion.
CONCLUSION
Basically, Chapter 245 establishes that uniform requirements will be applied throughout
the approval process of a project. Local government should review and evaluate local
development regulations in light of Chapter 245. Developers should review development
regulations in the locality for intended projects and their past practices in light of Chapter 245.
New regulations may be placed within ordinances that are exempted from Chapter 245. After
May 11, 2000, local government may establish expiration dates for qualifying dormant projects.
Development regulations which do not specify expiration dates for future development permits
should also be amended to provide expiration dates for future projects. After receiving input from
the development community local government can adopt guidelines for local government staff and
developers to use in implementing Chapter 245. The goal for now is for local government to
establish guidelines to work within the boundaries of the law.
§ 244.026
Section
233.002.
Uniformity of Requirements.
233.00:3.
Applicability of Chapter.
243.003.
Exemptions, .
243.003.
Dormant Projects.
243.006.
Enforcement of Chapter.
21.3.001. Definitions
In this chapter:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
(1) '-Permit" means a license, certificate, approv-
al, registration, consent, permit, or other form of
authorization required by law. rule, regulation, or-
der, or ordinance that a pet-son must obtain to
perform an action or initiate, continue, or complete
a project for which the permit is sought.
(2) "Political subdivision" means a political subdi-
vision of the state, including a county, a school
clistrict, or a municipality.
(:3) "Project" means an endeavor over which a
regulatory agency exerts its jurisdiction and for
which one or more permits are required to initiate,
continue, or complete the endeavor.
(•1) "[iegtllatory agency" means the goyerninlr
holy of, or it Bureau, department, division, board,
commission, or other agency of, it political subdi%i-
sion acting in its capacity of processing, approving,
or issuing a pertnit.
-Added k Acts 1999, 7Gth Leg., ch. 73, § 2, eff. Mav 11, 1999.
see n' ., Ili Acts Ifl!)tt, flit ll I.1'L., ch. 73 pr•er6h•:
S Errect of Prior 1.a%% (:1) 1'ho ri•poal of ti11hrhapfel [.
Chap(,n' I,�I, Qocernnusrt ('ale, I)v Section.11(b). ('hapte•r (loll, Arts
•,i the- 7:ah Lcg,i,laune. ltrtnd:u 1e.ount, 1!N17.:uld :uty actions taken
!,c a rrLculano•y agency fur the i.— oallty Ida pen•nut, as tlwsc ternns
An. dvill I he Section "L100l. Loral Gw,rnmont. (•ode. a, :uldrd he
Se -rlon _ ol• rills Act. after that mth•:11 and bt•On-e the effective date of
tlus art, ball not. cao— nr cry ore [hc rxpiralioo or termination of a
In•ojeet, permit. or >,virs of 1n•rulits to '01101 Notion _ ,d this Act
applir,. An action be a retinl :our)' ,Rene}' that violates this ,action is
e "nl lei the e\tent to ttve effect to rhos �ectlon.
Tlo, Art lug, nut affect lhr n0o, or rcnu•die•s of arc Iret•so❑
or emir' under a tin:d jol(;un•trt rrodered he a court betore the
r�lirtn,• d:d,• of thi' A"t, or ill sun litigaliun pe n,ling, in :r roort ,o the
dato d till, Act. invoking, an intertm•tatiun of Nuhchapter I,
l h:q,ter Isi. Covornownt ('olr, ;t..' it 1)e1Ln• its n•lwal by the
7 ;th Leti Idrlll•e.
"See. L (•unstntrtinn of Art. Nothing, in rills Act shall Ixt iron-
.rived G, :ygde to a condition or provision of art onlinMICIJ. rule, or
retmlatwo that is cnm -tad bY it retrilatory ag,t•ncy, as that term is
,h•11ned h'v Section _L;.1N11, Local Cuvermnont (ale. its added by
rertion _ of this Act. evhich is ,Iwciflcally required by undurndy
:gqdicablo rettlations adopted by a ,talc agency after the effective
,late of this Act.
••S(lc. 5. Ftfect on Cmistal Zone Manavement Act. Nothing in this
Act shall he construed to:
••r I) litnit or otherwise affect the authunty of a municipality, a
ruunty. another politicul subdivimun, the state, or an aotency of the
state, with resilect to the implementatiun or enforcement of an
or lin:tnre that wwi adopteei and r the f cleral (intstalKZ Zone ManaKCr
"lent Act of 1!)7_ (I6 US.C. Section 11.11 et step) or its subsequent
utttendmenG or Subtitle E. Title 2, Natw:d Resources Cale: or
4SO
anuic to a per it. ord'r. ride. rrr. i ti:n. yr ,tcrr ac^
issued. adopted. or undertaken he a mur.i ::; u:i:•.. .1 o unt}.
political suhdicision. the state. ur an azencr f the in eur.r.r• ^:,n
«ith the federal Coastal Zone Manag,ement Act of 1,1%, i Ui
Section 1451 et seq.) or it; sub,, ;vent ar:em!menta .,r iuhti;!e E.
Title 2. Natural Resources Code.'
21.3.002. Uniformity of Requirements
(a) Each regulatory agency shall consider the ap-
proyal, disapproval. or conditional approval of an ap-
plication for a permit solely on the basis of any orders,
regulations, ordinances, rules, expuration dates, or oth-
er properly adopted requirement_ in effect at the time
the original application for the permit is tiled.
(b) If a series of permit: is required for a project,
the orders, regulations, ordinances. rules, expiration
dates, or other properly adopted requirements in ef-
fect at the time the original application for the first
permit in that series is tiled shall be the sole basis for
consideration of all subsequent permits required for
the completion of the project. All permits required
for the project are considered to be a single series of
permits. Preliminary plans and related subdivision
(flats, site plans, and all other development permit; for
land covered by the preliminary plans or subdivision
plats are considered collectively to be one series of
permits tier a project.
(c) After an application for a project is tiled, it
regulatory agency may not shorten the duration of
any permit r(aluired for- the project.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of this Chapter• to
the contrary, it permit holder may take atlt ;lntage of
MT(Wded sub(ivision plat notes, recorded restrictiye
covenants required by a re}ndaaay a (nc, of• a
change to the laws. nles, t•olni lilt ion�, ()t. n
t• t•ehnanc•(•s of
a reAndatory agency that enhance, or prou-ct the pro -
ivet, including Changes that lengthen the t R, -Ctive life
of the permit after the date the application 6)r the
permit was lnadt', without forfeiting; stn} n�ht. under
this chapter.
:Added by Acts 199% 76th Leg., ch. 7:3, : 2, eft .`•1
24.5.003. Applicahility of Chapter
This chapter applies only to a project in pr„tt•ess on
or commenced alter September 1. 1997. F'en pur-
poses of this chapter a project was in l,r •tit•• on
September 1. 1997, if:
(1) before September 1, 1997:
(A) a regulatory agency approved or t�.twd one
or more permits for the project: or
(B) an application for a permit for the project
was filed with a regulatory agency: anti
Cher action
:tc, another
, connection
itli C.S.C.
Subtitle E,
' the ap-
t' an ap-
y orders,
+. or oth-
the time
project,
sniration
.ts in ef-
the first
basis for
;iced for
required
�er•ies of
,division
'snits for
,rli-vision
(pries of
tiled, a
ition of
(ptar to
tat3,re of
fictive
or* a
;aces of
he pro -
rive life
for the
under
1, 1999
'ess on
'r pur-
css on
ed one
; n•oject
LAND USE & RELATED ACTIVITIES
(2) on or after September 1, 1997." a regulatory
agency enacts, enforces, or otherwise imposes:
(A) an order, regulation, ordinance, or rule that
in effect retroactively changes the duration of a
permit for the project:
(B) a deadline for obtaining a permit required
to continue or complete the project that was not
enforced or did not apply to the project before
September 1, 1997: or-
(C) any requirement for the project that was
not applicable to or enforced on the project be-
fore September 1, 1997.
Added by Act 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 73, § 2. eft'. May 11. 1999.
245.004. Exemptions
This chapter floes not apply to:
(1) a permit that is at least two years old, is
issued fur the construction-of a building or structure
intended for human occupancy or habitation, and is
issued under- laws, ordinance, procedures, rules, or
regulations adopting only:
(A) uniform building, tire, electrical, plumbing,
or mechanical cartes adopted by a recognized
national code organization: or-
(B) local arnendtnetits to those curies enacted
. MV to address imminent threats of destruction
of property or injury to pet'sons;
(2) mmmieipad zoning t•t•gulatiuns that flu not af-
fect lot sire, lot dimensions, lot coverage. or building
size ur that du not change development permitted
by a restrictive covenant required by a municipality;
(:3) r•e},ndatduns that specifically control only the
use of land in a municipality that clues not have
zoning and that (it) nut affect lot size, lot dimensions,
tut cover•;i9V, or• building siz(I;
( I) re}nllations for sexually oriented businesses;
( �l municipal or county ordinances, rules. regula-
tions. or Other r-e(tuir•enrents affecting colonias;
(ti) fees imposed in conjunction with development
permits;
(7) rMilatiuns for annexation:
(8) regulations for utility connections:
(9) regulations to prevent imminent destruction
of property or injul'y to pet-sons, including regula-
tions effective only within a flood plain established
by a federal flood control program arm and enacted to
prevent the flooding of buildings intended for public
occupancy; or
481
3 245.006
(10) construction standards for public works lo-
cated on public lands or easements.
Added by Acts 1999. .6th Leg., ch. 73, a ?. eff. May 11. 199v.
245.005, Dormant Projects
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter.
after- the first anniversary of ne effective date of this
chapter-, a regulatory agency may enact an ordinance,
rule, or- regulation that places an expiration date on a
permit if as of the first anniversary of the effective
date of this chapter: (i) the permit does not have an
expiration date; and (ii) no progress has been made
towards completion of the project. Any ordinance.
role, or regulation enacted pursuant to this section
shall place an expiration date of no eu'lier than the
fifth anniversary of the effective date of this chapter.
Progress towards completion of the project shall in-
clude any one or more of the following:
(1) an application for- a final plat or plan is sub-
mitted to a regulatory agency;
(2) a good -faith attempt is made to file with a
regulatory agency an application for a permit neces-
sary to begin or continue towards completion of the
project;
(:I) costs have been incurred for developing the
project including, withuut limitation, costs associat-
ed with roadway, utility, and other- infrastructure
facilities designed to serve, in whole or- in part. the
project (hut exclusive of land acquisition) in the
a99regate amount of five pet-cent of the must recer —
appraised market value of the real property i.
which the project is located;
(1) fiscal security is posted with it regulatory
a);enry to ensure performance of an uhligatiun r•e-
(luired by the re>.ndatrry agency; or
(5) utility connection fees or impact ti es for the
project have been paid to a rewllat„ry agency.
Added by acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 7:3. ` _'. of May it. 1999.
al' 215.006. Enforcement of Chapter
This chapter may be enforced only through manda-
mus or declaratory or injunctive relief.
Added by acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 73. 1 _'. ,•:f Ala} 11. 1999.
(Chapters 216 to 2,19 reserved for e�pansionj
CHAPTER 250. h1ISCELLA` EOL'S REG-
ULATORY .AUTHORITY OF JIC"%'ICI-
PALITIES AND COUNTIES
Section
250.001. Restriction on Regulation of Si -,rt Shooting
Ranges.