HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1991-03-25 Agendas
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
':1
.
CI1Y OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 25, 1991 - 6:00 P.M.
For the Meeting conducted at the North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers, 7301
Northeast Loop 820.
! NUMBER I ITEM I ACTION TAKEN I
1. IR 91-40 Discussion of Smoking Ordinance -
Mayor Brown/Councilman Welch
(10 Minutes)
2. Discussion of C.E.R. T. - Mayor Brown
(5 Minutes)
3. IR 91-39 Stormwater Management Utility (Drainage Utility)
(10 Minutes)
4. GN 91-38 Street Assessment Policy (Agenda Item #18)
(15 Minutes)
a. Determining the Necessity for Improvements
on Davis Boulevard (Agenda Item #20)
b. Davis Boulevard (FM 1938) Enhancement
Study
5. GN 91-37 Animal Care and Control Center Interlocal
Agreement with the City of Watauga (Agenda
Item #17) (10 Minutes)
6. GN 91-43 Proposed Certificate of Obligation and
Contractual Obligation Refunding - Iron Horse
Golf Course (Agenda Item #23) (5 Minutes)
7. GN 91-47 Community Center Parking Lot
(Agenda Item #27) (10 Minutes)
8. IR 91-38 Lakeway Ordinance on Itinerant Vendors
(Solicitors) (5 Minutes)
9. IR 91-37 Report on Cable T.V. (5 Minutes)
10. Other Items
I.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
~
,
Page 2
NUMBER ! ITEM I ACTION TAKEN I
11. Work Session
12. *Executive Session (5 Minutes)
a. Personnel
b. Briefing on Pending Litigation
c. Review of Progress on Land Acquisition
I 13. I Adjournment - 7:20 p.m. ¡ I
*Closed due to subject matter as provided by the Open Meetings Law. If any action is
contemplated, it will be taken in open session.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
CI1Y OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
CI1Y COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 25,1991
For the Regular Meeting conducted at the North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers, 7301
Northeast Loop 820, at 7:30 p.m. The below listed items are placed on the Agenda for discussion
and/ or action.
NUMBER ! ITEM I ACTION TAKEN I
1. ! Call to Order I
2. ! Invocation I
3. ! Pledge of Allegiance I
4. Minutes of the Regular Meeting
February 25, 1991
5. Minutes of the Special Meeting
March 14, 1991
6. Special Presentation - Mayor Brown
Frank Metts, Jr. - Former
Councilman, Place 4
Ed and Betty Jones - Volunteers of
the Year
7. Presentations by Boards & Commissions
Library Board Minutes
Report from Library Board - J an
Daniels, Chairman
8. Removal of Item(s) from the Consent
Agenda
9. Consent Agenda Item(s) indicated by
Asterisk (14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28,
29 & 30)
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
! NUMBER ! ITEM I ACTION TAKEN I
10. PZ 91-01 Public Hearing - Request of Lerer Realty
to Rezone Lot lR, Block 23, Clearview
Addition, from its Present Classification
of C-1 (Commercial) to
C-2 (Commercial). (Located at 8001
Grapevine Highway)
11. Ordinance No. 1719
12. PZ 91-02 Public Hearing - Request of Alamo
Custom Builders to Rezone 23 Lots in
Glenview Park Addition from their
Present Classification of R-6- T
(Townhouse District) to R-3 (Single
Famíly). (Located on the South Side of
Glenview Drive, West of Rufe Snow
Drive)
13. Ordinance No. 1720
*14. PS 91-02 Request of Alamo Custom Builders for
Replat of Lots 3R-16R, Block 1, and
Lots 1R-4R & 6R-10R, Block 2,
Glenview Park Addition. (Located on
the South Side of Glenview Drive, West
of Rufe Snow Drive)
*15. GN 91-35 Police Mobile Data Terminal Interlocal
Agreement
*16. GN 91-36 Amendment to Ordinance No. 1691
(Benefits for Service Personnel Called to
Active Duty) - Ordinance No. 1723
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
Page 3
! NUMBER ! ITEM I ACTION TAKEN I
*17. GN91-37 Animal Care and Control Center
Interlocal Agreement with the City of
Watauga - Resolution No. 91-12
18. GN 91-38 Street Assessment Policy - Ordinance
No. 1715
19. GN 91-39 Public Hearing on Davis Boulevard
(FM 1938) Assessments
20. GN 91-40 Determining the Necessity for
Improvements on Davis Boulevard
(FM 1938) - Ordinance No. 1717
21. GN 91-41 Closing Hearing and Levying
Assessments for Improvements of Davis
Boulevard
(FM 1938) - Ordinance No. 1718
*22. GN 91-42 Endorsing the Establishment of a
Railtran Station in the City of Richland
Hills - Resolution No. 91-13
*23. GN 91-43 Proposed Certificate of Obligation and
Contractual Obligation Refunding - Iron
Horse Golf Course - Ordinance No. 1721
- Resolution Nos. 91-10 & 91-11
*24. GN 91-44 Property Tax Refund
25. GN 91-45 Public Hearing for Consideration of a
Revision to the Master Thoroughfare
Plan Regarding Bursey Road - Ordinance
No. 1722
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 4
! NUMBER ! ITEM I ACTION TAKEN I
*26. GN 91-46 Pledging Support for Carswell Air Force
Base and its Expansion - Resolution No.
91-09
27. GN 91-47 Community Center Parking Lot
*28. PW 91-10 Approve Agreement for Engineering
Services with Teague Nail and Perkins,
Inc.
*29. PW 91-11 Approve Contract for Enhancement
Study for North Crane Road and Valley
Park Estates Sanitary Sewer Main
Extension
*30. PW 91-12 Approve Budget for 1991 Opticom Signal
Light Control Improvements at Two
Intersections; Rufe Snow Dr./Watauga
Road and Rufe Snow DrivejGlenview
Drive
31. Citizens Presentation
I 32. I Adjournment i I
F::'~~:: ~: Ei":
__ _____3 -:.2~~-?: 1_.___-----.--
'. '. . .,~
I/'./ / /1.,
/ '-"~ ..ij../..t!~'-_~__._._._.._._.. _..-.--.
......-. ......--' .---.-- ..~,..--.-;:~ 7: ~.
i : T.'~;
\: t-.~ ~ ::; '::-~':'." ::.::.. 'l:; /?
.,,'.~' ~..£. ~â - ~Æ/- .£«~..__._-
. " .' ~y:... __,,,-,-:1. c."- . ... - ..... -. ..
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
No. IR 91-40
^
'\j~
c:::::::: lIE
y
Date:
March 25, 1991
Subject:
Smoking Ordinance
Attached is Ordinance 1445 which prohibits smoking in certain public
areas. The Mayor has received complaints about smoking in the Pre-
Council Room during Pre-Council Meetings. He has asked that this be
discussed at the March 25, 1991 Pre-Council Meeting.
Lu¡:;tted'
Dennis Horvath
Deputy City Manager
DH/gp
Attachment
- ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
ORDINANCE NO. 1445
WHEREAS, the smoking of tobacco or weeds or other p1ant products
has been demonstrated to have a detrimenta1 effect on not on1y the smoker
but others in c10se proximity to the smoker; and,
¡
WHEREAS, it is the right of citizens to be ab1e to choose for ;
themse1ves whether to smoke either active1y or passive1y; and,
WHEREAS, it is the po1icy of this city to encourage food product
estab1ishments which have enc10sed dining areas to provide adequate seating
for those patrons who prefer a smoke-free environment; and,
WHEREAS, it is desirab1e to regu1ate pub1ic1y owned faci1ities to
assure a smoke-free environment; and,
WHEREAS, it is desirab1e to authorize emp10yers to designate
non-smoking areas in certain workplaces; and,
WHEREAS, the citizens of North Rich1and Hi11s have demonstrated a
desire to vo1untari1y comp1y with city ordinances which protect pub1ic
health and welfare; and,
WHEREAS, regu1ations regarding smoking can and shou1d be enforced
only on a complaint basis; and,
WHEREAS, such enforcement wou1d be effective without substantia1
additional cost to the city;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS; that
SECTION 1.
DEFINITIONS
(1) ADMINISTRATIVE AREA means the area of an estab1ishment not
genera11y accessib1e to the pub1ic, inc1uding but not 1imited
to individua1 offices, stockrooms, emp10yee 1ounges, or
meeting rooms.
(2) EMPLOYEE means any person who is emp10yed by any emp10yer for
direct or indirect monetary wages or profit.
(3) ENCLOSED means c10sed in by a roof and wa11s with appropriate
openings for ingress and egress, but does not inc1ude areas
commonly described as public lobbies.
(4) HOSPITAL means any institution that provides medica1,
surgical, and overnight facilities for patients.
(5) RETAIL AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT means any estab1ishment
which se11s goods, food or services to the genera1 pub1ic.
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Ordinance No. 1445
Page 2
(6) PUBLIC SERVICE AREA means any area to which the general
public routinely has access for municipal services or which
is designated a public service area by the city.
(7) SMOKING means the combustion of any cigar, cigarette, pipe,
or similar article, using any form of tobacco or other
combustive substance in any form.
(8) WORKPLACE means any enclosed area of a structure, or portion
thereof, intended for occupancy by employees who provide
primarily clerical, professional, or business services of a
business entity, or which provide primarily clerical,
professional, or business services to other business
entities, or to the public, at that location.
SECTION 2.
)( SMOKING PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN PUBLIC AREAS
(a) A person commits an offense if he smokes or possesses a
burning tobacco, weed or other plant product in any of the following indoor
or enclosed areas:
(1) an elevator used by the public;
(2) a hospital or nursing home corridor providing direct
ess to atients' rooms;
x
(3) any public meeting room or public service area of any
facility owned, operated or managed by the city while
such area is being used for a public meeting;
(4) any retail or service establishment serving the general
public, including, but not limited to, any department
store, grocery store, drug store, or restaurant;
~
(5) an area marked with a no smoking sign in accordance with
Subsection (b) by the owner or person in contro1 of a
hospital, nursing home, or retail or service
establishment serving the general public; or
(6) any facility of a public elementary or secondary school;
(7) an enclosed theater, movie house, library, museum, or
public transit vehicle.
(b) The owner or person in control of an establishment or area
designated in Subsection (a) of this section shall post a conspicuous sign
at the main entrance to the establishment. The sign shall contain the
words IINo Smoking, City of North Richland Hills Ordinancell, the universal
symbol for no smoking, or other language that clearly prohibits smoking.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Ordinance No. 1445
Page 3
(c) Every hospital shall:
(1) allow all patients, prior to elective admission, to
choose to be in a no smoking patient room; and
(2) require that employees or visitors obtain express
approval from all patients in a patient room prior to
smoking.
(d) The owner or person in control of an establishment or area
described in Subsection (a) (4) or (a) (6) may designate an area, including
but not limited to lobbies, meeting rooms, or waiting rooms, as a smoking
area; provided that the designated smoking area may not include:
(1) the entire establishment;
(2) cashier areas or over the counter sales areas;
(3) the viewing area of any theater or movie house
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this ordinance if the
person was smoking in a location that was:
(1) a designated smoking area of a facility or establishment
described in Subsection (a) (4) or (a) (6) of this
section which is posted as a smoking area with
appropriate signs;
(2) an administrative area or office of an establishment
described in Subsection (a) (4) or (a) (6) of this
section;
(3) a retail or service establishment serving the general
public with less than 500 square feet of public showroom
or service space or having only one employee on duty,
unless posted as designated in Subsection (a) (5) of
this section;
(4) a retail or service establishment which is primarily
engaged in the sale of tobacco, tobacco products or
smoking implements.
SECTION 3.
REGULATION OF SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS
(a) A food establishment which has indoor or enclosed dining
areas shall provide separate indoor or enclosed dining areas for
non-smoking patrons.
(b) A non-smoking area must:
(1) be separated, where feasible, from smoking areas by a
minimum of four feet of contiguous floor space;
-.. ... .... ~
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Ordinance No. 1445
Page 4
(2) be ventilated, where feasible, and situated so that air
from the smoking area is not drawn into or across the
non-smoking area;
(3) be clearly designated by appropriate signs visible to
patrons within the dining area indicating that the area
is designated non-smoking; and
(4) have ash trays or other suitable containers for
extinguishing smoking materials at the perimeter of the
non-smoking area.
(c) Non-dining areas of any food establishment affected by this
section to which patrons have general access, including, but not limited
to, food order areas, food service areas, restrooms, and cashier areas,
shall be designated as non-smoking areas.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this ordinance that the
food establishment is:
(1) an establishment which has indoor seating arrangements
for less than 50 patrons and has posted conspicuously a
sign which states "This Establishment Does Not Provide a
No Smoking Area".
SECTION 4.
REGULATION OF SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE
(a) Any employer may designate any workplace, or portion thereof,
as a non-smoking area. Any employer who chooses to designate any
workplace, or portion thereof, as a non-smoking area shall:
(1) prominently display reasonable sized signs indicating
that smoking is prohibited; and
(2) provide facilities in sufficient numbers and at such
locations to be readily accessible, for the
extinguishment of smoking materials.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to violate an employer's
smoking policy, adopted, implemented, and maintained in accordance with
Subsection (a).
(1) It shall be a defense to prosecution under this section
that the workplace does not have prominently displayed
reasonably sized signs indicated that smoking is
prohibited.
(2) It shall also be a defense to prosecution under this
section that facilities for the extinguishment of
smoking materials were not located in said workplace in
sufficient numbers and at such locations as to be
readily accessible.
I-
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Ordinance No. 1445
Page 5
SECTION 5.
PENALTIES
Any person, firm, corporation, agent or employee thereof who
violates any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined an amount
not more than two hundred dollars ($200.00).
This ordinance does not require the owner, operator, manager or
any employee of an establishment to report a violation or to take any
action against any individual violating this ordinance.
SECTION 6.
This ordinance shall be cumulative of all prOV1Slons of ordinances
of the City of North Richland Hills, except where the provisions of this
ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances, in
which event conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed.
SECTION 7.
This ordinance shall be enforced by the Police Department on a
complaint basis only.
SECTION 8.
If any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this
ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid jUdgment or
decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality
shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences,
paragraphs and sections of this ordinance.
SECTION 9.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
April 13, 1987, and its passage and publication as required by law, and it
is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 13th day of April, 1987.
~MaçJ~
ATTEST:
. .
Rex McEntire, Attorney for the City
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
No. IR 91-39
Date:
March 25, 1991
Subject:
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY (Drainage utility)
The Drainage Utility study by Knowlton-English-Flowers, Inc. is finished and a
copy has been included with your agenda packet. As directed, we have brought
this to you with a copy of a proposed implementation schedule. The schedule
has been structured to meet all time and number of advertisement requirements
as noted in the Local Government Code, Title 13, Water and Utilities, Chapter
402.
City Council guidance is requested, when and if to proceed with the process of
implementing a Drainage utility and its associated fee.
Respectfully submitted,
Works/utilities
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
NORTH RICHLAND HillS. TEXAS
I
I City of X>rth Richland Hills
1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
March 19, 1991
Ref: PWM 91-009
MEMO TO: Rodger N. Line, City Manager
Dennis Horvath, Deputy City Manager
FROM: Gregory W. Dickens
Director of Public Works/utilities
SUBJECT: DRAINAGE UTILITY; Proposed Schedule for ~lementation
DATE ACTION
2-22-91 Drainage Utility Fee Study completed by Knowlton-English-Flowers,
Inc. and draft copy transmitted to City.
3-19-91 Review completed by staff and final copies of the Drainage Utility
Fee study are delivered to the City.
3-25-91 Informal Report which includes proposed schedule of implementation
given to Council for discussion.
4-08-91 Regular Scheduled Council Meeting - Council to set date of Public
Hearing for adoption of ordinance.
4-12-91 Advertise proposed ordinance and date of scheduled Public Hearing
in local newspaper.
4-19-91 Advertise proposed ordinance and date of scheduled Public Hearing
in local newspaper.
4-26-91
Advertise proposed ordinance and date of scheduled Public Hearing
in local newspaper.
5-13-91
Regular Scheduled Council Meeting - Council to hold Public Hearing
to consider the proposed ordinance. Council to vote on adoption
of ordinance which establishes the Drainage Utility. Council to
set date of Public Hearing for the purpose of reviewing the
proposed Drainage utility fee charges.
5-17-91
Advertise proposed ordinance and date of scheduled Public Hearing
in local newspaper.
5-24-91
Advertise proposed ordinance and date of scheduled Public Hearing
in local newspaper.
(817) 281-0041
· 7301 N.E. LOOP 820 · P.O. BOX 18609 · NORTH RICHlAND HillS, TEXAS 76180
I'
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
March 19, 1991
PWM 91-009
Page 2
5-31-91
Advertise proposed ordinance and date of scheduled Public Hearing
in local newspaper.
6-10-91
Regular Scheduled Council Meeting - Council to hold Public Hearing
to consider the proposed ordinance. Council to vote on adoption
of ordinance which would levy the Drainage utility fees.
The above schedule is optimistic. These dates are dependent on proceeding
immediately with this proposed implementation schedule. In the event we do
not accomplish the proposed action for April 8, 1991 on time, the dates shown
for the remaining actions would be delayed.
') ... /J . :, /)
. C'~~L~" 6lt-¿\ L~~
.,' ), . ~
GWD/J,tat J ' I'
( "1/
,---",/
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICH LAND HILLS
***
DRAINAGE UTILITY
STUDY
MARCH 15, 1991
KNOWLTON-ENGLISH-FLOWERS, INC.
Consulting Engineers
(817) 283-6211
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
1
I
I
.
I
KNOWL TON-ENGLISH-FLOWERS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS / Fort Worth-Dallas
March 15, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of North Richland Hills
7301 N.E. loop 820
North Richland Hills, Texas 76180
Re: 3-241. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
DRAINAGE UTILITY STUDY
FINAL REPORT TRANSMITTAL
As instructed, we have prepared this Drainage Utility Study Report for your
review and consideration of approval. This report discusses the method
recommended by the City Storm Water Management Committee which may be adopted
by the City of North Richland Hills for establishing Drainage Utility Billing
Rates. Tabulations of projected revenue for this method at various optional
billing rates are also presented.
We are available to discuss this study with you at your convenience.
Meanwhile, please feel free to contact Richard Albin or Phil Philipp if you
have any questions prior to adoption.
~w.~
Richard W. Albin, P.E.
GRP/pp
cc: Mr. Rodger N. line, City Manager
Mr. Dennis Horvath, Deputy City Manager
Mr. Greg Dickens, P.E., Director of Public Works
Mr. lee Maness, Director of Finance
1901 CENTRAL DR., SUITE 550 . BEDFORD, TEXAS 76021 . 817/283-6211 . METRO 817/267-3367 . FAX 817/354-4389
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
TABLE NUMBER
II
III
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION
I
Scope of Study
General
Equivalent Residential Unit .
Representation of Equivalent Residential Unit .
Determination of ERU . . . . . . . .
Recommended Method of Utility Billing
Estimated Drainage Utility Revenue
Table of Rates per Lot or Acre . . .
Estimated Monthly Revenue by Use Type . .
PAGE NO.
1
2
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16 - 32
.
. . . .
V
Appendix "A" DETAIL CALCULATIONS . .
Derivation of Average Area of Improvements
Derivation of Drainage Unit Factor . . . .
. . . .
Appendix "B" DETERMINATION OF TYPICAL RUNOFF COEF .
VI Calculation of Runoff Coefficient
Runoff Coefficients, R-l - PO . .
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
DRAINAGE UTILITY
SCOPE OF STUDY
Texas legislation, in 1989, passed the Municipal Drainage Systems Act which
enables Texas Cities to establish a municipal drainage system within municipal
boundaries; provide rules for the use, operation, and financing of the system;
protect the public health and safety in municipalities from loss of life and
property caused by surface water overflows and surface water stagnation within the
boundaries of municipalities; delegate to municipalities the power to declare, after
a public hearing, a drainage system created under this subchapter to be a public
utility; prescribe bases on which a municipal drainage utility system may be funded
and fees in support of the system may be assessed, levied, and collected; provide
exemptions of certain persons from this subchapter; and prescribe other rules
related to the subject of municipal drainage.
This act, in short, enables Texas Cities to establish a drainage utility,
similar to other utilities furnished; establish a schedule of charges to be made;
assess those property owners which contribute to drainage handled by the City and
utilize funds collected for drainage maintenance and improvement projects.
liThe governing body of the municipality may charge a lot or tract of
benefitted property for drainage service on any basis other than the value of the
property, but the basis must be directly related to drainage and the terms of the
levy, and any classification of the benefitted properties in the municipality must
be nondiscriminatory, equitable, and reasonable."
Our firm has been authorized by the City of North Rich1and Hills to assist the
City in establishing a Drainage Utility System by providing the following
engineering services:
1. Estimate the areas of various types of land use within the city of North
Rich1and Hills. This will be done for both existing development and for
future or ultimate development.
2. Estimate the value of an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) based on the
developed portion of an average single family residence.
3. Based on this value of an ERU, estimate the income to the city for various
billing rates.
4. Review various methods of calculating the ERU; similar to methods used in
other municipalities. (These various methods were previously presented in the
preliminary report.)
5. Develop calculation procedures for the method chosen, indicating: method,
distribution of fees, and anticipated revenue.
6. Compute the estimated income for this method for a range of rates.
1
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL
This report presents the procedures for computing Drainage Utility billing rates
based on the aethod that was chosen by the North Richland Hills Storm Water
Management Utility Committee from four methods previously presented. Estimates of
expected reveMe's from this method are tabulated. Concepts such as "Equivalent
Residential Units" or ERU's, "Impervious Cover", and "Runoff Coefficients" are
discussed. Otter area cities have already established Drainage Utility Departments
and adopted Dninage Utility Rates based on methods similar to the method described
in th i s report.
EOUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT
An ERU is a me~ure of surface area (in square feet or acres) from which some or all
rain water runs. off, for a typical single family residence. An ERU may be defined
as only rooft~, sidewalks and driveways. If a typical single family residential
lot measures 11,000 square feet, and the house, sidewalk and driveway occupy, say,
4,000 square ~t, then the standard ERU is 4,000 square feet.
"lmpervilUs Cover" is typically understood to mean surfaces such as rooftops,
sidewa1b, and driveways from which almost all rainfall runs off. An ERU could
also inc1ude a portion of dirt, grass, gravel and other surfaces from which
some railta 11 runs off.
"Runoff teefficient" is a ratio of the amount of rainfall which runs off,
compared to the total rainfall which falls on the surface. If one-half of the
rain whici falls on a surface runs off, then the runoff coefficient is 0.50.
If 90-~ent of the rainfall runs off, then the runoff coefficient is 0.90.
For the typical 10,000 square foot residential lot described above, which includes
4,000 square feet of impervious area, a portion of the remaining 6,000 square foot
grass area coMributes to runoff. If two-thirds of the rainfall is absorbed into
the 6,000 squ~ foot grass area and one-third runs off, then an additional 1/3 x
6,000, or 2,~ square feet should be included in the ERU if grass is considered.
The adjusted ÐI would then be 4,000 + 2,000, or 6,000 square feet.
If only devel~ areas, which contain impervious cover, are assessed Drainage
Utility Rates, then the ERU which includes only rooftops, driveways and sidewalks
should be US~ If undeveloped or vacant areas are assessed along with all other
developed areas.. then an ERU must be used which includes the grass component.
Pg. 2
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
REPRESENTATION OF
EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT
(ERU)
The plate following is based on information obtained in the Preliminary Drainage
Utility Study which depicts a graphical representation of an ERU. As indicated, the
improved areas outside of the right-of-way (within private property) are the only
areas included in the final calculation. .
Pg. 3
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.' .
. '.
. :': . : .: ':... ~. ; ,..., '
, .... .' .' e,' .
. .
. .
. .
. . .
. .
..
o
.
~
~
. . .
. .. ..
.' .
. .
. , , . ,. . .' . . .'
. ..
. . . . . .
" . . . . : :'. .' . I . '. . . ':'.' . , . ....'.~ ~ t . .. ~.
P .L.
t
DRIVEWAY
t
TOTAL ROOF
AREA
TOTAL AREA = 12, 8~1 SF f
AREA IN R.O. W.= 1 ,875 SF
AVERAGE LOT= 10,966 SF
f LIJ
CJ
C
ex
LIJ
~ >
c
Ñ
'l ~
-
f
AVG. IMPERVIOUS AREA=
ERU = 3,513 S.F. *
'. .: . PAT i 0 . :'.
.. .' '. '..
~
f
;
~
f
.,
~
¥
,
't
f
~....
I.
75' TYPI CAL
.1
NOT TO SCALE
*IMPERVIOUS AREA OF ERU HAS BEEN APPROXIMATED FOR THIS
PRELIMINARY STUDY BY UTILIZING AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS DERIVED DURING THE DRAINAGE IMPACT
FEE STUDY. SEE ATTACHED SHEET "DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENT
RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ERU)".
LEGEND
~ ROOF
DRAINAGE UTILITY STUDY
REPRESENTATION OF
EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT
CITY OFNORTH RICHLAND HILLS TEXA
1:..':': '':':i PA VEMENT
f . t GRASS
f .,
. ~~~N~:~~N~E~~~~.~H-FlO~IRS INC
(4)
1><1 AREA INCLUDED
:::.:.: IN ERU CALCULATION
OISIG~fO IV GRP D.'''lf;~lts~.:.o~ OA" FEB. to 1990
D"."''' I'( JEH == = =~ 1Oe..o 3-2.1
CHI C.. f 0 . yo SMf f , ..0 0'
-- - ---
I ~
-0 -0 ..........
.......... ::::SOJCO
+-> c.. '-'"
I ""0 V) 0.--
s... .......... r- 0
0 c:( an +-> OJ U
cs-t ........... u>
~ ,.... ItSQ.)X
0 \0 N ~ M ........ I ~ c: x 0 C.C
. 0 0 t- . I U E ..........
0. . .......... V) c:( \ON~~N I ~ c: -0 ~~M
en 0 o ...... U \O~O'\MO I 0 o ~ c: CI) '-'"
~ CO .......... ~>< an M \0 ...... I ........ N"'OOJ :::s evx,-
........... L.&J ........... LL. :::s c.. c: 01 0
U :::) ~ N 3 :J: +0) C. ItS ..-... W
L.&J 0 V') 0::V')c:x: E c: ,.......
C 0:: 0:: Z . ,... '-'" ....
I ........ M ~ N 0 I \0 M '-'" +0) c: ........... ItS >,.
"'0 L.&J V') C I ...J ~ U·"" ~ s... r- +J
L.&J Q) t- L.&J 0'\ ........ 0 N \0 I Ln U Ln ~ttS ........... co·,...
t- o. ........... 00.. Ln ........ 0 N CO I ~ Z ttS C. c: ,.... ww
c:( 0 ...J 0 an CO CO ~ M I 0 ...... M 3EO 0 E
C ,.... ........... ...J ~ I ........... I ~.,... U 0"-0)
I Q) 0'\ · L.&J N ........ ~ ~ I ........ 4- +-> S- ..c.
> t- ........... V') :> ~ ~O OJ "' LL. ..-... +0)
Q) L.&J L.&J t- "'0 I 0'» ~ CO
C ...... a:: c ...... :::s +0) ttS·,... ttS · ... '-'" c:
Z +o).s::::.C:S- 3 -0 r- .,...
~ Z :::) V') 0') .,... OJ I evo..c.
II .,... ttS C 4- C.W +J
I :::) V') ...... 0 ........ M IIII::t' an '" +o)o::s... 0 0
L.&J C ...... M Ln Ln ........ N V) U C .. a ,..- .... ~
ex: L.&J ~~N ...... 0 LL. t- "'01 +0) >,.+0) ev ",
u 0.. V') ...... o.c: OJ OttS.s::::.o > 0)"'0
........... c:( 0 ~N~ an Z E .,... .s:::. ,..- 3 0') ~ ev S-Q)
...J CO ...J ~ :::) ...... "'0 +0) a .r- Ll") -0 "' c..
........... · L.&J ~ :::s r- '+- 0:: 0
I c:( V') :> CO ...J OJ r- c: ttS 0 M~Q.)r-
l.L.J l.L.J c:( 0') U .,... .,... I 4-~,..- 0') OJ
...... 0:: C N t- ttSC: +J+JO ~"'>
~ 0 c: .,... -0 c:..c. >,.C:S-OJ
t- t- OJ ev 0') +0) ~ ev OJ-C
c:( · I ........ ,....... 0'\ 0 0 ttS ev > "'C .,... :::s S->
Z L.&J U I IIII::t' IIII::t' 0 0 0 '" S- N· ,... . ,... a:: 0 -0 S- ttS V')
I ........... 0:: c:( a M N N ...... ...... t- ........... C·,... S- CI) OJ::::S 0)
L.&J ........ c:( I ...... V') V') 0) Q) '+- CI) "'0 U >,. S-
........... I 00000 Z t- OJ -0 S- 0 +0) .,... ~u
C I :::) ...... .r::. +J c:>1tS ",
Z +JOV') C:C: Q).,... ev "'0
...... '" :::> r- ttS 00 E "'0 S- OJ V')
I c ........... o ~ IIII::t' Ln an c: Q) ItS "'0 OJ
V') :> LL. M ...... 0 ~ ~ U LL. · r- E +J V) +0) >........... E
0.. V') ........ ........ N ........ ,....... e:( 0 ::::s c: +0) S- 0 N,..- >.,...
L.&J :E: ........... ~ ~ ~ ... ~ "'0 E OJ c: 0 S-........... to .,... +J
........... ...... ~ M M ...... ...... CO OJ .r-.,... 0) c.. 0.,..- .,... "'0
0:: \0 .c( ~ 0 ..cC:UE EO+-> OJ
...........:E: L.&J 0'\ Z · r- .,... .,... OJ "'0 · r- U c: ttSV)
I L.&J 0:: N s...E4->Q.) OJ OJ:::S
0:: c:( X U 4-0>4-·~-c S-
O V) OJ OJ S- ttS 0 V') .,... ttS ..c.
t- c:( OJ-cOc.c. ev(l) U
r II u.J "'0 .,... U E ttSS-OJ"'OttS
Z t- OLnCOMM 0::: :3 .,... 4- Q) US-OJ Q)
u.J ........... NcoO~~ \0 e:( V) I 4- OS-", c..
L.&J L.&J LL. MOOLnan ", ~4- 4- ", ,..-O~
0:: V) Ln C +->00 tØ c: tØr- 0
...J t- ........... ..... ~ ..... ~ :> 0..,... c: OJ Q) .,... +J OJ
........... V) 0 0:: :::s U ::::s tØ S- O') O>+J
c:( an c:( 0.. 0 0:: Q) tØ "'tØI-OJC:
........... · L&.J ........ :E: S- II S- S-Q) COJ
> ~ 0:: ..... ...... C') ,..- tØ OJQ)S- II
I :> e:( ........... I- ,..- O1>tØ II U
...... c:( '" OJOtØ,..-",c:( C
:E: V) .....J 4- tØ S- r-LUC4-
:::) U :::> :::s c: +0) ev II tØ Q.. L.L.J 4-
...... c:( V') ....J.,... 0 > +JOQ..OJ
C- O o \0 N CO CO "'Oc:x:tØl-C:X:c:(O...JO0
I :> ........... Ln 0'\ ...... CO CO an II c: ~ 0:: L.&J +0) L.L.J....J U
L.&J a:: LL. o ,....... N N N N "'1- II 0::: > L.L.J
0.. V) ~ ~ ~ .. .. 0 t- r-Z II c(OJLU:>4-
u.J :E: ........... \O~~NN ...... LLJ C:X:C:X: 01 C L.U 4-
........... ...... an z 4-CI-L.a.JL.UOtØ 00
...J ~ e:( => o~z~a::LJ..JS-V') c:
LL. ........... · L.&J II V')L.L.JC:X:C:X::>Q.)lLJV>:::S
I CO I- a:: V) Q.) lLJ ...... 0>0::1-0::
0 o c:( I..LJ LJ..J 0. 0:: U C I- 0:: c:x: U 0
c( t- N 0:::: LL. ~ ...... lLJ L.L.J 0.. «...J II
...... t-«LL.>L.L.J:E: II
t- V') c.!) V') u.J l.LJ LL. 0 0:: ...... ...J ...J «
:> ...J II 0:::: L.L.J 0:: l- V> ex:: ex:: U
Z LL. · a ...... ~ Ln 0'\ 0'\ l- e:( M CO C:(OQ..V')(.!:'lLJ~Þ-4
I LL. LL. a an Ln Ln Ln an 0 ...... c:( L.&J U :E: ZO::I-I-~
0 ........... 0 L&.J a ...J '" an I- 0.. ::E: ...... L.&J ...... U Z Z Z
MZO a 00000 >- => LL. c.!S :z: « L.a.J W ......
...... ...........:::> U I ...J ex: M W- I- :E: LL. .....J c:( ...... cot-
a:: I c:( W 0 ......Oc:(O:::c:(c:x:~......
l- I ...... a:: L.&JZZI-L.&J:E:LLJV')V')
t- c:( Z V')......=>O:>w~LLJL.L.J
I c:( Z 0 =>:E: 0:: I-C:X:O::C:X: 0::: 0::::
e:( w 0 ......
z: LLJ t- I Ll') 0 &on Ll') Ll') 0 :> t- c:.............................................................................-.....-...
0::: 0 I N Ln N ........ ........ ...... 0::: ex:: E~NM~Ln\O,.......CX)O'\
...... ........... c:( ...J I ...... ........ ~ M M V') 0- Z :::s..................................'-"'..........................................................
N I .. ~ ~ .. ~ u.J :IE: ...... ,....
:E: ........... . · I anoO'\~~ a:: ...... :::> c:( 0
I :z: V') I ~~ 0::: ...J U
0:: ...... L&.J I ~ <.!:J L.&J a...
~ an :e: 0:: :> :> ><
~O W e:( e:( ~ u.J
N ::t:
I 0:: l-
I MZ
C) LoU ............ LoU 0
~ LoU 0.. V') C
.. Q.) C ........... V) >- I I .
~.-- :;:) t- ...... N M ~ an (5)
o .,... a I I I I
PJ LL. a:: a:: 0::: a:: a::
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
RECOMMENDED METHOD OF UTILITY BILLING
Many different methods of billing for a drainage utility exist. Four different
approaches were derived and presented to the Storm Water Management Committee for
their review and recommendation to the Council. The following Method tiC" is the
result of months of study and review of various approaches. This method appears to
be the most equitable to those concerned.
Method "C" is based on impervious cover plus grass (composite runoff
coefficients). All land use types would be assessed with this method,
including undeveloped areas. Single family residential areas would be billed
at a rate which is relative to the average stormwater runoff for each
classification of land use, yielding variable billing rates for single family
residential use. Other zoning categories would be billed based on the land
area and City adopted runoff coefficients for each type of use.
BILLING
The information presented in Table II represents a method of calculating and billing
for a Drainage Utility that is based on average runoff coefficients which were
derived in the Drainage Impact Study, and billing for each Single Family Residential
category is based on the runoff coefficient for that particular use. This method
utilizes a variable billing rate for each Single Family Residence type, bills all
properties, developed or not, and bases the billing purely on a combination of:
Rate adopted for an average Single Family Residential (SFR) Unit,
Average area of a SFR Lot,
Runoff coefficient of an average SFR Lot, and
Area and coefficient (CA) of parcel in question.
Table II utilizes the method described to estimate the revenue to the City for
current development conditions and a billing rate of $1.00 per month per ERU.
Note that the rate for each land use type, including all Single Family Uses varies,
not only by the runoff coefficient, but by the average size of that type of use
also.
APPEAL
A possible method of reviewing an appeal in this scenario would be as follows:
Receive certified engineering calculations supporting the actual runoff
coefficient for the tract in question.
Replace the estimated coefficient in Tables II and III with the actual
coefficient presented in the engineering calculations.
Calculate the new billing by multiplying the new coefficient by the area of
the tract then multiplying by the ERU rate and dividing by the average CA of
the ERU.
Pg. 6
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
Job 3-241
File: NRH10
TABLE II
Date: Feb. 1991
NOR T H R I C H LAN D H ILL S
ESTIMATED DRAINAGE UTILITY REVENUE
... .... .... .... ......................... ........... ........... .......... ......... ......... ........... ........... ........... .......... .......... .................. .................. .......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ .......
* Average Acreage of Single Family Lot = 0.2948 Ac.
Average CA of Single Family lot = 0.1586
Billing Rate for ERU = $1.00 / Mo.
USE
Rl
R2
R3
R-4-SD
R-5-D
** AVG. AREA OF lOTS
(S.F.)
15,125
10,750
9,125
4,375
4,375
(A c.)
0.35
0.25
0.21
0.10
0.10
Drainage Unit Factor = 6.30
R1
R2
R3
R-4-SD
R-5-D
R-6-T
R-7-MF
R-8
C
o
I
U
SU
Undeveloped
USE
COEF.
0.51
0.54
0.55
0.59
0.59
0.63
0.66
0.62
0.80
0.78
0.81
0.62
0.57
0.25
RATE
/Acre
$3.97
$4.16
$3.91
$5.04
$4.92
$5.11
$3.91
$3.59
$1.58
TOTALS
/lot
$1.12
$0.84
$0.73
$0.37
$0.37
ACRES
1,111
2,430
1,257
53
174
48
287
11
788
34
262
522
112
4,575
11,664
All Properties billed based on Runoff Coefficient.
Runoff Coefficients From Drainage Utility Study.
Variable billing rate for Single Family Residences.
RES. LOTS
PER ACRE
2.88
4.05
4.77
9.96
9.96
TOTAL
CA
30.24
189.42
6.82
630.40
26.52
212.22
323.64
63.84
1143.75
TOTAL
LOTS
3200
9847
6001
528
1732
EST.
REV/MO.
$3,572
$8,272
$4,358
$197
$647
$191
$1,194
$43
$3,974
$167
$1,338
$2,040
$402
$7,210
$33,605
See Appendix for derivation and application of Drainage Unit Factor.
* Average Acreage of Single Family Lot is calculated on attached sketch of "REPRESENTATION OF ERU" and
includes Right-of Way.
** AvprAOP Ar~a nf Int' ..,AC:
frnm ft.... UI&^P" 'MPA~T ~TtJnY rpv;þ.., nf 7nn;na rÞnu; .-__+ð
(7)
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Job 3-241
File: NRHRATES
TABLE III Date: Feb 1991
NOR T H
R I C H LAN D H ILL S
I TABLE OF RATES PER LOT (*) OR ACRE I
ADOPTED MONTHLY RATE PER ERU
USE ·.$1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00
* Rl $1.12 $1.68 $2.24 $2.80 $3.36 $3.92 $4.48
* R2 $0.84 $1.26 $1.68 $2.10 $2.52 $2.94 $3.36
* R3 $0.73 $1.10 $1.46 $1 . 83 $2.19 $2.56 $2.92
* R-4-SD $0.37 $0.56 $0.74 $0.93 $1.11 $1.30 $1 . 48
* R-5-D $0.37 $0.56 $0.74 $0.93 $1.11 $1.30 $1 . 48
R-6-T $3.97 $5.96 $7.94 $9.93 $11.91 $13.90 $15.88
R-7-MF $4. 16 $6.24 $8.32 $10.40 $12.48 $14.56 $16.64
R-8 $3.91 $5.87 $7.82 $9.78 $11.73 $13.69 $15.64
C $5.04 $7.56 $10.08 $12.60 $15.12 $17.64 $20.16
0 $4.92 $7.38 $9.84 $12.30 $14.76 $17.22 $19.68
I $5.11 $7.67 $10.22 $12.78 $15.33 $17.89 $20.44
U $3.91 $5.87 $7.82 $9.78 $11.73 $13.69 $15.64
SU $3.59 $5.39 $7.18 $8.98 $10.77 $12.57 $14.36
UNDEV. $1.58 $2.37 $3 .16 $3.95 $4.74 $5.53 $6.32
* Rates for uses shown with an "*" are computed by the lot rather than by the acre.
CALCULATION:
The calculation of Monthly Billing of Drainage Utility Rate is made one of two
ways depending on whether the property is a single family residence or not.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE: The monthly billing for all properties which are
single family use (Rl through R-5-D) is picked from the cell above which
corresponds to both the use and monthly rate adopted. Ex: For a residence
which is R-4-SD and the City adopted rate was $2.50 per month, the Utility
billing would be $0.93 per month.
ALL OTHER USES: The billing for all use types other than Single Family are
computed by multiplying the area (in Acres) of the property by the factor in
the above table for that use. Ex: For a commercial tract that is 6.5 Acres
and an adopted rate of $2.50, the monthly billing would be $12.60 times 6.5
Acres; or $81.90 per month.
(8)
.
I
U)
"
0 0
Ø\ " N \D C'W") ..,. ..
.... ...... \0 N " C'W") i CO \Ø Ø\ N C'W") N
0\ 0 N 0 .. CO ...... .. Ln 0 ex) ~ ~
0\ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Ln N " N ~ CO tI) .... \0 ~ .. \Ø
.... . .. tI) " .. \0 .. " Ln \0 .. .. .. ex) C'W") ..
.. .... tI) .... " N " .. .... .... \Ø Ln CO .... N .... ....
~ ~ .-. .-. .-. .-. ~ ~ ~ ~ .-. ~ ~ .-. ~ ~ ..... Mo
IU
:::s .......
s...
..0 \0
eu ...... Ln
L&- .. .. .. 0 0 .. ..
0\ tI) .. .. " 0 0\ \D CO N II') 0
. . C) .. 0\ N \Ø " 0\ ....... C'W") 0 N ~ ....
eu Ln .. .. .. 0 N ....... .... 0 .. U') \0 .... .. .. " ..,.
+0) . N CO \I) 0\ .. \0 .. Lt) C'W") CO .. .. .. Lt) .... ..
IU tI) .... N .... \0 N \0 .. .... .... U') .. " .... N .... ....
0 . ~ .-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-. ~ ~ .-. .-. ~ ~ ~
ø.
.... ......
an
Lt) 0
.. . 0\ .... ....... \I) ...... \I) ..
0 0 \Ø 0 0 .... .... ...... ...... .... ,.... 0\
0 ....... CO 0 .. CO 0\ .... .... 0 \Ø .. 0
... 0 .. .. .... 0\ N &n 0\ .. .... 0 .... N .. 0 N
. 0 .. M 0\ .. ....... .. N .... 0 .. .. .. .... C) ..
.c M .... N .... &n .... U') tI) .... .... &n .. \D .... N .... ....
. ~ .-. .-. ~ .-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-. ~ ~
CD øc
þ CO
..
Lt)
.... ....... Ø\ .. N ..
.. \0 CO ....... M 0\ N ""'- Lt) .... \0 ""'-
0 N \0 CO .... CO N .. 0\ 0 0 0\ 0
CD ~ Lt) 0\ M \0 \0 0\ ....... 0\ CO M 0 0 .. .. 0
>t . .. 0 0 0\ .. ....... .. 0 .. .... .. .. .. CO M ..
Þ01 lit N CO N ...... .. ...... .- N .... 0\ .- M Lt) ...... .... Q) ....
.a ~ ~ .-. ~ ~ ~ ~ .-. ~ ~ ~ .-. ~ .-. ~ ~ ~
~>t ..
Hit :.
litH . 0 ex)
.. .... 0 C'W")
Ø\ tI) ...... .. " M .. CO .... ""- 0
Þ I: 0 ('W') &n ...... 0\ CO .. ....... " .. .... ..
~ 0 ...... .. ....... .. N .... tI) 0\ .. \0 0 .. .. .. \Ø
=- . ~ \0 .. 0\ .. CO .. \Ø .. M .. .. 0 .. ...... 0
aH N ""'- .... CO C'W") .... tI) N CO ""'- M N .. CO .... \Ø CO
II .,.. .-. ~ .-. ~ .-. .,.. ~ .-. .-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
... þ
þ .cþ .
H 0\
..:I øc 0 CO ...... N
~ .. 0 M 0 ...... U') CO 0 ""- U')
lit. 0 Lt) .. M 0\ \I) 0 Lt) CO M ..
a an C'W") .. U') \Ø 0 \0 ....... 0\ ...... 0 0 C'W") .. .. .....
CJø . .. N .. 0\ ....... CO .. ..... .. Lt) .. .. 0 0 0 0
.... an .... \0 N 0\ N .... \Ø Lt) N N M \Ø .... Lt) \Ø
~ .-. ~ ~ .-. .-. ~ ~ ~ ~ .-. ~ ~ .,.. .-. .,.. ...
H.c >t
øc. ..:I
H lIS 0\
\I) ....
1It.c ... 0 ....... \Ø M N ....... 0\ \0 CO 0
0 " \Ø U') 0\ ""'- M M 0 &I) ~
0 Lt) N C'W") ""'- ...... .... .... 0\ ....... M 0 N N .. C'W")
..'" . . .. .. .. 0\ .. 0\ .. C'W") .. \Ø .. .. 0 .. C'W") 0
..... ('W') co .. .... \0 .... .... .. C'W') ..... .... N .. ....... C"') ..
øc" 0 ... ... .,.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...
0 I: L.t.J
~ ::;) L.t.J
:14 +0) z ::;)
U).~ .... 0 ,...,. &n L.t.J z:
euu ..... M LI') ....... > LU
Q s... .... .. N .. ....... CO N N N U') L.t.J >
uc .. .. .. C'W') ....... CO CO .... CO .. \0 N .... .. a: L.t.J
DQ <.~ .... N .... U') .... .. N ...... ,...,. C'W') N LI') .... .. a::
>-
...., ....,
it ::z: <
eu .... ::;)
.c s... z: z:
cuu 0 z
I: 0\< 2: <
IU,
CU) ...., -J
H ~~ .... 0 ""'- N N ....... \Ø .... .. ...... 0 .... 0\ CO < <
IU·~ N .. .. ,...,. ""'- 0\ ...... 0\ 0 0\ ..... 0\ LI') LI') t- t-
lot s...c . . 0 0
c ::;) M M ('W') M (W') ('W') .. C'W') Lt) .. LI') (W') C'W') ..... .... t-
CD
DQ I:
.... ~f
....
0.... .... .- Lt) 0\ 0\ (W') \0 N 0 CO ..... N ....... Lt) I~
c::eu \I) LI') U') &on LI') \0 \0 \Ø CO ,...,. CO \0 an N
:::so .., Q
a:u 0 0 C) C) C) C) 0 0 0 C) 0 C) 0 0 i!~
-"'~
u..._
> E i ..,-
LI.J SoW'"
a: ~
I ~ u~f
.... :z: ....,.
.. t- eu 0 ... '"
N :E U) r- ~I:
I ::;) C L&- eu
(W') . . V) C t- :£ > .>-
LU ~ I I I I eu .., ..,
...- I
..0 -J c:: .- an \0 ....... CO '-0 wu
0 ...... IU .... N M I I I I . ~ c i~-
"":) ..... ...I ex ex ex ex a:: tX tX tX U 0 ...... ::;) V') :,)
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(9)
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I L
AM ~~""'~ÒOo"..~':...-"'="L':"·";.,:-:-'''f.';:1''~.a:.;.
A P PEN 0 I X MAn
DETAIL CALCULATIONS
Pg. 1 0
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DERIVATION OF AVERAGE AREA OF IMPROVEMENTS
FOR Rl ZONING: (Typical for all zoning types)
For use type R-l in TABLE I:
Total Average Area = 15,125 Square Feet
Paved Area in R.O.W. = 1,320 Square Feet
Standard Runoff Coefficients:
CI = Improved; (Pavement, Roof, Etc.) = 0.90
Cu = Unimproved; (Grass, Landscaped) = 0.25
CT = Typical R-l Use (Aggregate) = 0.51
Improved Area = Developed Area = Area of Roof and Pavement = AI
Unimproved Area = Undeveloped Area = Area of Grass, Etc. = ~
Total Area = Area within; Lot Area plus Area in Right-of-Way = AT
Total Area = (AT) =Improved Areas (AI) plus Unimproved Areas (Au)
AT = AI + Au
Runoff Factor, CA or runoff coefficient times area of the whole tract equals the sum
of the parts, or:
(CT x AT) = (CI x AI) + (Cu x Au)
Substituting known values;
(0.51 x 15,125)
(0.51 x 15,125)
(0.51 x 15,125)
(0.51 x 15,125)
(7,714)
(7,714 - 3,781)
(3,933)
= (0.90 x AI) + (0.25 x AI)
= (0.90 x AI) + (0.25 x (Ä - AI»
= (0.90 x AI) + (0.25 x (IŠ,125 - A »
(0.90 x AI) + (0.25 x 15,125) - (b.25 x AI)
= (0.90AI) + (3,781) - 0.25AI
= (0.90AI - O.25AI)
= (O.65AI)
AI = (3,933 / 0.65)
AI = 6,050 Sq. Ft. (Including Paved Portion of Street)
Deducting paved portion of Right-Of-Way:
A = 6,050 S.F. - 1,320 S.F. (TABLE I, Col. 5)
A = 4,730 S.F.
Completing this calculation for all use types on Table I will allow further
calculations which will yield the value of the ERU.
Pg . 11
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Job 3-241
File: NRH11
Date: Feb. 1991
TABLE V
R I C H LAN D
H ILL S
NOR T H
DERIVATION OF DRAINAGE" UNIT FACTOR
From Table I:
Average Area of Lot
Use Type Coef. Sq. Ft. Acres
--------- ----..--- -------- ~-------
R1 0.51 15,125 0.35
R2 0.54 10,750 0.25
R3 0.55 9,125 0.21
R-4-SD 0.59 4,375 0.10
R-5-D 0.59 4,375 0.10
Res. Ac.
Developed
--------
1,111
2,430
1,257
53
174
--------
Total Developed Single Family Res. Acres 5,025
CALCULATION OF CA:
(Runoff Coefficient times Area)
Res. Ac.
Use Type Coef. Developed
-------- -------- --------
Rl 0.51 x 1,111
R2 0.54 x 2,430
R3 0.55 x 1,257
R-4-SD 0.59 x 53
R-5-D 0.59 x 174
Total Single Family Res. CA
TOTAL
CA
--------
= 567
1,312
= 691
= 31
= 103
--------
2,704
Average Area of Single Family Res. Lot (Table I) =
Avg. Area (Ac.) = 12,841 S.F. / 43,560 =
12,841 S.F.
0.2948 Acres
Total Developed Single Family Acres
Average Single Family Units = -------------------------------------- =
Avg. Acreage of Single Family Res. Lot
5,025
= ------- = 17,045 Units
0.2948
Single Family Units
17,045
Drainage Unit Factor = ------------------- = ------ = 6.30 Units/CA
Single Family CA 2,704
(12)
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cont.-
DERIVATION OF DRAINAGE UNIT FACTOR Pg. 2
Given the value of 6.30 Units per CA for a drainage unit factor as computed on the
previous page, the following will explain how this factor is utilized in the
calculation of the Utility Fee for any particular tract of land:
The 6.30 Units per CA is a factor that was derived on the previous page by factoring
[Total Developed Single Family Residential Acres], [Average Acreage of Single Family
Residential Lot] and [Total Single Family Residential CA]. To apply this factor to
the Drainage Utility, a City Billing Rate per ERU must have been set and two other
pieces of information concerning the property must be known; The runoff Coefficient
and the area of the property in Acres.
Rate for a Sinale Familv Lot:
Rate adopted (Dollars/ERU) x Runoff coefficient (O.54, etc.) x Drainage
Utility Factor (6.30) x Average Area of Lot (From Table II)
A single family lot which is used as R2 type of use is computed as follows:
Rate Adopted (Assume $2.50) x 0.54 x 6.30 x 0.25 = $2.13 per month. This rate
is rounded to $2.10 in Table III.
Rate for Other Use. Ex. Commercial:
Rate adopted (Dollars/ERU) x Runoff coefficient (0.80) x Drainage Utility
Factor (6.30) x Area of Lot.
A Commercial Tract which contains 2.75 Acres is computed as follows:
Rate Adopted {Assume $2.50) x 0.80 x 6.30 = $12.60 per acre (See Table III)
Billing per month = $12.60 per Acre x 2.75 Acres = $34.65 per Month.
Pg . 13
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A P PEN 0 I X -BM
DETERMINATION OF TYPICAL
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
Pg. 14
.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
u
..
."Z
..J&II
~-
-u
z-
&L
il&.
:5~
ð&L
¡~
~i.
D~
~~
..
>c
...~
uB
.j
c
u
o
N
.
&II
..I
.
C
..
IOU
.
. ..
..
&II
~~
,11.
~
>
LLJ
...J
CO
~
.
..
N
.
..
8
,
e
c5
Ot-
~~
Ul&.
fu
)(
&.II
u3
..
)Co
i:
"~"'..f1tDNO."N""
"'''''''''''''tD..........'''
0000000000000
fl'tf1N..NtOcafl'tNfl'tNt't
.................1010.
0000000000000
u~
..
!~
21&.
"'ON"''''.N.f10....N~
."'''''''''''''.'''.............'''
0000000000000
..
~C
i!
~
z
2
.......
-0
z~
:)'
MIL
i.·
000000.0_011
... 000
. .......
.....lftoooo..~o#.~..
.Of1.~oo""OOOOO
.N"'..........OO"'..f1'"
........
.~..,....-.N N
&Lt-
. -
.Z
::t
Z
-,
a
00000000
00000000
...000t'tN' . . . .
........
................
Þ
..JIL
z.
-
2
00000000 .
000000.0 0 u
oo~"''''o.o... 'C
........
........""ftO.. .
- -
'"
::)
'"
'"
..
'" ..
o
II. .. . .
"ILII. . 0
"·0 0..
..0 .. .v
. '" ..-
000· .. ~
000.. a-...
·0'" ·..v .
.... ·'&L.C.-
-..... .- co
..cnO.-
.... ~_ a-_,,-
-0.. . ....
...... AOI ..- ...
uUU:'O ..ou 'c.
---0. Vja- .-.
:::""'';:0) ~.:)
...-....~ CU
---4: ".. I..
OOO.....-N.. ..
..v.a U-4:.
~~~.-o Þ-' -.u
=:=E;.~==:I;~
Illð~·-II~~..ð&
&.LII.&L.O. u..a.
.. ~IL Æ ...
......0.. . -.
---".4:---U"O.
DDD.- ¡.. D.-~ 0 C
C C C .. A -. U.. D~ .
---.. ~-o..-u-
.cncncnO"'~.-'Oj."
.
c
.. .
u..
-vc
a-__
..~.
...-
- ...
0-
0"
o
. ·0
I
A
&0...·
. . . T
."'.......
.. Nft. . . . t ð
a:a:a:a:«a:a:a:()O-~~
(15)
z
o
II
::t
00
~5
....-
~~
u..j
uB
.,
~ð
u..
~I
.c
.
'''''''0'''
'...N
U.
.0000
C
i I
..
o
. w
..
:EE ~
I:I~IQ
...ac ë
'.0 ...
'"
.
.
N
c
o
e.
-&II
".
e..
,-
0&
....
. .
.- .
.e Þ-
-,
.e _
..A.
2 Aen
D .
cue
--¥UI
ca- .
.,4:C
~.caÞ-
.....
...-
. ~~UI
z--
Þ- .
.·z C
CI.
"oc-
.-..
··1-
-.- a
~..
.-. .
"0-.
>~
.. .
.. ca ..
.,,~c
.- D-
"OD
.e-c
.. ow
o ...
.....,,-
u.. ~.-
-Z%.
"~ou
U ...
__ a-
u-co
- . ou..
..~-
.- at.....IIe
u- U 0
.% ~o
G. ".
..0
....
.......
..c.
oÞ--a
.
c
.
.
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
0.95
0.85
0.90
0.25
..
.&
~~
.
_ L
~~
~ t, .
"--RESIDENTIAL STREET ~
)
I --
I
l?ë
I æ
I >
I - I
I C
I
~Rl-------~-l
I I
I I
I I
" I I
~ Ã I I I
- -.
~ "I MIN. FLOOR AREA = I
! 7' I 1 ,800 S. F. +
Z NIM. 2 CAR GARAGE, PORCH,
:¡ I PATIO, ETC.
I
I
I
L_
R.O.W.~
J=-- --
85' MIM.
r
.
-
s
:ñ
N
MIN. LOT AREA
13,000 S. F.
7'
~--
IMI..
I
I
I
I
I
-----____..J
P.l.
'"
~MIN. AREA ;~HIND :LDG.
(25'x85') = 20% (2,600 S.F.)
APPROX.. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 13,000 ·S.F. + R.O.W.
= 15,125 S.F.
USE 1.. Mill. ~
STREET( 15. 6 x 85) 1, 318 1, 252
DR I YEWAY , SI DDlALK 8'10 71 ,
IlK) F 2, II)() 2, 1 eo
GRASS 10, 567 2, 6~2
TOTAL CAs 6,768
CAL C. C = cAl A = 0 . -.5
.! MAX. "-
I , 318 1 , 252
900 766
6, 1188 5, 83~
I, '19 1 ,605
9,~
NOT TO SCALE
IMPACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
R-1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT
CITY OF NJRTH RICHlANO HILLS TEXA
. ~~.:.~~-ft.OWERS.INc,
....... .Y: QIP M:=-=-' Mft; 1
euMI n: J £H .. _ )-2"
OtHIC_n:
0.63
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENl
C = (2xO.1I5+0.63)/S = 0.51
(16)
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lID
.&
~ ,~.
--------.: RESI DENTI At STREET~
~
_6:
CW)~
:ø
N
,
I
I --
I
I >-
Is
I > I
I - I
C I
~B~ -------~-l
I I
I MIN. FLOOR AREA = I
I 1 ,600 S. F. + I
=' I 2 CAR GARAGE, PORCH,
~ · PATIO, ETC. I
!! = 6' I
......,.
~ MI...
~ I
~ I
I
I
L_
MIN. LOT AREA
9 ,000 S. F .
I...O.:W.,
~--
__ 70' Mill.
~
z
z
:ø
N
~I"
I
I
I
I
I
--------_-J
~ P.L.
::~-USE OF LOT: ~NIN. AREA BEHI ND "BLDG.
AREA = 9,000 S.F. + R.O.W. (25'x70') = 20% (1,800 S.F.)
=10,750 S.F.
c
MIN.
A CA
NOT TO SCALE
IMPACT FEE STLDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
R-2 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
. ~~.:~OWERS.INc. .
USE
MAX.
A !!.
0.95 STREET (15. 5x70) 1,085 1 , 0 31 1 ,085 1 , ° 31
0.15 ØIIY I SI*I (35' x~'.) altO 71_ 900 7&5
0.90 IœF 2,19) 1 ,935 -, 'JIJ7 3, 186
o. 25 GRASS 6,675 1 , 669 " 558 1,139
TOTAL CAs 5, 3119 6, 721
CALC. C = cAI A = O. !Ð 0.63
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFI CI ENT
C = (2 x O. 50 + 0.63 /3 = O. 51J
(17 )
--..: QRP
-"'
---..:
.." IY ~
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CD
.&
þ
;; a..
~
iñ
N
s:----
Z
Z
.
R
r
I
I
I
I
I
I I
.
~ 8 I
... ... 6' I
........
It
a; 1M.
>
c I
.
z
s I
I
I
L_
.~. "
~RESIDENTIAl STREET~
\
I
I --
I
I
I ~
I æ I
I > I
I i I
-----BRL ----4---..,
I
I
I
I 1............- M IN. LO T AR EA
I yf 7,500 S.F.
I
6'
65' MIN.
._~.w .~
~
MIN. FLOOR AREA =
1 ,11()0 S. F. +
2 CAR GARAGE, PO·RCH,
P AT I 0, ETC.
IMIIt.
I
I
I
I
I
-----------'
P.l.
~-- "
A FPROX. USE OF LOT: ~MIN. A::A BEH~HD BLDG.
AREA = 7;500 S.F. + R.O.W. (25'x65') = 20% (1,500 S.F.)
= 9, 1 25 S. F.
MIM. MAX.
e USE 1- !!. A CA
0.95 STREET (15.5x65) 1 ,008 958 1 ,008 958
O.IS DW1 , SOW (l)x21J) 720 612 79) 638
0.90 IÐOF 2,000 1,800 3, 535 3, 18'
0.25 6RASS 5,_7 1 , 3'8 3,832 958
lOTM. CA, ',719 5,685
CAlC. C = CAlA = 0.52 0.62
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFI CI EMT
C = (2xO.52 + 0.62)/3 = 0.55
NOT TO SCALE
It-P ACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
R-3 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT
CITY OF NJRTH RICH..AtÐ HILLS T
. ~2.:.E~~SH-ftOWERS.INc:.
--..: ~
..... ..: J
~
Mft .... ~
18
.... .,:
I
I
, aø
øA
I ..
~
I s;---
I
I
I
I
t
- .
..
~
....
RESIDENTIAL STREET~
\
35' MIII.I r
I
I
I ~
I æ I
I > I
I ! I
--~-~
I
I
I
I
I
MIN. FLOOR I
AREA = 1 ,000 S. F. . ~
+ 1 CAR GARAGE, 6' ! ª
FORCH, PAT 10, IMIN II
ETC. I·!
I ·
2
I
I
----_..J
I.:O...W. ~
r
,
,
I I ~
I I E
II I ë
I N
I I
I I
~BRl +--
I
I
I
I
I
I
6' I
MIM.
I
I
I
I
L_ ___
MIN. LOT AREA
3,500 S.F.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
õJi
--z
P.L.
"
A fPROX. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 3,500 S.F. + R.O.W. (25'x35')
= IJ, 375 S. F .
MIM. MAX.
C USE A CA A CA
-
0.95 STREET (15. 5x35) 5~ 516 5113 516
0.85 DWV , S~ (35x8) 280 238 &GO 510
0.90 11)0 F 1,3)0 1,080 1,7'0 1,566
0.25 GRASS 2, 352 581 1,\92 '73
lOYAL CAt 2, '22 2,965
CALC. C = CAlA = 0.55 O.~8
MIN. AREA BEHIND BLDG.
= 20% (700 S. F. )
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C = (2 xO.55 + 0.68)/3 = 0.59
NOT TO SCALE
IMPACT FEE STUDY
RlNJFF COEFFICIENT
R-4-SD SEPARATE OWNERSHIP
DJR..EX D TR
CITY OF NORTH RIa-LAN> HILLS TE
. ~2.:.~.fiOWERS, INc.
(19)
--..: Ci.
.... ..,: J EM
...... ..,.
~
..."" ~
RESIDENTIAL STREET~
, I
I I
I --
I
I . I I
I - z >-
Iii z I : ~ I
I I LBRl I ~ I
rt +---,- -~~~
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I MIH. FLOORIAREA = I
I 1,000 S.F.j+ I
8_ 6' I 1 CAR GARA,E, PORCH,
PAT 10, ETC. 6'
II Mill. IMIN
~ I I I
~ I I I
5i I I I
I I I
L_ ___~_____-I
" - s
~MIH. AREA BEHIND BLDG.
= 3) % (1, 1100 S. F . )
NOT TO SCALE
IMPACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
R-5-D DUPlEX DWELLING UNIT
tœTH RICH-AN> HILLS TEX
. ~2.:.~ISH-ft.OWERS.INc.
--..; CI'
...... - JEH
I
I
, ID
~
-
;;
I
s:-- --
I
I
I
I
I
~
~~
,
I
70' MIN.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
$'-:--- -
APPROX. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 7,000 S.F. + R.O.W. (25'x70')
=8,750 S.F.
NIN. NAX.
e USE 1.. II A CA
0.95 STREET (15. 5x70) 1,085 1 ,031 1,085 1 ,031
0.85 OW , SOWK (2x8x35) !)~ 1f16 1 , 3)() 1,020
0.90 M)() F 2,11)() 2, 160 3,'180 3, 1 32
0.26 GRASS " 705 1 , 176 2, 985 7'66
lOT AI.. CA. -,8'3 6,9æ
CAlC. C= CAlA=
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFI CI ENT'
C = (2 x 0.55 + 0.68 3 = 0.59
20
~..:
R.O.W.~
r
MIN. LOT AREA
7 ,000 S. F .
--
I
I
, -
.&
-
if)
I
I J=----
I
I
I "
51
-
'-'
I
~ ~\ -
- ,.: . -----RES I DENT I AL STREET______
~~ ~
,
20' MIM. I
I --
I
I
. I ~
~ : : ~ I
.,...e RI. I ~ I
------'---~---+-
R.O .:!..~
r
MIN. LOT AREA
3,000 S.F.
MIN. FLOOR AREA =
1 ,000 S. F. +
1 CAR GARAGE, FORCH,
PATIO, ETC.
MAX~ COVERAGE =
60% OF LOT = 1,800 S.F.
INCL. GARAGE, ETC.
1
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
~--
P.L.
r
APPROX. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 3,000 S.F. + R.O.W. (251x20')
= 3,500 S.F.
C USE A MIl. CA
- - - -
0.95 STI([1(15.5120) 310 295
0.85 ow! & SDVI (1'I}O) 2'0 20~
0.90 ROOf 1,200 1,080
0.25 GRASS 1,750 ~38
TOTAL CAs 2,017
CALC. C = CAIA = 0.58
-APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT~
C = (2 x 0.58+0.72)/3 = 0.63
A MAI_CA
- -
310 295
"20 357
1,800 1,620
970 2~3
2,515
fC)T TO SCALE
IMPACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
R-6- T TOWNHOUSE &
GARŒN DISTRICT
NORTH RICJLAND HILLS'EIAS
CITY
0.72
(21
. ~.2.:~ISH-ftOWERS. k.
--..: GI' M~ Mft: API. 1
.... ..: JEH
CMICaR IY.
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
,---------1
I
I
I
I
~MIN. AREA =
I 16 L.U./AC. I
4 L.U./BLDG.
I = 10.890 SF/BLDG.
I
J--- MIN. 15S
¡( I LAtI>SCAPED =
I 1.634 S.F.
L___________~ I
MIN. PARKING = 2' I
SPACES PER LIVING UNIT
= 4xZLx10x16 = I
L____1~~~______J
I_____~ BlDG~_l
ASSUME: 4 l.U./8LDG. AT
650 S.F. EACH
I 2 STORY
MIN. ROOF AREA = APPROX.
1.350 S.F.
APPROX. USE OF lOT:
AREA = 10,890 S.F. + R.O.W.
= 11,000 S.F.
MIl. MAl. a
C USE A CA A CA
- - - - - -
0.95 STI([I 50 '8 110 10'
0.85 DIIVEWAY & SIDEWALl 1,600 1,360 5,256 , , '68
0.90 loor 1,350 1,215 ',000 3,600
0.25 GlASS 8,000 2,000 1,63' '09
TOTAL CAs ',623 8,581
CALC. C = tAlA = 0.'2 0.78
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C = (0.42 + 2xO.78)/3 = 0.66
M>T TO SCALE
"
IMPACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF CŒFF I C lENT'
R-]-MF MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT
tnr or NORTH RICHLAND HILLSulAs
. ~~N~~.:.E~~-FLOW[RS.INC.
........0 a. 'RP DA::-:=.o.. DATI API. 1.
ou.. .. JEH == = MJa - 3-236
CMlc:aIO a. - - _IT ~ 7 Of 17
(22)
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
MIN. ~'1- ~ f
ia~~ 8L~ I i I
S __-L-_I- I
-- --.....,
.c;.--- --- M'''. 'to' :
\ \
'\ MIN. FLOOR AREA =
~~, 1 ,200 S. F. +
~. ~\~\ 2 CAR GARAGE,
~r PORCH, PATIO,
~ \ ETC.
~ \
\
\
MIN. LOT AREA
1J,000 S. F .
MIN. AREA BEHIND BLDG.
= 20~ (800 S. F. )
APPROX. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 4.000 S.F. + R.O.W. (2S'x501)
= 5,250 S.F.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
MIN.
e USE A . CA
0.95 STIEET (15.5&50) 775 736
0.85 IIIVEW'Y & SIDEWALl \80 ~08
0.90 loor 1,500 1,350
0.25 GlASS 2,\95 62~
tOTAL CAs 3,118
tALC. C = CAIA = 0.59
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C = (2 xO.59 + 0.69) 13 = 0.62
(23)
MAX.
A CA
775 736
720 '612
Z~07' 1,867
1,681 \20
,},635
0.69
II)T TO SCALE
UMPACT FEE STUDY
RUNCfF COEFFICIENT
R-8 SINGlE FAMILY DETACHED
CUY FNORTH RICtLNIJ HILLS
. [ r
. . ~~2.~.:~~SH-FlOw(RS.INC.
.....O.Y 5.' OA:~
OIWIII IY J[ I .. 110'
CMlC&ID IY
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
ar ~
a:a ....
.
.. L
~
....
60' MIl.
..
8
~
r--------,
I I
I I
II I
MAX. BUILDING
I COVERAGE = 401 I
I = 2.400 S.F. I
I I
I I
I I
I I
L--_____J
APPROX. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 6,000 S.F. + R.O.W. (60'x34')
= 8,040 S.F.
C
0.95
0.85
0.90
0.25
MIN.
USE A CA
STI[(I (2'.5x60) 1,'70 1,'97
DRIVEVAY ¡ SDVlI 3,170 2,695
Roor 1,000 900
LAIDSCA'II' 2,~00 600
TOIAL CAs = 5,592
MAX.
A CA
1,'70 1,'97
3,270 2,780
2,'00 2,160
900 225
6,562
CALC. C = CAlc =
0.70
0.82
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C = (2xO.82+0.70) /3=0.78
24
,
I ~,
I ~ I
I LA.I I
>1
I ~ --
I al
t
MIN. lOT AREA
= 6,000 S.F.
>-
M IN. LAtI)SCAPE
= 151 = 900 S.F.
Jl)T TO SCALE
IMPACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
0-1 OFFICE DISTRICT
CII' or NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
OtICKID ..
. ~.l.~.:.E~~-FLOWERS.INC.
......., RP ...:::="
......... JEH ...:
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
-r.:
m ~
Þ-
-
ø'
.,If-
.
- A.
.,.. ~
W'\ Þ-
1 ~ r
IC
I ~ I
151
'D I
50' MIl.
(100' EIAMPLE)
r--------,
I I
I . I
I MAX. BUILDING I
I COVERAGE = 401 I
I = 8,000 S.F. I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
L--_______J
1
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
APPROX. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 20,000 + (34 x 100' R.O.W.)
= 23,400 S.F.
~ USE A
0.95 STIEET (2~.5 x 100) 2,~5n
0.85 DRIVEWAY & SIDEWALl 12,000
0.90 loor ~,ooo
0.25 LA.OSCAPI.' ~,950
TOTAL CAs =
tALC. C = CAlc =
MIl.
CA
2,328
10,200
3,600
1,238
17,365
0.7~
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C = (2xO.83+0.74)/3=O.80
MAl.
A CA
2,\50 2,328
10,950 9,}OS
8,000 7,200
2,000 500
19,336
0.8'
(25)
~~
I.O.W~
MIN. LANJSCAPING
= 101 = 2,000 S.F.
MIN. AREA = 20,000 S.F.
PARKItIi = 1 SPACE FOR
.EA. 100-500 S.F. BLDG.
P.l.
fl)T TO SCALE
IJt>ACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
lR-lOCAl RETAIL DISTRI~T
CITY OF NORTH RICILAND HIllS
. ~..l.~.:.E~~SH-FLOWERS.INC.
........ ~ DA"
...".., ~
........: H AIe_:
OtIcal. ...
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
-
. .
- ..
þ þo
~ ...
.
· a.
:$- ~
.. ....
( 15' )
160' MIl.
-;l--ì
I MAX. COVERAGE I
I = 301 I
1= 6,750 S.F. I
-,_J
IlDIi.
.
.
z
~
N
~
, ,
, ,
I --
I i I
I > I
I - I
I B I
R.O.W.
( 1 5' )
MIN. AREA
22,500 S.F.
.
~
~
Jl)SCAPIfIì VARIES
APPROX. mE OF LOT: EST. OS TO 501
AREA = lI.SOO S.F. + R.O.W. (]4lx150')
= 21.600 S.F.
MIl. MAl.
e USE AO CA A CA
- SII([I$ (2l.Sz 150) ',675 3,'91 3,675 3,'91
0.95
0.90 BUILJIII& 500 ~50 6,150 6,075
0.90 PAllIlli I ~A' 2,000 1,800 17, 175 15,~58
0.25 LAIDSCA'Ò 21, '25 ~ 0 0
TO'" as 11,097 25~02'
CALC. C = CAli = o.~ 0.91
APPROXlMAI1110F RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C = (0.40+U1) /2 = 0.66 I
26
11>1 TO SCALE
I MP ACT FEE S.TUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
OC-OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL
CITY OfNœTH' RICI-LAND HIllS,
.. ~TQ-I-ENCl. 1SH-ft.0000S, K.
CD&t1lC ~/'" -..-....
---
---
..... -
---
Mft.., ~
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
ar~
aD ~
.
- ..
... ~
W"\ ~
200' TYP.
,.---------1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I MAX. BUILDING
I COVERAGE = 501 I
I = 21,780 S.F. I
I I
I I
I I
I I
L---_____J
APPROX. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 43,560 + R.O.W. (34' x 200')
= 50.360 S.F.
~ USE A
0.95 STIE~' (2~.5 1200) ~,900
0.85 DRIVEVAY & SIDEWALl 23,000
0.90 loor 10,890
0.25 LAIDSCA'I.' 11,570
TOIAL CAs =
CALC C = CAIA =
MIN.
CA
',655
19,550
9,801
2,893
36,898
0.73
A
~,900
19,32~
21,780
~,'56
MAX.
CA
',655
16,~Z5
19,602
1,089
~1,771
0.8'
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C = (2xO.83+0.73/3=O.80
(27 )
''''.
=,
I ~ I
I =- I
I = I
I· .
I.O.V.
MIN. LAJI>SCAPING
= 101 = 4.356 S.F.
MIN. AREA
= 43,560 S.F.
P.l.
II>T TO SCALE
IMPACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C-1 COMMERCIAl DISTRICT
CITY Of NORTH RICHLAND HIllS
. ~.l.~.:E~~SH-FLOWERS.INC.
....DIY I ..:::::'" OAfI I
..... IY. JEH IDe -: Z
CNlCalO.., _I' -·1 - 1
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
.,~
_ Þ-
...
.
.. A.
... >-
....
200' TYP.
r-------,
I I
I MAX. BUILDING I
I COVERAGE = 501 I
I = 21.780 S.F. I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
'---- ---_..J
APPROX. USE OF lOT:
AREA = 43.560 + R. 0 . W. (34 I X 200 · )
= 50.360 S.F.
MIl. MAl.
'\
,
1 Þ- (
I ~I
I ~I
I ¡:r---
I D.
I.O.W.
M IN. LAJI>SCAP I NG
= 101 = 4.356 S.F.
MIN. AREA
= 43,560 S.F.
P.l.
C USE A CA A CA
0.95 STI[[T (2".51200) ~,900 ~,655 ~,900 ",655
0.85 DRIVEVay ¡ SDWLI 2',000 19,550 19,'2' 16,"25 tl>T TO SCALE
0.90 loor 10,890 9,801 21,780 19,602
0.25 lAIDSCAPI.' 11,570 2,89' ",'56 1,089 IMPACT FEE STUDY
TOTAL CAs = '6,898 "1,771 RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
CALC. C = CAIA = 0.73 0.8' C-2 COKMERCIAL DISTRICT
CITY Of NœTH R I CHlAND HILLS
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C = (2xO.83+0.73) 13 = 0.80
..... ..
. ~.l~.:.E~l!..SH-FLOWERS.INC.
........ ,., eA~ DATI . 1
... 110
DIlallO.. .
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
- 0..
.... >-
~ Þ-
(100' [X AMPLE)
r--------ì
I I
I I
I NO SIZE I
I REQUIREMENT ON I
I BUILDING I
I I
I I
I I
I I
L_______J
APPROX. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 20,000 S.F. + (34' x100IR.O.W.)
= 23,400
MIN.
A CA A
2,~50 2,j28 2,~50
8,000 6,800 6,950
8,700 7,830 12,000
~,250 1,06j 2,000
18,020
C USE
0.95 SII[(I (Z~.51100)
0.85 DIIVEVAY & PARIII'
0.90 loor
0.25 LAIDSCA'I.'
IITAl CAs =
CALC C = CAlc =
0.11
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C = (2xO.83+0.77) 13 = 0.81
/
, Þ-f
I i I
I ~ I
I = I --
I ca I
MAX.
CA
2,j28
5,908
10,-
500
19,535
O.8j
'" -
MIN. LAJl)SCAPED
= 101 = 2,000 S.F.
EXAMPLE AREA
= 20,000 S.F.
.L.
Jl)T TO SCALE
IMPACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
1-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRIC
, f.NœTH RIOLAND HIllS
. ~..l.~.:E~~-flOWERS.1Nc
--.. c., IÞA::::"
..... ...
CMlCK.D 8Y
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
., ~
- ....
þ
~
...
, Þ- (
III
Iw
~
I ;1
I ca.
.
þ A.
... >eo
W'\ ....
(100' EXAMPLE)
,---------.,
I I
I I
I NO SIZE II
REQUIREMENT
I ON BUILDING I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l______-....J
APPROX. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 20,000 S.F. + (34' x 100' R.O.W.)
= 23,400
MIN. MAX.
e USE A CA A CA
0.95 S'R[ET (Z~.5 .100) 2,~50 Z,3Z8 Z , ~50 2,328
0.85 DRIVEWAY ¡ 'ARIII' 8,000 6,800 6,950 5,908
0.90 loor 8,700 7,830 12,000 10,800
0.25 LA.OSCAPII' ~ ,250 1,063 2,000 500
TOTAL CAs = 18,020 19,535
CALC. C = CAlc = 0.77 0.83
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C = (2xO.83+0.77) 13 = 0.81
(30
t
M I II. lNÐSCAPED
= 101 = 2,000 S.F.
EXAMPLE AREA
= 20,000 S.F.
P.L.
r«>T TO SCALE
IMPACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
1-2 MEDIUK INDUSTRIAl DISTRICT
NORTH RICHlAND HILLS
. Kt-OWlTON-ENGlISH-FlOWERS.INC.
( ()IiIIIy 1M. M;HII\ ... __ OI1lIa
--.. 'I'
eu.. ... J[I
."...
..n .. ...-
DAn APR. 1981
.. 110 1-2
_n 1101 Of1
CMlc.lO ..
I
I
.
, .,~
.. ...
- .
.- - Q.
fIit"\ ~=
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ''\
""---RESIDENTIAl STREET~
200'
(125' MIl.)
l
I
BLDG. = 10S TO 301 "'I. 'OF AREA
fl.I.V.
r- ------,
I I
.1 I
~ I I
M I I
I I
I I
L_______J
EXAMPLE AREA =
100.000 S.F.
(MIN. = 20,000 S.F.)
APPROX. USE OF LOT:
AREA = 100.000 S.F. + R.O.W. (25x200)
= 105.000 S.F.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
C USE
0.90 ILK.
0.95 STI[[T
0.90 'AIIII'
0.25 lAlDSCAPED
¡OTAL CAs
MIl. MAl.
A CA A CA
-
10,000 9,000 . JO ,OGO 2~,0G0
2,000 1,CJOO ',OGO 3,aoo
15,000 13,500 58,000 52,200
78 ,000 19,500 1',000 ',250
\',900 86 ,250
CALC. C = CAIA = 0.\2
0.82
fl)T TO SÇAlE
IMPACT fEE:STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
U-SCHOOLICHURCH&INSTITUTIONS
OTH RICHLAND HIllS'EIA
.. ~TON-ENcustHt~. k.
...... ~'... ........
APPROXIMATION OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C '= (0.42 + 0.(2) 12 = 0.62
31
__Ø:
-.
--:
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.,..:
-~
-
...
...
.
- A.
C ..
'" Þ-
r------l
I I
I MAX. BUILDING I
I COVERAGE = 50s I
I I
I I :
I I
I I
I I
I I
'-- ___--J
APPROX. USE OF AREA:
SINGLE FAMILY = 7M , C = 0.54
0.70 x 0.54 = 0.38
TOWN HOUSE & GARDEN = 3M , C = 0.63
0.30 x 0.63 = 0.19
OVERALL C = 0.57
32
,
,
, Þ- (
II,
IW
I 5~--
I -,
I.O.V.
III. AREA = 4 ACRES
.L.
--
II)T TO SCALE
IMPACT FEE STUDY
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
PD-PlANt£D DEVEl(FMENT D I STRI
CITY NORTH RICHLAND HIllSTElAs
. ~",,?..~~.:.E~~-fLoWlRS.INC
01.....0.. SIP OA:~ DATI API. 1988
-~..
.. 110
CMlcalO ..
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
\Ie
\
\
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
No.
IR 91-42
Date:
March 25, 1991
Subject:
DAVIS BOULEVARD (FM 1938); Enhancement Study
Attached is the summary table for the Enhancement Study for the subject
project. Each assessment which will be reduced due to the enhancement being
less than the calculated assessment is marked with an asterik.
The full detailed study will be available in the City Secretary's office for
inspection. Mr. Jim Norwood will be at the City Council Meeting to present
the Enhancement Study during the Public Hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
ic Works/Utilities
... ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
~
JAMES K. NORWOOD, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers
JAMES K. NORWOOD, MAl, ARA
ASSOCIATES:
BRYAN A. CARRELL
GREG MARWITZ
JULIE A. RUSSELL
W. PAUL YOUNG
March 20, 1991
Mr. Mark Bradley
City of North Richland Hills
7301 Northeast Loop 820
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
RE: Enhancement study of 125 tracts proposed for street and
drainage assessment along Davis Boulevard from Emerald
Hills Way to starnes/Rum field Road, North Richland Hills,
Tarrant County, Texas
Dear Mr. Bradley:
As requested by you, we have completed an enhancement study
covering 125 tracts of land located on both sides of Davis
Bo u leva r d bet wee n Em era 1 d Hill s Way 0 nth e sou t h and
starnes/Rumfield Road on the north.
These parcels are herein described by reference to parcel
number, owner, size, zoning, and type of building improvement, if
any. We have studied sales of comparable land located throughout
the northeast Tarrant County area in order to determine:
1. The current market value, as herein defined, of each of
the 125 tracts proposed for assessment.
2. By the use of a paired sales analysis, the amount of
enhancement, if any, which is anticipated to accrue to the 125
subject tracts as a result of the proposed curb, gutter and storm
sewer project that was outlined by you.
We have studied the proposed curb and gutter plans, the
state Department of Highways and Public Transportation
construction plans which pertain to widening Davis Boulevard and
have inspected each of the subject tracts involved in this
enhancement study.
Market value of each of the subject tracts was estimated
based on the assumption that each of the subject properties was
vacant land and available for development to their highest and
best use contingent upon zoning and the current demand for future
development in the subject area.
7001 GRAPEVINE HWY., SUITE 332 · FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76180
PHONE (817) 284-2222 · METRO (817) 589-0431 · FAX (817) 284-4290
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
The following summary sheet sets out the amount of
assessment under the current assessment ordinance and also the
assessment under the proposed assessment ordinance as provided by
you. Our opinion of estimated enhancement was based on
information and comparable sales subject only to the Contingent
and Limiting Conditions included in this report.
Sincerely,
JKN: mn
:4~~g
~.€finer
I
I
I e PARCEL
1
I ;
4
I 7 : 8
I 9 & 10
11
12
13
I 14
15, 16 & 17
18
I 19, 20, 21,
23, 24 & 25
22
26
1 27
28
29
I 30a
30b & 30c
_ 31
1_2, 33, 34
35 & 36
37
38 & 39
40 & 41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
ME:'11JoO
~~
~
PROPERTY OWNER
AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT UNDER
CURRENT PROPOSED
ORDINANCE ORDINANCE
Calvin E. stewart
Texas utilities
J.B. Sandlin
J.B. Sandlin
J.B. Sandlin
Sandlin & Hamm
J.B. Sandlin
Joe C. Metcalf
U.S. Postal Service
College Hill Assembly
Sturdivant-Dunaway
Alan Hamm
Tr. E-Systems. Inc.
John Hay
Warren H. Bates &
A. H. Sanders
Joe T. Warren
st. Louis & Missouri
Curtis R. Moore, et ux.
Vernie Snider, et ux.
Ruby Murchison Hill
R.M. Kidwell
Nasser Shafipour
Ronald & Metra Precht
John Parish
Investments Inc.
Tarrant County
Danny E. Campbell
Bobbie Allen
Louise Brunson
Terry R. Dye etux
Edmund J. Potter etux
Clark Hughey, etux
Joseph Aquilera
Herman J. smith
Debra Ann Walthers
R. G. Gutierrez
Alva Ray Paul
Herman J. smith
Floyd Schexnayder E.
Bobby Joe Fisher
Estelle Mcdonald
Tommy W. Pollard
Timothy Lee West
Ronald D. Kelley
Norwood Natl. Corp.
Luttrell Inv. Inc.
Texas utilities
Nasser Shafipour
Town & Country Food
Nasser Shafipour
$13,032.49
2,844.04
18,321.66
5,994.77
2,298.79
3,665.00
14,683.46
2,368.17
14,112.30
8,299.05
6,646.84
24,834.04
19,796.86
3,078.60
37,372.49
1,470.84
7,330.00
264.06
1,467.00
5,480.34
1,132.20
22,955.06
5,131.00
3,230.73
o
3,709.02
3,712.98
2,053.80
767.82
324.63
309.30
168.30
32,894.11
3,844.69
3,078.60
2,929.44
8,752.27
1,769.20
1,760.40
1,760.40
1,760.40
1,760.40
1,760.40
13,692.44
12,167.80
2,844.04
11,116.38
4,398.00
6,833.91
$ 9,982.72
1,911.91
13,128.73
4,295.70
1,646.92
2,626.25
10,511.31
1,696.85
10,127.24
4,226.76
4,762.97
17,649.87
12,529.89
2,206.05
25,116.09
2,449.84
5,252.50
178.67
1,051.00
4,009.47
1,866.45
15,743.55
4,727.25
1,383.75
o
2,659.03
1,591.64
882.84
646.69
273.42
260.50
189.00
23,640.45
3,221.20
2,143.02
3,228.07
6,472.00
760.50
756.72
756.72
756.72
756.72
1,261.20
9,811.67
8,719.15
1,596.76
7,965.73
3,151.50
4,897.01
ESTIMATED
ENHANCEMENT
NIL ~
NIL ~
$26,500
14,900
17,000
8,400
20,300
3,400
86,600
34,000
1,700 *
42,200
85,300
5,100
57,500
3,100
NIL 7¥
4,500
4,000
4,300
1,900
58,700
8,700
9,700
o
750,*
500.*
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
27,700
12,500
8,100
16 , 300 ~.
3,3001J;
500
500
500
500
500
500
42,200
20,100
NIL -*
28,300
9,000
47,800
1- M~o
~~
I ~
AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT UNDER
1_ CURRENT PROPOSED ESTIMATED
PARCEL PROPERTY OWNER ORDINANCE ORDINANCE ENHANCEMENT
64 Jack Roseberry $ 4,859.79 $ 3,482.41 $ 8,100
I 65 & 66 Joseph w. Barnett 21,732.83 16,231.81 41,600
67 & 70 Cecil R. Barnett 11,893.36 8,551.91 23,500
68 & 69 C. L. Barnett 9,984.70 6,771.31 1,500*
I 71 & 72 Tr. E-Systems Inc. 43,548.12 31,205.52 58,800
73 & 74 Tr. E-Systems Inc. 18,231.18 13,224.33 14,100
75 Tr. E-Systems Inc. 10,522.95 7,516.75 32,600
I 76 John D. Hay 4,682.45 3,643.70 3,800
77 John D. Hay 1,466.00 1,050.50 1,100
78 John D. Hay 3,658.75 2,827.75 3,800
79 B. J. G. Partners 6,973.47 4,998.49 25,400
I 80a B. J. G. Partners 5,864.00 4,202.00 19,600 .
80b Bates & Sanders 439.80 315.15 NIL *
81 Bank of North Texas 5,849.76 4,551.16 15,600
I 82 Burk Collins Inv. 5,656.24 4,300.30 19,400
83 st Louis & Southwestern 8,063.00 6,618.15 0*
84 Wm. Gumfory 8,186.79 6,725.06 26,000
85 & 86A Curtis Moore 11,501.70 10,125.92 26,200
I 86b Dalworth Tile 2,943.73 2,222.44 2,700
87 Fredrich D. Culp 4,398.00 3,151.50 8,200
88 Fredrich D. Culp 1,466.00 1,050.50 4,800
I 89a Donald Shemwell, et ale 4,054.37 2,905.26 8,400
89b Burk Collins Inv. 5,240.95 3,755.54 7,600
_ 90 Haverty Furniture 7,591.58 5,438.82 41, OO~,*
91a Tarrant County 0 0
I 92 91b Dock G. Dutton 1,295.91 1,362.73 1,300 .
93a & b J. D. Scott 3,695.37 1,602.29 1, 400~
,
94, 95 & 96 Khosrow Yazhari 23,915.28 17,567.25 65,300
I 97 Muhieddin Dalloul 17,819.88 14,808.78 39,200 .
98 Stonybrooke Inc. 10,471.34 7,503.51 5,200'~
99 Stonybrooke Inc. 8,566.42 6,138.49 19,700
I 100 Stonybrooke Inc. 16,794.50 12,034.53 30,700
101 HUD 1,466.00 1,050.50 700 .1
102 HUD 1,466.00 1,050.50 700
I 103 C. L. Jones, et ux. 1,468.93 631.26 700
104 Ronald S. Hicks, et ux. 1,463.07 628.74 700
105 Alan & Tracy Larman 1,474.80 633.78 700
106 Denis Hagon, et ux. 1,457.20 626.22 700
I 107a HUD 1,466.00 1,050.50 700 t
107b HUD 1,466.00 1,050.50 700 ~
108 Richard Peterson 1,466.00 1,050.50 700~
I 109 Richard Peterson 1,466.00 1,050.50 700 *
110 Jas. P. Stevens 2,932.00 1,260.00 1,400
111 Ronald D. Kelley 2,932.00 2,101.00 1,400
I 112 Donald L. Skultety 3.125.51 1,343.16 1,400
113 Felice S. Chipman 3,450.96 2,472.88 700 tr
114 Donna M. Halcomb 2,606.55 1,120.14 1,400
115 George Whitmire 2,638.80 1,890.90 1,4OOi
Ie 116 Richard L. Peterson 2,638.80 1,890.90 1,400
117 Richard L. Peterson 3,225.20 2,311.10 1,400 '
I
I ~'
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
~
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
No.IR 91-38
^
-PJ:1
~r
Date: March 13, 1991
Subject: LAKEWAY ORDINANCE ON ITINERANT VENDORS (SOLICITORS)
The Council asked that we investigate the feasibility of passing an ordinance similar to Lakeway's
ordinance. Actually, our ordinance is much more comprehensive than the Lakeway ordinance.
However, Lakeway has included a section which allows a person to purchase a 3" x 4" waterproof
card from the City which contains the wording: "Only Solicitors Registered With the City" or "No
Solicitor's Invited". A person violates the ordinance by ringing the doorbell or creating any other
sound (presumably knocking) in order to attract the attention of the occupant. A solicitor who
has gained entrance violates the ordinance by not leaving when he is requested to leave by the
occupant.
Lakeway, a city of 5,000, has had no experience in the enforcement of these portions of the
ordinance. It has had the ordinance on its books for about two years. No homeowners have
posted any of the cards. Only three have been purchased. (I spoke with a "Sue Sooter" who is
the City Secretary).
The City of Port Arthur had a similar ordinance on its books until four years ago. I spoke with
a police official there and found that they had no experience in enforcement of the ordinance.
No homeowner bought any cards and the city received no complaints about solicitors not leaving
when requested to do so by the occupant.
The portion of Lakeway's ordinance which makes it an offense not to leave the premises when
requested to do so is covered by the Penal Code of the State. However, violation of the Penal
Code constitutes a criminal trespass and is a much more serious offense than a class "c"
misdemeanor. If we adopt this provision, we would be attempting to lower the penalty for
criminal trespass. (Violation of the ordinance can only be a class "c" misdemeanor). I have
serious doubts about the validity of this portion of the Lakeway Ordinance.
A member of the staff of the Star Telegram spoke with me concerning the validity of the entire
ordinance of Lakeway. By its terms, the throwing of the newspaper violates the ordinance if a
homeowner has posted the card saying "No Solicitors Invited". The Star Telegram is considering
a service for delivery of other items for publishing companies (magazines, etc.) to circumvent the
higher mailing costs.
If you wish to go forward with amendment of our ordinance, I would suggest some wording other
than "No Solicitors Invited". People who bring petitions to your door have a constitutional right
to present the petition until they are told to leave. Freedom of the Press certainly extends to
dissemination of the news. Freedom of Religion extends to dissemination of religious materials.
There are probably many more constitutionally protected practices which would run afoul of the
ordinance.
_ ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
,
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
I r'
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-
I
March 13, 1991
Page 2
However, if you wish to consider the matter further I would suggest a simple message card saying
"If You Are A Solicitor, Leave These Premises".
I think this would be a notice in line with the "Order to Leave" we find in the law of criminal
trespass. This may still run afoul of the Penal Code because of the variance in penalty. It
wouldn't be too difficult to have a constitutional defense memorized to tell the officer at the time
of arrest.
Respectfully submitted,
.- / ...1// .....:.~ .-
/ ./7 Iv)/) J c>.-d-
(££- /,/ ; ..f/ /1/ ~.~~
í.- ......,,- - ''.-'" 1,/'"
Rex McÉ'ntire ' -
Attorney for the City
.:ì'.1¿.
RM:ph
I·
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
No. IR 91-37
Date:
March 13, 1991
Subject:
REPORT ON CABLE T.V.
Each of you have the Cable T.V. Board's Minutes of February 18, 1991.
By way of background I am attaching a copy of the Board's questions submitted to me in January
1991 and my memo to the Board dated January 22nd.
At this point, it appears that there are still three areas of concern:
(1) Financial Statements; (2) Educational Access; and (3) Equipment on hand furnished by the
Cable Company.
1. Request for Financial Statements have now been made by the Director of Finance. Reports
from the staff indicate that the Cable Company will comply and is presently preparing the
requested financial statements.
2. The second problem is being addressed by the City by scheduling a meeting with appropriate
officials of BISD to determine what interest exists, the extent of requests from the District and
the amount of dollars the District is willing to spend on an Educational Access Channel.
3. Because of the wording of the franchise, the question of "maintaining" equipment has
presented the staff with the most problems. On this issue the Cable Company has taken the
position that it is not required to furnish new equipment, but is only required to maintain the
equipment which it has furnished. We have several questions involved here:
(a) The meaning of the wording in the agreement;
(b) How has the City and the Company treated the clause since the inception
of the agreement; and
(c) It's enforceability since the Federal Act took away local controls.
The enforceability of the clause is the first item we are dealing with. I have conflicting opinions
from two attorneys who made their living in this field before the Federal Act. One of the
attorneys we hired (in Minneapolis) years ago still dabbles in Cable TV law and he has promised
to get back to me on the problem in the next week. Because of the Federal Act, all of the firms
who formerly practiced law in this field have broken up and the numbers have gone into other
fields.
I have not touched upon the problem of public access. Apparently, a portion of the Board feels
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
NORTH RICHLAND HillS, TEXAS
I·
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
March 13, 1.991
Page 2
that even though the Company is not required to furnish a local studio, it should be required to
allow us to use a studio in another city. Apparently, the staff does not wish to pursue this avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
/iq I -< ~... /~
P tþ --¿;¿¿'~>L ~
Rex McEntire
Attorney for the City
RM/ph
Attachments
~."'." ,... .1I.~~;,r
r; ,
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tt
I .
I
Page 1
FRANCHISE COMPLIANCE REVIEW
85-35
1.
Questions to be answered by City Attorney.
Refer to Attachment A, Ordinance #1325 (First Page).
What does "non-exclusive" mean?
2. What does "substantiall't comply" mean? Refer to 85-35,
Attachment B, 1.D. Page 2.
3. Refer to Resolution 85-35, Page 1, C., Certificate of
Insurance. Current certificate is dated 12/12/87, issue
date. Insurance expired 1/10/89. Does Sanunons have
current insurance coverage?
4. Bring to attorney's attention: lIB (Last Paragraph)
"without reservation". What is the extend and intent of
this clause?
5. If Sanunons obligations were not or are not now being met,
how would the City proceed legally to correct and gain
compliance.
6. How would City access the $10,000 bond? What steps must
be taken prior to taking all or part of the bond?
7. Refer to 85-35, 3.E., Also refer to 796, Section 7,
Page 2. Some schools do not currently have the single
installation of cable. (Haltom High School does not have
the installation as of 1-7-91).
Refer to Ordiance #797, Section 24. Who in the school
district needs to make this request?
8. Refer to 85-35, III F, Page 3.
Refer to 796, Section 9, Page 3.
Refer to 797..., what does "highest current state of the
art in the field of closed circuit television" mean?
Greg Oldenburg says "Sanunons is not maintaining highest
current state of the art.
BISD does not have one educational access Channel. BISD
is requesting the channel.
MAJOR POINT OF CONTENTION:
BISD is requesting "an educational access studio" as written under
F of 85-35, Page 3.
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tt
I
Page 2
ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY: Please note that Ordinance #1681 of July 9,
1990 did not waive the educational access studio nor was it the
intent of the City Council to waive the educational access studio.
Refer to Section 9 of Ordinance #796. It mentions the "modulator"
which is part of the equipment required to maintain a studio.
Refer to Section 8 of Ordinance *797 which describes the type of
facilities..., that is "highest current state of the art."
There is not an educational access studio as of January 7, 1991.
9. Refer to 85-35 I., P. and Q.
Refer to 797, Section 12, Part (b) .
Refer to 796, Section 10.
According to director of Finance of North Richland Hills, Lee
Maness, in a conversation with Greg Oldenburg, an audited financial
statement from SCI has never been filed. All we receive from SCI
ia a quarterly statement, not itemized, from SCI's comptroller.
SCI is not in compliance with the franchise if SCI has failed to
provide this statement.
NOTE TO ATTORNEY: If SCI is not prompt in providing this
information for past fiscal years, the City should exercise Article
P., immediately.
10. Under 85-35, J., SCI should be providing personnel upon
request to cablecast City Council meeting. Currently,
this task is being provided by Citicable employees
utilizing Ci ty equipment. If requested, SCI should
provide personnel for this task.
11. Refer to N under 85-35.
According to Greg Oldenburg, SCI is not maintaining
equipment.
NOTE TO ATTORNEY: Failure by SCI to replace or repair equipment
should be grounds to access part or all of the $10,000 cash bond.
As of this date, 1-7-91, SCI has had a letter since November, 1990
requesting compliance specifically on itimized equipment. As of
this date, 1-7-91, nothing on the list prepared by Greg Oldenburg
has been repaired, replaced, or returned to Citicable 36. This is
clearly non-compliance with the franchise.
The Cable Board requests the City Manager to follow Section 27 of
Ordinance No. 797 in regards to making a written demand for
compliance. Specifically, we request action immediately on points
9 and 10.
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
.) ""'.'"
I
I
I
I
I
t'
I
Page 3
COOPERATING AND DOCUMENTING
This issue of NATOA NEWS will focus on a process not so far down
the road for local governments - franchise renewal. Municipalities
not only need to begin this process three years before their
franchise expires, (if interested in utilizing the formal renewal
. process in Section 626 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984) but actually each day.
In order to maximize all renewal options, local governments need to
be keeping records now of their cable operator's performance, the
public's cable needs, interests and service satisfaction. Section
626 (c)(l)(B) of the act prohibits local governments from denying
renewal in cases where they have "effectively acquiesced" on
franchise violations. Local governments should, therefore, not
only provide the above evaluation results to their operator, but
also document the municipality's "nonacquiescence" to franchise
violations no matter what process, formal or informal, you adopt.
In the end, tomorrow's deeds need today's seeds. - THE EDITORS
It
1
-1
.
:-;':.~ :- -~-,¡
"'f
.. ~
I
·e
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
Ie
I
~ .~. . < .
'1
;'~I'::~'- .
.~
'jl
"I
.~-.
~....~..t··I~:·: -
" ~,
I
f'
~~I>
}I
City of JXòrth Richland Hills
January 22, 1991
Memo to:
Cable T.V. Board
From:
Rex McEntire, Attorney for the City
Subject:
Reply to Questions IJosed by City Cable Board Committee
1. The term "non-exclusive" is included in all Texas franchises because of State law which
prohibits exclusive franchises.
2. "Substantial Compliance" is a term used to determine whether or not one party to an
agreement can ignore or repudiate the agreemellt ill its entirety l)y virtue of the failure of
the other party to do tile things required of that party. One party may not treat the contract
as a nullity if the other party has substantially complied with the terms of the agreement.
Each case stands on its own facts.
3. The requirement concerning production of the certificate needs to be called for by the
City.
4. This means that the Franchise Company has read the agreement and takes no exceptions
to the terms.
5. The first thing the City would do is call attention to the items complained of. Then if
compliance is not gained, the City should invoke the terms of Section 27 of Ordinance No.
797. This last step would obviously take Council action.
6. Like any other bond, you file suit to establish your pecuniary loss occasioned by non-
compliance. When you have final judgment, you can forfeit that portion of the bond to
satisfy your money judgment.
7. If the School District wishes a connection which has not been provided, it should make
a request for service to the City which, in turn, would make the request to the franchise
holder. (Note: This may be one of the items in all old franchises which has been pre-
empted by federal statute and case law. It may ()T may not be enforceable at this time.
Before the City goes to tIle expense of re-engaging our experts in Minneapolis to brief this
(817) 281-0041
. 7301 N.E. LOOP 820 · P.O. BOX 18809 · NORTH RICHlAND HillS, TEXAS 76180
~
I-
~~'i~~~:>
I:
~be
í
I
,,",'1""
:tl
,,'
I
I
I
~le
I", .
~ '
.., A .;
,;~~~¡. ~' '
I
, .
,~,,·¡J;I"'~:~(··,· "
it; .~:.
'1',:
,I,
~~l¡~<i.
'~;:~':"
January 22, 1991
Page 2
issue, we should determine that SOllle particular school wants the service. Have we had any
complaints from any particular school?)
8. The question of local control (itl existing franchises) concerning "state of the art" service
requirements is another matter that may have been pre-empted. I will make an effort to
get an answer to th~~ question.
9. Apparently, the City has never called for audited financial statements from the franchise
holder. It may have those availalJle. The first thing we should do is ask for them.
10. In the other sect.ioI1S of the Franchise, tile requirement to furnish equipment and
:personnel is spelled out. It is not spelled out in this section. The action of both parties to
an agreement in administering the contract is strong evidence of the intention of the parties
at the time of execution. At the tiIne the agreement was signed the City was providing
personnel and equipment. Tl1is practice continued, without interruption, from the date of
the agreement in 1985 down through the present date. This is strong evidence of the
intention of the parties. Obviously, it can be argued that the terms were intended to mean
that the franchise older was expected t(> provide equipInent aIld personnel for City Council
meetings. I think that legislative history will show that tile City Council did not intend to
fire its operators and sell the equiplnent wilen the new agreement was signed.
11. The City should make a formal request for compliance with this section. It is an item
for which suit could be filed for money damages for failure to maintain the specific
equipment which was on loan from Blackhawk.
12. Each item of non-compliance should be pointed ()ut periodically to the ()perators.
Many of the provisions of the agreenlent have beell pre-empted by Federal law, but we
should ignore this matter when we are calling attention of the operator to items which we
claim did not meet the terms of the agreement.
I
1
t
1
~
:!
á
l
~
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t'
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CI1Y
COUNCIL OF THE CI1Y OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS,
TEXAS, HELD IN THE CI1Y HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST
LOOP 820 - FEBRUARY 25, 1991 - 7:30 P.M.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Brown called the meeting to order February 25, 1991, at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Tommy Brown
Richard Davis
Mack Garvin
Lyle E. Welch
Charles Scoma
Byron Sibbet
Linda Spurlock
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilwoman
Staff:
Rodger N. Line
C.A. Sanford
Jeanette Rewis
Rex McEntire
Greg Dickens
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City Secretary
Attorney
City Engineer
Absent:
Dennis Horvath
Deputy City Manager
2.
INVOCATION
Councilman Garvin gave the invocation.
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1991
APPROVED
Councilman Garvin moved, seconded by Councilman Sibbet, to approve the minutes of
the February 11, 1991 meeting.
Motion carried 6-0.
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
February 25, 1991
Page 3
Mayor Pro Tem Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Garvin, to approve Ordinance
No. 1714, only no parking signs to be installed, no red curb painting.
Motion carried 6-0.
11.
GN 91-26 COUNCIL PLACE 4 RESIGNATION
APPROVED
Mayor Pro Tem Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Garvin, to accept, with regrets,
Frank Metts, Jr.'s resignation from Council Place 4.
Motion carried 6-0.
*12.
GN 91-27 LONE STAR GAS COMPANY'S REQUEST
FOR RATE INCREASE -
RESOLUTION NO. 91-07
APPROVED
*13.
GN 91-28 TARRANT COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION
1991 SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM-
RESOLUTION NO. 91-08
APPROVED
*14.
GN 91-29 AMENDMENT OF AMBULANCE REVENUES AND EXPENSES
APPROVED
*15.
GN 91-30 APPROVE AMENDMENT TO WHOLESALE WASTEWATER
SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE TRINI1Y RIVER AUTHORI1Y
(TRA), CI1Y OF FORT WORTH AND CI1Y OF HURST -
ORDINANCE NO. 1716
APPROVED
16.
GN 91-31 DEPLOYMENT OF "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGN
APPROVED
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
February 25, 1991
Page 2
5.
PRESENTATIONS BY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Ms. Kathy Robinson, Beautification Committee, invited the Council to a "Don't Bag It"
meeting February 28th at 7:00 p.m. at the Recreation center.
CABLE TV BOARD MINUTES
Council asked the Attorney to give a report on the questions asked at the next meeting.
6.
REMOVAL OF ITEM(S) FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
Councilwoman Spurlock removed Item No. 10 from the Consent Agenda.
7.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM(S) INDICATED BY ASTERISK
(8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21)
APPROVED
Councilman Scoma moved, seconded by Councilman Garvin, to approve the Consent
Agenda.
Motion carried 6-0.
*8.
PS 91-01 REQUEST OF JEMTEX DEVELOPMENT NO. 70, INC.
FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, NORTHGLENN ADDITION
(LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RUFE SNOW DRIVE AND
NORTH OF GLENVIEW DRIVE)
APPROVED
*9.
GN 91-24 APPROVE CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR
GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
COMPUTERIZED DATA CAPTURE
APPROVED
10.
GN 91-25 APPROVE "NO PARKING" ZONE ON PARCHMAN STREET -
ORDINANCE NO. 1714
APPROVED
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
February 25, 1991
Page 4
Mayor Pro Tem Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Garvin, to deny the deployment
of "Children At Play" signs.
It was suggested that a sign be placed on the wall at the entrance to the Subdivision.
Motion carried 6-0.
Mayor Pro Tem Davis announced that it has been agreed upon by the CERT Committee
and the BISD that a rally would be held at Birdville Stadium on April 6th at 7:00 p.m. in
honor of the military serving in Desert Storm.
*17.
GN 91-32 CANCELLATION OF MARCH 11, 1991 CI1Y COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED
*18.
PU 91-04 AWARD OF BID FOR MICROFICHE READER/PRINTER
APPROVED
*19.
PAY 91-02 APPROVE FINAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 12
IN THE AMOUNT OF $93,138.60 TO LANDMARK STRUCTURES, INC.
FOR AMUNDSON ROAD 1.5 MG ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK
APPROVED
*20.
PAY 91-03 APPROVE FINAL PAYMENT TO TARRANT COUN1Y
FOR JERRELL STREET PAVING IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I
APPROVED
*21.
PAY 91-04 CHANGE ORDERS FOR UPGRADE OF CI1Y FUEL SYSTEMS
AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT
APPROVED
22.
CITIZENS PRESENTATION
Mr. Charles Cole, 6125 Riviera, appeared before the Council.
Mr. Cole commended the City on getting recycling started. Mr. Cole also addressed the
pads for the Golf Course being too close to the houses. Mr. Cole spoke on the City's
I"
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
February 25, 1991
Page 5
Solicitation Ordinance and on handbills. Mr. Cole felt the City needed to find a way to
implement an ordinance against solicitation and handbills.
Staff was asked to study the ordinance that the City of Lakeway had pertaining to this
and report back at the next meeting.
Mr. John Hawkins appeared before the Council and also spoke on the Solicitation
Ordinance.
Mr. Jerome Taylor, 7801 Cloverleaf, appeared before the Council. Mr. Taylor stated he
had offered his services on helping with the rally. Mr. Taylor spoke on the troops called
to active duty and the families suffering from low income. Mr. Taylor advised an ad hoc
group in his neighborhood had been formed to solicit funds for this cause. Mr. Taylor
stated he would like to have the endorsement of the Council on this project.
23.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Garvin, to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 6-0.
Tommy Brown - Mayor
ArrEST:
Jeanette Rewis - City Secretary
1-'
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t'
I
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CI1Y
COUNCIL OF THE CI1Y OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS,
TEXAS, HELD IN THE CI1Y HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST
LOOP 820 - MARCH 14, 1991 - 6:00 P.M.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Brown called the meeting to order March 14, 1991, at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Tommy Brown
Richard Davis
Mack Garvin
Lyle E. Welch
Charles Scoma
Byron Sibbet
Linda Spurlock
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tern
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilwoman
Staff:
Rodger N. Line
Dennis Horvath
C.A. Sanford
Jeanette Rewis
Rex McEntire
Greg Dickens
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City Secretary
Attorney
City Engineer
2.
INVOCATION
Councilman Sibbet gave the invocation.
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.
GN 91-33 AWARD OF BID FOR GLENVIEW RENOVATION
APPROVED
Councilman Sibbet moved, seconded by Councilman Scoma, to approve GN 91-33.
Motion carried 6-0.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
.~
March 14, 1991
Page 2
5.
GN 91-34 RATIFICATION OF ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT
ANIMAL CONTROL EXPANSION
APPROVED
Councilman Welch moved, seconded by Councilman Garvin, to approve GN 91-34.
Motion carried 6-0.
6.
APPOINTMENTS TO PARK/SCHOOL COMMIITEE
Mayor Brown explained the purpose of the committee.
Councilman Garvin moved, seconded by Councilman Sibbet, to appoint Mayor Brown
and Mayor Pro Tern Davis as the committee.
Motion carried 6-0.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Garvin, to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 6-0.
Council was reminded of the work session scheduled for April 1st at 6:30 p.m. in the
Council Chamber.
Council was advised that the public hearing on Bursey Road would be held at 7:30 p.m.
tonight.
Tommy Brown - Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeanette Rewis - City Secretary
I
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS LIBRARY BOARD
I
MINUTES
.
February 21, 1991
I
The North Richland Hills Library Board met in the boardroom of the library on February 21,
at 7 p.m. Present were Polly Brinkley, Jan Daniels, Jay Bradshaw, Alisa Wood,
Kay Schmidt, Arlita Hallam, Brenda Lewis, and visitor, Jo Ann Johnson. Members absent
were Brenda Cody, Clyde Zellers, and Shirley Goolsby.
I
Chairman Jan Daniels called the meeting to order. Jay Bradshaw moved, Polly Brinkley
seconded, and motion carried to approve the minutes of the January 17 meeting as written.
I
Jan introduced guest Jo Ann Johnson. Jo Ann is a candidate for City Council Place 4 in
the upcoming May election. Jo Ann wanted to visit and get acquainted with the library
board and share their concerns and interests. The board welcomed her and invited her to
attend at any time.
I
Library Director Arlita Hallam shared the following library news with members:
I
"Computers for Kids and More" is a program sponsored by Minyard Food Stores to
provide computers for libraries. We are working to collect $170,000 in grocery
receipts by May 15 to obtain a computer for use by children to help with their
homework assignments.
I
City staff will meet to begin the budget process for 1991/92 on Friday, February 22.
I
1-
Funds for drainage, asphalt, and striping repair of the parking area have been
budgeted. The city is considering available options to complete the work.
Parks and Recreation will not be included on the program survey that the library
will include in an upcoming NRH newsletter. Director Jim Browne felt that their
recent survey would suffice at this time.
I
The Northeast Orchestra will perform again this year for the volunteer reception on
the afternoon of Sunday, April 21.
I
After working with staff and board on ideas for after-school programming, Arlita reported
that the library will begin showing videos on Monday and Wednesday afternoons on March 4.
Parks and Recreation will hold open play time on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. Arlita
is working with Craig Schaefer of the YMCA and Ray Thompson of BISD to coordinate planning
of after-school events for middle-school age children. The library is also working on
plans for a media center to be used by teachers and students of all ages for their
assignments.
I
I
Arlita reviewed the current status of the plan of service. Discussion followed on
updating the plan for 1991-96. Members will give some thought to the long-term needs of
the library and get back with Arlita with ideas. The plan will be revised and copies
distributed at the March board meeting.
I'
The next meeting was scheduled for March 21.
Thousand stars" on Thursday, April 18.
The April meeting date will be "Night of a
1
At 8 p.m. Alisa Wood moved to adjourn; Polly Brinkley seconded, and motion carried.
Brenda Lewis
~
1
Date Approved
Board Chairman
Attested by
I
~
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Administration
Council Meeting Date: 3 /25 /91
Library Board Presentation
Agenda Number:
At the February 25th City Council Meeting it was decided that one
board/Commission would be invited to make a presentation to the City Council
at each regularly scheduled Council Meeting. The Library Board is scheduled
for March 25, 1991.
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
-
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Q/w:;~
City Manager
, Finance Director
-
Department Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Pa e 1 of
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Community Development
3/25/91
Department:
tiUbject:
Public Hearing for Request of Lerer Realty
To Rezone Lot 1R, Blocl~ 23 ~ Clsar'''iQw .Addition,
From its Present Classification of C-1 Commercial
to C-2 Commercial. This Property is Located at
8001 Grapevine Highway.
Council Meeting Date:
PZ 91-01
Agenda Number:
Ordinance #1719
Lerer Realty has submitted a request for a zone change on Lot lR, Block 23, Clearview
Addition, located at 8001 Grapevine Highway. The property is currently zoned C-1
Commercial and the owners are requesting a change to C-2 Commercial to allow the
property to be used for retail and wholesale plumbing sales.
The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the zone change request
on February 14, 1991. This request has been recommended for approval by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council hold the required Public Hearing and consider
the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Bu~pet
Other :,: _
WB~LBo~Mk
epartment Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Q/bOU¿ ~.
City Manager
, Finance Director
Pa e 1 of
I-I
I-
/524
u
FEe 21,89 1640,1&41,1542, t549
DEe 14"
1842
°1
I
P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
March 5, 1991
Safeco Land Title Company
3131 Turtle Creek Boulevard
suite 101
Dallas, Texas 75219
Attention: Mr. Beau Fagan
RE: Property at 8001 Grapevine Highway;
Lot 1-R, Block 23, Clearview Addn.,
North Richland Hills, Tarrant
County, Texas
Gentlemen:
We have sold the subject property to Lerer Realty subject to
its being re-zoned by the City of North Richland Hills. Ad
valorem taxes are in arrears on the subject property. We
have agreed with the City of North Richland Hills that all
arrearage in ad valorem taxes will be deducted from the
purchase price and paid directly by you to the City of North
Richland Hills.
We have made this agreement to induce said ci ty to go
forward with the re-zoning application. Therefore, we
direct you to honor our agreement and send the ad valorem
taxes which are in arrears, together with penalty and
interest, directly to the Tax Collector for the City of
North Richland Hills immediately after closing.
Very truly yours,
~ ¿
H?f~en-,Jië'~;? --
Joy~ Gre n
Own rs
109 N.W. 13th street
Grand Prairie, Texas
jtn
·1
I
--
1
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
FEBRUARY 14, 1991 - 7:30 P. M.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by
Chairman Mark Wood at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Secretary
Members
I
I
Alt. Member
Mark W
Jame rock
D d Barfield
Bowen
Lueck
Collins
Pat Marin
Paul Miller
I
present,
Miller will not
I
I
Ie
I
OATH OF OFFICE
I Mil1~r took the Oath of Office to
e an alternate on the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES
OF JANUARY 24, 1991
Ms. Marin made the motion to approve
the minutes as written. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the
motion carried 5-0 with Mr. Brock and
Mr. Collins abstaining since they were
not present at the meeting.
I
1 .
Request of JEMtex Development No. 70,
Inc. for Final Plat of Lot 1, Block 1,
Northglenn Addition. This property is
located on the west side of Rufe Snow
Drive and north of Glenview Drive.
I
I
PS 91-01
APPROVED
Mr. Brock made the motion to approve
PS 91-01. This motion was seconded by
Mr. Bowen and the motion carried 7-0.
I
I
Ie
I
2.
PZ 91-01
Public Hearing for request of Lerer
Realty to rezone Lot 1R, Block 23,
Clearview Addition, from its present
classification of C-1 Commercial to
C-2 Commercial. This property is
located at 8001 Grapevine Highway.
I
Page 2
I P & Z Minutes
February 14, 1991
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Chairman Wood opened the Public
Hearing and called for those wishing
to speak in favor of this request to
please corne forward.
Steve Scott with the Weitzman Group
came forward to represent Lerer Realty
and Apex Supply in their request. He
stated he is the Real Estate man. Mr.
Scott said Apex Supply has 7
locations and the reason for this
zoning request is for outside storage.
He said the outside storage would be
screened from the residential
neighborhood.
Mr. Lueck asked what kind of fence
they plan to have.
Mr. Scott said they would put up
whatever is required.
Mr. Barfield said the Commission can
not require it to be screened.
Mr. LeBaron stated that this is an
older area of the city that is in
transition for improvement. He asked
Mr. Scott what they plan to do to
improve this site.
Mr. Scott said they plan to paint the
building and put up a sign.
Chairman Wood said the Commission's
concern would be if the outside
storage would become an eyesore. He
said they cannot stipulate the type of
screen; this would be contract zoning.
Mr. Barfield asked if they could
approve a C-2-Specific Use so they
could put some teeth in it. He said
just granting C-2 leaves it wide open.
Mr. Scott said they could put it in
the deed restrictions for a screening
fence.
I
Page 3
I P & Z Minutes
February 14, 1991
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
1
I
I
I
~
I
Mr. LeBaron said Mr. Scott would agree
to putting up a wood sight barring
fence.
Chairman Wood called for anyone else
wishing to speak in favor of this
request to please come forward.
There being no one, the Chairman
called for those wishing to speak in
opposition to this request to please
come forward.
Jim McCaig, 7900 Birchwood, came
forward. He said he needed some
answers to several questions. Mr.
McCaig said they have a curved street
and he is on the south side of
Birchwood and the neighbors there have
to look right into this area. He
asked if there would be more
commercial traffic there loading up
pipe and etc. Mr. McCaig said there
are several children in that area and
they do not want the neighborhood to
change, they do not need more traffic.
Mr. Brock asked what Mr. McCaig
thought about a fence.
Mr. McCaig said they do not want to
look from their front yards and see
pipes piled up. He said he feels the
fence should match the wooden fence
that is there.
Mr. Bowen said they would need to have
the gate to be from Grapevine Highway.
David Maine, 7913 Birchwood, came
forward. He said when Harry's was in
this location, they were there all
hours. He wanted to know what kind of
hours they would have. Mr. Maine said
there would be a noise factor and he
said Byrd's Automotive is terrible.
He said it is the smell. Mr. Maine
said if this is a plumbing company
they could have acid for pipes.
I
Page 4
I P & Z Minutes
February 14, 1991
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Chairman Wood called for anyone else
wishing to speak in opposition to this
request to please come forward.
There being no one else wishing to
speak, the Chairman closed the Public
Hearing.
Mr. Brock asked about the hours of the
plumbing company.
Mr. Scott said they would probably be
open from 7:30 or 8:00 A.M. to 5:30 or
so P.M. with a half day on Saturday.
He said they would not be open at
night.
Mr. Miller asked if the consumers
would pull their vehicles in back for
loading.
Mr. Scott said the professionals
would.
Mr. Bowen asked if the traffic were to
back up into the neighborhood, could
it be controlled.
Mr. Pence said the police would have
to be called.
Mr. Scott stated that it is Mr.
Lerer's intent to have everything
screened with no pipes showing above
the fence.
Mr. Barfield asked if there is
anything the Commission can do about
the fence.
Mr. LeBaron said they could not.
Mr. Barfield said the city is working
to help the area across the street,
Richhaven Addition, to improve. He
said without having some fence
requirement he could not agree to the
zoning request.
I
I
Page 5
P & Z Minutes
February 14, 1991
~
I
Mr. Barfield made the motion to de~y
PZ 91-01. This motion was seconded by
Chairman Wood.
I
Mr. Brock said Mr. Lerer's intentions
are good, he is willing to make any
commitment. Mr. Brock said he feels
the Commission should work with him.
I
Mr. Barfield said he would withdraw
his motion if they would agree to
table this request and have a meeting
with the City Attorney to see if
something could be worked out about a
screening fence.
I
I
Chairman Wood said the question is:
Do we want outside storage there.
I
Mr. Brock said that next to
residential, it should be screened.
I
Ie
Chairman Wood stated there is
screening between the residential and
commercial, but the storage needs to
be enclosed.
I
Chairman Wood asked if they want
outdoor storage or not. He said
Byrd's Automotive exists there with
outdoor storage.
I
Chairman Wood called for a vote on the
motion to deny PZ 91-01.
I
I
The motion failed by a vote of 3-4 with
Lueck, Barfield, and Wood voting for
denial and Brock, Bowen, Collins, and
Marin voting against denial.
I
PZ 91-01
APPROVED
Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve
PZ 91-01 for C-2 zoning. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Brock.
I
Mr. Collins said they need a
definition of a sight-barring fence.
~
I
Mr. Pence said that where commercial
abuts residential, if the fence is in
need of repair, the commercial owner
has to fix it.
I
I
Ie
Page 6
p & Z Minutes
February 14, 1991
I
Chairman Wood called for a vote on the
motion to approve PZ 91-01.
I
The motion carried with a vote of 4-3
with Bowen, Brock, Collins, and Marin
voting for approval and Wood, Lueck,
and Barfield voting against.
I
Chairman Wood stated that Mr. Scott
should get with the neighbors and
agree to some solution prior to going
to the City Council.
I
I
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.
I
Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission
I
Ie
Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I'
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
L..u
::::..~
---~
Q('~
~~
'"
~
~
~~
a.-
~a
~=
~:
::t:~
it
~a
~:
......... ~
CQ
UT.'t."" .'
7...£" -
~,..
it
þ
'.
~
16.6'
..
~. .
"1 &
\I .
. .' .
/
. .;
è
Q
'"
...
--
ASPNAIT
'A VEl/EN T
ArEA
76 ,.
life .1
M~II _
)
144.ol.___ . ..
-- g"c./~
~'I
rØ
.,..'
II.J-
51.D ·
~
.E nD.'
".,11'£
"IIIIEIIIAL
'1111.".'
..
e
2
12/. 5·
.'. '
IDDI
GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY
60.0· R.O.W. - AS'IIAI. T fTIEET 'ArEIIEIt1
---- .
,.
·JAN 1_5 '91 ~f,: g:3. .1.sr fil' E~'ICArj F/..<J, . r: Z .9/- e I ..., P. ~/2 .
· ..' ....~.~.. . · ~..~ I " 'i. d ":/, .' ;. :~;.2~~~~.;.. ~~,. L ~~~.:,,~~ ~.i.,i.~~~ii¿J.'~~ ;~i{{,~ :tt,~ .', .;,,', :¿;~~~. / ';"'.' _ ~;,;':,:.L ·:~.;,1~2 ~,:~.;:;~; ::A~'/ ;~ :':. ;' ~. "', ,
' - L.. -'- -.--À<...o,......._........'-o........... ., ___~ J.:.:.:._"::.'" .t'.""-;........~~~~~.,.J! .... .
. --- -.~" ........ <iw.ò
I
,_ ,
)
)
f
. ,
1
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
Ie
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
l-
I' . .',
i. .'
.~:4 "r" .;
....
, ----
..()t
""'7 .~.
. \." ,
.;
I
.II· ."E
~~--.I..4.D·.. - __ _
w
~
~
C(
Q.
Q
. C)'
. ~~
'.~ ~
~;
,ct
....... '
OJ
~
~
~ì
~
~
--
9
,
~.
:;~
. -
~ '
~
I-It
Ll.3.:::! '~~ 1.1. w
HICHWAY IZI
Plat Showing
Lots lyR, 2-R, & 3-R
310clc 23
CLßA..'1'VI1~~" ADDITIon
WENDELL I-iANCOCK
o ....-......-- fRON "NS
r~,i"ered public .urveyor no. 1326
834-6243
5144 B EAST BELKNAP STRE;ET
FORT WORTH. TEXAS .'76117
·x·x -.............. F~Nce
4 ......-..-..... 80'S 0' ARC Sr AICES
·T·E ---. UTIliTY liNE
..s.s .-.......... SÂN,r AAY seWER
Vql. 388"'~Gf 173
,. ·1(i~:!:~~~ff~.
, I- .
'....
. ',~.
..'
.. ,~:" '~.
- ... ..
...
~
Q
-t
~-
~'1
~:1
!. ..
j.
() ~
~
" .....
~
C)
Q
~ 'Ç)
3"ft ~ ~i
" . \)
lJJ~
...J()
Q....
.~
tieing a revision of
Tract A, Ulock 23,
Clenrviet.¡ Addition
an addition 'to the
city of NOl'th Rich-
: r:"; i' ¡.' ::l1i/ "If i/ICiJ(.M!IJ HILL). 1':';7.. léJnd Hills, Tal'1:'ant
. ii ii' :;;!), 11>,,' :' _,~~., I .J ':: Co unty, 'l'e~'a$. to
· .. 1- ' ,'.' -( ..:.._~~ ." ,. _~. ,:-< ~
,:;.,.1 :::;~n. " ,t'I~;r '1/" .... .un ~:I¡' "¡::'rn 1:.;:: 1,)"
' . /', I .
'''' /:'..' ///. I go
---..:..... I ::. .c.. I c: .
t~:-'t.1 I"! Vtl·., z:ci _ ~f
. · " · ... ,. j Q;J (') "r
//"" \~).. .~~ , --<~ 0;=
C · t'(..{ J ...,.... ~.' .. '-' ·-1 :..l ··~""I , I, . __ C rt'J
- ----..;. - .~ · -; , --. nO :;¿: '""
. , :';:.1::0 I" · ", I:J · r- 0 :¡ 0
l '. -:' , .' '". / ' · i.., · . .._ H... ..... , ~ ~ Ñ :<
1w: I' "':"":'..L.___i... / ¡. ,,' '''f ( _ -1 '" ~ ~'I
I ....~ ,~... ; : (¡.': r'0 hi,! '''-'' "" 0.... 0 :~
This is to certify that we ~arked the corners Os shown abo'ie. The Ioc~" of Imp~.me~
Ore as shown, the easements and building lines Or. as they appear on said mop of record a,ffi
there are no 'i;sibfe enc:roochmenb elCcept 05 shown.
-=Do te....2. y I ~
~
:=0
.~
.~~
Æ
t·· ,
f
I··'·
-. ;
('~
I .?
(.1
t·..,
: ~
, )
, -I
.~..';
;".,;,
......
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
ORDINANCE NO. 1719
AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION XXVIII, AMENDMENTS, OF ZONING
ORDINANCE #1080 OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, TEXAS, PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED
BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, JANUARY 9, 1984
AFTER APPROPRIATE NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION
IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS BY
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
RESOLVED that on Case No. PZ-91-01 the following described property shall
be rezoned from C-l to C-2.
BEING Lot lR, Block 23, Clearview Addition, an addition to the City of
North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in Volume 388-48,
Page 173, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas.
This property is located at 8001 Grapevine Highway.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS 14th DAY OF FEBRUARY,
1991. ~ ~
~~
SECRETARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
ACTING IN REGULAR SESSION THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IN CASE NO.
PZ-91-01 IS HEREBY REZONED THIS DAY OF
MAYOR
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
ATTEST:
JEANETTE REWIS, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
ATTORNEY
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Community Development
3/25/91
Department:
Council Meeting Date:
PZ 91-02
Agenda Number:
Public Hearing for Request of Alamo Custom
ubject: Build.ers to RQ~oue 23 Iot'C! in ~, øn,,; øur P~Tk
Addition From Their Present Classification
of R-6-T Townhouse District to R-3 Single
Family. This Property is Located on the
South Side of Glenview Drive, West of Rufe
Snow Drive.
Ordinance 111720
Mr. David Pokluda, representing Alamo Custom Builders, has submitted an application for
a zoning district change for several undeveloped lots located in the Glenview Park
Addition. The subdivision is located on the south side of Glenview Drive and
approximately 1,100 feet west of Rufe Snow Drive.
The subdivision was originally zoned for duplex units and a few were constructed. Later
the balance of the undeveloped property was rezoned to R-6-T Townhomes. The undeveloped
portion of the land remains undeveloped and the applicant is requesting a change in the
zoning classification to R-3 Single Family Residential.
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this request on February 28, 1991 and has
recommended approval.
Public Hearing and consider
-
Finance Review
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Oth
e
Q~/JIN~
ent Head Signature City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
I
--
I
I
I
till
if :~1'~1·1 I I' ~ ; , I~' · I I :~f i fJ' 1 ¡ I 1III I ; 1 T-=f.m'; - -I ~L j , ,II'
....~ -" -- ~ ~ I J 1-1 1 IE· ! ~! 1 I I I ~
, ::~:::: I-~ ·\LJ I, I Il'-mr~ØlT'r r 'I _I' f~JI· J ~J::j ~=:: - - i \
t ~I~~ IL 1 n : ¡ I j 1 j I ~ I lliU ~ ~~~..
'- ~ j - j I If )= ~ ..:::~ f -~ == I
~ - ,~.. ~= · ~ H++ff--: I '=i === ;;; / \
~~ Ri-f)-Dt__ 'R-7-MF ~[Ït1~rl~ II r 11 II :=- '
~t';¡ ~ ~ C-I '. .,' > c- ~~~§~ :~~'''':'oo&l' ".. ~~ ~
r .A\. '~q, 01. tfQjI-!~>--. ,. (. . >-::== ~
~~~ R I R-ð-"t" lJ'o Il.-)~ '" ~p_~ _ ~:=;::= ~~
t 1 ð'I.. I~~ "I ./ ~ ~ "- ~ / ~ L--t....- J-
V R ~ I ...... IJ ~-2- lQT L1~ I -¡ I I I 1
I 40 ~ -~ -SD ~t ~_'rI ~:: v t jl ~ _. . i
~~þg~5 µ ~ i ~ I-- U ,~., R-7-
I R-8 Ë ~ . _ .......~.r II , J ,./ / ."--- 1~1O ~ MF. ~
; 1241 ~ == ~_r ,- .~' 1_ _~..~ I~_I
.- == ~ I 13 /=1 I ~! R-'" ~ '" '_... Ui5 : , . ,dt68
: - - ~ -;; ---::~t-2-~'" ..- ~I \..~"'
--J ~ ==~ ¡ . · i I r;4 == C-2 1372, ~ ,---1' ./
- t=~1 fl~ I ¡·I, I I C-2:j';; 1 il:J f.I~ 1-þii; ¡'
t~' I ~~. '-~SD I ¡!-~ I·~'I c-i; ¡oYW_!~." Cs-u'*
, ~ LR C-2 I I I tfe..~
, ~ - I -" I C 2
I j .;. .r; ~ I ~- \ ~ ' 16~6
lb-U IJPI __ I I I I I ¡ ¡ r I! 1 I // I r ~-= J .~ I - 2
~___ï.::::J ~ ......J~r , . 'i ¡ !. '''- - j W
"---~ ___' c 1 "'-
-.---:-.:j~~ f¿" I ¡ :~-~
r------: ~ ~ =~ i¡' I .~ II ì ~:-
t-----.., ~ ¡;--t; I '/! j ~ ~ .-
~ ;-t-4 "" H .....:l- ~MJ{: I oJ
~ ~ æ=~"-.~ , ~r T'
~~ ~ -+- ~ r-;-- Hr:oL 1 "r //j C
tH~ : :~'''n~ :=
l~rr ¡R:-'-;'''' '.~
~ ~~~ ~~~ c, tþ
At - fI¡ ~ n, (i ! ' it i 1 ¡ I I!
W la "7 >¥f I '~ -_I
"
~~--"
---ì.--
-- r-r¡:--
-
~ .'~...
R-7
M ,.-
. ;¡.'" " ....
. -
s.u.
..:::: í
:~:: R '055~
~Þ-- CIlfE'
~ I_~~ It... ,
I~·
-. .'. -:..
~
j - _' c .......
:::J
~ V"...... w'I"'ImT"L' ?r ~ ...'
IR-5-D
R-I
F."P
,,0
1 C. '
~1 (.1 ,0
C.
'\
s
o
f
C-2
1399
'-....
~
·1 ~
\ ~,...
~"
C-I
SUO
C-2 15
C-I
""-,
\
I ÇÀ.. \
.......i
. (.'vÌ'r- 2
)
I
ZONING MAP OJ
/'
G 1
7 ~ /:fdMt{
I ." MAYOR
IURRENT THROUGH ORDINANCE NO. 1085 OR
-IT ORDINANCE LISTED IN REVISION BLOCK.
Ie
-I
Ct
SEC
I
I
Ie
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
FEBRUARY 28, 1991 - 7:30 P. M.
I
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order
Chairman Mark Wood at 7:30 P.
I
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Secretary
Members
ark Wood
James Brock
David Barfield
Don Bowen
Ron Lueck
Don Collins
Pat Marin
Paul Miller
Tonnny Brown
Lyle Welch
Charles Scoma
Linda Spurlock
Barry LeBaron
Steve Pence
Wanda Calvert
I
I
I
Alt. Member
Mayor
Councilman
Councilman
Councilwoman
Dir. Community Dev.
Building Official
P & Z Coordinator
I
I
Ie
DERATION OF THE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1991
Mr. Brock made the motion to approve
the minutes as written. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Barfield and the
motion carried 7-0.
I
Chairman Wood stated that since he has
a conflict of interest in the first
two cases, he would step down and Vice
Chairman Brock would take over.
I
Alternate Member Paul Miller will be
voting in the place of Chairman Wood.
I
Chairman Wood stepped down and took a
seat in the audience.
I
Vice Chairman Brock stated since these
two requests are related, the
Commission will hear them together but
vote on them separately.
I
1 .
PZ 91-02
Public Hearing for request of Alamo
Custom Builders to rezone 23 lots in
Glenview Park Addition from their
present classification of R-6-T
Townhouse District to R-3 Single
Family. This property is located on
the south side of Glenview Drive.
I
Ie
I
I
I
~
Page 2
P & Z Minutes
February 28, 1991
2.
PS 91-02
Public Hearing for request of Alamo
Custom Builders for Replat of Lots
3R-16R, Block 1, and Lots lR-4R &
6R-I0R, Block 2, Glenview Park
Addition. This property is located on
the south side of Glenview Drive, west
of Rufe Snow Drive.
I
I
I
Vice Chairman Brock opened the Public
Hearing and called for anyone wishing
to speak in favor of these requests to
please corne forward.
I
I
David Pokluda owner of Alamo Custom
Builders, Inc. came forward. He
stated he wants to purchase 46 duplex
lots in Glenview Park Addition and
rezone and replat into 23 single
family lots. Mr. Pokluda said he had
received a letter from the city
engineer regarding the replatting. He
said he has no problem with the first
9 items, but requests items 10 thru 13
be waived since it is an existing
subdivision. He said he believes
there was another letter submitted
today with some other requirements he
had not seen.
I
~
I
I
Forrest Grubb, 6505 Towne Park Drive,
came forward. He said he was one of
the first to build in this
subdivision. Mr. Grubb asked what
items 10 thru 13 were.
I
I
I
Vice Chairman Brock stated they were:
HI0-street light layout (lights are
already in); #11-requested a drainage
study; and 12 & I3-water and sewer
plan sheets.
I
Mr. LeBaron stated this property was
developed as duplex lots and when the
water and sewer were put in, there
were two water and two sewer taps for
each lot, and staff feels we need to
know which tap will be used when
changed to single family zoning.
I
~
I
Mr. Grubb asked if there were any
other problems.
I Page 3
I P & Z Minutes
February 28, 1991
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Vice Chairman Brock said another
letter was issued this evening that
dealt with 7 items and he has agreed
to most of them, but the drainage map
and water and sewer layout sheets with
a flume and the last one was
pertaining to some curbs that were
knocked out.
Mr. Grubb said he knew some curbs were
knocked out for the duplexes, but he
has no problem with that, in fact, he
said he does not feel any of those are
problems. Mr. Grubb said he had tried
to buy this property for 3 years and
he is glad someone is going to buy it
and develop it. He said he had kept
the trash cleaned up on the property.
Mr. Grubb said he does recommend a
brick type fence across the front. He
said there are some brick there for a
brick and wrought iron fence, but the
duplex developer went bankrupt. He
said the fence is set back because he
had to go to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment to allow them to have a
fence set there.
Vice Chairman Brock called for anyone
else wishing to speak in favor of
these requests to please come forward.
There being no one, the Vice Chairman
called for those wishing to speak in
opposition to this request to please
corne forward.
There being no one, Vice Chairman
Brock closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Barfield asked Mr. Pokluda about
the fence.
Mr. Pokluda said they plan to build a
model home there on G1enview and will
put up a fence to protect their model
home. He said he had rather not put
the fence all the way across the lots
because he wants the model in view.
Mr. Pokluda said he will put up a
fence probably of the same decor or
better.
I Page 4
I p & Z Minutes
February 28, 1991
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Mr. Barfield said it is the intent of
this Commission to require some sort
of a masonry type fence on major
collector streets to screen them from
traffic. He said the Commission is
working toward an ordinance to require
this. Mr. Barfield asked Mr. Pokluda
if he would be agreeable to build this
screening fence as he builds the
houses.
Vice Chairman Brock said he would only
have two lots on Glenview, he doesn't
own the lots on each side.
Mr. Pokluda stated there is already a
fence on the east and west sides and
he would probably try to match what is
there.
Mr. Barfield asked about item #5 which
requires a concrete flume for the 100
year flood.
Mr. Pokluda said he would rather not
have to put that in.
Mr. Barfield asked Mr. Pokluda if he
would locate water and sewer taps as
he builds and work with the city on
the little house cleaning items.
Mr. Pokluda said he would.
Vice Chairman Brock said he was glad
to see someone come in and take the
property and do something with it,
especially like Alamo Homes.
Mr. Bowen said that R-3 zoning is
usually used as a buffer between
commercial and residential, but he
thinks this is the best use for the
property and the utilities are already
in.
I Page 5
I P & Z Minutes
February 28, 1991
~
I PZ 91-02
APPROVED
I
I
I
I PS 91-02
APPROVED
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Mr. Barfield made the motion to
approve PZ 91-02 with the stipulation
that a masonry fence be constructed as
houses are built on lot 1R & lOR, one
that is comfortable with the one that
is already there. This motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion
carried 7-0.
Mr. Collins made a motion to approve
PS 91-02 subject to the engineer's
comments. This motion died for lack
of a second.
Mr. Barfield made the motion to
approve PS 91-02 with the following
stipulations: the developer not be
required to do a drainage study since
a drainage study was done at the time
the property was developed; that the
flume requirement be waived at this
point; the curbs be replaced as lots
are built upon; that the
ingress-egress easement between Lots
1R & 2R and lOR & 9R be added to the
plat, and the other housekeeping
requirements on the engineer's letters
be adhered to.
Vice Chairman Brock asked if that was
waiving items 10 thru 13 of the
original letter.
Mr. Barfield said he believes that has
to do with the drainage.
Vice Chairman Brock said it was street
lights, drainage, sanitary and water.
Mr. Barfield said he thinks they need
to locate the water taps on the plat
at the time the houses are built, when
the building permit is applied for.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen
and the motion carried 7-0.
Chairman Wood came back to the Chair.
I
I
Page 6
P & Z Minutes
February 28, 1991
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
3. PS 90-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Grubb came forward. He stated
that some of the fence there had been
put up illegally. He said the brick
pilasters are there, but were filled
in with white wood and he does not
want wood.
Chairman Wood said right now we do not
have a fence ordinance.
Mr. Grubb said it was approved for
wrought iron to be in there.
Chairman Wood said they would have to
pull the minutes and see what was
stated. He said Mr. Pokluda said he
intends to duplicate or improve on
what is already there.
Mr. Grubb said he hoped what he put up
would be brick or wrought iron.
Consideration of Implementation of
Neighborhood Improvement Plan adjacen
to Bedford-Euless Road.
Chairman Wood stated this
Public Hearing but a mod
session. He said mos
here were present the previous
meeting in Dece Chairman Wood
said the Co sion and staff have
taken nu cus comments the neighbors
have itted, had several work
and now ready to get back
neighbors again.
Chairman Wood stated that over the
years comments have been made
regarding access problems and concerns
about this area. He said for several
months, the city has been looking at
improvements to Bedford Euless Road
and thought this would be a good time
to see if there were some changes
which needed to be made. Chairman
Wood stated that at the previous
meeting, there was a majority of the
people present who were interested in
making some kind of changes.
I
I
lit
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1f4
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
ORDINANCE NO. 1720
AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION XXVIII, AMENDMENTS, OF ZONING
ORDINANCE #1080 OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, TEXAS, PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED
BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, JANUARY 9, 1984
AFTER APPROPRIATE NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION
IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS BY
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
RESOLVED that on Case No. PZ-91-02 the following described property shall
be rezoned from R-6-T to R-3.
BEING Lots 3A through 9B, Lots llA through 16B, Block 1, Glenview Park
Addition, an addition to the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County,
Texas, according to plat recorded in Volume 388-173, Page 88, Plat Records,
Tarrant County, Texas and Lots l-A-R through Lots 4-B-R, Lots 6-A-R through
10-B-R, Block 2, and Lots 10-A-R and 10-B-R, Block 1, said addition
according to plat recorded in Volume 388-191, Page 22, Plat Records,
Tarrant County, Texas.
This property is located on the south side of Glenview Drive, west of Rufe
Snow Drive.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY,
1991.
SECRETARY PLANNING AND
~~
ING AND ZONING COMMISSION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
ACTING IN REGULAR SESSION THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IN CASE NO.
PZ-91-02 IS HEREBY REZONED THIS DAY OF
MAYOR
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
ATTEST:
JEANETTE REWIS, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
ATTORNEY
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Community Development
3/25/91
Council Meeting Date:
PS 91-02
Agenda Number:
Department:
Request of Alamo Custom Builders for Replat
of Lðt~ JR 16R, Bleck 1, and Lets 1R ~R & éR 1QR~
Block 2, Glenview Park Addition. This property
is Located on the South Side of Glenview Drive,
West of Rufe Snow Drive.
Alamo Custom Builders has submitted a replat of 46 lots in the Glenview Park Addition
located on the south side of Glenview Drive just west of its intersection with Rufe Snow
Drive. Glenview Park Addition was originally platted as a duplex subdivision. The
proposed replat merely removes the "sub lot lines" and creates 23 lots which meet the
R-3 minimum area requirements.
The property was originally developed several years ago when the drainage requirements
were less stringent than they are now. The development currently has adequate water,
sewer and street facilities existing to serve the lots. However, the current
subdivision regulations were used to review the proposed replat to determine the need
for additional public improvements. Attached, please note the staff comments summarized
on the February 28, 1991 memo from Gregory Dickens, Director of Public Works which
addresses the need for additional engineering information and drainage improvements.
The owner has submitted a request for a waiver of the drainage study and engineering
plans requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this replat at the
February 28, 1991 meeting and recommended approval of the replat with the following
stipulations: the developer not be required to do a drainage study since a drainage
study was done at the time the property was developed; that the flume requirement be
waived at this point; the curbs be replaced as lots are built upon; that the
ingress-egress easement between lots 1R & 2R and lOR and 9R be added to the plat, and
4IÞthe other housekeeping requirements on the engineer's letters be adhered to.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other . fa."
~~~O~
rtment Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
-
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
, Finance Director
1 of
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
ZONING MAP 0:
I
I
CUR<RENT THROUGH ORDINANCE NO.I08S OR
'it ORDINANCE LISTED IN REVISION BLOCK.
c
Ie
SEt
I
I
Ie
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR l'fEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
FEBRUARY 28, 1991 - 7:30 P. M.
I
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order
Chairman Mark Wood at 7:30 P.
I
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Secretary
Members
Mark Wood
James Brock
David Barfield
Don Bowen
Ron Lueck
Don Collins
Pat Marin
PAul Miller
Tommy Brown
Lyle hTelch
Charles Scoma
Linda Spurlock
Barry LeBaron
Steve Pence
Wanda Calvert
I
I
I
~fayor
Councilman
Councilman
Councilwoman
Dir. Community Dev.
Building Official
P & Z Coordinator
I
I
Ie
ERATION OF THE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1991
Mr. Brock made the motion to approve
the minutes as written. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Barfield and the
motion carried 7-0.
I
Chairman Wood stated that since he has
a conflict of interest in the first
two cases, he would step down and Vice
Chairman Brock would take over.
I
I
Alternate Member Paul Miller will be
voting in the place of Chairman Wood.
I
Chairman Wood stepped down and took a
seat in the audience.
I
I
Vice Chairman Brock stated since these
two requests are related, the
Commission will hear theM together but
vote on them separately.
1 .
PZ 91-02
Public Hearing for request of Alamo
Custom Builders to rezone 23 lots in
Glenview Park Addition from their
present classification of R-6-T
Townhouse District to R-3 Single
Family. This property is located on
the south side of Glenview Drive.
Ie
I
I
I
Page 2
P & Z Minutes
February 28, 1991
Ie
I
2 .
PS 91-02
Public Hearing for request of Alamo
Custom Builders for Replat of Lots
3R-16R, Block 1, and Lots lR-4R &
6R-I0R, Block 2, Glenview Park
Addition. This property is located on
the south side of Glenview Drive, west
of Rufe Snow Drive.
I
I
Vice Chairman Brock opened the Public
Hearing and called for anyone wishing
to speak in favor of these requests to
please come forward.
I
I
David Pokluda owner of Alamo Custom
Builders, Inc. carne forward. He
stated he wants to purchase 46 duplex
lots in Glenview Park Addition and
rezone and replat into 23 single
family lots. Mr. Pokluda said he had
received a letter from the city
engineer regarding the replatting. Fe
said he has no problem with the first
9 items, but requests items 10 thru 13
be waived since it is an existing
subdivision. He said he believes
there was another letter submitted
today with some other requirements he
had not seen.
I
I
r-
I
I
Forrest Grubb, 6505 Towne Park Drive,
came forward. He said he was one of
the first to build in this
subdivision. Mr. Grubb asked what
items 10 thru 13 were.
I
Vice Chairman Brock stated they were:
HIO-street light layout (lights are
already in); #11-requested a drainage
study; and 12 & 13-water and sewer
plan sheets.
I
I
Mr. LeBaron stated this property was
developed as duplex lots and when the
water and sewer were put in, there
were two water and two sewer taps for
each lot, and staff feels we need to
know which tap will be used when
changed to single family zoning.
I
--
I
Mr. Grubb asked if there were any
other problems.
I
Page 3
I p & Z Minutes
February 28, 1991
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Vice Chairman Brock said another
letter was issued this evening that
dealt with 7 items and he has agreed
to most of them, but the drainage map
and water and sewer layout sheets with
a flume and the last one was
pertaining to some curbs that were
knocked out.
Mr. Grubb said he knew some curbs were
knocked out for the duplexes, but he
has no problem with that, in fact, he
said he does not feel any of those are
problems. Mr. Grubb said he had tried
to buy this property for 3 years and
he is glad someone is going to buy it
and develop it. He said he had kept
the trash cleaned up on the property.
Mr. Grubb said he does recommend a
brick type fence across the front. He
said there are some brick there for a
brick and wrought iron fence, but the
duplex developer went bankrupt. He
said the fence is set back because he
had to go to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment to allow them to have a
fence set there.
Vice Chairman Brock called for anyone
else wishing to speak in favor of
these requests to please corne forward.
There being no one, the Vice Chairman
called for those wishing to speak in
opposition to this request to please
come forward.
There being no one, Vice Chairman
Brock closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Barfield asked Mr. Pokluda about
the fence.
Mr. Pokluda said they plan to build a
model home there on Glenview and will
put up a fence to protect their model
home. He said he had rather not put
the fence all the way across the lots
because he wants the model in view.
Mr. Pokluda said he will put up a
fence probably of the same decor or
better.
I
Page 4
I p & Z Minutes
February 28, 1991
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Mr. Barfield said it is the intent of
this Commission to require some sort
of a masonry type fence on major
collector streets to screen them from
traffic. He said the Commission is
working toward an ordinance to require
this. Mr. Barfield asked Mr. Pokluda
if he would be agreeable to build this
screening fence as he builds the
houses.
Vice Chairman Brock said he would only
have two lots on Glenview, he doesn't
own the lots on each side.
Mr. Pokluda stated there is already a
fence on the east and west sides and
he would probably try to match what is
there.
Mr. Barfield asked about item #5 which
requires a concrete flume for the 100
year flood.
Mr. Pokluda said he would rather not
have to put that in.
Mr. Barfield asked Mr. Pokluda if he
would locate water and sewer taps as
he builds and work with the city on
the little house cleaning items.
~r. Pokluda said he would.
Vice Chairman Brock said he was glad
to see someone come in and take the
property and do something with it,
especially like Alamo Homes.
Mr. Bowen said that R-3 zoning is
usually used as a buffer between
commercial and residential, but he
thinks this is the best use for the
property and the utilities are already
in.
I
Page 5
I p & Z Minutes
February 28, 1991
Ie
I PZ 91-02
APPROVED
I
I
I
I PS 91-02
APPROVED
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Mr. Barfield made the motion to
approve PZ 91-02 with the stipulation
that a masonry fence be constructed as
houses are built on lot 1R & lOR, one
that is comfortable with the one that
is already there. This motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowen and the motion
carried 7-0.
Mr. Collins made a motion to approve
PS 91-02 subject to the engineer's
comments. This motion died for lack
of a second.
Mr. Barfield made the motion to
approve PS 91-02 with the following
stipulations: the developer not be
required to do a drainage study since
a drainage study was done at the time
the property was developed; that the
flume requirement be waived at this
point; the curbs be replaced as lots
are built upon; that the
ingress-egress easement between Lots
1R & 2R and lOR & 9R be added to the
plat, and the other housekeeping
requirements on the engineer's letters
be adhered to.
Vice Chairman Brock asked if that was
waiving items 10 thru 13 of the
original letter.
Mr. Barfield said he believes that has
to do with the drainage.
Vice Chairman Brock said it was street
lights, drainage, sanitary and water.
Mr. Barfield said he thinks they need
to locate the water taps on the plat
at the time the houses are built, when
the building permit is applied for.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen
and the motion carried 7-0.
Chairman Wood came back to the Chair.
I
I
Page 6
P & Z Minutes
February 28, 1991
.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
3. PS 90-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Grubb came forward. He stated
that some of the fence there had been
put up illegally. He said the brick
pilasters are there, but were filled
in with white wood and he does not
want wood.
Chairman Wood said right now we do not
have a fence ordinance.
Mr. Grubb said it was approved for
wrought iron to be in there.
Chairman Wood said they would have to
pull the minutes and see what was
stated. He said Mr. Pokluda said he
intends to duplicate or improve on
what is already there.
Mr. Grubb said he hoped what he put up
would be brick or wrought iron.
Consideration of Implementation of
Neighborhood Improvement Plan adjac
to Bedford-Euless Road.
Chairman Wood stated not a
Public Hearing but a ied work
session. He said mo of the people
here were present the previous
meeting in Dec Chairman Wood
said the Co ssion and staff have
taken n ous comments the neighbors
have mitted, had several work
se 10ns and now ready to get back
1th the neighbors again.
Chairman Wood stated that over the
years comments have been made
regarding access problems and concerns
about this area. He said for several
months, the city has been looking at
improvements to Bedford Euless Road
and thought this would be a good time
to see if there were some changes
which needed to be made. Chairman
Wood stated that at the previous
meeting, there was a majority of the
people present who were interested in
making some kind of changes.
I
I City of JXòrth Richland Hills
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
February 28, 1991
Ref: PWM 91-016
MEMO TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Gregory W. Dickens, P.E.
Director of Public Works/Utilities
SUBJECT: PS 91-02; GLENVIEW PARK ADDITION; Replat
Lots 3R through 16R, Block 1 and
Lots lR through 4R and 6R through lOR, Block 2
We have reviewed the subject plat resubmitted February 21, 1991. After this
second submittal review and further investigation of the existing subdivision,
we offer the following comments:
Plat
1. Volume and page for current ownership deed has been left out of the
metes and bounds description. See seventh line of second paragraph.
Please correct.
2. Easement shown between Lots 12R and 13R should be noted as a "15'
Drainage & Utility Easement". Overland relief for stormwater runoff may
require additional easement be dedicated on Lot 13R.
3. Relabel "20' Ingress Ingress Esm't" as "20' Public Engress & Egress
Easement" on Block 2.
4. A note should be added on plat stating "Maintenance of all concrete or
asphalt pavement within a public ingress and egress easement is the
property owner's responsibility.
Plans (sealed by Engineer)
5. Drainage Area Map showing overland relief between Lots 12R and 13R
should be submitted. A concrete flume should be sized to handle enough
runoff so the combination of the storm drain pipe and flume together
handle the 100-year frequency storm runoff within the drainage easement.
6. Water and Sanitary Sewer Layout sheet showing location of existing sewer
services. Services which are not to be used should be noted as such.
All existing lines are to be shown with approximate dimension noted from
side property lines to location of sewer services.
(817) 281-0041
· 7301 N.E. lOOP 820 · P.O. BOX 18609 · NORTH RICHlAND HillS, TEXAS 76180
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
PWM 91-016
February 28, 1991
Page 2
7.
All sections of street curbs which have been removed in this addition
will have to be replaced. The replacement should be noted on the
Drainage Area Map with a detail showing how this is to be accomplished.
Our review of all replats is done with reference to current City ordinances
and design criteria. The original plat submittal on this subdivision was PS
84-31 in 1984. A partial replat was submitted as PS 85-51 in 1985.
If we may be of further assistance, please contact us.
CC: Mr. Barry LeBaron, Director of Community Development
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
~ END ELL H AN C 0 C K registered public surveyor no. 1326
1721 HALTOM ROAD . FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76117 . PHONE 834-6243
Feb. 21, 1991
John A. Johnston P. E.
Assistant Director of Public Works
City of North Richland Hills
P. O. Box 18609
North Richland HIlls, Texas 76180
RE: GLENVIEW PARK ADDITION
P. S. 91-02
Dear Mr. Johnston:
In response to your letter of Feb. 15, 1991 listing 14 comments
concerning tpe above plat, I submit the following comments.
1. Included on corrected plat.
2. Shown on corrected plat.
3. Volumes and Pages shown in dedication instrument.
4. There is no Engineer involved in the replat as it is existing
lots with prior approved Engineering Plans, see comments NO.
10 through 13.
5 . Included on corrected plat.
6 . Included on corrected plat.
7 . Nothing to do.
8. Shown on corrected plat.
9 . Shown on corrected plat.
10-13. In response to items 10 thru 13 we offer the fOllowing
comments.
This is an existing Subdivision and the street lights, water,
sewer and storm drainage is all existing and in place according
to Engineering Plans on file at the City of North Richland Hills.
They were all installed recently according to these plans and
with City Approval. We are not proposing to build any more
structures than were planned with those plans. The plans were
for duplex homes and we propose to build single family residences
which would not add any water useage, sewer useage or addition
drainage.
I
I
If anything the new conbtruction would use less ut~~ities sewer drainage
as we are reducing the number of families by one-half. In reference with
the streets lights, they are existing according to the 'requirements of
the City and with Texas Utilities approval.
~ 14. In reference to item 14 there are no Deed Restrictions on record
lrI'at the County according to the Title COmmitment issued by Lawyers American
Title Company, 300 Crescent Court, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75201, Telphone
No. 214-855-8888.
I
I
I
I
If I may be of any further assistance, please call my office.
Sincerely,
I$~t'~~~
Wendell Hancock
I
I CC. Mark Wood.
CC. Alamo Custom Builders.
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I City of X>rth Richland Hills
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
February 15f 1991
Ref: PWM 91-014
MEMO TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: John A. Johnston, P.E.
Assistant Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: PS 91-02; GLENVIEW ADDITION; Replat
Lots 3-R through 16-R, Block 1
Lots 6-R through 10-R, Block 2
We have reviewed the subject plat received in our office on January 17, 1991
and offer the following comments.
1. The property description should include a detailed metes and bounds
description of the proposed property in addition to the Lot and Block
description shown in the owners dedication.
2. The title of the plat should include the title "Final Plat".
3. The title of the plat should include the Volumes and Pages of the
Subdivision be revised in this replat.
4. The name and address of the engineer should be shown on the plat.
5.
The easement dedication should be modified as shown on the marked-up
drawing.
6. All general easements where required for use of public utilities shall
be not less than 7.5 feet in width on each side of a property line. The
plat should be modified to reflect this requirement.
7. The 20-foot building set back lines meet the minimum 15 foot requirement
for this property's current zoning.
8. The current zoning of this property and surrounding property should be
shown on the plat.
9. A 10-foot by lO-foot corner clip sidewalk and utility easements should
be dedicated at all street intersections and corners as defined by the
City's Design Manual.
(817) 281-0041
· 7301 N.E. lOOP 820 · P.O. BOX 18609 · NORTH RICHlAND HillS, TEXAS 76180
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
February 15, 1991
PWM 91-014
Page 2
10.
A "street Light Layout" sheet showing all existing and/or proposed
street lights should be submitted with the next plat submittal. The
developer should coordinate the layout and design of the street lights
with TU Electric. The cost for installation of street lights will be
paid by the developer directly to TU Electric.
11.
A Drainage study prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in the
state of Texas will need to accompany the next plat submittal. The
Subdivision Ordinance should be consulted to determine the information
required for the study.
12.
A "Sanitary Sewer Plan Sheet" showing the location of existing and/or
proposed sanitary sewer mains and the location of the existing and/or
proposed sanitary sewer services should be provided with the next plat
submittal.
13.
A "Water Plan Sheet" showing the location of existing and/or proposed
water mains and the location of the existing and/or proposed water
service and fire hydrants should be provided with the next submittal.
14. A copy of all Deed restrictions and covenants which affect this plat
should be provided with the next plat submittal.
The review of this plat was cursory. When all requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance and Design Manual are met, the plat will be reviewed in detail.
JAJ/smm
cc: Gregory W. Dickens, Director of Public Works/Utilities
Barry LeBaron, Director of Community Development
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department:
Police Department
Council Meeting Date: 3-25-91
Police Mobile Data Terminal lnterlocal Agreement-
Resolution No. 91-14
Agenda Number: GN 91-35
The Colleyville Police Department has approached our Police Department and
requested that they be allowed to join our Mobile Data Terminal System as
contractual users. The North Richland Hills Police Department was granted
the 1 icensing for the frequencies util ized in our Mobile Data Terminal
System by agreeing that the use of those frequencies would be shared among
sister agencies in our immediate area.
The proposed system initially included an agreement to support up to seven
cities with North Richland Hills being the sole owner and operator of the
base site equipment. Colleyville's request is the first of several that we
anticipate.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the attached Interlocal Agreement be approved by the
City Council and that the City Manager be given the authority to sign the
attached Agreement. This Agreement has been reviewed and passed by the
City Attorney.- Resolution No. 91-14
~.
~
~
~
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
epartment Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
'~
~j~/n~£Ælif'
City Manager
, Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-14
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, TEXAS that:
1.
The City Manager be, and i s hereby authori zed to execute the
attached Interlocal Agreement between this City and the City of Colleyville
as the act and deed of the City.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of March, 1991
APPROVED:
Tommy Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeanette Rewis, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex MèEntire, Attorney for the City
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
('
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
STATE OF TEXAS )
)
COUNTY OF TARRANT )
AGREEMENT
This Agreement, made and entered into by and between the City of Colleyville, a
municipal corporation, located in Tarrant County, Texas, hereinafter called
"Colleyville," and the City of North Richland Hills, a municipal corporation,
located in Tarrant County, Texas, hereinafter called "North Richland Hills,"
evidences the following:
WHEREAS, North Richland Hills, and Colleyville desire to enter into an Agreement
at the request of Colleyville for the lease of a portion of North Richland Hills
Mobile Data Terminal System hereinafter called the "System;" and
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Article 4413 (32c) Vernon's Annotated
Civil Statutes, provides authorization for any local government to contract with
one or more local governments to perform governmental functions and services
under the term of the Act; and
WHEREAS, North Richland Hills has data communications system resources available
to perform the functions described herein; and
WHEREAS, Colleyville has current revenues available and allocated for this
agreement; and
WHEREAS, it is mutually advantageous to both parties to enter into the
arrangement evidenced by this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties in consideration of the terms and conditions
contained herein, agree as follows:
The responsibility of each government entity is outlined below:
I .
Colleyville
Colleyville hereby agrees:
1. To pay the City of North Richland Hills the yearly sum of $600.00
per active mobile data terminal for System site management and
maintenance; and an additional $513.00 per active mobile data
terminal for prorated unit fees in exchange for the privilege of
utilizing a portion of the System. Active mobile data terminals
are terminals that have been configured into the switch for access
to the System.
2. To purchase mobile data terminals and radio equipment compatible
with the System. The North Richland Hills Police Department shall
shall confirm System compatibility prior to the purchase of any
equipment.
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
3. To ensure System efficiency by providing timely repairs to any of
its own equipment. Colleyville understands that any unit which is
found to be operating incorrectly, and which adversely affects
operation of the System, is subject to removal. Prior to unit
removal, Colleyville will be notified of the problem by the North
Richland Hills Police Data Processing Director.
4. That the purchase of individual mobile data terminal software
upgrades or enhancements will be Colleyville's responsibility. This
includes any "new software" not in equipment at time of purchase
and not provided by maintenance agreements with the vendor.
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
North Richland Hills hereby agrees:
1. To provide a workable System to which Colleyville will have access.
2. To provide System evaluations, proposals, and recommendations
covering system operations and enhancements for Colleyville's
consideration. This will include both site and user equipment.
3. To make the Data Processing Division of the North Richland Hills
Police Department available to the agency upon reasonable notice
for assistance in its endeavor to improve and enhance its data
communication ability. This shall include, but is not limited to,
assistance in evaluating existing operations, assistance in
procurement of necessary equipment, training on the System and
mobile data terminal unit's operation and initial programming setup
of mobile data units.
4. To provide monthly traffic analysis and system operational review.
S. To provide a detailed report on new System enhancement
availability, and any proposed major System upgrades.
6. That a "Users Group" comprised of one representative from each user
entity and the Data Processing Director from the North Richland
Hills Police Department will be established to hold meetings for
the System, and to make recommendations and requests concerning the
System. These meetings will be held semiannually or more frequently
as determined by the members of the "Users Group".
I I .
North Richland Hills authorizes Colleyville to use the frequencies of 868.87500
MHz and 823.87500 MHz for transmission and reception of data on the System.
These channels are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to the City
of North Richland Hills for a multi-agency mobile data terminal operation. It is
acknowledged by Colleyville that this agreement enables it to take advantage of
a modern, reliable communications system. North Richland Hills shall assign the
highest priority to maintaining the System operation and reducing down time to
the lowest possible level.
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{'
1
I
I
I
1
I
Ie
I
I I I .
It is understood by both parties that the intent of this agreement is for
air-time usage of the System by Colleyville, and in no way should it be
construed that anyone other than North Richland Hills has control or has any
claim of being part owner of the System.
IV.
North Richland Hills makes no representations and warranties regarding the
normal operation of the System other than outlined below:
In the event of a fixed-site System failure for a consecutive period of
seven (7) or more calendar days, North Richland Hills will reduce the
annual sum due by the following amount. Fixed-site System Management will
be reduced at a rate of one dollar and sixty-five cents ($1.65) per day per
Mobile Data Terminal for Fixed-site System failures exceeding the above
referenced time period. Such fee reductions shall only be granted in
circumstances where the cause of "any failure" is due to the fault of the
vendor, the vendor's base site software or hardware, acts of God, or some
other cause directly attributable to North Richland Hills.
Any reductions in payments shall be retroactive to the first day of failure
after the seventh consecutive day. This reduction should not be construed
to include any cause of MDT or Fixed-site System failure caused by
Colleyville.
v.
Each City does hereby waive all claims against and agrees to release every other
City, its police department, officials, agents, officers and employees in both
their public and private capacities, from and against any and all claims, suits,
demands, losses, damages, causes of action and liability of every kind,
including but not limited to court costs and attorney's fees which may arise due
to any death or injury to any person, or the loss of, damage to, or loss of use
of any property arising out of or occurring as a consequence of the performance
of this Agreement whether such injuries, death or damages are caused by the sole
negligence or the joint negligence of any City, its officials, agents, officers
and employees. It is the express intention of the parties hereto that the
waiver and release provided for in this paragraph includes claims arising out of
such other City's own negligence, whether that negligence is a sole or a
concurring cause of the injury, death or damage.
I-
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
It is expressly understood and agreed that, in the execution of this Agreement,
no City wa i ves, nor sha 11 be deemed hereby to wa i ve, any i mmun i ty or defense
that would otherwise be available to it against claims arising in the exercise
of governmental powers and functions.
VI.
The initial term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years, and then shall be
perpetual, automatically being renewed every year unless either party decides to
terminate, or both parties mutually agree to change or modify the conditions of
this Agreement. Any change in the approved yearly fee, including increase of
anticipated expenses, cost of equipment, software development, or system
enhancements shall be fully documented. Colleyville will be advised by February
1 of each year of proposed fee increases in order to provide for adequate
considerations in their budget development process. Colleyville's portion of
any System enhancement cost will be prorated based on the number of mobile data
terminals in operation at the time of the fee increase. Fee increases will not
take effect until October 1st of any year which gives the parties eight months
from the February 1 notice requirements in order to plan for the increase.
Additional units may be added at any time and a prorated charge will be figured
for each additional unit. If either party decides to terminate this Agreement,
after the initial term, written notice must be received by the other party not
1 ater than 90 days before the renewal date. The fee herei n set out shall be
payable on or before October 31st of each year, except for the first year, which
shall be prorated and payable within 30 days of Colleyville's accessing the
System.
R. N. Line, City Manager
City of North Richland Hills
Date
Signing Authority
City of Colleyville
Date
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Leqal Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
Amendment to Ordinance No. 1691 (Benefits
for Service Personnel Called to Active Duty) Agenda Number: GN 91-36
Ordinance No. 1723-
The terms of Ordinance No. 1691 which gives certain benefits to employees who
have been called to active duty for the Gulf Crisis, expires on March 25, 1991.
The Council expressed the desire to review this ordinance every six months.
Ordinance No. 1723- extends the provision of Ordinance No. 1691 until September
26, 1991.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Council approve Ordinance No. 1723.
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Acct. Number
Bonds (GO/Rev.) Sufficient Funds Available
Operating Budget
OtheL 7) ;/),
'--- )f <t.~d¡zf; ~ ~ ,,<-~ If A 2/~
tl Departmént Head Signature - 'f:ft/ Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
t Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t'
I
ORDINANCE NO. 1723
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1691 expires by its terms on March 25, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that such Ordinance should be extended for an
additional six months.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, that:
1.
The terms of Ordinance No. 1691, passed on the 24th day of September, 1990, be and
are hereby extended and such Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect until
September 26, 1991.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of March, 1991.
APPROVED:
Tommy Brown - Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeanette Rewis - City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex McEntire - Attorney for the City
I·
Ie
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
ORDINANCE NO. 1691
WHEREAS, there are certain employees of the City of North
Richland Hills who are in the Ready Reserve with the Armed Forces
of the United States; and
WHEREAS, a national crl.Sl.S exists which places those
employees in a position to be called to active duty with the Armed
Forces; and
. WHEREAS, as a result of the above national crisis, the
City Council has determined to inaugurate a program which
diminishes the financial impact and sacrifice of being called to
active duty in the Armed Forces.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the
City of North Richland Hills, Texas, that:
1.
To be eligible for participation in the benefits of this
ordinance an employee of the City must:
1. Have been an employee of the City on August 23, 1990, and
2. a member of the Ready Reserve of the Armed Services of
the United States or the National Guard on August 23,
1990. (an employee who has made a bonifide application to
be a member of the Ready Reserve prior to August 23, 1990
shall be considered to be eligible if his application is
subsequently approved), and
3. Be called to Active Duty with his Ready Reserve Unit or
individually after August 23, 1990, while such employee
is still employed by the City.
2.
Such eligible employee shall be entitled to receive the
following benefits from the City during the effective period of
this ordinance:
a. If the employee has more than 10 years service with the
City on August 23, 1990 that employee shall be entitled
to be paid monthly 100% of the difference between his
total base pay on the City payroll and his total pay and
allowances received from the Armed Forces for each month
of active duty;
b. If the employee has more than 5 years but less than 10
years service with the City on August 23, 1990 that
employee shall be entitled to be paid monthly 75% of the
difference between his total base pay on the City payroll
and his total pay and allowances from the Armed Forces
for each month of active duty.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i'
I
ORDINANCE NO. 1691
Page Two
c. If the employee has less than 5 years with the City on
August 23, 1990 that employee shall be entitled to be
paid monthly 50% of the difference between his total base
pay on the City payroll and his total pay and allowances
from the Armed Forces for each month of active duty.
The first monies paid to augment the military pay of any eligible
employee shall corne from his unused vacation, compensatory and
holiday hours.
3.
Any eligible employee who is so called to active duty
shall have the option to continue participation in the City
retirement program. If said employee so elects he shall remit to
the City his monthly contribution and the City will pay its normal
contribution.
4.
The Director of Personnel shall augment all necessary
rules and regulation necessary to insure that the program adopted
herein is not abused and to insure that correct calculations are
made by comparing monthly leaves and earnings statements with the
employees normal base pay on the City payroll. He shall generate
all necessary forms and maintain all necessary records in order to
protect the public interest and the interest of each affected
employee.
5.
In order for the City Council to monitor the financial
impact of this program, this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from its date of passage until the 2S~ day of March, 1991.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 24th day of September, 1990.
APPROVED:
, ~
ATTEST:
9f .~ ~
. ~¿¿¿./ :/~ .Jd
ty Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
~
I ' ·
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Administration
Animal Care and Control Center Interlocal
Agreement with the City of WatauQa -
Resolution No. 91-12
Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
Agenda Number: GN 91- 3 7
On November 12, 1990 the City Council approved the expansion of the North
Richland Hills Animal Care and Control Center. At that time the staff was
directed to contact the Cities of Watauga, Richland Hills and Haltom City
and determine their interest in "buying in II to our shelter expansion. On
January 14, 1991 the Council was advised of the additional cost and the
general conditions that would be acceptable for other cities to participate
in our project. The staff was directed at that time to negotiate an
interlocal agreement with any or all of the cities based on the guidelines
presented to the Council on January 14th. Several planning meetings at the
staff level were held during January, February and March 1991. As you are
aware the Cities of Richland Hills and Haltom City chose not to participate
in this project. Meetings with the Watauga City staff and two meetings with
the Watauga City Council produced an acceptable interlocal agreement between
the respective cities. The Watauga City Council formally approved the
interlocal agreement on March 11, 1991.
We are extremely pleased with the spirit of cooperation exhibited by the
Staff and the City Council of the City of Watauga. We now have an agreement
that is fair to all participants and will certainly be a tax savings to the
citizens of North Richland Hills and Watauga. We are absolutely committed
to making this agreement work, to prove that city governments can and will
cooperate at this level and to have a model facility for the future. The
greement is the culmination of many months and many hours of work and the
ity staff recommends that the City Council approve the interlocal
agreement.
On March 14th the North Richland Hills City Council ratified the contract
with GSBI Batenhorst to design the expansion, assemble the bid
specifications and prepare bid and contract documents for the shelter. We
hope to have this project out for bid within 45 days.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Animal Care and Control
Center Interlocal Agreement with the City of Watauga - Resolution No. 91-12.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Finance Review
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Department Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
~;M
City Manager
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
1--
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-12
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH
RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS that:
1 .
The Mayor be, and is hereby authorized to execute the
attached Interlocal Agreement between this City and the City of
Watauga as the act and deed of the City.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of March, 1991.
APPROVED:
Tommy Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeanette Rewis, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex McEntire, Attorney for the City
I'
I
"
THE STATE OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
ANIMAL HOUSING SERVICES
COUNTY OF TARRANT
This agreement made and entered into as of the
I
day of
, 1991, by and between the City of Watauga, a
I
municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Agency") and
the City of North Richland Hills, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as North Richland Hills or the Animal Care
and Control Center or the Center);
I
WHEREAS, North Richland Hills proposed to construct, operate
I
maintain and administer the Animal Care and Control Center for the
I
purpose of sheltering lost, unwanted, sick and injured animals
until humanely disposed of in accordance with applicable ordinances
and the humane principles of the Animal Care and Control Center;
I
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree to the utilization of
the Animal Care and Control Center to be operated by North Richland
Hills as the place of impoundment for all animals seized in
Ie
I
accordance with the provisions of applicable ordinances, orders and
laws under the following conditions:
1. The Agency agrees that they are fully responsible under
the provisions of their respective ordinances, orders and
I
laws for carrying out all enforcement provisions within
their respective jurisdictions and that the Animal Care
I
and Control Center shall not be required to apprehend and
seize any animals found running at large.
I
2. The Agency agrees that all animals seized and normally
transported
to
shelter
within
their
respective
I
jurisdictions by their duly appointed agents, shall be
delivered to the above-described Animal Care and Control
Center, there to be impounded under the exclusive control
I
and custody of the Animal Care and Control Center for
periods of time as required by State Law, applicable
I
,
ordinances and orders except as hereinafter set forth.
3.
The Agency agrees to pay to North Richland Hills the fees
for animals received from within the respective Agency's
jurisdictional limits in the amounts and as set forth in
I
I'
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
Addendum "A" which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof for all purposes.
4.
North Richland Hills agrees to credit where appropriate
5.
the Agency for the fees set forth in Addendum "A".
The Agency represents to the Animal Care and Control
Center that it has in force ordinances or orders
providing
for the vaccination of
under
animals
appropriate circumstances, providing for impounding of
animals running at large, and providing for the
condemnation or sale of animals, and that while this
interlocal agreement is in effect, such ordinances or
orders will be continued in force, provided, however,
that such ordinances or orders may be modified from time
to time as such Agency deems appropriate.
The Agency
agrees that to the extent that it has the power so to
provide, every animal not claimed and redeemed by the
owner before the expiration of four (4) days from the
date of impoundment shall become the sole and exclusive
property of the Animal Care and Control Center, so that
neither the Agency nor any agent of the Agency, nor of
the State of Texas, nor any institution, corporation or
individual shall have any claim or right to any animal
not claimed and redeemed. The Agency agrees, that the
Animal Care and Control Center shall have the undisputed
right, consistent with the respective ordinances and
orders of the Agency, to humanely dispose of every animal
given into its custody in accordance with the Animal Care
and Control Center's principles as follows:
A.
To place animals in the care, custody and
control of owners; and
B.
To humanely destroy animals which are not
claimed by owners and which are not suitable
for placement in the care custody and control
of new owners.
6 .
The Animal Care and Control Center agrees to accept each
2
I'
I
--I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
and every animal other than livestock (large animals)
delivered to it at 7200 B. Dick Fisher Drive South, North
Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas by the agents of
the Agency and to provide each and every such animal with
shelter, food, water and all other humane treatment of
the same degree and kind that the Animal Care and Control
Center provides for all other animals which may come into
its care, custody and control.
7 .
The Animal Care and Control Center agrees that it will
keep the Center open to the public for eight (8) hours
per day on weekdays, and not less than three (3) hours on
Saturday for the purpose of giving owners ample
opportuni ty to redeem their impounded animals. Exception
to the above to include holidays and any closure on
Saturday due to staff shortage; however, when the Center
is closed to the public for staff shortages, board fees
for those days will not be charged to owners who redeem
animals held over those closure days. Closure days are
not counted toward days required before disposition of
animals.
8.
The Animal Care and Control Center agrees that it shall
require every owner seeking to redeem an impounded animal
to pay the then current impoundment fee together with the
costs of board at the then current rate for the animals
so impounded.
Further, the Animal Care and Control
Center shall require the owner of every impounded animal
to pay all applicable fees including registration and
vaccination fees of an impounded animal which has not
been inoculated against rabies and registered before
redeeming such animal.
9.
The Animal Care and Control Center agrees that in
accordance with Paragraph 5 of this agreement, if the
owner of an impounded animal shall claim the animal prior
to the Center disposing of the animal under (A) or (B) of
that paragraph, the Center shall collect from the owner
3
I
I
i'
the total impoundment, boarding and applicable
registration fees due.
10. It is mutually agreed that the agents of Agency shall
I
adhere to all policies and procedures pertaining to
operations in the Center. The Center agrees to supply
to each agent a copy of the Animal Care and Control
Center Policies and Procedures Manual and to provide
training sessions for all and future agents.
11. It is mutually agreed that the Center shall provide
access to th~ North Richland Hills Responsible Pet
Owner Program provided to first time offenders and
offered in cooperation with the municipal court
I
I
I
I
authority for citizens in participating cities.
12. It is mutually agreed that each Agency ~ay appoint a
I
veterinarian from within its community to hold a
It
I
place on the North Richland Hills Animal Shelter
Advisory Board.
13. It is mutually agreed that each Agency to include
North Richland Hills shall contribute equally to the
salary and benefits of personnel required and referred
to in Addendum "A" for the first year only of the
Center's ~xpanded operations. It is mutually agreed
that a crematorium will be needed in the future to
I
I
facilitate disposal of animal carcasses and it is
further agreed that each Agency, to include North
Richland Hills, shall contribute funds toward the
I
purchase, shipping, installation and permitting of
said crematorium, the cost of which will be prorated
based upon the number of animals handled per city during
the previous twelve (12) calendar months.
I
I
15. The Center agrees to admit animals during normal
operating hours and after hours in accordance with the
Center's Policies and Procedures.
I
.
16. The Center agrees to sell licenses for Agency with the
4
I
I'
I
rI
stipulation that the Center retains $1.00 for each
license sold.
17. The Center personnel will retain the right based upon the
Animal Care and Control Center Policy and Procedure
I
Manual to euthanize any animal which is judged to be
terminal either from injury or illness. The Center shall
I
notify the appropriate agency, where possible, before
euthanasia is administered.
I
18. The Animal Care and Control Center agrees to collect all
impounding, boarding and applicable registration fees
I
from animal owners which are payable under this
interlocal agreement and/or existing ordinances or orders
I
or any amendments hereto of the Agency. All applicable
fees collected will be remitted to the Agency on a
I
quarterly basis.
And further, that the Center will
submit to the Agency, on request, the following reports:
A. a quarterly statement of all such fees collected
-.
I
during the preceding quarter; and
B.
a report to include the following information:
1.
The number
miscellaneous
the Center.
of dogs,
animals
cats and
received by
I
2.
3.
The number of animals euthanized.
I
The number of animals in rabies
observation, to be broken down as to
number redeemed by owners and number
of unclaimed animals and number of
days in custody.
I
4.
The number of adoptions.
5.
The number of animals reclaimed by
owners.
I
19. It is mutually agreed that Agency will participate in the
Center's Neuter-After-Rebate-Program, whereby owner is
I
refunded $15.00 of impoundment fee if she/he has the
I
.
animal neutered within thirty (30) days of release. The
Center will handle all paperwork, verification and
rebate, deducting from the impoundment fee before
rebating to Agency.
20. It is mutually agreed that any and all donations,
5
I
I'
I
,.
contributions or any other thing of value given to the
Center or its agents, as a result of any service
performed in carrying out the provisions of this
interlocal agreement, and which is in excess of the
I
amount properly chargeable for such service shall be
credited to the operating and maintenance account of the
I
Center, and that in the event such donation or
contribution exceed the amount required to operate and
I
maintain the Center then such donations or contributions
shall be deposited in the North Richland Hills Animal
I
Shelter Fund.
21 . It is mutually agreed that the Center shall provide
I
facilities for rabies observation which have been
I
approved and inspected by the Texas Department of Health
for the quarantining of dogs and cats. Animals delivered
to the Center by the Agency for rabies observation shall
Ie
I
be isolated for a period of not less than ten (10) days
counting from the day following the bite incident. The
Center shall collect fees due on owned animals from that
owner, however, quarantine of unclaimed biting animals
shall be charged to the Agency involved according to fee
I
set out in Addendum "A".
22. It is mutually agreed that the Agency placing a dog/cat
I
in quarantine shall be responsible for notification of
victim and owner of animal's condition, date or release
I
from quarantine.
I
23. It is mutually agreed that the Center will provide
facilities to a representative of each Agency to prepare
an animal for rabies testing and that the preparation,
packing and shipping shall be the sole responsibility of
I
that Agency unless otherwise agreed upon and set out in
this agreement, the fees for which are set out in
I
I
Addendum " A" .
24. It is mutually agreed that the Center shall have the sole
and exclusive right to determine the responsibility of
6
I
I
I
,.
homes offered, and the Center shall have the sole and
exclusive right to accept such applicants for unclaimed
animals.
25.
It is agreed that all the terms of this interlocal
I
agreement shall remain in full force and effect until
amended, superseded by a new agreement, or cancelled by
I
either party as herein provided, and shall not be
terminated by either party without mutual agreement to
I
dissolve the interlocal agreement.
26. It is mutually agreed that fees set out in Addendum "A"
I
are to remain constant for the first two (2) years of
expanded operations and further that any increase after
I
that period would be as mutually agreed upon by all
Agencies involved or as a result of a comprehensive
I
study by professional firm employed for that expressed
purpose.
27.
It is mutually agreed that any proposed amendment made
Ie
I
to this interlocal agreement, upon being agreed to and
signed by both parties, shall become part of this
interlocal agreement.
28.
It is mutually agreed that this interlocal agreement
I
revokes all former agreements for impounding animals,
written and oral, entered into by the parties.
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Agency and the City of North
Richland Hills have hereunto caused their respective corporate
I
names and seals to be hereto subscribed and affixed by their
respective officers first thereunto duly authorized as of the
I
date hereinabove first written.
APPROVED:
I
MAYOR, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
ATTEST:
I
I
CITY SECRETARY,
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
CITY ATTORNEY,
CITY OF NORTH RICHUU~D HILLS
7
I'
I
rI
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
ATTEST:
~nr] ~ c \~,~11'Þ Cl~c!b ~
CITY SEC~'l'ARY'í CITY OF WATAUGA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~,î
I '
APPROVED:
/'
-;::-:: - <: /" '\ -- . // ,
"~"-t.-6 U 4( ~ ~!/t~ ~
MAYOR~¡ CI Y OF WATAUGA '4 r
8
I'
I,
~
I
I
I
1
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
ADDEHDUH II A II
1.
Contributions to Initial Capital Costs:
City of North Richland Hills
City of Watauga
$85, (XX)
32 ,.7,00
2.
Contributions to Operatinq and Maintenance Cost:
The City of North Richland Hills shall assume daily operation
and maintenance costs for the Center, however it is mutually
agreed that the Agency will contribute to the Personnel Cost
for only the first full year of expanded operations as
follows:
Personnel Cost
City of North Richland Hills
City of Watauga
$}O,(XX)
10 ,(xx)
3.
Animal Housinq Fee:
A.
Animal held required 4 days/final disposition
Board per day per animal-to be paid by owner
if animal reclaimed
$6
$25
B.
c.
Bite Observation per day per animal-to be paid
by owner or in the case of unclaimed animals by
the Agency
$1D
D.
Board per day per animal held on complaint at
request of Agency past the 4 day minimum-to be
paid by animal owner
$6
$45
E.
Rabies testing per animal
F.
Wildlife held one day and released $6
G.
Fee to sell Agencies' animal registration
per license ~
H.
Pick-up Fee-to be rebated to agency on animals
reclaimed and returned to owners
(impoundment fee) $25/50/100*
*
$ 25.00 - First impoundment ($10.00 if neutered)
$ 50.00 - Second impoundment
$100.00 - Third impoundment
9
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department:
_Ubject:
*
I
I
1 Source of Funds:
I Bonds (GO/Rev.)
La Operating Budget
r Other
'.
I
Public Works
Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
~tr~~t Ä~~A~~mAnt Policy - Ordinance No. 1715
Agenda Number: GN 91-38
As directed by the street Assessment Policy Review Committee, we have prepared an
ordinance that revises the existing Ordinance No. 1338. A copy of the proposed
ordinance is attached. The proposed ordinance is based on the Method 3 policy.
In the process of preparing this revised policy, several versions of a street
assessment policy were developed. A brief description of each is shown below with a
comparison of the total assessment amount of Davis Boulevard and Bursey Road for each.
Method 1 - Assessment rates computed in accordance with the existing policy, Ordinance
No. 1338 passed January 27, 1986.
Method 2 - Assessment rates computed as first recommended by the Assessment Policy
Review Committee with a provision for a 50% reduction based on the project being a
"bond program project".
Method 2A - Assessment rates. computed the same as Method 2 except the 50% reduction for
a "bond program project" is excluded.
Method 3 - Assessment rates computed based on a revised version of Method 2. This
method utilizes the theory of comparing "Residential" to "Non-Residential" rates for
curb & gutter and drainage improvements based on the ratio of their runoff
contribution. This comparison is based on the Rational Method, Q=CIA, formula's runoff
coefficient "c" -- residential equal to approximately 0.50 and non-residential equal to
approximately 0.85.
Project
Method 2
Est. Paving (with 50% Method 2A Method 3
and Drain. Method 1 Bond Funded (w/o 50% Bond (alternative
Const. Cost (Ord. 1338) Reduction) Funded Reduct.) to Method 2)
$1,292,753.35* $682,575.09 $358,391.72 $514,948.83 $487,212.86
$1,378,000.00 $760,946.87 $372,573.36 $575,670.43 $442,006.15
($466,256.15) ($248,599.45) ($384,485.47) ($296,846.98)
($294,690.72)" ($123,973.91) ($191,184.96) ($145,159.17)
Davis
Blvd.
Bursey Rd.
(NRH Prop.)
(Keller Prop.)
* City's participation cost.
Recommendation:
The street Assessment Policy Review Committee and staff recommend the City Council
adopt Ordinance No. 1715 which adopts the Method 3 policy.
N/A
Finance Review
Acct. Number N/ A
Sufficient Funds Available
~~
. Finance Director
VA/~AAA~~
ment Head Signature éity anager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Page 1 of 1
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
ORDINANCE NO. 1715
WHEREAS, the City of North Richland Hills, recognlzlng that equity
requires that abutting property owners to streets being improved must bear an
equitable share of the costs involved in accordance with Texas Law, and
subject to the limitation that no property will be assessed for more than the
value added to said property, does hereby adopt the following general rules
regarding street improvement assessments. They will be applicable to
construction, reconstruction, and major maintenance projects where substantial
improvement results and abutting property is increased in value.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH
RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, that:
1.
Ordinance No. 1338 is repealed.
2.
GENERAL
All assessments will be developed and administered on a "front-foot"
basis. Each individual property will be assessed on their total length of
frontage times their appropriate front-foot assessment rate. The front-foot
assessment rates are developed based on the total estimated construction cost
divided by the total length of the street (including side streets); then
multiplied by one-half; then multiplied by the participation percentages; and
then multiplied by the appropriate front, side, or rear yard factor.
ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES
The type of land use of adjacent property is considered in calculation
of the assessment rates. There are two assessment categories, RESIDENTIAL and
NON-RESIDENTIAL.
The RESIDENTIAL category includes properties with the following zoning
classifications and meeting the noted restrictions:
Zoning
Description
Restrictions
R-l
R-l-S
R-2
R-3
R-6-T
R-8
R-4-SD
R-S-D
AG
Single Family
Single Family
Single Family
Single Family
Townhouse
Zero Lot Line
Duplex
Duplex
Agriculture
None
None
None
None
None
None
Owner-Occupied
Owner-Occupied
Owner-Occupied
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{'
I
Ordinance #1715
Page 2
The NON-RESIDENTIAL category includes properties with the following
zoning classifications and meeting the noted restrictions:
Zoning
Description
Restrictions
R-4-SD
R-5-D
R-7-MF
LR
C-1
C-2
OC
1-1
1-2
U
PD
0-1
AG
Duplex
Duplex
Multi-Family
Local Retail
Commercial
Commercial
Outdoor Commercial
Light Industrial
Median Industrial
School, Church, Institution
Planned Development
Office District
Agriculture
Tenant-Occupied
Tenant-Occupied
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Vacant or Tenant Occupied
Assessments to adjacent property owners are adjusted based on the
assessment category of the property. The following table shows the
participation percentages applied to the front-foot costs based on the
assessment category:
Construction Item
Residential
Non-Residential
Curb and Gutter
Sidewalks
Paving
Drainage
60%
70%
25%
30%
100%
70%
90%
50%
FRONT, SIDE, REAR YARD ASSESSMENTS
The orientation of existing homes or primary structures relative to the
centerline of the street is considered in the assessment calculations. The
following factors are applied to the computed assessment rate per front foot
for all adjacent properties for both RESIDENTIAL and NON-RESIDENTIAL
categories.
Curb &
Property Description Gutter Sidewalk Paving Drainage
Front Yard 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Side Yard 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Rear Yard 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{'
I
Ordinance #1715
Page 3
PETITIONED STREETS
Any existing street in the City of North Richland Hills may be
considered for improvements by the City Council. All currently unimproved
streets which are upgraded to City Standards are subject to the provisions of
the City's street and Drainage Assessment Policies as outlined herein.
streets not currently being considered for improvements by the City Council,
the Public Works Department or City staff, may be considered for improvements
if 50-percent or more of the property owners adjacent to the street request
improvements by Petition. If Council approves construction of the Petitioned
street, then all adjacent property owners are subject to assessments based on
the "Non-Residential" category rates as outlined above.
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND ENHANCEMENT STUDY
An assessment roll of all privately owned property adjacent to the
proposed street and drainage improvements will be prepared by the City
Engineer or Public Works Department staff. Assessment values will be computed
based on the estimated construction cost of the street facilities times the
appropriate percentage factors.
An enhancement study will be prepared by an independent Certified Land
Appraiser to determine the effect of the proposed improvements on adjacent
land values. Assessments to adjacent property shall not exceed the enhanced
value of the adjacent property after construction of the improvements in
accordance with State law.
The following construction items will be included in calculations of the
assessment roll:
Paving
1. Curb and Gutter per L.F.
2. Sidewalks per S.F.
3. Unclassified Street Excavation per C.Y.
4. Lime Stabilized Subgrade per S.Y.
5. Lime for Stabilized Subgrade per Ton
6. Prime Coat per S.Y. (Asphalt Street)
7. Tack Coat per S.Y. (Asphalt street)
8. Type itA or Bit H.M.A.C. Base Course per S.Y. (Asphalt street)
9. Type "D" H.M.A.C. Surface Course per S.Y. (Asphalt Street)
10. Concrete Driveways per S.F.
11. Concrete Pavement per S.Y. (Concrete Street)
Drainage
1. Storm Drain Pipe per L.F.
2. Junction Boxes per Each
3. Curb Inlets per Each
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
Ordinance #1715
Page 4
Construction items not considered in the a~sessment calculations include
concrete valley gutters; traffic buttons or striping; traffic signal lights;
seeding, sodding, or other landscape improvements; concrete retaining walls or
landscape timbers; cross-drainage such as box culverts or bridges; off-site
storm drainage or concrete channels; and water or sewer utility adjustments.
Drainage costs per front-foot will be computed based on the total
estimated cost of the Drainage Construction Items listed above divided by the
total length of the street (including side streets) and then multiplied by
one-half. The assessable portion of this front-foot cost is computed based on
the provisions previously outlined.
Appropriate CREDITS are given to adjacent property owners for removal
and replacement of existing concrete curb and gutter, concrete sidewalks, or
concrete driveways depending on the condition of the existing facilities.
Property owners will be required to pay lOO-percent of the cost of new
concrete driveways if existing driveways are dirt, grass, crushed stone,
gravel, asphalt, or other non-standard materials.
The estimated construction costs computed for purposes of assessments
shall include an allowance for Engineering, Layout, Inspection, Testing and
the Appraisal Costs. In the absence of actual costs, an allowance of 10-
percent of total construction cost for Engineering, Layout, Inspection and
Testing will be used. An estimate of 2-percent of construction costs will be
used for the Enhancement Study unless actual costs are available.
3.
The percentage figures cited above are general in nature and the Council
reserves the right to adjust the actual dollar amounts within the limits
allowed by Texas Law from project to project in accordance with the relative
value added to the assessed property. In the absence of substantial evidence
to the contrary, the primary factor in determining the value added to abutting
property will be the cost of the improvements.
4.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of March, 1991.
APPROVED:
Tommy Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeanette Rewis, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Attorney for the City
I CITY OF
J NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
I Department: Public Works ___ Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
__SUbject: Public Hearing on Qavis Boulevard (FM 1938) Assessments Agenda Number: -.9N 91-39
I ,.'l
I
I
I
I
I
..
.
On January 28, 1991 a Public Hearing on the necessity for improving Davis Boulevard was
convened. This hearing was recessed until March 25, 1991 to allow the completion of an
Enhancement study. All notices to the owners of the 117 properties adjacent to this
2.5 mile section of road have been mailed in accordance with the law. Advertisement of
the proposed assessment rates and public hearing occurred in a local newspaper on
January 4th, 13th and 18th and March 3rd, lOth and 17th.
staff recommends the public hearing be re-opened and the consultant conducting the
Enhancement study be introduced. After the Enhancement study has been presented,
interested property owners should be given an opportunity to speak.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating udget
Other
Finance Review
Acct. Number N/ A
Sufficient Funds Available
~
-f)~J
ad Signature ~Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Fmance Director
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department:
Pl1blic Works ~ Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
Determining the Necessity for Improvements on
Davis Boulevard (FM 1938) - Ordinance No. 1717 AgendaNumber:~N 91-40
Subject:
_
I
I
,
I
I_
I .
,
The attached ordinance determines the necessity for improvements on Davis Boulevard
from Emerald Hills Way to Starnes/Rumfield Road.
Attached to Ordinance No. 1717 is the assessment roll. The fourth column of the roll
indicates the current usage of the property and abbreviations used are as follows:
NF Nonresidential Front
NS Nonresidential Side
NR Nonresidential Rear
RF Residential Front
RS Residential Side
RR Residential Rear
The second, third, and fifth columns indicate the property owners by name, property
description and the amount of frontage on Davis Boulevard. The next column "ASSESS
RATE" indicates the rate of assessment, based on the usage indicated in the key in the
upper right corner of the assessment roll. For instance, Parcel #1 (Unit 1), Mr.
Calvin stewart has an assessment rate of $27.20 based on the Nonresidential Front (NR
Front) usage plus 742.50 square feet of drive approach at $3.06 per square foot. The
parcel's frontage is 367 feet. The curb & gutter assessment rate ($7.15/LF) plus the
drainage assessment rate ($13.86/LF) times the frontage (367 LF) will give an
assessment amount of $7,710.67. Add the driveway assessment amount of $2,272.05 and
you get $9,982.72 for a total assessment across the 367 foot of frontage which is an
assessment rate of $27.20 per front foot. The next column is the credits column. This
column indicates the credit received by the property owner for any existing curb and
gutter. Where large amounts of credit are shown, it would indicate that the property
owner has prepaid the assessment or a covenant is on file. The last column is the
front footage times the assessment rate minus the apparent credits. The staff and City
Engineer will be available in Pre-Council to answer any questions.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve Ordinance No. 1717.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operatin~ Budget
Other
Finance Review
Acct. Number N/ A
Sufficient Funds Available
N/AO
~
/J~/lhH
Signature City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
1
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
ORDINANCE NO. 1717
AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ORDERING AND PROVIDING
FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING STREET: DAVIS
BOULEVARD (FM 1938) FROM EMERALD HILLS WAY TO STARNESjRUMFIELD ROAD IN
THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH
IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PAYING THE INDEBTEDNESS THEREBY INCURRED; MAKING
PROVISIONS FOR THE LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTIES
AND THE OWNERS THEREFORE FOR A PART OF THE COST OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR METHODS OF PAYMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
ASSIGNABLE CERTIFICATES IN EVIDENCE OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS; DIRECTING THE
CITY SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH
THE COUNTY CLERK OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE
AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO SAID STREET IMPROVEMENTS ARE
AND SHALL BE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1105b OF VERNON'S TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES;
DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO ENGROSS AND ENROLL THIS ORDINANCE BY
COPYING THE CAPTION OF SAME IN THE MINUTE BOOK OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
BY FILING THE COMPLETE ORDINANCE IN THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE RECORD OF
THIS CITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Engineer for the City of North Richland Hills, Texas,
has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of the hereinafter
described portions of street, avenues, and public places in the City of North
Richland Hills, Texas, and same having been examined by the City Council of
the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, and found to be in all matters and
things proper; NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS,
TEXAS, THAT:
I.
There exists a public necessity for the improvement of the hereinafter
described portions of streets, avenues, and public places in the City of North
Richland Hills, that, to wit:
(See attached charts.)
II.
Each unit above described shall be and constitute a separate and
independent unit of improvements and the assessments herein provided for shall
be made for the improvements in each units according to the cost of the
improvements in that unit and according to the benefits arising from the
improvements in that unit.
III.
The hereinafter described plans and specifications are hereby approved
and adopted.
1
I
Ie
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Ordinance NO. 1717
Page 2
IV.
Each of the above described portions of streets, avenues, and public
places in the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, shall be improved by
raising, grading and filling same and by constructing thereon an asphaltic
concrete surface together with combined concrete curbs and gutters on proper
grade and line where same are not already so constructed, together with storm
sewers and drains and other necessary incidentals and appurtenances; all of
said improvements to be constructed as and where shown on the plans in strict
accordance with the plans and specifications therefore.
V.
Bids having been advertised for as required by the Charter of the City
of North Richland Hills, Texas, and the bid having found to be the lowest and
best bid for the construction of said improvements, the work of constructing
said improvements and contract has been awarded for the prices stated in the
proposal of said company by the state of Texas.
VI.
To provide for the payment of the indebtedness incurred by the City of
North Richland Hills, Texas, by said contract, there is hereby appropriated
out of available funds and current revenues of the City, an amount sufficient
to pay said indebtedness so incurred.
VII.
The cost of said improvements as herein defined shall be paid for as
follows, to wit:
(a) On Davis Boulevard (FM 1938) from Emerald Hills Way to
starnes/Rumfield Road in the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, the property
abutting on that portion of the street to be improved and the real and true
owners thereof shall pay for these improvements at the appropriate rate of
(see attached charts) linear front foot for all property fronting on said
street which in no way exceeds nine-tenths (9/10ths) of the estimated costs of
the improvements in addition to curb and gutter.
(b) The City of North Richland Hills shall pay all of the remainder of
the cost of said improvements after deducting the amounts herein specified to
be paid by the abutting properties and the real and true owners thereof as set
out above in subsection (a).
The amounts payable by the abutting properties and the real and true
owners thereof shall be assessed against such properties and the real and true
owners thereof shall constitute a first and prior lien upon such properties
and a personal liability of the real and true owners thereof, and shall be
payable as follows, to wit:
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Ordinance No. 1717
Page 3
When the improvements are completed and accepted by the City on a
particular unit, the same assessed against property abutting upon such
completed and accepted unit shall be and become payable in five (5) equal
installments, due respectively on or before thirty (30) days, one (1), two
(2), three (3), and four (4) years from the date of such completion and
acceptance, and the assessments against the property abutting upon the
remaining units shall be and become due and payable in installments after the
date of completion and acceptance of such respective unit. The entire amount
assessed against the particular parcels of property shall bear interest from
the date of such completion and acceptance of the improvements on the unit
upon which the particular property abuts at the rate of eight percent (8%) per
annum, payable annually except as to interest on the first installment, which
shall be due and payable on the date said installment matures, provided that
ny owner shall have the right to pay any and all such installments at any time
before maturity by paying principal, with interest accrued to the date of
payment, and further provided if default be made in the payment of any
installment promptly as the same matures, then at the option of the City of
North Richland Hills or its assigns, the entire amount of the assessment upon
which default is made shall be and become immediately due and payable; but it
is specifically provided that no assessment shall in any case be made against
any property or any owner thereof in excess of the special benefits to
property in the enhanced value thereof by means of said improvements in the
unit upon which the particular property abuts, as ascertained at the hearing
provided by low in force in the City, nor shall any assessment be made in any
case until after notice and hearing as provided by law. Said assessments
against the respective lots and parcels of property and owners thereof shall
be evidenced by certificates of special assessment which shall be executed in
the name of the City of North Richland Hills, provided, however, that the City
of North Richland Hills retains the right to authorize payment of the sums
assessed against property abutting upon such completed and accepted unit in a
period of not more than four (4) years in equal regular installments or not
less than TEN AND NO/lOa DOLLARS each, the first of such installments to
become due and payable not more than thirty (3D) days after the completion and
acceptance by the City of the particular unit, PROVIDED FURTHER, that such
method of payments shall be authorized only in instances where the owner or
owners of property abutting upon such completed and accepted unit shall have
executed and delivered to the City of North Richland Hills, a lawful, valid
and binding note and mechanic's and materialman's contract upon forms supplied
by the City granting a mechanic's lien upon and conveying the said owner or
owners according to the terms thereof of the sums assessed against such
property.
VIII.
The assessments against the respective lots and parcels of property and
the owners thereof may be evidence by certificates of special assessment,
which shall be executed in the name of the City by the Mayor of said City, and
the City Secretary shall attest the same and impress the corporate seal of the
City thereon, and which may have attached thereto coupons in evidence of the
several installments, which the assessment is payable, which certificates
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Ordinance No. 1717
Page 4
shall be issued to the City of North Richland Hills, shall recite the terms
and time of payment, the amount of assessment, the description of the
property, and the name of the owners, as far as known, and shall contain such
other recitals as may be pertinent thereto, and shall further recite
substantially that all proceedings with reference to the making of such
improvements have been regularly had in compliance with the law, and the
prerequisites to the fixing of the assessment lien against the property
described in said certificates and the personal liability of the owners
thereof, have been regularly had, done and performed, and such recitals shall
be prima facie evidence of the matters so recited, and no further proof
thereof shall be required in court, and the certificates shall provide
substantially that if default be made in the payment of any installment
promptly as the same matures, then, at the option of the City of North
Richland Hills, or its assigns, the entire amount of the assessment shall be
and become immediately due and payable, together with reasonable attorney's
fees and costs of collection, if incurred, all of which, as well as the
principal and interest on the assessment, shall be first and prior lien
against the property, superior to all other liens and claims except state,
County, School District, and City ad valorem taxes. No error or mistake in
naming any owner or in describing any property or any other matter or thing,
shall invalidate any assessment or any certificate issued in evidence thereof,
and the omission of improvements on any particular unit or in from of any
property except by law from the lien of special assessment for street
improvements shall not invalidate any assessment levied. The certificates
referred to need not contain recitals in exactly the words above provided for,
the substance thereof shall suffice, and they may contain other additional
recitals pertinent thereto.
IX.
The City Engineer of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, be and he
is hereby ordered and directed to file with the City Council estimate of cost
of such improvements in each unit.
x.
The City Secretary is directed to prepare, sign and file with the County
Clerk of Tarrant county, Texas, a notice in accordance with the provisions of
Article 1220a of Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes and amendments thereto.
XI.
The improvements provided for herein shall be made and constructed,
notice give, hearing held and assessments levied and all proceedings taken and
had in accordance with and under the terms of the powers and provisions of
Chapter 106 of the Acts of the First Called Session of the Fortieth
Legislature of the State of Texas, now shown as Article 100Sb of Vernon's
Texas Civil statutes, and under which law these proceedings are taken and had.
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Ordinance No. 1717
Page 5
XII.
The City Secretary is hereby directed to engross and enroll this
ordinance by copying the caption of same in the Minute Book of the City
Council and by filing the complete Ordinance in the appropriate Ordinance
Records of the City.
XIII.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from
and after the date of its passage and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of March, 1991.
Tommy Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeanette Rewis, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex McEntire, Attorney for the City
I
I
Ie ~
...
~~
I ~Ne:s
"" .D· s~~ve:'( TR Zll
þ\~ 146 6.4 AC
... TR 12Cl
Z.76 At
I Q --
6
I TRACT A
I STARNES RD
I
TRACT
I ARl A
.4
43
I 42
23
Ie t 26
25
I
I
(./)
n
I þ
r
':1
II
r\J
0
I ~
I Þ 6R
en ..
en þ ~R
I rn c
"" --
z en --a
1"'1
1"'1 en -aID:. TR 11
~ =-þC
z :I: c.- TR 111
Ie ÇJ rn ~a"
=-= -aJ!
a -I !i;=-C
~
<..n -4ÞCl
I ::a -51-
þ
CI - ~ ~l~qr
r- Ift
r- Tit 3A1
S L4. At Aft
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
:D-
en ...
en ..
rn _C
en II ¡¡ 1:1
en ;11D..
all: c::I":!
'" tt! ~ == ..
.... -
-t mil!;
.....1:1
::a .. iii ·
~ ..
r- ..
r-
~~ \' /
~~ \'\
fÞ
'Z.~
'2. At .9~ t
\)vt(
G~
", . OJ Ç)"" <:., '\ '\
o (¡ ~..J <:., ....
)~~ 0~ n111;
· S P''' v
'2.
I
I \ \ ~ \ ~ .:;?
Ie ~~ j.
I 'T ft 1 I~ I
4.6 7~ Þ-C
2
I 30,\'7.,0
I
I Z 'TR \1
~ 1ft \úZÞ- 9.~' Þ-C M:.)
'tR \(,21 (,\.0 ,.c ~s )<.8,~'
'fR 1M
I \.669 ,.,c
I ,.R Z
2,86\ ,.,c
I
Ie
I
I
(,I)
I n
))
r
':'1
Ii J
r'\J
I 0 1ft 2A2
~ \ft
A
I ~\..~
Þ ~t~
· ... 30,\'7.,~
· .. \R \0 A
I (,I) rn _:5 ')
x .--a
M \2 A
M · ....þ
~ .=þ~
Z 6
Ie p rn C-- \4 ~
",a
w Z. - 8
a -t "' a ,... \&~
.., _=--=
U1 -4þa
I :a M.-
CI ..
-
.... '" &b
.... \7.
\4
'ttt.4
\3 I-C.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
e::,
~
~
....
~
/!i
<'
e:,
~ a.b \\ ItL
,.'~
~
~
x
-
~
Ut
Q)
EiÞ
~ a .be.
\ oJ ".c.
~ ~.1 p..C
\ ~.~ .1
~1l.'~
\1tL
I 2 S [;D
~\"
?"#
I ~ ~ IjÚ-(. ,R.91 ~
,3.11
Ie
~ ~\...0-(
<pt>- ~~
<::> )sù~ 30
I ~ ~.. \
7A
I
I
I SA
I
I ~ a ~IC:t":
4'&'J
I
Ie
I
I ~R.\ '7 J
&.E. ,.c.
I
I
I þ
en ...
en ..
c
m ii-a 30
I en "_þ
en :IIþc
-= =.¡¡
"" "' a ..
=- -ar-
Ie -I "':II ~ 20
.þl:l
=-- tt.
::II ..
c:a -
'"
I r-
r-
I
I
Ie
I
I UNIT
I NO.
I
I
I
I
e
I 4.
I
I
I
I
I
I
leI
I
D A V I S
B L V D.
S T R E E T
( F. M.
1 938 )
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
»>
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OWER
AND ADDRESS
1. Calvin E. Stewart
4913 Katherine St.
N. R. H., TX 76180
2. Texas Utile El. Co.
2001 Bryan Tower,
112035
Dallas, TX 75201
3. J.B. Sandlin &
A.V. Hamm
5133 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
J. B. Sandlin
& A. V. Hamm
5133 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H. TX 76180
5. J. B. Sandlin
& A. Y. Hamm
5133 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
6. Sandlin & Hamm
c/o Southland Corp.
1123859
2711 N. Haskell
Dallas, TX 75204
7. J. B. Sandlin
& A. Y. Hamm
5133 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
* NOTE:
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES.CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2. 15 4. 16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60
6.31
3. 15
$21.01
10.51
5.26
Res. Front
Res. Side
Res. Rear
N-R. Front
N-R. Side
N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
Tract 17-B,
Y.V. Yallace Survey
Abst. 1606
Vol. 4993 Pg. 780
NR Front
367.00 27.20
91.00 21.01
624.88
21.01
$0.00
0.00
0.00
1,262.25
0.00
1,445.85
0.00
2 , 708 . 10
$9,982.40
1,911.91
13,128.73
4,294.97
1,646.92
2,625.40
666.02
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
34,256.35
Tract 17-A,
Y.V. Vallace Survey
Abst. 1606
Vol. 2840 Pg. 112
NR Front
Tract A,
Block 29,
Holiday North Addn.
Vol. 6598 Pg. 101
NR Front
Tract A
Block 26
Holiday North Addn.
Vol. 6598 Pg. 101
NR Front
Lot 1
Block 1
College Circle Shopping
Center Addn.
Vol. 8377 Pg. 1436
NR Side
Lot 1 Blk 2 NR Front
College Circle Shopping
Center Addn.
Vol. 7651 Pg. 1489
Tract 9Bl
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 6377 Pg. 425
NR Front
Sub-Totals this Page
204.46 27.18
156.70
10.51
125.00 32.57
31.70 21.01
1,600.74
I
I
Ie
I
I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
I
I
I
e
I 11.
D A V I S B L V D.
S T R E E TIM PRO V E HEN T S
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
! 1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
8. J. B. Sandlin
& A. Y. Hamm
5133 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
9. Joe C. Metcalf DVM
6001 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Tract 9B2
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 6377 Pg. 425
Lot 2
Blk 34
College Hills Addn.
Vol. 7282 Pg. 303
10. Joe C. Metcalf DVM Lot 3
6001 Davis Blvd. Block 34
N. R. H., TX 76180 College Hill Addn.
Vol. 388-150 Pg. 96
u. S. Postal Service Lot 2
P. O. Box 667160 Block 33
Dallas TX 75266-7160 College Hill Addn.
Vol. 388-208 Pg. 98
I
I
I
I
I 14. Alan Hamm
5125 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
I
I-
I
12. College Hill AssemblyTract 10C
of God Church Abst. 130
6101 Davis Blvd. J. Barlough Survey
N. R. H., TX 76180 Vol. 4575 Pg. 150
13. Sturdivant-Dunaway Lot lA
Land & Cattle Co Inc Block 31
P. O. Box 1307 College Hills Addn.
Mineral Yells TX 76067
Vol. 7459 Pg. 2261
Tract 6D
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7645 Pg. 1066
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Side
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
--
468.60 $21.01
58.48
10.51
$0.00
$9,845.29
51.51
55.32
0.00
614.62
482.02
1767.15
1,082.38
28.34 3,534.30
10,126.15
2,268.48
0.00
4,227.36
141.10 29.96
226.70 34.37
840.07
21.01
3,029.40
4,762.28
0.00
17,649.87
* NOTE:
Sub-Totals this Page
8,330.85
48,307.95
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
I UNIT
NO.
I
I
I
I
I
e
I 18.
D A V I S
B L V D.
S T R E E T
( F. M.
1 938 )
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
15. Tr. E-Systems Inc
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
16. Tr. E-Systems, Inc
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
17. Tr. E-Systems, Inc
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
John Hay
R t. 1 Box 117C
Justin, TX 76247
19. Yarren H. Bates
P. O. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
* NOTE:
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Tract 5
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 8000 Pg. 199
Tract 5C
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 8000 Pg. 251
Tract 5Cl
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7778 Pg. 85
Lot 22
Block J
Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 3509 Pg. 629
Lo t 1 7R
Block J
Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 7875 Pg. 1730
Lo t 16
Block J
Smithfield Addn
Vol. 6705 Pg. 665
Lo t 14
Block J
Smithfield Addn.
Vo. 6705 Pg. 665
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES.CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT 'ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Rear
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
320.09 $21.01
250.00 21.01
105.00
5.26
$0.00
$6,725.09
I
I
I 20. A. H. Sanders
P. O. Box 80254
II N. R. H., TX 76180
I 21. A. H. Sanders
P. O. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
I
le3
I
105.00 21.01
203.04 21.01
0.00
5,252.50
0.00
552.30
0.00
2,206.05
0.00
4,265.87
100.00 51.00 2,998.80
100.00 21.01
1,183.13
2, 101 . 20
0.00
2 , 1 0 1 . 00
2,998.80
23,204.01
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
I UNIT
I NO.
I
I 23. A. H. Sanders
P. O. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
I
I
e
II 25. A. H. Sanders
& Y. H. Bates
P. o. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
D A V I S
B L V D.
S T R E E T
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
( F. M.
1 938 )
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
22. Joe T. Yarren etux Lot 12
P. O. Box 80185 Block J
N. R. H., TX 76180 Smithfield Addn.
Vo. 3677 Pg. 175
24. A. H. Sanders
& Y. H. Bates
P. O. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
La t 10
Block J
Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 6705 Pg. 667
Lot lR
Block J
Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 6705 Pg. 667
Tract 16B
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7820 Pg. 926
26. St. Louis & Tract 16
Southwestern Ry. Co. J. Barlough Survey
1400 E. Second Ave. Abst. 130
Pine Bluff, AK 71601 Vol. 61 Pg. 449
* NOTE:
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Side
100.00 $24.50
$0.00
$2,449.84
100.00 61.13 4,011.66
2,101.34
0.00
14,547.71
I
I
II 27. Curtis R. Moore etux Lot 4
P. O. Box 80347 Block G
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 6413 Pg. 403
II 28. Vernie, Velma, Lot 5-8 & Closed St. NR Side
& Sam Snider Block D
6533 Snider Smithfield Addn.
II N. R. H., TX 76180 Vol. 3172 Pg. 150
le4
I
529.20 27.49
125.46 21.01
250.00 21.01
17.00
10.51
0.00
2,635.91
100.00
10.51
0.00
5,252.50
1,221.66
0.00
178.67
0.00
1 , 051 . 00
4,011.66
28,216.97
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
D A V I S B L V D.
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
I 30a. R. M. Kidwell Tract IB2,
P. O. Box 80333 J. Crockett Survey
N. R. H., TX 76180 Abst. 273
I Vol. 1414 Pg. 167
I
e
I 31. Ronald & Mitra PrechtTract 3Bl
1504 Richmond St. J. Crockett Survey
Arlington Hts IL Abst. 273
Vol. 9148 Pg. 690
PROPERTY OWER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
29. Ruby Murchison Hill Tract IB3
4405 Bowman J. Crockett Survey
Colleyville, TX 76034Abst. 273
Vol. 4809 Pg. 658
30b. Nasser Shafipour Tract IB-3B
4001 Tara J. Crockett Survey
Colleyville, TX 76034Abst. 273
Vol. 8803 Pg. 660
I
I
I 33. John Parish Inv. Inc.Lot 17
P. O. Box 820012 Block 3
I Ft. Vorth, TX 76182 Odell Addn.
Vol. 8153 Pg. 1839
I 34. John Parish Inv. Inc.Lot 16
P. O. Box 820012 Block 3
Ft. Vorth, TX 76182 Odell Addn.
II Vol. 8153 Pg.1839
II.
I
32. John Parish Inv. Inc.Lot 18
P. O. Box 820012 Block 3
Ft. Vorth, Tx. 76182 Odell Addn.
Vol. 8153 Pg. 1839
Sub-Totals this Page
* NOTE:
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
R Rear
R Rear
R Rear
177.00 $22.65
75.00 24.89
735.50 21.41
225.00 21.01
62.00
11.29
$0.00
$4,009.05
61 . 00
3. 15
0.00
1,866.45
63.00
3.15
0.00
15,743.55
1,398.50
0.00
4,727.25
0.00
700.20
0.00
192.15
0.00
198.45
0.00
27,437.10
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
D A V I S B L V D.
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
I 36. John Parish Inv. Inc. Lot 14
P. O. Box 820012 Block 3
Ft. Worth TX 76182 Odell Addn.
I Vol. 8153 Pg. 1839
I
e
I 38. Danny E. Campbell Lot pt. 24
245 Timberlake Ln. Block 2
Southlake, TX 76092 Odell Addn.
Vol. 6061 Pg. 120
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
35. John Parish Inv. Inc.Lot 15
P. O. Box 820012 Block 3
Ft. Worth, TX 76182 Odell Addn.
Vol. 8153 Pg. 1839
37. Tarrant County
Tract 3E
J. Crockett Survey
Abst. 273
I
I
I 40. Bobbie Allen Lot 25
8121 Odell Block 1
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Odell Addn.
Vol. 4627 Pg. 709
I 41. Bobbie Allen Lot 26
8121 Odell Block 1
N. R. H., TX 76180 Odell Addn.
II Vol. 4627 Pg. 711
I-
II
39. Danny E. Campbell Lot pt. 25
245 Timberlake Ln. Block 2
Southlake, TX 76092 Odell Addn.
Vol. 6061 Pg. 120
Sub-Totals this Page
* NOTE:
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
R Rear
R Rear
R Front
NR Side
NR Side
R Side
R Side
63.00 $3.15
30.00
3.15
$0.00
$198.45
100.00
12.60
0.00
94.50
177.80
10.51
1260.00
0.00
75.20
10.51
0.00
1,868.68
64.40
6.31
0.00
790.35
188.00
6.31
0.00
406.36
698.40
0.00
1,186.28
1,260.00
4,544.62
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
1
1
I_
I
D A V I S B L V D.
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
42. Louise Brunson
814 Calle Vallarta
San Clemente, CA
92672
44. Edmund J. Potter
6960 Cox Ln.
N. R. H., TX 76180
46. Joseph Aquilera
6968 Cox Ln.
N. R. H., TX 76180
* NOTE:
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
Lo t 15
Block 13
Smithfield Acres
Vol. 6063 Pg. 130
R Side
140.00 $6.31
$0.00
$883.40
I UNIT
I~
I
I 43. Terry R. Dye etux
6950 Cox Ln.
N. R. H., TX 76180
I
I
_
I 45. Clark Hughey etux
6964 Cox Ln.
N. R. H., TX 76180
I
I
I 47. Herman J. Smith Co. Tract A
500 Grapevine 8.#400 Block 13
IN. R. H., TX 76054 Smithfield Acres Addn.
Vol. 5069 Pg. 78
I 48. Debra Ann Val thers Trac t A
8223 Turner Ym. Cox Survey
N. R. H., TX 76180 Abst. 321
I Vol. 8880 Pg. 1545
1_7
I
Lot 9
Block 12
Smithfield Acres Addn.
Vol. 8155 Pg. 1073
R Rear
205.30
3.15
0.00
646.69
Lot 8
Block 12
Smithfield Acres Addn.
Vol. 9887 Pg. 1650
R Rear
86.80
3.15
0.00
273.42
Lot 7
Block 12
Smithfield Acres Addn.
Vol. 8549 Pg. 379
R Rear
82.70
3. 15
0.00
260.50
Lot 6
Block 12
Smithfield Acres Addn.
Vol. 5181 Pg. 454
R Rear
60.00
3. 15
0.00
189.00
NR Front
1125.20
21.01
0.00
23,640.45
NR Side
265.00
12.16
0.00
3,222.40
Sub-Totals this Page
1,965.00
0.00
29,115.31
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
I UNIT
I NO.
I
I
I
I
e
I 52.
D A V I S
B L V D.
( F. M.
1 938 )
S T R E E T
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
49. R. G. Gutierrez
c/o Triple H. Co.
720 Yes tern Trail
Keller, Tx. 76248
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Tract 1C
Ym. Cox Survey
Abst. 321
Vol. 7102 Pg. 1275
50. Alva Ray Paul Tract 1
7237 Davis Blvd. \.1m. Cox Survey
N. R. H., TX 76180 Ahst. 321
Vol. 6870 Pg. 1157
51. Herman J. Smith Tract 1A
500 Grapevine H.#400 Ym. Cox Survey
Hurst, TX 76054 Abst. 321
Vol. 5071 Pg. 490
I
I
I
I
I
I
lea
I
Floyd Schexnayder etuLot 1
8320 Elm Ct. Block 1
N. R. H., TX 76180 Crestwood Estates
Vol. 7933 Pg. 401
53. Bobby Joe Fisher
8321 Elm Ct.
N. R. H., TX 76180
54. Estelle McDonald
8324 Juniper Dr.
N. R. H., TX 76180
55. Tommy Y. Pollard
8325 Juniper Dr.
N. R. H., TX 76180
* NOTE:
Lo t 12
Block 1
Crestwood Estates
Vol. 9275 Pg. 618
Lo t 13
Block 1
Crestwood Estates
Vol. 7901 Pg. 2219
Lo t 1 3
Block 2
Crestwood Estates
Vol. 6445 Pg. 392
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES.CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
R Front
NR Front
R Side
R Side
R Side
R Side
102.00 $21.01
228.51
14.13
$0.00
$2,143.02
274.40 23.59
120.60
6.31
0.00
3,228.85
120.00
6.31
0.00
6,473.10
120.00
6.31
0.00
760.99
120.00
6.31
0.00
757.20
1,085.51
0.00
757.20
0.00
757.20
0.00
14,877.55
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
I UNIT
NO.
I
I
I 57 Ronald D. Kelley
3701 Granada
Ft. Yorth, TX 76118
I
I
1~9. Luttrell Inv. Inc
505 Ryan Plaza
Arlington, TX 76011
D A V I S
B L V D.
( F. M.
1 938 )
»>
ASS E S S M E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31 $12.60 Res. Front
2. 15 4.16 6.31 Res. Side
1.07 2.08 3. 15 Res. Rear
$7.15 $13.86 $21.01 N-R. Front
3.58 6.93 10.51 N-R. Side
1.79 3.47 5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
S T R E E T
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
56. Timothy Lee Vest
8320 Oak Ct.
N. R. H., TX 76180
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Lo t 12
Block 2
Crestwood Estates
Vol. 8048 Pg. 1587
Lot 1
Block 2
Crestwood Estates
Vol. 6782 Pg. 1978
58. Norwood Natl. Corp. Tract ARl
500 Grapevine H.#400 Block 2
N. R. H., TX 76054 Crestwood Estates
Vol. 8300 Pg. 785
I
I
I 61. Nasser Shafipour Lot 1
5750 Davis Blvd. Block 3
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Red Gate Add.
Vol. 388-153 Pg. 34
I 62. Town & Country Food Lot 2
Stores Block 2
P. O. Box 5581 Red Gate Addn.
II San Angelo, TX 76903 Vol. 8609 Pg. 372
I.
I
60. Texas Utile El. Co.
2001 Bryan Tower,
112035
Dallas, TX 75201
* NOTE:
Tract 17J
V.W. Wallace Survey
Abs t. 1606
Vol. 7092 Pg. 2266
Tract 18A
V.W. Wallace Survey
Abst. 1606
Vol. 2841 Pg. 173
Sub-Totals this Page
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
R
Side
120.00 $6.31
$0.00
$757.20
R Side
120.00
6.31
0.00
757.20
NR Front
467.00 21.01
0.00
9,811.67
NR Front
415.00 21.01
0.00
8,719.15
NR Front
76.00 21.01
0.00
1,596.76
NR Front
379.14
27.80 2,574.99
7,965.10
NR Front
150.00 29.42
1,262.25
3,150.75
1,727.14
3,837.24
32,757.83
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
I
UNIT
I~
I
I 64.
I
I
e
I 66.
D A V I S
B L V D.
( F. M.
1 938 )
S T R E E T
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
63. Nasser Shafipour Lot 1
4001 Tara Block 2
Colleyville, TX 76034Red Gate Addn.
Vol. 388-208 Pg. 66
65.
Jack Roseberry
& Lee Bonham
6999 Precinct Line
¡/I00A
N. R. H., TX 76180
Joseph Y. Barnett
P. O. Box 18131
N. R. H., TX 76118
Joseph Y. Barnett
P. O. Box 18131
N. R. H., TX 76118
I
I
I
68. C. L. Barnett
P. o. Box 820765
II N. R. n., TX 76182
II 69. Cecil L. Barnett
P. O. Box 820765
II N. R. n., TX 76182
1_o
I
Lot 1
Block 1
RdRed Gate Addn.
Vol. 7804 Pg. 1189
Tract 9B
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 4416 Pg. 486
Tract 10E1
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7664 Pg. 474
67. Cecil R. Barnett etuxTract 10E
P. O. Box 18131 J. Barlough Survey
N. R. H., TX 76118 Abst. 130
Vol. 9491 Pg. 274
* NOTE:
Tract 10K
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Tract 7B
J. Barlough Survey
Abs t. 130
Vol. 3791 Pg. 531
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES.CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
233.08 $21.01
165.75
21.01
$0.00
$4,897.01
654.90 22.86
60.00
21.01
0.00
3,482.41
140.00 21.01
127.00 42.48
27.07
86.29
0.00
14,971.01
1,407.80
0.00
1,260.60
0.00
2,941.40
959.31
4435.65
0.00
2,335.89
959.31
34,323.97
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
D A V I S B L V D.
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
II 71. Tr. E-Systems Inc.
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
I
I
e
I 73. Tr. E-Systems Inc.
P. o. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
70. C. R. Barnett
P. O. Box 820765
N. R. H., TX 76182
72. Tr. E-Systems Inc.
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
I
I
I 75. Tr. E-Systems Inc.
P. O. Box 660248
II Dallas, TX 75266
II 76. John D. Hay
R. Rt. 1 Box 117e
Justin, TX 76247
I
I-
I
74. Tr. E-Systems Inc.
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
* NOTE:
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Tract 7
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 1192 Pg. 22
Tract 6C
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7853 Pg. 2248
Tract 6A4A
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7853 Pg. 2248
Tract 5D
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7853 Pg. 2248
Tract 5C2
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7853 Pg. 2248
Tract 4
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 8014 Pg. 973
Tract 2
John's Addn.
Vol. 388-9 Pg. 401
Sub-Totals this Page
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
267.04 $21.01
1364.27
21.01
$0.00
$5,610.51
121.00 21.01
307.63
21.01
0.00
28,663.31
321.80
21.01
0.00
2,542.21
357.77
21.01
0.00
6,463.31
125.00
29.15
0.00
6,761.02
2,864.51
0.00
7,516.75
~
0.00
3,643.75
0.00
61,200.86
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
I UNIT
NO.
I
I
I 78. John D. Hay
R. Rt. 1 Box 117C
Justin, TX 76247
I
79. B. J. G. Partners LtdTract 2A2F
I 227 N.E. Loop 820 J. Barlough Survey
Hurst, TX 76053 Abst. 130
Vol. 8652 Pg. 2189
I~oa. B. J. G. Partners LtdTract 2A2
227 N.E. Loop 820 J. Barlough Survey
Hurst, TX 76053 Abst. 130
Vol. 8652 Pg. 2189
D A V I S
B L V D.
S T R E E T
( F. M.
1 938 )
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
77. John D. Hay
R. Rt. 1 Box 117C
Justin, TX 76247
80b. Bates & Sanders
P. O. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
* NOTE:
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Tract 1
John's Addn.
Vol. 388-9 Ppg. 401
Tract 2A2B
J. Barlough Survey
Vol. 3839 Pg. 86
Tract 2A2E
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 5903 Pg. 262
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
50.00 $21.01
100.00 28.28
237.91
21.01
$0.00
$1,050.50
I
I
I 81. Bank of North Texas Tract 7A
P. O. Box 987 John's Addn.
I Hurst, TX 76053 Vol. 388·79 Pg. 32
1 82. Burk Collins Inv. Tract 8A
8251 Bedford-Euless RJohn's Addn.
#255 Vol. 7955 Pg. 1618
I N. R. H., TX 76180
1_2
I
200.00 21.01
15.00 21.01
175.11
25.99
0.00
2,828.00
163.17
26.35
0.00
4,998.49
941.19
0.00
4,202.00
0.00
315.15
0.00
4,551.11
0.00
4,299.53
0.00
22,244.78
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
D A V I S B L V D.
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
* NOTE:
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Lot 2
Block 1
Culp
Vol. 388-159 Pg. 63
Lot 1
Block 1
Culp Addn.
Vol. 388-159 Pg. 63
Sub-Totals this Page
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60
6.31
3.15
$21.01
10.51
5.26
Res. Front
Res. Side
Res. Rear
N-R. Front
N-R. Side
N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
315.00 $21.01
175.90 38.23
100.00 33.63
261.80 25.83
105.78 21.01
150.00 21.01
50.00 21.01
1,158.48
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,019.60
1,464.21
3,483.81
$6,618.15
6,724.66
3,363.00
6,762.29
2,222.44
3, 151 . 50
1,050.50
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
29,892.54
I UNIT
NO.
1-
83. St.Louis & Tract 16
I Southwestern Ry. Co.J. Barlough Survey
1400 E. Second Ave. Abst. 130
Pine Bluff, AK 71601 Vol. 61 Pg. 449
I 84. Ym. Gumfory Lot 2R
1001 Roberts Cut-Off Block 1
Ft. Yorth, TX 76114 Smithfield Addn.
I
85. Curtis Moore Lot 4
P. O. Box 80347 Block 1
I N. R. H., TX 76180 Smi thfield Addn.
Vol. 388-208 Pg. 88
14Ita. Curtis Moore Lot 3
P. O. Box 80347 Block 1
N. R. H., TX 76180 Smithfield Addn.
I Vol. 388-208 Pg. 88
86b. Oalworth Tile Co. In Lot lR
P.O. Box 80347 Block 1
I N. R. H., TX 76180 Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 388-208 Pg. 88
I 87. Fredrich D. Culp
1112 Valley View
I Hurs t, TX 76053
I 88. Fredrich D. Culp
1112 Valley View
Hurst, TX 76053
I
1.3
I
I
I
Ie
I
D A V I S B L V D.
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
89a. Donald Shemwell etal Lot 1
DBA Sonic Drive In Block 3
P. O. Box 177 Culp Addn.
Keller, TX 76248 Vol. 388-216 Pg. 33
Lot 2
Block 3
Culp Addn.
Vol. 388-216 Pg. 33
90. Haverty Furniture Lot 2R
866 Y. Peachtree NV Block 2
Atlanta, GA 30379 Culp Addn.
Vol. 9149 Pg. 1669
91b. Dock G. Dutton
8404 Odell
N. R. H., TX 76180
* NOTE:
Lot pt. 26
Block 2
Odell Addn.
Lot pt. 27
Block 2
Odell Addn.
Vol. 4388 Pg. 608
Sub-Totals this Page
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N·R. Side
5.26 N·R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Side
NR Front
R Side
R Side
R Side
138.28 $30.14 $1,262.25
178.75
21.01
$2,905.51
1,262.25
3,755.54
I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
I 89b. Burk Collins Inv.
P. O. Box 518
Bedford, TX 76021
I
I
I~a. Tarrant County
I
I
II 92. J. D. Scott Lot pt. 27
& R. D. Graves Tr Block 1
I 210 Field St. #100 Odell Addn.
Arlington, TX 76010 Vol. 388-C Pg. 68
I 93a. J. D. Scott Lot pt. 28
& R. D. Graves Tr Block 1
210 Field St. 1100 Odell Addn.
II Arlington, TX 76010 Vol. 388·C Pg. 68
1.4
I
517.49
10.51
0.00
5,438.82
157.00 21.01
96.00
14.20
3,298.57
0.00
54.35
6.31
0.00
1,363.20
180.09
6.31
0.00
342.95
1,321.96
0.00
1,136.37
5,823.07
14,942.38
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
I UNIT
NO.
I
I
I
I
I
e
I 96.
D A V I S
B L V D.
( F. M.
1 938 )
S T R E E T
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
93b. J. D. Scott Lot pt 29
& R. D. Graves Tr Block 1
210 Field St #100 Odell Addn.
Arlington, TX 76010 Vol. 388-C Pg. 68
I
I
I
I
I
I
94. Khosrow Yazhari
& Mansour Khayyam
2308 Farrington Ln.
Hurst, TX 76054
95. Khosrow Yazhari
& Mansour Khayyam
2308 Farrington Ln.
Hurst, TX 76054
Khosrow Yazhari
& Mansour Khayyam
2308 Farrington Ln.
Hurst, TX 76054
97. Muhieddin Dalloul
429 Eastwood
Ft. Yorth, TX 76107
Tract 1
E. Cross Survey
Abst. 281
Vol. 8080 Pg. 215
Tract IB
E. Cross Survey
Abst. 281
Vol. 8080 Pg. 215
Tract 3
Ym. Cox Survey
Abst. 321
Vol. 8080 Pg. 215
Tract 3D
Ym. Cox Survey
Abst. 321
Vol. 8003 Pg. 1943
98. Stonybrooke Inc. Tract 3Dl
500 Grapevine H.#400 Ym. Cox Survey
Hurst, TX 76054 Abst. 321
Vol. 8064 Pg. 151
leIs
I
99. Stonybrooke Inc.
500 Grapevine 8.#400
Hurst, TX 76054
* NOTE:
Tract AR
Block 13
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 5124 Pg. 580
Sub-Totals this Page
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES.CAT.
»>
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
$0.00
$123.99
R Side 19.65 $6.31
NR Front 240.00 21.01
NR Front 366.30 21.01
NR Front
201.00 24.02
0.00
5,042.40
NR Front 684.09 21.65
NR Front 357.14 21.01
NR Front 292.17 21.01
2,160.35
0.00
7,695.96
0.00
4,828.02
0.00 14,810.55
0.00 7,503.51
0.00 6,138.49
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
0.00 46,142.93
I
I
Ie
I
D A V I S B L V D.
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
I 101. HUD
P. O. Box 2905
Ft. Yorth, TX 76113
I
I
e
1103. C. L. Jones etux
7304 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
100. Stonybrooke Inc. Tract AR
500 Grapevine H.#400 Block 14
Hurst, TX 76054 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 5142 Pg. 329
102. BUD
P. O. Box 2905
Ft. Yorth, TX 76113
I
I
I 105 . Alan & Tracy Larman
7308 Davis Blvd.
I N. R. H., TX 76180
I 106. Denis Hagon etux
7310 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
I
1_6
I
Lot 52A
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 388-87 Pg. 5
Lot 52B
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 388-87 Pg. 5
Lot 51A
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9404 Pg. 1432
104. Ronald S. Hicks etux Lot SIB
7306 Davis Blvd. Block 2
N. R. H., TX 76180 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9389 Pg. 634
Lot 50A
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9534 Pg. 182
Lot SOB
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9590 Pg. 1727
Sub-Totals this Page
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
R Front
R Front
R Front
R Front
572.80 $21.01
50.00 43.04
50.00 21.01
SO. 10
12.60
$0.00 $12,034.53
1,101.60
1,050.40
49.90
12.60
0.00
1,050.50
50.30
12.60
0.00
631.26
49.70
12.60
0.00
628.74
872.80
0.00
633.78
0.00
626.22
1,101.60
16,655.43
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
D A V I S B L V D.
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
107a. HUD
P. O. Box 2905
Ft. Yorth TX 76113
Lot 49B
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 388-87 Pg. 5
1107b. HUD
P. O. Box 2905
Ft. Yorth, TX 76113
Lot 49A
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 388-87 Pg. 5
I
108. Richard Peterson etuxLot 48A
I 109 Murphy Ave. Block 2
Santa Ana, CA 92707 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9772 Pg. 2256
1~9. U. S. A. BUD Lot 48B
P. O. Box 2905 Block 2
Ft. Yorth, TX 76113 Stonybrooke Addn.
I Vol. 388-87 Pg. 5
I
I 111. Ronald D. Kelley Lot 46
3701 Granada Block 2
I Ft. Yorth, TX 76118 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 6683 Pg. 638
II 112. Donald L Skultety etuLot 45
7328 Davis Blvd. Block 2
N. R. H., TX 76180 Stonybrooke Addn.
II Vol. 9893 Pg. 2000
1_7
II
110. Jas. P. Stevens etal Lot 47
7320 Davis Blvd. Block 2
N. R. H., TX 76180 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9602 Pg. 619
Sub-Totals this Page
* NOTE:
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
R Front
NR Front
R Front
50.00 $21.01
50.00 21.01
50.00 21.01
50.00 21.01
100.00
12.60
$0.00 $1,050.50
0.00
1,050.50
100.00 21.01
106.60
12.60
0.00
1,050.50
506.60
0.00
1,050.50
0.00
1,260.00
0.00
2 , 1 0 1 . 00
934.83
1,343.16
934.83
8,906.16
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
D A V I S B L V D. ( F. M. 1 938 )
I S T R E E T IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
Ie City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< A SSE S S MEN T R 0 L L »>
I March 20, 1991, (Revised)
I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
I 114. Donna M. Halcomb Lot 44
7404·B Davis Blvd. Block 2
N. R. H., TX 76180 Stonybrooke Addn.
I Vol. 9440 Pg. 2230
I
e
I 116. Richard L Peterson etLot 42
109 Murphy Ave Block 2
Santa Ana, CA 92707 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9726 Pg. 258
PROPERTY OWER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
113. Felice S. Chipman
P. O. Box 5156
Clifton, TX 76634
Trac t 1AI
o. Rumfield Survey
Abst. 1365
Vol. 5194 Pg. 819
115. George Yhitmire
P. O. Box 2104
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Lot 43
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9158 Pg. 639
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
117. Richard L Peterson etLot 41
109 Murphy Ave. Block 2
Santa Ana, CA 92707 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9714 Pg. 1555
ASS E S S M E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31 $12.60 Res. Front
2. 15 4.16 6.31 Res. Side
1.07 2.08 3. 15 Res. Rear
$7.15 $13.86 $21.01 N-R. Front
3.58 6.93 10.51 N-R. Side
1.79 3.47 5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
117.70 $21.01 $1,586.61 $2,472.88
R Front
88.90 12.60
0.00
1,120.14
NR Front
90.00 21.01 0.00 1,890.90
NR Front
90.00 21.01 0.00 1,890.90
NR Front
110.00 21.01 0.00 2,311.10
Sub-Totals this Page
496.60 $1,586.61 $9,685.92
GRAND TOTALS ALL PAGES
24,878.85
$37,035.88 $486,712.66
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Public Works
Closing Hearing and Levying Assessments for
Improvements of Davis Boulevard CFM 1938) -
Ordinance No. 1718
Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
Agenda Number: GN 91-41
I
This ordinance closes the public hearing and levies the assessments for the cost of
improvements on Davis Boulevard from Emerald Hills Way to starnesjRumfield Road.
Recormnendation:
It is recormnended that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1718.
,
,
I
,-
~
~
~
,
\ Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
~ Other
N/A
Finance Review
Acct. Number N/A
Sufficient Funds Available
~~ --¡)~
. Finance Director
ead Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
City Manager
Page 1 of 1
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
ORDINANCE NO. 1718
ORDINANCE CLOSING HEARING AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR A PORTION OF THE
COST OF IMPROVING A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING STREET: DAVIS BOULEVARD
(FM 1938) FROM EMERALD HILLS WAY TO STARNES/RUMFIELD ROAD IN THE CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS; FIXING CHARGES AND LIENS AGAINST THE OWNERS
THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS AND THE
ISSUANCE OF ASSIGNABLE CERTIFICATES IN EVIDENCE THEREOF; RESERVING UNTO
THE CITY COUNCIL THE RIGHT TO ALLOW CREDITS REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF THE
RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ANY CREDIT GRANTED; DIRECTING THE
CITY SECRETARY TO ENGROSS AND ENROLL THE ORDINANCE BY COPYING THE
CAPTION OF SAME IN THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, TEXAS, AND BY FILING THE ORDINANCE IN THE ORDINANCE RECORDS OF
SAID CITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of North Richland Hills, Texas has by Ordinance
No. 1717, heretofore ordered that each of the hereinafter described portions
of streets, avenues and public places in the City of North Richland Hills,
Texas, be improved by raising, grading or filling same and by constructing
thereon permanent surface in accordance with specifications of the State of
Texas on proper grade and line where same are not already so constructed
together with storm drains and other necessary incidentals and appurtenances;
all of said improvements are to be constructed as and where shown in strict
accordance with the plans and specification therefor, said portion of streets,
avenues and public places being as follows, to wit:
DAVIS BOULEVARD (FM 1938)
FROM EMERALD HILLS WAY TO STARNES/RUMFIELD ROAD
and,
WHEREAS, estimates of the cost of the improvements on each such portion
of streets, avenues and public places were prepared and filed and by Ordinance
No. 1706, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City, and a time and
place was fixed for a hearing and the proper notice of time, place and purpose
of said hearing was given and said hearing was had and held at the time and
place fixed therefore, to wit, on the 28th day of January and the 25th day of
March, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. o'clock, in the Council Chambers in the City of
North Richland Hills, Texas, and at such hearing the following protests and
objections were made, to wit: and all desiring to be heard were given full
and fair opportunity to be heard, and the City Council of the City having
fully considered all proper matters, is of the opinion that the said hearing
should be closed and assessments should be made and levied as herein ordered:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH
RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, THAT:
I.
Said hearing, be and the same is hereby, closed and the said protests
and objections, and any and all other protests and objections, whether herein
enumerated or not, be and the same are hereby, overruled.
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Ordinance No. 1718
Page 2
II.
The City Council, from the evidence, finds that the assessments herein
levied should be made and levied against the respective parcels of property
abutting upon the said portions of streets, avenues and public places and
against the owners of such property, and that such assessments and charges are
right and proper and are substantially in proportion to the benefits to the
respective parcels of property by means of the improvements in the unit for
which such assessments are levied, and establish substantial justice and
equality and uniformity between the respective owners of the respective
properties, and between all parties concerned, considering the benefits
received and burdens imposed, and further finds that in each case the abutting
property assessed is specifically benefited in enhanced value to the said
property by means of the said improvements in the unit upon which the
particular property abuts and for which assessment is levied and charge made,
in a sum in excess of the said assessment and charge made against the same by
this ordinance and further finds that the apportionment of the cost of the
improvements is in accordance with the law in force in this City, and the
proceedings of the City heretofore had with reference to said improvements,
and is in all respects valid and regular.
III.
There shall be, and is hereby, levied and assessed against the parcels
of property hereinbelow mentioned, and against the real and true owners
thereof (whether such owner be correctly named herein or not), the sums of
money itemized below opposite the description of the respective parcels of
property and the several amounts assessed against the same, and the owners
thereof, as far as such owners are known, being as follows:
(see attached charts)
IV.
Where more than one person, firm or corporation owns an interest in any
property above described, each said person, firm or corporation shall be
personally liable only for its, his or hers pro rata of the total assessment
against such property in proportion as its, his or her respective interest
bears to the total ownership of such property, and its, his or her respective
interest in such property may be released from the assessment lien upon
payment of such proportionate sum.
v.
The several sums above mentioned and assessed against the said parcels
of property, and the owners thereof, and interest thereon at the rate of eight
percent (8%) per annum, together with reasonable attorney's fees and costs of
collector, if incurred are hereby declared to be and are made a lien upon the
respective parcels of property against which the same are assessed, and a
personal liability and charge against the real and true owners of such owners
be correctly named herein or not, and the said liens shall be and constitute
the first enforceable lien and claim against the property on which such
assessments are levied, and shall be a first and paramount lien thereon,
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Ordinance No. 1718
Page 3
superior to all other liens and claims, except state and County, School
District and City valorem taxes.
The sums so assessed against the abutting property and the owners
thereof shall be and become due and payable as follows, to wit: in five (5)
equal installments, due respectively on or before thirty days (30), one (1),
two (2), three (3), and four (4) years from the date of completion and
acceptance of the improvements in the respective unit, and the assessments
against the property abutting upon the remaining units shall be and become due
and payable in such installments after the date of the completion and
acceptance of such respective units, and shall bear interest from said date at
the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum, payable annually with each
installment except as to the first installment, which shall be due and payable
at the maturity thereof, so that upon the completion and acceptance of the
improvements in a particular unit, assessments against the property abutting
upon such completed and accepted unit shall be and become due and payable in
such installments, and with interest from the date of such completion and
acceptance. Provided, however, that any owner shall have the right to pay the
entire assessment, or any installment thereof, before maturity by payment of
principal and accrued interest, and provided further that if default shall be
made in the payment of any installment or principal or interest promptly as
the same matures, then the entire amount of the assessment upon which such
default is made shall, at the option of said City of North Richland Hills, or
its assigns be and become immediately due and payable, and shall be
collectible, together with reasonable attorney's fees and costs of collection
incurred, PROVIDED, however, that the City of North Richland Hills retains
the right to authorize payment of the sums assessed against property abutting
upon such completed and accepted unity over a period of not more than four
years in equal regular installments or not less than TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS
($10.00) each, the first year installments to become due and payable not more
than thirty days (30) after the completion and acceptance by the City of the
particular unit, and PROVIDED FURTHER that such method of payment shall be
authorized only in instances where the owner or owners of property abutting
upon such completed and accepted unit shall have executed and delivered to the
City of North Richland Hills granting a mechanic's lien upon and conveying to
the said abutting property in trust to secure the payment of said owner or
owners according to the terms thereof of the sums assessed against such
property.
VI.
If default shall be made in the payment of any assessment, collection
thereof shall be enforced either by the sale of the property by the City of
North Richland Hills as near as possible in the manner provided for the sale
of property for the nonpayment of ad valorem taxes, or at the option of the
City of North Richland Hills, or its assigns, payment said sums shall be
enforced by suit in any court of competent jurisdiction or as provided in any
mechanic's or materialman's contract as foresaid, and said City shall exercise
all of its lawful powers to aid in the enforcement and collection of said
assessments.
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Ordinance No. 1718
Page 4
VII.
The total amount assessed against the respective parcels of abutting
property, and the owners thereof, is in accordance with proceedings of the
City relating to said improvements and assessments therefore, and is less than
the proportion of the cost allowed and permitted by the law in force in the
City.
VIII.
Although the aforementioned charges have been fixed, levied and assessed
in the respective amounts hereinabove stated, the City Council does hereby
reserve unto itself the right to reduce the aforementioned assessments by
allowing credits to certain property owners where curb and/or gutter or paving
presently exists.
Notwithstanding the City Council has herein reserved the right to issue
credits as hereinabove provided, it shall not be required to issue such
credits, and will not do so, if same would result in any inequity and/or
unjust discrimination.
The principal amount of each of the several assessment certificates to
be issued the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, as hereinafter provided,
shall be fixed and determined by deducting from the amount of any assessment,
hereinabove levied such amount or amounts, if any, as may hereafter be allowed
by the City Council as a credit against the respective assessments.
IX.
For the purpose of evidencing the several sums assessed against the
respective parcels of abutting property and the owners thereof, and the time
and terms of payment to aid in the enforcement and collection thereof,
assignable certificates in the principal amount of the respective assessments
less the amount of any respective credit allowed thereon, shall be issued by
the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, upon completion and acceptance by the
City of the improvements in each unit of improvement as the work in such units
is completed and accepted, which certificates shall be executed by the Mayor
in the name of the City and attested by the City Secretary, with the corporate
seal of the City of North Richland Hills, or its assigns, and shall declare
the said amounts, time and term of payment, rate of interest, and the date of
completion and acceptance of the improvements abutting upon such property for
which the certificate is issued, and shall contain the name of the owners, if
known, description of the property by lot and block number, or front feet
thereof, or such other descriptions as may otherwise identify the same; and if
said property shall be owned by an estate, then the description of same as so
owned shall be sufficient and no error or mistake in describing any property,
or in giving the name of the owner, shall invalidate or in anyway impair such
certificate, or the assessments levied.
The certificates shall provide substantially that if same shall not be
paid promptly upon maturity, then they shall be collectible, with reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of collection, if incurred and shall provide
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Ordinance No. 1718
Page 5
substantially that the amounts evidenced thereby shall be paid to the City
Secretary of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, who shall issue his
receipt therefore, which shall be evidence of such payment on any demand for
the same, and the City Secretary shall deposit the sums so received in a
separate fund, and when any payment shall be made to the City Secretary, upon
such certificate shall, upon presentation to him of the certificate by the
holder thereof, endorse said payment thereon. If such certificate be assigned
then the holder thereof shall be entitled to receive from the City Secretary
the amount paid upon presentation to him of such certificate so endorsed and
credited; and such endorsement and credit shall be the Secretary's Warrant for
making such payment. Such payment by the Secretary shall be receipted for by
the holder of such certificate in writing and by surrender thereof when the
principal, together with accrued interest and all costs of collection and
reasonable attorney's fees if incurred have been paid in full.
Said certificate shall further recite substantially that the proceedings
with reference to making the improvements have been regularly had in
compliance with the law, and that all prerequisites to the fixing of the
assessment lien against the property described in such certificate and the
personal liability of the owners thereof have been performed, and such
recitals shall be prima facie evidence of all the matters receipted in such
certificates, and no further proof thereof shall be required in any court.
Said certificates may have coupons attached thereto in evidence of each
or any of the several installments thereof, or may have coupons for each of
the first four installments, leaving the main certificate to serve for the
fifth installment, which coupons may be payable to the City of North Richland
Hills, or its assigns may be signed with the facsimile signatures of the Mayor
and City Secretary.
Said certificates shall further recite that the City of North Richland
Hills, Texas, shall exercise all of its lawful powers, when requested to do
so, to aid in the enforcement and collection thereof, and may contain recitals
substantially in accordance with the above and other additional recitals
pertinent or appropriate thereto; and it shall not be necessary that the
recitals be in the exact form set forth, but the substance thereof shall be
sufficient. The fact that such improvements my be omitted on any portion of
any of said units adjacent to any premises except from the lien of such
assessments shall not in anywise invalidate, affect or impair the lien of such
assessment upon other premises.
x.
Full power to make and levy assessments and to correct mistakes, errors,
invalidities or irrgularities, either in the assessments or in the
certificates issued in evidence thereof, is in accordance with the law in
force of this City, vested in the City.
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Ordinance No. 1718
Page 6
XI.
All assessments levied are a personal liability and charge against the
real and true owners of the premises described, notwithstanding such owners
may not be named, or may be incorrectly named.
XII.
The assessments so levied are for the improvements in the particular
unit upon which the property described abuts, and the assessments for the
improvements in any units are in no way affected by the improvements or
assessments in any other unit and in making assessments and in holding said
hearing, the amounts assessed for improvements in anyone unit have been in
nowise connected with the improvements or the assessments therefore in any
other unit.
XIII.
The assessments levied are made and levied under and by virtue of the
terms, powers and provisions of an Act passed at the First Called Session of
the Fortieth Legislature of the State of Texas, known as Chapter 106 of the
Act of said session and now shown as Article 1105b of Vernons' Texas Civil
Statutes.
XIV.
The City Secretary is hereby directed to engross and enroll this
ordinance by copying the caption of same in the Minute Book of the City
Council of North Richland Hills, Texas, and by filing the complete ordinance
in the appropriate Ordinance Records of said City.
XV.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from
and after the date of its passage and it is so ordained.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of March, 1991.
Tommy Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeanette Rewis, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex McEntire, Attorney for the City
I
.
~
~... t::::'
~N£S
vi .D· S~~v£'{
~... \ A6
...
TR 211
6.4 At
I
I
TR 12Cl
2.76 At
I
...
I
Q
6
TRACT .
I
STARNES RD
I
I
TRACT
ARI
A
I
I
('
26
25
24
23
I
I
CI')
n
Þ
r
':'
25
/I
r'\J
o
~
I
I
Ie
I
þ
en ..
en Þ
CI') rn C
:I: en Ii Ii a
~ en -alDþ
~ ~ :þ:!
z all c--
p rn "' c:I
Z -Cl-
c -I rn:ll~
~ =þl:l
U1 ..¡¡-
::II þ
c::::a ..
r- "'
r-
TR IC 1.85 AC
I
Lil
TI JA1
L44 AC.
Hr~~
s
I
I ,,, \,./
~- \,\
-- ,,9- \
,~ ~
I
I
I
I \
~9- ')~
I '&1> c; " ,.c
I
I
{'
~~. \'
I ' .\'l. Pile.
~
I
~~.\
~.\~ ~
I [;5>
I
I þ
en -a
I en þ
rn _C
en . ¡¡ 1:1
en ;JlDþ
Ie II: aÞ:!
rn c·- 'Z.~
'" =- rn c:I '2.. ,e'Z. t
. -
--I "' a ,..
_=-e \)'v t( ~
....Þc:I
I ::a .. Ii ·
c:a þ ~~
r- = " . "'~.... ~ '\ '\
r- ~ <J.I 'f. ..J ~ -4.
)~ç:. 0~ ~1~
S P'''
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
('
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
J
\tt ~
~t~
'?> 0,\1.. 'ù
\R
3
\2 A
E.
\- Æh
\t.~
\1. ~
\-
<?
j.
~tt \1' I
_.E. 7~ -.C
2.
,?>o,\,¿'ù
l
1R \8
CJ .~CJ -.C ,.c)
(\.0 ,.c, ~S)'8.~9
(Ø9
~ R \ú2-'
~R \úll
,.R \M
\.At.' ,.r.
-
CI)
n
~
r
~
I~
I'\J
o
~
JIll
en
en ;:
CI) rn _:!
~ en .-CI
: en -alDþ
z ill: =~:!
p rn C--
"'~
C..)._ -
C .- "' CI ,..
." --. _::II ~
....þCl
M¡¡-
:II þ
c::a III
r- '"
r-
c.JI
I
...
~"..
\'3 ""
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
a \\(.
~ ~,.c
~.zO
I
i'
~~.b"·
~ ",.c.
\~.l
I
.."
%
I
EiÞ
I
CI)
n
þ
r
~
~" .óc.
\0.1 ".c.
I
"
f\)
o
C?
\0
I
--
I
þ
en ...
en Þ
rn C
V) "'~ ii Ii a
~ WIT" .......
~ = :þ:!!
z ¡-. c.-
P rn '" c::I
=- -aJ!!
---I "' =- -=
-, -..a
.... ===- .
:II M=
c::I -
,... rn
,...
~ ~.1 ".c
\ ~.ê. · ~
I
a
'T1
~
,~.1'
\~
t
LI1
.þ>:~
/~
I 2 S !;D
~\,
/~
I ~ ~ ~:Þy. ¡a.,I ~
2'3.11
I.
~ ~\..0-{
~~~~
<P js0~ ?>O
I ~ p." \
7þ..
I
I
I SA
I
I i a,.,c. '{-:
4'&'3
I
{'
I
I a.\1J
i ,..c.
&.&
I
I
I þ
en ..
en þ
c
rn .¡¡a 30
I en .._.
en :III..:!
11:--
rn ma.
=-= -1:Ir-
Ie --I "' =- C 20
-..a
.:_- t6Þ
:a ..
c::t -
1ft
I r-
r-
I
I
--
'I
I
UNIT
I~
I
I
I
3. J.B. Sandlin &
I A.Y. Hamm
5133 Davis Blvd.
.a N. R. H., TX 76180
11- 4. J. B. Sandlin
& A. Y. Hamm
5133 Davis Blvd.
II N. R. H. TX 76180
I
I
I
II 7. J. B. Sandlin
& A. V. Hamm
I 5133 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
leI
I
D A V I S
B L V D.
S T R E E T
( F. M.
1 938 )
IMP R 0 V E HEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
»>
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
1. Calvin E. Stewart
4913 Katherine St.
N. R. H., TX 76180
2. Texas Utile El. Co.
2001 Bryan Tower,
112035
Dallas, TX 75201
5. J. B. Sandlin
& A. V. Hamm
5133 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
6. Sandlin & Hamm
clo Southland Corp.
1123859
2711 N. Haskell
Dallas, TX 75204
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
ASS E S SHE N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60
6.31
3.15
$21.01
10.51
5.26
Res. Front
Res. Side
Res. Rear
N·R. Front
N·R. Side
N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
Tract 17-B,
V.V. Vallace Survey
Abst. 1606
Vol. 4993 Pg. 780
NR Front
367.00 27.20
91.00 21.01
624.88
21.01
$0.00
0.00
0.00
1,262.25
0.00
1,445.85
0.00
2 , 708. 10
$9,982.40
1,911.91
13,128.73
4,294.97
1,646.92
2,625.40
666.02
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
34,256.35
Tract 17-A,
V.V. Vallace Survey
Abst. 1606
Vol. 2840 Pg. 112
NR Front
Tract A,
Block 29,
Holiday North Addn.
Vol. 6598 Pg. 101
NR Front
Tract A
Block 26
Holiday North Addn.
Vol. 6598 Pg. 101
NR Front
Lot 1
Block 1
College Circle Shopping
Center Addn.
Vol. 8377 Pg. 1436
NR Side
Lot 1 Blk 2 NR Front
College Circle Shopping
Center Addn.
Vol. 7651 Pg. 1489
Tract 9Bl
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 6377 Pg. 425
NR Front
Sub-Totals this Page
204.46
27.18
156.70
10.51
125.00 32.57
31.70 21.01
1,600.74
I
I
.
I
I
UNIT
I~
D A V I S B L V D.
( F. H. 1 9 3 8 )
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
8. J. B. Sandlin
& A. Y. Hamm
5133 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
Tract 9B2
J. Barlough Survey
Abs t. 130
Vol. 6377 Pg. 425
I
II 9. Joe C. Metcalf DVM Lot 2
6001 Davis Blvd. Blk 34
IN. R. H., TX 76180 College Hills Addn.
Vol. 7282 Pg. 303
10. Joe C. Metcalf DVM Lot 3
I 6001 Davis Blvd. Block 34
N. R. H., TX 76180 College Hill Addn.
.AIÞ Vol. 388-150 Pg. 96
II -11. u. S. Postal Service Lot 2
P. O. Box 667160 Block 33
I Dallas TX 75266-7160 College Hill Addn.
Vol. 388-208 Pg. 98
I
II
I
114. Alan Hamm Tract 6D
5125 Davis Blvd. J. Barlough Survey
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Abst. 130
Vol. 7645 Pg. 1066
ItÞ
I
12. College Hill AssemblyTract 10C
of God Church Abst. 130
6101 Davis Blvd. J. Barlough Survey
N. R. H., TX 76180 Vol. 4575 Pg. 150
13. Sturdivant-Dunaway Lot 1A
Land & Cattle Co Inc Block 31
P. O. Box 1307 College Hills Addn.
Mineral VeIls TX 76067
Vol. 7459 Pg. 2261
Sub-Totals this Page
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Side
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
--
468.60 $21.01
58.48
10.51
$0.00
$9,845.29
51.51
55.32
0.00
614.62
482.02
1767.15
1,082.38
28.34 3,534.30
10, 126. 15
0.00
4,227.36
141.10 29.96
226.70 34.37
840.07
21.01
3,029.40
4,762.28
2,268.48
0.00
17,649.87
8,330.85
48,307.95
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
* NOTE:
I
I
--
I
I
UNIT
I NO.
I
II 16. Tr. E-Systems, Ine
P. O. Box 660248
II Dallas, TX 75266
I
IfIÞ 18. John Hay
Rt. 1 Box 117C
Justin, TX 76247
I
I
I
20. A. H. Sanders
P. O. Box 80254
II N. R. H., TX 76180
II 21. A. H. Sanders
P. O. Box 80254
II N. R. H., TX 76180
1e3
I
D A V I S
B L V D.
S T R E E T
( F. H.
1 938 )
I H PRO V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OWER
AND ADDRESS
15. Tr. E-Systems Inc
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
17. Tr. E-Systems, Inc
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
19. Warren H. Bates
P. O. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Tract 5
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 8000 Pg. 199
Tract 5C
J. Barlough Survey
Abs t. 130
Vol. 8000 Pg. 251
Tract 5Cl
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7778 Pg. 85
Lot 22
Block J
Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 3509 Pg. 629
Lot 17R
Block J
Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 7875 Pg. 1730
Lo t 16
Block J
Smithfield Addn
Vol. 6705 Pg. 665
Lo t 14
Block J
Smithfield Addn.
Vo. 6705 Pg. 665
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Rear
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
320.09 $21.01
250.00 21.01
105.00
5.26
$0.00
$6,725.09
105.00 21.01
203.04 21.01
0.00
5,252.50
0.00
552.30
0.00
2,206.05
0.00
4,265.87
100.00 51.00 2,998.80
100.00 21.01
1,183.13
2,101.20
0.00
2 , 10 1 . 00
2,998.80
23,204.01
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
--
I
I UNIT
I NO.
I
II 23. A. H. Sanders
P. O. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
I
I
e
II 25. A. H. Sanders
& Y. H. Bates
P. O. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
D A V I S
B L V D.
S T R E E T
( F. M.
1 938 )
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
22. Joe T. Yarren etux Lot 12
P. O. Box 80185 Block J
N. R. H., TX 76180 Smithfield Addn.
Vo. 3677 Pg. 175
24. A. H. Sanders
& Y. H. Bates
P. O. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
Lo t 10
Block J
Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 6705 Pg. 667
Lo t 1 R
Block J
Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 6705 Pg. 667
Tract 16B
J. Barlough Survey
Abs t. 130
Vol. 7820 Pg. 926
26. St. Louis & Tract 16
Southwestern Ry. Co. J. Barlough Survey
1400 E. Second Ave. Abst. 130
Pine Bluff, AK 71601 Vol. 61 Pg. 449
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSH.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Side
100.00 $24.50
$0.00
$2,449.84
100.00 61.13 4,011.66
2,101.34
0.00
14,547.71
I
I
II 27. Curtis R. Moore etux Lot 4
P. O. Box 80347 Block G
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 6413 Pg. 403
II 28. Vernie, Velma, Lot 5-8 & Closed St. NR Side
& Sam Snider Block D
6533 Snider Smithfield Addn.
II N. R. H., TX 76180 Vol. 3172 Pg. 150
1e4
I
529.20 27.49
125.46 21.01
250.00 21.01
17.00
10.51
0.00
2,635.91
100.00
10.51
0.00
5,252.50
1,221.66
0.00
178.67
0.00
1 , 051 . 00
4,011.66
28,216.97
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
i I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
II 30a. R. M. Kidwell Tract 1B2,
P. O. Box 80333 J. Crockett Survey
N. R. H., TX 76180 Abst. 273
I Vol. 1414 Pg. 167
30b. Nasser Shafipour Tract IB-3B
I 4001 Tara J. Crockett Survey
Colleyville, TX 76034Abst. 273
Vol. 8803 Pg. 660
.JIIt1. Ronald & Mitra PrechtTract 3B1
II -3 1504 Richmond St. J. Crockett Survey
Arlington Hts IL Abst. 273
II Vol. 9148 Pg. 690
I
I 33.
I
I 34.
I
Ie
I
I
I
--
I
D A V I S B L V D.
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
$4.29 $8.31 $12.60 Res. Front
2.15 4.16 6.31 Res. Side
1.07 2.08 3.15 Res. Rear
$7.15 $13.86 $21.01 N-R. Front
3.58 6.93 10.51 N-R. Side
1.79 3.47 5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
29. Ruby Murchison Hill Tract 1B3
4405 Bowman J. Crockett Survey
Colleyville, TX 76034Abst. 273
Vol. 4809 Pg. 658
177.00 $22.65
NR Front
$0.00
$4,009.05
NR Front
75.00 24.89
0.00
1,866.45
NR Front
735.50
21.41
0.00
15,743.55
NR Front
225.00 21.01
0.00
4,727.25
32.
John Parish Inv. Inc.Lot 18 R Rear 62.00 11.29
P. o. Box 820012 Block 3
Ft. Yorth, Tx. 76182 Odell Addn.
Vol. 8153 Pg. 1839
John Parish Inv. Inc.Lot 17 R Rear 61 . 00 3. 15
P. O. Box 820012 Block 3
Ft. Yorth, TX 76182 Odell Addn.
Vol. 8153 Pg. 1839
John Parish Inv. Ine.Lot 16 R Rear 63.00 3.15
P. O. Box 820012 Block 3
Ft. Yorth, TX 76182 Odell Addn.
Vol. 8153 Pg.1839
0.00
700.20
0.00
192.15
0.00
198.45
Sub-Totals this Page
1,398.50
0.00
27,437.10
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
Ie
I
D A V I S B L V D.
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E S SHE N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
II 36. John Parish Inv. Inc.Lot 14
P. O. Box 820012 Block 3
Ft. Yorth TX 76182 Odell Addn.
I Vol. 8153 Pg. 1839
II
.JIIt8. Danny E. Campbell Lot pt. 24
II -3 245 Timberlake Ln. Block 2
Southlake, TX 76092 Odell Addn.
Vol. 6061 Pg. 120
PROPERTY OWER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
35. John Parish Inv. Inc.Lot 15
P. O. Box 820012 Block 3
Ft. Worth, TX 76182 Odell Addn.
Vol. 8153 Pg. 1839
37. Tarrant County
Tract 3E
J. Crockett Survey
Abst. 273
II
I
II 40. Bobbie Allen Lot 25
8121 Odell Block 1
II N. R. H., TX 76180 Odell Addn.
Vol. 4627 Pg. 709
I 41. Bobbie Allen Lot 26
8121 Odell Block 1
N. R. H., TX 76180 Odell Addn.
I Vol. 4627 Pg. 711
Ie
I
39. Danny E. Campbell Lot pt. 25
245 Timberlake Ln. Block 2
Southlake, TX 76092 Odell Addn.
Vol. 6061 Pg. 120
Sub-Totals this Page
* NOTE:
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60
6.31
3. 15
$21.01
10.51
5.26
Res. Front
Res. Side
Res. Rear
N·R. Front
N-R. Side
N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
R Rear
R Rear
R Front
NR Side
NR Side
R Side
R Side
63.00 $3.15
30.00
3.15
$0.00
0.00
1260.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,260.00
$198.45
94.50
0.00
1,868.68
790.35
406.36
1,186.28
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
4,544.62
100.00
12.60
177.80
10.51
75.20
10.51
64.40
6.31
188.00
6.31
698.40
I
I
Ie
I
I
UNIT
I~
I
I 43. Terry R. Dye etux
6950 Cox Ln.
I N. R. H., TX 76180
I
e
I 45. Clark Hughey etux
6964 Cox Ln.
N. R. H., TX 76180
D A V I S
B L V D.
S T R E E T
( F. H.
1 938 )
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
»>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OWNER
AND ADDRESS
42. Louise Brunson
814 Calle Vallarta
San Clemente, CA
92672
44. Edmund J. Potter
6960 Cox Ln.
N. R. H., TX 76180
46. Joseph Aquilera
6968 Cox Ln.
N. R. H., TX 76180
ASS E S SHE N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
Lo t 15
Block 13
Smithfield Acres
Vol. 6063 Pg. 130
Lot 9
Block 12
Smithfield Acres Addn.
Vol. 8155 Pg. 1073
Lot 8
Block 12
Smithfield Acres Addn.
Vol. 9887 Pg. 1650
Lot 7
Block 12
Smithfield Acres Addn.
Vol. 8549 Pg. 379
Lot 6
Block 12
Smithfield Acres Addn.
Vol. 5181 Pg. 454
Sub-Totals this Page
R Side
R Rear
R Rear
R Rear
R Rear
NR Front
NR Side
140.00 $6.31
205.30
3.15
$0.00
$883.40
I
I
I 47. Herman J. Smith Co. Tract A
500 Grapevine H.#400 Block 13
IN. R. H., TX 76054 Smithfield Acres Addn.
Vol. 5069 Pg. 78
II 48. Debra Ann Yalthers Tract A
8223 Turner Ym. Cox Survey
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Abst. 321
Vol. 8880 Pg. 1545
le7
I
86.80
3.15
0.00
646.69
82.70
3.15
0.00
273.42
60.00
3. 15
0.00
260.50
1125.20 21.01
265.00
12.16
0.00
189.00
1,965.00
0.00
23,640.45
0.00
3,222.40
0.00
29,115.31
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
.
I
I
UNIT
I~
I
I SO. Alva Ray Paul Tract 1
7237 Davis Blvd. Ym. Cox Survey
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Abst. 321
Vol. 6870 Pg. 1157
51. Herman J. Smith Tract 1A
I 500 Grapevine H.#400 Ym. Cox Survey
Hurst, TX 76054 Abst. 321
~ Vol. 5071 Pg. 490
~ 52. Floyd Schexnayder etuLot 1
8320 Elm Ct. Block 1
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Crestwood Estates
Vol. 7933 Pg. 401
I
I 54. Estelle McDonald Lot 13
I 8324 Juniper Dr. Block 1
N. R. H., TX 76180 Crestwood Estates
Vol. 7901 Pg. 2219
II 55. Tommy Y. Pollard Lot 13
8325 Juniper Dr. Block 2
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Crestwood Estates
Vol. 6445 Pg. 392
"8
I
D A V I S
B L V D.
( F. M.
1 938 )
S T R E E T
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
49. R. G. Gutierrez
clo Triple H. Co.
720 Yestern Trail
Keller, Tx. 76248
Tract lC
Ym. Cox Survey
Abst. 321
Vol. 7102 Pg. 1275
53. Bobby Joe Fisher
8321 Elm Ct.
N. R. H., TX 76180
Lo t 12
Block 1
Crestwood Estates
Vol. 9275 Pg. 618
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES.CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N·R. Front
10.51 N·R. Side
5.26 N·R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
R Front
NR Front
R Side
R Side
R Side
R Side
102.00 $21.01
228.51
14. 13
$0.00
$2,143.02
274.40 23.59
120.60
6.31
0.00
3,228.85
120.00
6.31
0.00
6,473.10
120.00
6.31
0.00
760.99
120.00
6.31
0.00
757.20
1,085.51
0.00
757.20
0.00
757.20
0.00
14,877.55
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
--
I
I UNIT
I~
I
I 57
I
I
e
I 59.
D A V I S B L V D.
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
56. Timothy Lee Vest
8320 Oak Ct.
N. R. H., TX 76180
Ronald D. Kelley
3701 Granada
Ft. Worth, TX 76118
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Lo t 12
Block 2
Crestwood Estates
Vol. 8048 Pg. 1587
Lot 1
Block 2
Crestwood Estates
Vol. 6782 Pg. 1978
58. Norwood Natl. Corp. Tract ARl
500 Grapevine H.#400 Block 2
N. R. H., TX 76054 Crestwood Estates
Vol. 8300 Pg. 785
Luttrell Inv. Inc
505 Ryan Plaza
Arlington, TX 76011
60. Texas Utile El. Co.
2001 Bryan Tower,
112035
Dallas, TX 75201
* NOTE:
Tract 17J
V.W. Wallace Survey
Abst. 1606
Vol. 7092 Pg. 2266
Tract 18A
Y.Y. Yallace Survey
Abs t. 1606
Vol. 2841 Pg. 173
Sub-Totals this Page
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
R Side
R Side
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
120.00 $6.31
120.00
6.31
$0.00
$757.20
I
I
I 61. Nasser Shafipour Lot 1
5750 Davis Blvd. Block 3
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Red Gate Add.
Vol. 388-153 Pg. 34
I 62. Town & Country Food Lot 2
Stores Block 2
P. O. Box 5581 Red Gate Addn.
I San Angelo, TX 76903 Vol. 8609 Pg. 372
Ie
I
467.00
21.01
0.00
757.20
415.00
21.01
0.00
9,811.67
76.00
21.01
0.00
8,719.15
379. 14
27.80
0.00
1,596.76
150.00
29.42
2,574.99
7,965.10
1,727.14
1,262.25
3,150.75
3,837.24
32,757.83
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
.
I
I
UNIT
I NO.
I
I
I
I
e
I 66.
D A V I S
B L V D.
( F. H.
1 938 )
S T R E E T
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
63. Nasser Shafipour Lot 1
4001 Tara Block 2
Colleyville, TX 76034Red Gate Addn.
Vol. 388-208 Pg. 66
I
I
I
I
I
I
64.
Jack Roseberry
& Lee Bonham
6999 Precinct Line
11100A
N. R. H., TX 76180
Joseph Y. Barnett
P. O. Box 18131
N. R. H., TX 76118
Lot 1
Block 1
RdRed Gate Addn.
Vol. 7804 Pg. 1189
Tract 9B
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 4416 Pg. 486
Tract 10E1
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7664 Pg. 474
67. Cecil R. Barnett etuxTract 10E
P. O. Box 18131 J. Barlough Survey
N. R. H., TX 76118 Abst. 130
Vol. 9491 Pg. 274
~10
I
65.
Joseph Y. Barnett
P. O. Box 18131
N. R. H., TX 76118
68. C. L. Barnett
P. O. Box 820765
N. R. H., TX 76182
69. Cecil L. Barnett
P. O. Box 820765
N. R. H., TX 76182
Tract 10K
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Tract 7B
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 3791 Pg. 531
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES.CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front 233.08 $21.01
NR Front
165.75 21.01
NR Front 654.90 22.86
NR Front 60.00 21.01
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
140.00 21.01
127.00 42.48
27.07 86.29
1,407.80
$0.00 $4,897.01
0.00
3,482.41
0.00 14,971.01
0.00 1,260.60
0.00
2,941.40
959.31
4435.65
0.00
2,335.89
959.31
34,323.97
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
--
I
I
UNIT
I~
I
I 71. Tr. E-Systems Inc.
P. O. Box 660248
I Dallas, TX 75266
I
e
I 73. Tr. E-Systems Inc.
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
D A V I S
B L V D.
S T R E E T
( F. H.
1 938 )
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
70. C. R. Barnett
P. O. Box 820765
N. R. H., TX 76182
72. Tr. E-Systems Inc.
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
I
I
I 75. Tr. E-Systems Inc.
P. O. Box 660248
I Dallas, TX 75266
I 76. John D. Hay
R. Rt. 1 Box lI7C
I Justin, TX 76247
iiI
I
74. Tr. E-Systems Inc.
P. O. Box 660248
Dallas, TX 75266
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Tract 7
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 1192 Pg. 22
Tract 6C
J. Barlough Survey
Abs t. 130
Vol. 7853 Pg. 2248
Tract 6A4A
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7853 Pg. 2248
Tract 5D
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7853 Pg. 2248
Tract 5C2
J. Barlough Survey
Abst. 130
Vol. 7853 Pg. 2248
Tract 4
J. Barlough Survey
Abs t. 130
Vol. 8014 Pg. 973
Tract 2
John's Addn.
Vol. 388-9 Pg. 401
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
267.04 $21.01
1364.27
21.01
$0.00
$5,610.51
121.00 21.01
307.63
21.01
0.00
28,663.31
321.80 21.01
357.77
21.01
0.00
2,542.21
125.00 29.15
2,864.51
0.00
6,463.31
0.00
6,761.02
0.00
7,516.75
0.00
3,643.75
0.00
61,200.86
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
.
I
D A V I S B L V D.
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
I UNIT
I~
I
I 78. John D. Hay
R. Rt. 1 Box 117C
Justin, TX 76247
I
79. B. J. G. Partners LtdTract 2A2F
I 227 N.E. Loop 820 J. Barlough Survey
Hurst, TX 76053 Abst. 130
Vol. 8652 Pg. 2189
~a. B. J. G. Partners LtdTract 2A2
227 N.E. Loop 820 J. Barlough Survey
Hurst, TX 76053 Abst. 130
Vol. 8652 Pg. 2189
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
77. John D. Hay
R. Rt. 1 Box 117C
Justin, TX 76247
Tract 1
John's Addn.
Vol. 388-9 Ppg. 401
Tract 2A2B
J. Barlough Survey
Vol. 3839 Pg. 86
I
I
I 81. Bank of North Texas Tract 7A
P. O. Box 987 John's Addn.
I Hurst, TX 76053 Vol. 388·79 Pg. 32
II 82. Burk Collins Inv. Tract 8A
8251 Bedford-Euless RJohn's Addn.
I 11255 Vol. 7955 Pg. 1618
N. R. H., TX 76180
Iez
I
80b. Bates & Sanders
P. O. Box 80254
N. R. H., TX 76180
Tract 2A2E
J. Barlough Survey
Abs t. 130
Vol. 5903 Pg. 262
Sub-Totals this Page
* NOTE:
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
50.00 $21.01
100.00
28.28
$0.00
$1,050.50
237.91
21.01
0.00
2,828.00
200.00
21.01
0.00
4,998.49
15.00 21.01
175.11
25.99
0.00
4,202.00
163.17
26.35
0.00
315.15
941.19
0.00
4,551.11
0.00
4,299.53
0.00
22,244.78
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
.
I
D A V I S B L V D.
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
I UNIT
NO.
I-
I
I 84. Wm. Gumfory Lot 2R
1001 Roberts Cut-Off Block 1
Ft. Yorth, TX 76114 Smithfield Addn.
I
85. Curtis Moore Lot 4
I P. O. Box 80347 Block 1
N. R. H., TX 76180 Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 388-208 Pg. 88
~a. Curtis Moore Lot 3
II 86 P. O. Box 80347 Block 1
N. R. H., TX 76180 Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 388-208 Pg. 88
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
83. St.Louis & Tract 16
Southwestern Ry. Co.J. Barlough Survey
1400 E. Second Ave. Abst. 130
Pine Bluff, AK 71601 Vol. 61 Pg. 449
I
86b. Dalworth Tile Co. In Lot lR
I P.O. Box 80347 Block 1
N. R. H., TX 76180 Smithfield Addn.
Vol. 388-208 Pg. 88
I 87. Fredrich D. Culp
1112 Valley View
II Hurst, TX 76053
I 88. Fredrich D. Culp
1112 Valley. View
I Hurst, TX 76053
--
I
Lot 2
Block 1
Culp
Vol. 388-159 Pg. 63
Lot 1
Block 1
Culp Addn.
Vol. 388-159 Pg. 63
Sub-Totals this Page
* NOTE:
ASS E S SHE N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60
6.31
3. 15
$21.01
10.51
5.26
Res. Front
Res. Side
Res. Rear
N-R. Front
N-R. Side
N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
315.00 $21.01
175.90 38.23
100.00 33.63
261.80 25.83
105.78 21.01
150.00 21.01
50.00 21.01
1,158.48
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,019.60
1,464.21
3,483.81
$6,618.15
6,724.66
3,363.00
6,762.29
2,222.44
3 , 151 . 50
1,050.50
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
29,892.54
I
I
--
I
D A V I S B L V D.
( F. H. 1 9 3 8 )
ASS E S SHE N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60
6.31
3. 15
$21.01
10.51
5.26
Res. Front
Res. Side
Res. Rear
N-R. Front
N-R. Side
N-R. Rear
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
I UNIT
NO.
1-
89a. Donald Shemwell
DBA Sonic Drive
P. O. Box 177
Keller, TX 76248
PROPERTY OYNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
etal Lot 1
In Block 3
Culp Addn.
Vol. 388-216 Pg. 33
138.28 $30.14 $1,262.25 $2,905.51
NR Front
I
I 89b.
Burk Collins Inv.
P. O. Box 518
Bedford, TX 76021
Lot 2
Block 3
Culp Addn.
Vol. 388-216 Pg. 33
II 90. Haverty Furniture Lot 2R
866 Y. Peachtree NY Block 2
I Atlanta, GA 30379 Culp Addn.
Vol. 9149 Pg. 1669
~a. Tarrant County
NR Front
178.75 21.01
1,262.25
3,755.54
NR Side
517.49 10.51
0.00
5,438.82
Lot pt. 26
Block 2
Odell Addn.
NR Front
157.00 21.01
3,298.57
0.00
191b. Dock G. Dutton
8404 Odell
N. R. H., TX 76180
Lot pt. 27
Block 2
Odell Addn.
Vol. 4388 Pg. 608
R Side 96.00 14.20
0.00
1,363.20
I
I 92. J. D. Scott Lot pt. 27
& R. D. Graves Tr Block 1
210 Field St. #100 Odell Addn.
II Arlington, TX 76010 Vol. 388-C Pg. 68
R Side 54.35 6.31
0.00
342.95
193a. J. D. Scott Lot pt. 28
& R. D. Graves Tr Block 1
210 Field St. #100 Odell Addn.
Arlington, TX 76010 Vol. 388-C Pg. 68
R Side 180.09 6.31
0.00
1,136.37
I
-'4
Sub-Totals this Page
1,321.96
5,823.07
14,942.38
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
I
N
I
I
UNIT
I NO.
93b. J. D. Scott
I & R. D. Graves Tr
210 Field St #100
Arlington, TX 76010
I
I
95. Khosrow Yazhari
I & Mansour Khayyam
2308 Farrington Ln.
~ Hurst, TX 76054
I - 96 ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
~15
I
D A V I S
B L V D.
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
( F. M.
1 938 )
S T R E E T
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Te>','
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
94. Khosrow Yazhari
& Mansour Khayyam
2308 Farrington Ln.
Hurst, TX 76054
97.
Khosrow Yazhari
& Mansour Khayyam .
2308 Farrington Ln .)1
Hurst, TX 76054
Muhieddin Dalloul/
429 Eastwood
Ft. Yorth, TX 76107
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Lot pt 29
Block 1
Odell Addn.
Vol. 388-C Pg. 68
Tract 1
E. Cross Survey
Abs t. 281
Vol. 8080 Pg. 215
Trac t IB
-E. Cross Survey
Abst. 281
, Vol. 8080 Pg. 215
Tract 3
Ym. Cox Survey
Abst. 321
Vol. 8080 Pg. 215
Tract 3D
Ym. Cox Survey
Abst. 321
Vol. 8003 Pg. 1943
98. Stonybrooke Inc. Tract 3D!
500 Grapevine 8.#400 Ym. Cox Survey
Hurst, TX 76054 Abst. 321
Vol. 8064 Pg. 151
99. Stonybrooke Inc.
500 Grapevine H.#400
Hurst, TX 76054
Tract AR
Block 13
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 5124 Pg. 580
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES.CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60
6.31
3.15
$21.01
10.51
5.26
Res. Front
Res. Side
Res. Rear
N-R. Front
N-R. Side
N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
R Side
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
19.65
$6.31
$0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$123.99
5,042.40
7,695.96
4,828.02
14,810.55
7,503.51
6,138.49
46,142.93
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
240.00
21.01
366.30 21.01
201.00
24.02
684.09
21.65
357. 14
21.01
292.17
21.01
2,160.35
I
I
N
I
I
UNIT
I~
100. Stonybrooke Inc. Tract AR
I 500 Grapevine H.#400 Block 14
Hurst, TX 76054 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 5142 Pg. 329
1101. HUD Lot 52A
P. O. Box 2905 Block 2
I Ft. Worth, TX 76113 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 388-87 Pg. 5
I
D A V I S
B L V D.
( F. H.
1 938 )
S T R E E T
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OWER
AND ADDRESS
102. HUD
P. O. Box 2905
Ft. Yorth, TX 76113
~3. c. L. Jones etux
7304 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
I
I
I
105. Alan & Tracy Larman
I 7308 Davis Blvd.
N. R. H., TX 76180
I 106. Denis Hagan etux
7310 Davis Blvd.
I N. R. H., TX 76180
-'6
I
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Lot 52B
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 388-87 Pg. 5
Lot 51A
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9404 Pg. 1432
104. Ronald S. Hicks etux Lot 51B
7306 Davis Blvd. Block 2
N. R. H., TX 76180 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9389 Pg. 634
Lot 50A
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9534 Pg. 182
Lot SOB
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9590 Pg. 1727
Sub-Totals this Page
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 I S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
R Front
R Front
R Front
R Front
572.80 $21.01
50.00 43.04
50.00
21.01
$0.00 $12,034.53
1,101.60
1,050.40
50. 10
12.60
0.00
1,050.50
49.90
12.60
0.00
631.26
50.30
12.60
0.00
628.74
49.70
12.60
0.00
633.78
872.80
0.00
626.22
1,101.60
16,655.43
* NOTE:
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
N
I
I
UNIT
I~
107a.
I
D A V I S B L V D.
S T R E E TIM PRO V E MEN T S
( F. M. 1 9 3 8 )
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«< ASS E SSM E N T R 0 L L »>
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
HUD
P. O. Box 2905
Ft. Yorth TX 76113
1107b. AUD
P. O. Box 2905
Ft. Yorth, TX 76113
I
I
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Lot 49B
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 388-87 Pg. 5
Lot 49A
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 388-87 Pg. 5
108. Richard Peterson etuxLot 48A
109 Murphy Ave. Block 2
Santa Ana, CA 92707 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9772 Pg. 2256
~9. U. S. A. AUD
P. O. Box 2905
Ft. Yorth, TX 76113
Lot 48B
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 388-87 Pg. 5
I
I
I
111. Ronald D. Kelley Lot 46
3701 Granada Block 2
I Ft. Yorth, TX 76118 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 6683 Pg. 638
I 112. Donald L Skultety etuLot 45
7328 Davis Blvd. Block 2
IN. R. H., TX 76180 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9893 Pg. 2000
-'7
I
110. Jas. P. Stevens etal Lot 47
7320 Davis Blvd. Block 2
N. R. H., TX 76180 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9602 Pg. 619
* NOTE:
Sub-Totals this Page
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
C/G DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES. CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60 Res. Front
6.31 Res. Side
3.15 Res. Rear
$21.01 N-R. Front
10.51 N-R. Side
5.26 N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
R Front
NR Front
R Front
50.00 $21.01
50.00
21.01
$0.00 $1,050.50
0.00
1,050.50
50.00
21.01
0.00
1,050.50
50.00
21.01
0.00
1,050.50
100.00
12.60
0.00
1,260.00
100.00
21.01
0.00
2 , 1 0 1 . 00
106.60
12.60
934.83
1 , 343. 16
506.60
934.83
8,906.16
Assess. Rates may vary from table values due to extra driveway approach costs.
I
I
16
I
I
UNIT
I~
113. Felice S. Chipman
I P. O. Box 5156
Clifton, TX 76634
II 114. Donna M. Halcomb Lot 44
7404·B Davis Blvd. Block 2
II N. R. H., TX 76180 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9440 Pg. 2230
II
WI
II 116. Richard L Peterson etLot 42
109 Murphy Ave Block 2
Santa Ana, CA 92707 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9726 Pg. 258
D A V I S
1 938 )
B L V D.
( F. H.
S T R E E T
IMP R 0 V E MEN T S
City of North Richland Hills
Tarrant County, Texas
«<
ASS E SSM E N T
R 0 L L
March 20, 1991, (Revised)
PROPERTY OVNER
AND ADDRESS
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
Tract 1Al
o. Rumfield Survey
Abst. 1365
Vol. 5194 Pg. 819
115. George Yhitmire
P. O. Box 2104
Los Gatos, CA 95031
II
I
II
II
I
I
Lot 43
Block 2
Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9158 Pg. 639
117. Richard L Peterson etLot 41
109 Murphy Ave. Block 2
Santa Ana, CA 92707 Stonybrooke Addn.
Vol. 9714 Pg. 1555
I
Sub-Totals this Page
GRAND TOTALS ALL PAGES
»>
ASS E SSM E N T RAT E S
CIG DRAIN. TOTAL ASSES.CAT.
$4.29 $8.31
2.15 4.16
1.07 2.08
$7.15 $13.86
3.58 6.93
1.79 3.47
$12.60
6.31
3. 15
$21.01
10.51
5.26
Res. Front
Res. Side
Res. Rear
N-R. Front
N-R. Side
N-R. Rear
$3.06 / S.F for Driveways
ASSESS. FRONT ASSM.* APPARENT ASSESSMENT
CATEGORY FOOTAGE RATE CREDITS LESS CRED.
NR Front
R Front
NR Front
NR Front
NR Front
117.70 $21.01 $1,586.61 $2,472.88
88.90 12.60
90.00 21.01
90.00 21.01
110.00 21.01
496.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,120.14
1,890.90
1,890.90
2,311.10
24,878.85
$1,586.61 $9,685.92
$37,035.88 $486,712.66
I·
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: AdrniniF;trñtion Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
Endorsing the Establishment of a Railtran
Subject: St:ñtinn in t:h~ City of Rich1and Hi11s - Agenda Number: GN 91-42
Resolution No. 91-13
I
I
I
~
The City of Richland Hills has requested that North Richland Hills
approve the attached resolution. The resolution endorses and supports
the efforts of Richland Hills in securing a Railtran Transit Passenger
Station in their City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 91-13.
it
~
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Finance Review
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
I
c:l~_/) /
Department Head Signature City Man~r
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
, Finance Director
Page 1 of
I:
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-13
WHEREAS, the Railtran Commuter Rail Project is managed by a joint
public agency known as Railtran, which owns railroad right-of-way extending
from the City of Irving, Texas, westward across the Dallas /Fort Worth
Metroplex to the downtown business district of the City of Fort Worth, Texas,
known as the IIRailtran Corridor"; and
WHEREAS, the Railtran Corridor passes through the southern portion
of the City of Richland Hills and crosses Handley-Ederville Road; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a Railtran station in the City of
Richland Hills, at or near the intersection of the Railtran Corridor with
Handley-Ederville Road would provide convenient access to the Railtran system
for the citizens of the City of North Richland Hills; and
WHEREAS, the City of North Richland Hills and its citizens would
receive substantial economic and transportation benefits from such convenient
access to the Railtran system; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills finds
that the best interest of the citizens of the City of North Richland Hills
would be served be the location of a Railtran passenger station in the City
of Richland Hills, at or near the intersection of the Railtran Corridor with
Handley-Ederville Road.
t' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
North Richland Hills hereby endorses and supports the efforts of the City of
Richland Hills and its Railtran Committee in seeking to secure location of a
Railtran Transit Passenger Station within the City of Richland Hills, at or
near the intersection of the Railtran Corridor and Handley-Ederville Road.
I
I
I
I ATTEST:
I
I APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
It
I Rex McEntire, Attorney for the City
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 25th day of March, 1991.
APPROVED:
Tommy Brown - Mayor
Jeanette Rewis, City Secretary
ubject:
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Finance 3/25/91
~ Council Meeting Date:
Proposed Certificate of Obligation and GN 91-43
Contractual ObliYciL.i.Ull R~[uI.Lding Iron IIorsc Agenda Number: -
Golf Course
Department:
In February 1991, the City Council approved a proposal to refund the existing
debt as described above. It is now timely to proceed with the refunding. Mr.
Harold McInroe and First Southwest Company have selected Prudential-Bache
Capital Funding as the bond underwriter.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council authorize the following actions:
1. The acceptance of the bid from Prudential-Bache Capital Funding.
2. Adopt Ordinance No. 1721 authorizing the issuance of such bonds.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 91-10 approving the redemption of certain
outstanding bonds.
4. Adopt Resolution No. 91-11 approving and authorizing the execution of
a Paying Agent/Registrar Agreement with Team Bank, Fort Worth.
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
~ L2 --,r{ ~ ...../
Department Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
2
I~
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
it
I
COpy OF && PAGE ATTACHMENT
(ORDIHAHCE~ RESOLUTIOH AHD
EXHIBIT) IS AUAILABLE FOR
VOUR REUIEW IH THE CITY
SECRETARV~S OFFICE
ORDINANCE NO. 7121
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the issuance of "CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, TAX AND GOLF
COURSE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES
1991"; specifying the terms and features of
said bonds; providing for the payment of
said bonds by the levy of an ad valorem tax
upon all taxable property within the City
and a pledge of the net revenues received
from the City's Golf Course Facilities; and
resolving other matters incident and related
to the issuance, sale, payment and delivery
of said bonds, including the approval and
execution of a Purchase Contract and Special
Escrow Agreement and the approval and
distribution of an Official Statement
pertaining thereto; and providing an
effective date.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of North Richland
Hi lIs, Texas (the "Ci ty" ) has duly issued and del i vered the
following obligations (collectively, hereinafter referred to as
the "Refunded Obligations"), which are currently outstanding in
the aggregate principal amount of $4,460,000, to wit:
(1) City of North Richland Hills, Texas, Tax
and Golf Course Revenue Certificates of
Obligation, Series 1988, dated September 1,
1988, now outstanding in the principal
amount of
$ 4,230,000
(2) City of North Rich1and Hills, Texas, Public
Property Finance Contractual Obligations,
Series 1989, dated June 1, 1989, now
outstanding in the principal amount of
230,000
AND WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 717k,
V.A.T.C.S., as amended, the City Council is authorized to issue
refunding bonds and deposit the proceeds of sale thereof
directly with any place of payment for the Refunded
Obligations, and such deposit, when made in accordance with
said statute, shall constitute the making of firm banking and
financial arrangements for the discharge and final payment of
the Refunded Obligations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that
the Refunded Obligations are scheduled to mature, or are
subject to being redeemed, not more than twenty (20) years from
the date of the refunding bonds herein authorized; and
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department:
Finance
~ Council Meeting Date:
3/25/91
ubject:
Property Tax Refund
Agenda Number: ~N 91-44
The Texas Property Tax Code section 31.11 (a) requires that refunds over $500 :
be approved by the governing body. The following refund requests have been ~
received.
Taxpayer Amount Reason for Refund
Centex Real Estate $ 514.91 Overpayment of Tax
Department of HUD 1,438.42 Overpayment of Tax
Total $1,956.33
Recommendation:
The tax office recommends approval of the refund as outlined above.
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Acct. Number
Bonds (GO/Rev.) Sufficient Funds Available
Operating Budget
Other
~ 711 Ck · . k~
Department Head Signature City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
1
I'
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Community Development
3/25/91
Council Meeting Date:
GN 91-45
Agenda Number:
Department:
Public Hearing for Consideration of a Revision
to the MaotGr ThoroughfarQ Plan iegardjpg
Bursey Road.
Ordinance 111722
The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on a proposed
reclassification of Bursey Road on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. Bursey Road is
currently designated as a C-4-U and several citizens had requested the City to consider
making it a C-2-U facility. An extensive evaluation of the future transportation needs
of the area was prepared by the staff and a copy of this evaluation is attached.
The City also obtained professional recommendations from the firms of Planning Resources
Group and Barton-Aschman Associates and these are attached to this memo. Planning
Resources Group is the firm currently under contract with the City to update the
Comprehensive Plan. Barton-Aschman is a very well known transportation planning
consulting firm. All three evaluations (one by the staff and two from consultants) have
various scenarios of recommendations regarding Bursey Road. These recommendations
include considerations for constructing two lanes having extra width, two lanes with a
middle left turn lane, or four lanes as originally planned. According to information
provided by Knowlton-English-Flowers, Consulting Engineers to the City, cost savings
between the four lane and two lane street are not significant. Furthermore, the
agreements for cost sharing with the Cities of Keller and Watauga to provide
approximately $222,000 for drainage and street improvements at Bursey Road and Rufe Snow
4IÞDrive could be in jeopardy with a major change in reclassification of Bursey Road.
At the March 14, 1991 public hearing, a petition was presented by citizens in the Bursey
Road vicinity requesting the road be designated as a C-2-U. Attached is a list of the
names of citizens who signed the petition.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended by a 4-3 vote to reclassify Bursey Road
to a C-2-U with no construction to begin for two years.
A proposed ordinance is attached for your review and consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council hold the required Public Hearing and consider
the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Othe
-
Finance Review
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
(;2IJ'1/}4 ¿ Á / !L¿-
ent Head Signature City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
, Finance Director
Pa e 1 of
I
I
Ie
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
MARCH 14, 1991 - 7:30 P. M.
I
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at
7:30 P.M. by Vice Chairman James
Brock.
ames Brock
David Barfield
Don Bowen
Ron Lueck
Don Collins
Pat Marin
Paul Miller
Barry LeBaron
Steve Pence
Wanda Calvert
I
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Vice Chairman
Secretary
Members
I
I
I
A . Member
ire Community Dev.
Building Official
p & Z Coordinator
I
ABSENT:
Mark Wood
I
Ie
Vice Chairman Brock recognized the
Mayor, City Council Members and City
Staff in the audience.
ERATION OF THE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 1991
Ms. Marin made the motion to approve
the minutes as written. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Barfield and the
motion carried 7-0.
I
1 .
PS 91-03
Public Hearing for consideration of a
revision to the Thoroughfare Plan
regarding Bursey Road.
I
Mr. LeBaron explained that on February
11th, a group of citizens asked the
council to change Bursey Road from a
C4U, 4 lane collector, to a C2U, 2
lane collector. He said the council
asked the Planning and Zoning
Commission to look into this. Mr.
LeBaron said much study has been put
into this; he asked some
professionals, Planning Resource Group
who has been hired to update the
city's Comprehensive Master Plan,
Barton-Aschman Associates,
Transportation Planning Consultants,
and Richard Albin, engineer with
Knowlton, English, Flowers, to give us
their suggestions.
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I Page 2
P & Z Minutes
I March 14, 1991
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Mr. LeBaron said when we summarized
the reports, the staff now feels we
should stay with a 48 foot pavement
width, but stripe it for a 2-lane or a
2-1ane with a middle left turning
lane. He said they made a comparison
with Chapman, Hightower, Watauga, and
Starnes because the land use in these
areas are very similar.
Vice Chairman Brock stated he had some
letters in favor of leaving it a C4U;
they are from Lynn Warren, 7408 Bursey
Road and Gene Riddle, 7832 Waterford
Lane.
Vice Chairman Brock opened the Public
Hearing and called for anyone wishing
to speak in favor to please come
forward.
Dan Echols, 5016 Nevada Trail, came
forward to speak against the change
from C4U to C2U. He stated this road
is needed to be able to handle the
traffic that will be there in the
future. Mr. Echols stated he talked
with the Watauga folks and they are
planning a 4 lane, but it is not build
yet. He said it is estimated that
there will be 90,000 people in North
Richland Hills in the future and the
traffic is going to be there whether
there is a 2 lane or a 4 lane. Mr.
Echols recommended they go ahead and
build the 4 lane and build it as safe
as possible or leave it alone and take
the money and spend it on Bedford
Euless Road or somewhere else.
Jay Luger, 7921 Kendra, came forward.
He said if Watauga had wanted a 4 lane
road, they would not have repaired
their 2 lane road. He said he feels
Bursey Road is the worst road in North
Richland Hills, they are always out
patching it. Mr. Luger suggested they
go with a 2 lane now and in 10 or 15
years, if needed, go with a 4 lane.
I f Page 3
P & Z Minutes
I March 14, 1991
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
He said there is a curve at the
entrance to his street on Bursey where
he can hardly get out now, and the
curve needs to be taken out.
Mr. Bowen asked if he was against the
4 lanes or the pavement width.
Mr. Luger said he is against the
pavement width because they will lose
several trees. He said just a half a
mile north, they have put in a nice
new road that goes from somewhere to
nowhere, it does not do anything right
now. He said he bought out in this
area because of the cows and trees.
Vice Chairman Brock said this C4U road
has been on the Thoroughfare Plan
since 1967.
Judith Leitner, 7332 Londonderry, a
realtor in NE Tarrant County, came
forward. She said most people move
into this area for peace and quiet.
She said when you increase traffic,
you increase speed and noise level.
Ms. Leitner said it effects the resale
value of homes and increases crime.
Al Corona, 8105 Fireside Drive, came
forward. He stated he is against the
C4 planning. He said if he had wanted
to live in a city, he would have gone
to Dallas or Fort Worth. He said he
wants the peace and quiet. Mr. Corona
said he lives in Ember Oaks and he
does not want Bursey opened to the
west, there are too many children in
the area.
Konrad Roeder, 8016 Hunter Lane, came
forward. He submitted 200 petitions
from neighbors in the area wanting a 2
lane road. He also had pictures of
the area. He said the primary
arterial 6 lane road, North Tarrant
Parkway, to the north of Bursey has
been added to the city's Thoroughfare
Plan. Mr. Roeder said he is in favor
I Page 4
P & Z Minutes
I March 14, 1991
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
of this road leading to Highway 35 and
360. He said Shady Grove Road was
previously a C4U and was reduced to a
C2U. He said Bursey Road will not
need to carry the traffic they had
thought it would generate. Mr. Roeder
said wider roads promote speed. He
said you need 200 feet of sight, but
at Kandy and Hunter, you only have 150
feet of sight distance. Mr. Roeder
said wider roads means more lanes to
cross. He said neighbors walk their
dogs, jog, ride bicycles, and there
are a lot of children playing in the
area. He said two large dogs have
been killed because of a sight
problem.
Mr. Roeder said if you widen Bursey
for a 68 foot right of way, beautiful
50 year old oak trees will have to be
cut down; you can not move and
transplant a 50 year old tree. He
said he talked with Precinct 3 and was
assured that North Tarrant Parkway is
going through. Mr. Roeder requested
they down grade Bursey from a C4U to a
C2U. He said he has not had a chance
to discuss with the neighbors a 2 lane
with a turning lane and he does not
know their feelings on this.
David Wells, 7508 Bursey Road, came
forward. He said he will be the one
losing most of the trees. He said he
has a problem backing out of his
driveway onto Bursey now. He said he
travels Smithfield Road at Starnes
every day and it is vary dangerous,
people on Starnes have excess speed of
50 miles per hour. Mr. Wells said he
has lived here for 21 years and this
will destroy the value of his home.
He said you don't need Bursey widened
because you have North Tarrant
Parkway. He said to change Bursey
from C4 to C2.
Vice Chairman Brock asked if anyone
had anything different to add to
please come forward.
I Page 5
P & Z Minutes
I March 14, 1991
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Mike McGee, 7900 Whispering Woods,
came forward. He said he is concerned
about property values. He said as
property values are lowered, the city
loses valuable tax dollars. Mr. McGee
said he is concerned about safety,
kids are important.
Ken Martin, 7416 Bursey Road, came
forward. He said he had lived here
for a long time. He said at the
previous meeting, two Councilmen said
they were in favor of the C2. Mr.
Martin said he had heard that Bursey
might swing into North Tarrant
Parkway.
Mr. LeBaron said you might could swing
it down, but he has not heard about
it.
Mr. Martin said we don't need to build
Bursey for Keller's benefit.
Lans Rothfusz, 7916 Kendra Lane, came
forward. He said he was here to help
them make a decision. He said he is a
scientist, a manager and also works
for the Government. Mr. Rothfusz said
these studies did not mention anything
about safety. He said the list of
advantages of C4U falls apart. He
went over each one and discredited
them.
Coy B. Moon, 7301 Wexford Court, came
forward. He spoke in regard to the
Senior Citizens Center on Bursey. He
said he is surprised that someone has
not been killed there. Mr. Moon said
if you make Bursey larger and have
more speed and traffic, it would be
more dangerous.
Vice Chairman Brock called for a show
of hands in favor of down grading
Bursey Road from a C4 to a C2. The
Chamber was almost full and most of
them raised their hands.
I Page 6
P & Z Minutes
I March 14, 1991
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Vice Chairman Brock closed the Public
Hearing.
Mr. Barfield said he used to live in
this area and at that time, there was
no east-west roads. He said he feels
we should work toward getting North
Tarrant Parkway to go through and he
believes Bursey should be down graded
or just left alone and take the money
and use it somewhere else.
Mr. Lueck said it is a shame we didn't
have these people present to push to
get North Tarrant Parkway. He said
North Richland Hills has tried, but it
is now out of our hands.
Mr. Barfield said these people need to
call the State, go to other cities
like Keller and push for North Tarrant
Parkway. He said Keller says if we
put Bursey in, there will be no need
for North Tarrant Parkway. Mr.
Barfield said we need your help to put
pressure on the surrounding cities to
put North Tarrant Parkway through.
Mr. Bowen said he agrees with Mr.
Barfield and Mr. Lueck that we do need
North Tarrant Parkway, but without it,
we need Bursey to be 4 lanes. He said
we need all the support we can get for
North Tarrant Parkway.
Mr. Barfield said he recommends that
Bursey Road at this point, be down
graded from a C4U to a C2U on the
Master Thoroughfare Plan. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Lueck.
Mr. Bowen said he thinks it is a
little premature to down grade to a
C2U since we don't know the status of
North Tarrant Parkway. He said since
funds have been allocated for Bursey,
he would hate to see them spent
elsewhere until we know what is going
to happen to North Tarrant Parkway.
I Page 7
p & Z Minutes
I March 14, 1991
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Mr. Barfield said he could amend his
motion to add that no action or
construction be done on this road
until North Tarrant Parkway becomes a
reality.
Mr. Barfield amended his motion to
say: he makes a motion to down grade
Bursey Road from a C4U to a C2U, but
at this point, the construction of the
C2U not be done until further studies
are done on North Tarrant Parkway so
we don't spend money foolishly.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen
and the vote was 2-5, Barfield and
Bowen for the motion and Lueck, Marin,
Collins, Brock, and Miller against the
motion. The motion failed.
Ms. Marin asked for a clarification of
the motion, did he mean to down grade
now or pending the outcome of North
Tarrant Parkway.
Mr. Barfield said he meant to down
grade it right now. He said we can
always go back 3 years, 5 years and up
grade it if it needs changing. Mr.
Barfield said maybe we just need to
make some repairs now and not go ahead
and put in the curbs and gutters.
Mr. Collins asked about the right of
way.
Mr. LeBaron said we will have to
purchase right of way for a C2U or a
C4U.
Mr. Lueck said he recommends we do not
do any construction until we know the
outcome of North Tarrant Parkway.
Vice Chairman Brock said the Council
wants a recommendation from P & Z. He
said we need some kind of a motion.
Mr. Barfield said his recommendation
was to down grade to a C2U, just make
some repairs, and not build the road
at this time.
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
Page 8
P & Z Minutes
March 14, 1991
Ms. Marin made a motion to down grade
Bursey Road from a C4 to a C2 and that
construction begin after more
consideration.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Lueck said we can see what the
neighborhood wants, but we will be
tying the City's hands if North
Tarrant Parkway does not go through.
He said if North Tarrant Parkway does
not go through, there would be an
enormous amount of cars on Bursey.
PS 91-03
APPROVED-CHANGE
Mr. Barfield made the motion to down
grade Bursey Road from a C4U to a C2U
and we send it to the Council stating
that no construction be done on it for
2 years.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Lueck
and the motion carried 4-3 with
Barfield, Lueck, Brock, and Collins
for and Miller, Marin, and Bowen
against the motion.
2.
PZ 91-03
Public Hearing for request of Arthur
E. Gordon to rezone a portion of
Tracts 2A1 & 2A4, S. Richardso
Survey, Abstract 1266, fro eir
present classification ÄG
Agriculture to LR La Retail. This
property is loca on the north side
of Green Val Drive, adjacent to
7901 Gree alley Drive.
Vi hairman Brock opened the Public
aring and called for those wishing
to speak in favor of this request to
please come forward.
Arthur Gordon, 7901 Green Valley
Drive, came forward. He said he moved
here in 1981 and he was in residential
construction and his wife was in the
daycare business. Mr. Gordon said in
1984 he started construction of the
building for a daycare, but the city
discouraged him because it did not go
with the area.
I
I
Ie
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
1
DATE: MARCH 6, 1991
MEMO TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FROM: BARRY LEBARON, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: BURSEY ROAD THOROUGHFARE CLASSIFICATION
GENERAL INFORMATION
At the February 11th, 1991 City Council meeting, three
amendments to the Master Thoroughfare Plan were approved
after recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
commission. These three amendments affected ( 1 ) Bursey
Road, (2) Rumfield Road, and (3) Watauga Road.
During the February 11th Public Hearing, a petition was
presented to the City council by citizens living in the
vicinity of Bursey Road requesting that it be redesignated
as a C-2-U Collector Street rather than retaining the
existing C-4-U Major Collector Street designation as shown
on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. The citizens contend that
a four lane road is unnecessary. Their actions were also
prompted by the City's plan to construct a four lane road
along this route during 1991. The Council agreed to
consider the citizen's petition and requested the Planning
and Zoning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing on the
proposed redesignating of Bursey Road to a C-2-U Collector
Street. Official notice announcing the time, date and
location of the public hearing was placed in the newspaper.
This memo has been prepared by the staff in an attempt to
review all available information regarding the Bursey Road
plan. This memo will also summarize the information for the
public hearing scheduled for March 14, 1991 by the Planning
and Zoning commission.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bursey Road currently extends westward from its intersection
with smithfield Road in North Richland Hills to a point 3/4
mile west of u.S. Hwy. 377 (Denton Highway) within the city
limits of Fort Worth. The cities of Keller and Watauga are
also served by Bursey Road and have an interest in seeing it
widened and improved. A short segment of Bursey Road
extends west from Davis Boulevard, but this small section
does not connect with smithfield Road (although this missing
link is shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan).
The City of North Richland Hills has jurisdiction only over
that portion of Bursey Road from Davis Boulevard to Rufe
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
2
Snow Drive, a distance of 2.1 miles. Approximately two
thirds of this portion of Bursey Road is totally within
North Richland Hills, while the western one third forms a
common border between Keller and North Richland Hills. (All
the right-of-way is located in North Richland Hills.)
Two new subdivisions, Fair Oaks and Ember Oaks, have been
platted along the eastern part of Bursey Road near the
intersections of smithfield Road and Davis Boulevard.
During the platting and development stages of these two
residential addi tions, Bursey Road was widened and
constructed as a four lane facility. The remaining portion
of Bursey Road between the Fair Oaks addition and Rufe Snow
Drive, a distance of one mile, remains as a narrow two lane
"county road". Pending a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning commission and a decision by the ci ty Council,
this remaining one mile segment is scheduled to be widened
and improved during 1991 as either a two lane or four lane
street.
In 1985, the voters of North Richland Hills approved a bond
issue which has provided financing for the Bursey Road
improvements. Construction plans have been completed and
the project is waiting authorization to bid from the city.
Any plans to construct two lanes instead of the originally
planned four lanes will require additional engineering costs
and time delays in preparing new construction plans. A
review of these cost savings is discussed elsewhere in this
memo.
FUTURE LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
The existing zoning pattern of undeveloped land is usually a
very good indicator of future land uses, unless the zoning
is changed prior to development. Approximately one-third of
the area situated along each side of Bursey Road, including
the area in Keller, is currently developed with single
family homes. The majori ty of the area (64% of street
frontage) is undeveloped at the present time. This area is
primarily zoned for single family residential development.
There are two areas zoned for commercial development which
includes approximately 25 acres of property at the western
end of Bursey Road near the intersection of Rufe Snow Drive
and approximately 22 acres at the eastern end of Bursey
Road, near the intersection wi th Davis Boulevard. Keller
also has a 13 acre tract zoned for commercial development at
the northeast corner of Rufe Snow Drive and Bursey Road.
While these areas in Keller and North Richland Hills are
zoned for commercial development, no retail or commercial
development presently exists. The total acreage of these
commercial tracts is not sufficient enough to demand four
lanes of street from an east-west direction. These
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
1
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
3
commercial tracts appear too small to ultimately contain
shopping malls and thus become major traffic generators.
Additionally, these commercial tracts are currently served
by major four lane roads, i.e. Rufe Snow Drive and Davis
Boulevard both having north-south orientation.
Zoning patterns and current development trends along Bursey
Road are quite similar to the development patterns along
Starnes Road and Chapman Road. These routes, like Bursey
Road, extend east and west connecting ma jor north-south
thoroughfares such as Rufe Snow Drive, smithfield Road and
Davis Boulevard. Both Starnes Road and Chapman Road are
currently constructed as C-2-U Minor Collector streets with
41' wide road surfaces. Even though Chapman Road is
designated as a C-4-U Major Collector on the Master
Thoroughfare Plan, the existing curb would have to be
removed and the pavement surface widened to meet the C-4-U
design criteria.
Traffic flows on Bursey Road once the area has developed
should be comparable to those along Starnes and Chapman
Roads, since they have similar development patterns. At the
present time, thought, large areas adjacent to Starnes Road
and Chapman Road remain undeveloped. Traffic flows along
these routes will increase considerably in the future as the
area develops.
EXISTING THOROUGHFARE NETWORK
In 1985, the City of North Richland Hills adopted a
Thoroughfare Plan prepared by PAWA Winkleman and Associates.
This Plan contained criteria for establishing a functional
street classification system and defined a Collector Street
as follows: "Basically a collector "collects" traffic from
local areas and distributes it to the arterial network".
The Plan goes on to state that "a major collector is
normally a four lane undivided street often found in areas
having significant traffic movements such as industrial and
business parks". The area along Bursey Road does not appear
to satisfy the criteria for a four lane street under this
scenario. The Winkleman plan also states that a Major
Collector should normally have a trip length of 1-3 miles.
Using this criteria a four lane facility would be the
appropriate selection. A copy of the recommended
thoroughfare plan and excerpts from the Winkleman Plan are
attached to this memo.
It is not desirable for minor collector streets to form a
continuous network because they will tend to be used as
thoroughfares. Sound thoroughfare planning generally
suggests that minor collectors be spaced at approximately
one-half mile intervals and major collector streets spaced
at approximately one mile intervals. The spacing of east-
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
4
west collector streets in North Richland Hills is consistent
wi th this planning cri teria. Proper spacing of collector
streets is important because the arrangement of collector
and arterial streets has such a significant effect on
residential neighborhoods. Shown in the table below is a
list of all major thoroughfares located in North Richland
Hills which intersect with Rufe Snow Drive.
DISTAllCE
TBOIOOGHFW PA VEIŒI'l' TO BElT
TBOIOOGHFW IWIE CT ,As..c;IFICATIOI mmI COLLEC'l'OI ( 1 )
Loop 820 Interstate HIA 1,400 Ft
Lewis Dr. C-2-U 35' 2,400 Ft.
Trinidad Dr. C-2-U 37' 3,400 Ft.
Watauqa Rd. P-6-D 2 @ 36' 2,600 Ft.
Chapman Rd. C-4-U 41' 2,700 Ft.
Hightower Dr. C-4-U 49' 2,300 Ft.
starnes Rd. C-2-U 41' 4,000 Ft.
Bursey Rd. C-4-U 48'(2) 2,400 Ft.
North Tarrant Pkwy. P-6-D 2 @ 36'(2)
Note: Only major thorouqhfares extendinq east from Rufe Snow included in this table.
(1) Going north beginninq at Loop 820.
( 2 ) Proposed
Source: City Public Works Street Survey
INTER-CITY PLANNING AND COORDINATION
According to available information, Bursey Road has been
designated as a major collector street in every planning
document adopted by the City of North Richland Hills since
1967. All thoroughfare planning documents prepared by the
cities of Keller, North Richland Hills and Watauga indicate
the need for Bursey Road to be constructed as a four lane
facility.
Bursey Road west of Rufe Snow Drive presently exists as a
two lane county road with no curbs. The Thoroughfare Plan
for the City of Watauga shows Bursey Road from Rufe Snow
Drive to u.S. Hwy. 377 as a future major collector, but
without any reference to the number of lanes being proposed.
Conversations with the Watauga City staff suggests that
their planning processes have always considered the future
development of Bursey Road as a four lane facility. The
area adjacent to Bursey Road west of Rufe Snow Drive which
forms a border between Keller and Watauga is a highly
developed residential area with the vacant lands zoned for
residences.
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
5
The City of Keller shows Bursey Road on their thoroughfare
plan as a four lane Arterial route. Keller is supportive of
the plan to make Bursey Road a four lane facility. Attached
to this memo is a letter from the city of Keller expressing
their support and concerns for this project. The cities of
North Richland Hills, Keller and Watauga have agreed to
share in the cost for reconstructing the intersection of
Rufe Snow Drive and Bursey Road. The agreement includes
cost sharing for major drainage improvements at this
intersection.
Based upon the thoroughfare planning that has taken place in
the past and which currently exists in Keller, North
Richland Hills and Watauga, Bursey Road should be
constructed as a four lane collector street. Engineering
construction plans for a four lane facility have already
been prepared. According to an estimate made by Knowlton-
English-Flowers, engineering consultant to the City of North
Richland Hills, cost savings for constructing a two lane
road versus a four lane road are not significant. A copy of
this cost estimate is attached to this memo.
TRAFFIC VOLUME
Since future land uses along Bursey Road are projected to be
similar to those which currently exist along Starnes and
Chapman Roads, it would appear reasonable to assume that
future traffic flows along Bursey Road can be projected by
using current traffic flows along Starnes and Chapman Roads.
Both Starnes and Chapman Roads are two lane facilities with
41' pavement widths serving primarily adjacent residential
neighborhoods. The most recent traffic counts available for
the area were taken in 1986 for Watauga Road, Chapman Road
and Rufe Snow Drive. These traffic counts are shown in the
table below.
SftEft IWIE LOCATIO! VEHICLES PER DAY
Chapman Road Hear Rufe Snow 4,650
Watauqa Road Hear Rufe Snow 10,270
Rufe Snow Between Watauqa Rd. & Chapman Rd. 37,763
Rufe Snow Between Loop 820 & Watauga Rd. 40,763
Source: North Central Texas COG
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
6
ADVANTAGES AND CONSIDERATIONS
A four lane facility offers the following advantages:
Once constructed, any undersizing of the street
will be costly to correct.
Portions of Bursey Road have already been
constructed as a four lane road.
Cost savings for constructing two lanes rather
than four lanes are not significant.
Bursey Road should only serve as a collector to
Rufe Snow, smithfield Road and Davis Boulevard
rather than as a route for "through" traffic.
A four lane road supports and implements inter-
city transportation planning.
Construction plans for a four lane road have
already been prepared.
Financing for a four lane road has already been
obtained.
Once constructed as a two lane facility, the cost
of widening in the future will be considerable.
The ci ty may not have the opportuni ty to widen
Bursey Road in the future once the area has been
fully developed.
The review of new subdivisions has reserved
sufficient right-of-way for a four lane road.
A four lane road contributes to the availability
of adequate east-west traffic in the northern part
of the city.
There are many obstacles in the way of completing
the North Tarrant Parkway.
While the evidence is not conclusive, there appear to be
some advantages of constructing a two lane road and these
are as follows:
Lower total construction costs for building two
lanes instead of four lanes.
When completed, North Tarrant Parkway should serve
major east-west "through" traffic demand.
1'1
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
7
Less right-of-way will be required for a two lane
road.
A two lane road should have lower traffic counts
through the area.
A two lane road will satisfy local neighborhood
objections to the proposed four lane facility.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Unfortunately, an evaluation of all the factors considered
in this memo provides no clear cut choice for selecting two
or four lanes on Bursey Road. In fact, the factors which
favor one choice over the other appear to be nearly equal;
but the factors do slightly tend to favor four lanes over
two lanes. For example, once constructed as a two lane
facility, the costs to widen Bursey Road to four lanes in
the future will be magnified. A significant advantage to
proceed with a four lane facility now is the fact that
recently developed properties have been platted with
sufficient right-of-way to accommodate a four lane road.
There is genuine concern that North Tarrant Parkway may
never be completed beyond its present two lane configuration
and thus only serve to function as a minor collector street
rather than as its original design to serve as a ma jor
thoroughfare. If the City of North Richland Hills chooses
to build Bursey Road as a two lane street and North Tarrant
Parkway is not completed as proposed, then there may be a
serious deficiency in the number of lanes available for
east-west access in the future.
There is another excellent option available to the City of
North Richland Hills which merits serious consideration.
This option consists of proceeding with construction of the
street as currently designed and striping Bursey Road with a
middle left turn lane. Other minor collector streets in
North Richland Hills, such as Chapman Road, Bedford-Euless
Road and starnes Road have sufficient traffic volumes that
hinder left turning movements onto local residential
streets. Furthermore, the ends of Bursey Road near the
areas currently zoned for commercial should be constructed
as four lanes to allow for adequate access into these
properties.
The City of North Richland Hills employed the firm Planning
Resources Group to review land uses along Bursey Road to
include in this analysis. A copy of the letter response
from Planning Resources Group is attached to this memo.
Planning Resources Group also pointed out the lack of clear
cut evidence in support of ei ther the two lane or four
lanes. Their analysis comments on the potential for
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
8
addi tional east-west traff ic capaci ty associated wi th the
development of new commercial and employment centers at the
new Alliance Airport.
The supporting information seems to indicate that Bursey
Road should be constructed as either a three lane road with
a middle left turn lane or a four lane facility as
originally planned.
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
5485 Belt Line Road, Suite 199
Dallas, Texas 75240
USA
Phone: (214) 991-1900
Fax: (214) 490-9261
Metro: 263-9138
March 8, 1991
Mr. M. Barry LeBaron, AICP
Director Community Development
City of North Richland Hills, Texas
P.O. Box 820809
7301 N.E. Loop 820
North Richland Hills, TX 76182
Subject:
Bursey Road Functional Classification
Dear Barry:
Barton-Aschman is pleased to have this opportunity to provide our services in the area of
thoroughfare planning. This is one of our strongest practice areas and we have had significant
planning experience in Texas as well as around the country. The attached experience brief
presents selected examples of our work in this area.
The Bursey Road situation reflects the complex questions that often evolve in thoroughfare
planning. As cities grow in relation to adjacent cities, the functional classification of streets,
especially collectors, are sometimes unclear. Although this is avoidable with comprehensive
planning for new areas, it is difficult to achieve in fringe areas where land use and regional
thoroughfare plans change. Such is the case with the Bursey Road area. As a result there
are conflicting reasons for and against Bursey Road's existence as a four lane collector.
Our review has identified the following considerations that are pertinent to Bursey's ultimate
classification.
Findings in support of two lane adequacy (C2U):
1. Current NCTCOG projected traffic assignments do not assign more than 5,000 vpd to
this section of Bursey Road.
2. Most of the existing and projected land use adjacent to Bursey Road is low density,
residential, with the exception of small commercial parcels at Rufe Snow and at Davis
Boulevard.
3. North Tarrant Parkway (Wilson) is proposed as a major arterial approximately 1 /2 mile
north of Bursey. Most east-west traffic through the area will be drawn to the major
arterial. In terms of spacing the logical need for a C4U facility would be half way
between North Tarrant Parkway and Watauga Road; which would be in the vicinity of
Starnes.
4. The City's standard for a C2U would accommodate provisions for two lane approach
operations to provide a left turn lane at Rufe Snow if needed.
(bJ
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Mr. M. Barry LeBaron, AICP
March 8,1991
Page 2
5. The discontinuance of Bursey Road east of Davis lessens the likelihood of traffic
growing beyond current assignments (mentioned above), unless provisions for North
Tarrant Parkway are not carried through.
In support of four lane (C4U) need:
1. Bursey Road has for some time been designated by the City's planning efforts as a four
lane facility. As a result, some existing sections have been built to the C4U standard.
2. The combined length of Bursey in North Richland Hills, Keller, and Watauga make it a
longer collector than normally planned.
3. Adjacent City planning efforts have designated Bursey Road as a future thoroughfare
or arterial, both suggesting at least a four lane capacity.
4. If constructed as a C4U, it can be operated as a two lane facility except at major
intersections, where it would be appropriate to fully stripe and utilize approach
capacity.
5. If North Tarrant County Parkway is not continued across the region, then Bursey's role
as a carrier of through traffic could be expected to pick up some as the area develops
to the north.
In light of these considerations, the following conclusions and recommendations are made:
1. If existing land-use and circumstances allowed, it would be appropriate to make
Starnes a C4U or M4U from Davis Boulevard westward to US 377. This would be
more consistent spacing for such a facility between North Tarrant Parkway and
Watauga Road. It would also be a more consistent continuation of Rumfield (M4U).
The frontage of existing residential property on Starnes west of Douglas, however,
would tend to discourage such an upgrade.
2. With the completion of North Tarrant Parkway, there should not be a future need for
four lane capacity on Bursey in North Richland Hills, other than possibly at the
approaches to Rufe Snow and Davis Boulevard.
3. The extension of North Tarrant Parkway seems to be a key question in regard to the
future need for Bursey Road as a four lane facility in North Richland Hills and the
adjacent Cities of Keller and Watauga.
4. If the North Tarrant Parkway facility can be taken as a future reality, then the character
of Bursey seems to be more a question of cost-effectiveness and practicality, than
need. It is a matter of weighing the relative cost of plan revisions and the
constructions costs of building a four lane section vs. the necessity of transitioning to
existing four lane sections and the cost of construction for a two lane section. In
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Mr. M. Barry LeBaron, AICP
March 8,1991
Page 3
either case, they could be operated as two lane facilities between important
intersections with additional lanes provided on approaches to intersections.
5. It is suggested that it may be more practical, although more expensive, to construct
the 4CU section and to operate it as a two lane facility with additional lanes at
intersections. This would allow more flexibility in the future if the North Tarrant
Parkway i.s not completed and assumes that Starnes cannot be expanded in lieu of
Bursey.
I hope this input will be of use to you. If you have any questions or desire further discussion
let me know. We appreciate very much the opportunity to work with you.
Sincerely,
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
~.~e ins, P.E.
Senior Associate
RWJ:rmb
encl.
jenkins\lebaron.391
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
1/fI'~· ",' .~",."!,,.,
,-- ~ -, . '" ...
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
-
t_
..
..
..
..
..
·
·
·
·
·
·
I
~
t M6D, S~DY
i T1......., "- ___ i ~
~I ~I ~ I --,.
M4D WILSON RD'. 0' q,ro , 1
.-'. - .. --'.--1 :::> I
~~~~_.;~...~:~. 0 Ó:r-r, _
BURSEY RD l_j_ ~, ____ "'-..~
.- ì I ~ ! ::;:f I~::> I ~"'~
- \ \J (\ ....""[ ~ '.01 ''ù ~ I
~,L O\t~ ~I 1 (b2U II -== iA.,
s- ::) Jb~ I ~ - ~u· IUf rir¡ I--~ U J
- .~ U·N .- I 9' 1H ( v
!2: RQ. , I ~ C2lt.W J ~ h ::) .
êq: s1 ¡ nlJ w -q- g ~
i ~~~~ ~ ~ i C4U L:1d._ ~ 1-.:. i /:
o - ~~~!~~ ,r~,!] .J ~Q_I~~_ ~
~ HIGHTOWERi RD ~~U-j ~ - ~~;:) Ii! 0 ~
- ~I r~ ~- =f tf ~' ~ ci' ¡ ~ ~
- UI rt n ~ ~~ ~ f
C4U . 0
T t L -----1 CHAPMAN , ~ '/ J \. ~ ItJAATIN
~.~ -Vi Il 1\ TC2U_ _
- I~ f?:Wa 6 ~:~ 1 :---:-
P6D ~~r ~I ~I~: I~
- r....~,.. .. ,...---î____o' 0 ..0111 ,..
~ ~~~--r=.-. \'\/1~ ~ I -1/____ ~
~r; - ~ '"~- ,z
,"--;? Jf~~_ '"~ i I
{ C~ 119~~ ~rffi~~' \~H!t "
"î (> , '.(R'O';NING .. t TTTTr ~.~ == lI: r~~'4~ ~ ðroQ
r : ~ !!> - !II I ~ L ~, \\ I -- '1'(' "
~ ~ I ~ "'~ g Jfe:IS ~"'I" ~.~ ~ jr. r;rn ooð:
\ : ,.: vÞc~ \ a.. Õ ~ ,~ \.... r 1~
IJ-..---. I ~. I .,.. trr"Ei~ 111 r h'-= ~ _./..../'~
- ~~ T ,- - ~ r:::::"",!!! ~ ...,., ~~ H "\ 2 '\
~U.S.-820 - "- : ~.' _nØ~=-· ~ J 1 ~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~~ ~ s-
,) ,C\¡ I. ,...~ il ;:) ~ - 'a.. I:;; IV -<'1 ~ ~ _ '- M5U
. \ () -\.." Q!I~ c; 'ti..EÞ ~ ~~I .. _
~,. C2U ~ ~ II ~ ~~.l,. i~.. -- .:...~~. FOjRD-LeULESS RD
;1- -..,..~ -:1 "'= _ ~ ~ I~I ~: >- ~"
'\ "<lJ [fr. r!'\1 'GO! 1\:1'" ~ CD I .... I \ '" 'b \ ;:) r:;::1 ,~ I
T{~ I).. ---.. "'v n ~ - ... ... t¿,~ " ~ ~ ~, I >x--f:::
)\~ S; f1~ Msuì<~L Y"
~ ~( :) ~Y ì I, _ ..~~ GLÐJVIEW DR ..~ I ~
~i7-p~~. 0 =T(~~~~~ \1. ~
-1:~2W r 7 ~<-
- ~r1II!~ _'\ r-¿
-< ~i~ -
~)V'
Not to scale !
I
I
~~
CITY OF
North Richland Hills
LEGEND
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
MINOR ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
P6D
M4D
C4U
----
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
.
-
..
....,J
:>
~
-.J
:r;
u
.u
C)
c
~
~
Y)
C)
Q.
:~
....,J
~
....,J
u
C'Ö
~
:J
ë..=
:J
Ç)
~
Cfì
~
o
,-
o
~
~
c::
CD
U)
C)
v
(l)
..::
:...
o
~
'J)
C)
c::
.......
C)
u
5D .~
-C
C
~v
~
C,)
:...
u
.
C)
,......
.0
c"j
E-
c
c
3:
o
-=
if.
-
o
....,J
C"j
()
¿::
r.fj
u:
~
U
.
~
:..:.J
.,
---t
rv'\
~
~
rn
~
Z
~
~
~
o
.......
::>
o
z
o
Ë=
<
u
-
~
ü3
r.fJ
~
.,
~
U
E-
~
~
~
E-
r.fJ
.
J::
~+J
.- bD
t.. c::
~ Q)
~
c:
o
<1).-
"'O+J
co Cj
:.... '-
O~
Q)
rn
en~
en 0
<1) '-
U......,
U c
~8
(fJ
Q)
o c:
Zj
.
c:
ctj
1:'
Q)
~
-=::.
c:
o
.....,
~
()
~
(fJ
(fJ
~
u
(fJ
OJ
~
~
+
o
~
en
Q)
~
(fJ
Q)
~
(fJ
Q)
>-.
o
r"""1
I
~
>.
cÖ
~
C)
Q)
'-
µ..
.
en
Q)
~
~
o
r-4
I
Uj
en
Q)
~
Q)
E
o
en
cÖ
+oJ
~
co
~
00
to
co
Q.
u
c::
:...
~
co
-
<l)
~
~
~
en
Q)
.......
~
~
Uj
I
M
o
Z
"-...
(fJ
Q)
~
~
Q)
~
cÖ
+oJ
t...
cÖ
~
~
:-
o
c:
:2
co
-
C,)
~
~
<
en
Q)
;2
M
I
r-4
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
~
:...
o
. r--.
:t
¿.
:-
o
..-J
U
CJ
o
U
Q)
Q)
~
~
:2
~
"-...
M
~
"-...
r-1
t..
Q)
"'0
C
::>
~
Q)
"0
c:
:::J
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
c
o
Z
o
Z
C'1
C'J
:...
o
c:
¿.
:...
o
.-.J
(J
V
o
U
C'ù
V
o
-:¡
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
February 22, 1991
Mr. Barry LeBaron, AICP
Director of Community Development
P.O. Box 820609
North Richland Hills, TX 76182
Dear Barry,
I appreciate the opportunity to respond regarding the
proposal to downgrade the planned sizing of Bursey Road from a
four-lane to a two-lane collector. It appears that this would be
an issue of concern within the City of Keller.
You may be aware that many citizens of Keller, as well as
Southlake and Colleyville, are fearful of the possible develop-
ment of a freeway along the alignment of the North Tarrant
Parkway, also known as Wilson Road in Keller. Downgrading the
carrying capacity of Bursey Road would transfer traffic to the
North Tarrant Parkway, thus heightening the possibility for a
freeway along this alignment. We see this as damaging to the
City of Keller.
In response to your proposal and in accordance with an
understanding between our two cities, the City of Keller recently
resolved to participate with your city to improve Bursey Road,
both by means of direct financial expenditure and by allowing you
to assess property owners within Keller. These agreements and
resolutions were based on Bursey Road being a four-lane facility.
If Bursey Road is downgraded to a two-lane facility, we would no
longer be interested in this participation.
Please contact me if I can provide further information or
otherwise be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Bill Thomas
Director of Community Development
158 MAIN STREET · P.O. BOX 770 · KELLER, TEXAS 76248 · (817) 431-1517
I JJP IF{ oL p-Iannina : resources :g!2!:!P
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
P.O. Box 370
Burleson, Tx., 76028
T81e: (817) 457-1107 _
February 28, 1991
Mr. Rodger Line
City Manager
City of North Richland Hills
P.O. Box 18609
North Richland Hills, Texas 76180
RE: Proposed Changes To Bursey Road
Dear Mr. Line:
It is our understanding that the City of North Richland Hillshas recently made several
modifications to the Thoroughfare Plan. Among these modifications is the changed
alignment of the section of Bursey Road east of Davis Boulevard to intersect with
Wilson Road, thereby essentially stopping the western section of Bursey Road at its
intersection with Davis Boulevard.
CENTRAL QUESTION:
It is our understanding that the central question is that, since this changed alignment
of Bursey Road at Davis Boulevard has been approved and implemented, will the
interruption of "through traffic" on Bursey Road result in a reduced traffic volume that
could justify the re-designation of the western section of Bursey Road to a 2-lane
minor collector (C2U) from its current designation as a 4-lane major collector (C4U)?
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Currently the existing portion of Bursey Road, between Rufe Snow Drive and Davis
Boulevard, serves as a residential collector street. Existing land uses to the north
and south of the existing and proposed roadway alignment are primarily residential
and/or agricultural. Commercial zoning exists only at major intersections with
principal arterials and it is likely that future land use planning efforts will continue to
limit commercial development to these locations. Although the entire length of Bursey
Road is yet to be developed, the portions along Bursey where development has
occurred have been constructed to the design standards of a 4-lane major collector.
Other portions of Bursey, where the roadway exists but where development of land
adjacent to the roadway has not occurred, exists as a two (2) lane county road. This
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
t Mr. Rodger Line
February 28, 1991
Page 2 of 4
two lane portion has been planned for expansion by the Thoroughfare Plan.
ANALYSIS
Bursey Road currently serves as a collector street and will probably continue to serve
the predomanantly residential neighborhoods immediately adjacent to it as a collector
street. In this capacity it feeds local residential traffic in the immediate area to the
north-south arterials (Rufe Snow Drive; Holiday Lane; Smithfield Road; and Davis
Boulevard). This is due partially to the fact that the majority of the attractions or
"destination points" for the local residentially generated traffic lie to the south and
east of this area; but primarily because access to east-west destinations suell as
major commercial and employment centers, can not be made directly from Bursey
Road. Therefore, traffic wanting access to major east-west arterials and freeways
must utilize the closest north-south collectors and arterials to get there.
For these reasons Bursey Road will probably not ever carry very much local "through II
traffic, that is traffic that does not have an origin or destination point in the immediate
area. This would probably be true even if Bursey Road kept its original alignment as
shown on the Thoroughfare Plan, and continued to Precinct Line Road. Until such time
as the North Tarrant Parkway is completed, hopefully providing east-west access from
I-35W to SH 121, the only major east-west arterials and freeways in the immediate
vicinity of North Richland Hills are Keller-Grapevine Road (1709) to the far north;
State Highway 26; and the Loop 820 - State Highway 121/183 system.
As development of commercial and employment centers continues in north Tarrant
County in the vicinity of the Alliance Airport, there is the potential for increased traffic
movement west on Bursey Road; however, this increase in traffic would not
necessarily constitute "through" traffic in any significant volumes, and in any case
would be very difficult to project.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The City of North Richland Hills has established the precedent of desired location
and design standards for roadways within the City as per the adopted
Thoroughfare Plan. This plan demonstrates the designation of collector streets
serving areas similar to that along the proposed alignment of Bursey Road as
appropriate for a 4-lane major collector (C4U). It is apparent that a decision was
made that this was the desired roadway configuration for this type of area in North
Richland Hills as further evidenced by Hightower Drive and Chapman Road, hence
the designation on the current Thoroughfare Plan of Bursey Road as a 4-lane major
collector (C4U). Stopping the western segment of Bursey Road at Davis
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
a Mr. Rodger Line
February 28, 1991
Page 3 of 4
Boulevard should not affect the character of the neighborhoods adjacent to this
segment of Bursey Road and should therefore satisfy the original rationale in its
designation as a C4U roadway.
2. Because Bursey Road is now not planned to extend past Davis Boulevard, it
should not ever be attractive to significant volumes of "through" traffic and
therefore it will probably never serve a major function in the regional thoroughfare
system as an alternate east-west traffic reliever.
3. Rough estimates of potential traffic volumes generated by the residential areas to
the immediate north and south of the Bursey Road alignment indicate that the
general design capacity for a 2-lane minor collector should not be exceeded,
assuming:
a. Through traffic is not significant; and
b. Locally generated traffic generally exits Bursey Road at the
nearest north-south collector or arterial.
4. The designation of the Bursey Road segment east of Davis Boulevard as a 4-lane
major collector (C4U) is appropriate since the proposed alignment, including
Wilson Road, serves properties predominately zoned for commercial, office and
high density residential uses.
RECOMMENDA TION
As a result of our analysis of the configuration of the planned area roadways, the
existing and planned area land uses, and the proposed modifications to the
Thoroughfare Plan, a clear-cut recommendation is difficult to obtain.
Recommendation 1: Bursey Road should be developed and striped as a two lane
roadway.
It is our opinion that a 2-lane minor collector (C2U) should technically be adequate to
serve the area adjacent to the proposed alignment of Bursey Road between Rufe
Snow Drive and Davis Boulevard, based on the adjacent land uses, the projected
potential traffic volumes, and the traffic distribution patterns.
And;
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
· Mr. Rodger Line
February 28, 1991
Page 4 of 4
Recommendation 2: Bursey Road should be constructed consistent with current
standards as exists in recent developments (C4U), but be striped as a two lane
roadway.
If the City wishes to maintain the continuity of the rationale behind the adopted
Thoroughfare Plan designation, as well as the aesthetics and enhanced marketability
of a uniform roadway width through a developing residential area, then Bursey Road
should retain its C4U designation. From a land use and planning perspective, the
continuity of the existing developed roadway, whether it was striped for a four lane or
a two lane roadway would be preferred. Even though the two lane roadway would be
the size of a C4U roadway, it is doubtful that it will actually ever carry a sufficient
volume of traffic to justify a four lane roadway.
Or;
Recommendation 3: Bursey road should transition between existing C4U road
widths and C2U road widths but retain two lanes throughout the entire roadway.
It is our understanding that right of way necessary for a C4U roadway has not been
acquired along the entire proposed route of Bursey Road. That being the case, an
alternative whose feasibility needs to be determined by the City's engineer, would be
to maintain the general appearance of continuous pavement width by using a reduced
pavement width within the existing right of way and striping the already built 4-lane
portions of Bursey Road for 2-lanes with parking.
If there are any questions or comments regarding this report please do not hesitate to
contact us at your convenience.
Respectfully,
Dan C. Boutwell, AICP
Partner
·
I ~'
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
~I
r--:
, , ^.~ r-) ....)
C---- L-\ I~ ~ i
4
,~-;. ,~~ ,20 N
KNOWL TON-ENGLlSH-FLOWERS, INC.
CONSUL TING ENGINEERS / Fort Worth-Dallas
March 4, 1991
Mr. Greg Dickens, P.E., Dir. of Public Yorks
City of North Ri£hland Hills
7301 N.E. Loo~ 820
North Richland Hills, Texas 76180
Re: 3-341, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
BURSEY ROAD PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
COSTS TO REVIS FROM 4 TO 2 LANES
As instructed, we have prepared a preliminary estimate of costs associated
with revising Bursey Road from a 4-1ane to a 2-lane design. The following is
a summary of these estimated costs:
ITEM 4-LANE COST 2-LANE COST
1 . Extra Surveying/ROY Doc. S 0 S 3,500
2. Extra Engineering 0 23,000
3. ROW Acquisition 57,800 32,000
4. Paving Costs 973,000 869,600
5. Assessment Collections 442,000 397,000
COST SAVINGS
( S 3,500 )
( 23,000)
25,800
103,400
( 45,000)
TOTAL COST SAVINGS
S 57,700
1. EXTRA SURVEYING/ROW DOCUMENTS
Although the current right-of-way width varies along Bursey Road, it
averages about 54-feet. For a 4-1ane, 48-foot street, the proposed
right-at-way is about 68-toot wide. The additional right-of-way required
is about 7-feet on each side. For a 2-1ane, 40-foot street, a
right-of-way width of at least 60-feet is required. Reducing the
proposed street from 4 to 2 lanes would reduce the right-at-way
requirement about 4 feet on each side. A total of 23 Parcels of land
must be acquired to provide the proper widening. The extra Surveying and
Right-of-Vay Document revision cost is about $150 per parcel, or a total
of about $3,500.
2. EXTRA ENGINEERING COST
The current construction plans consist of a total of 43 sheets. Changing
the paving width from 48-feet to 40-feet will require revision of 33
sheets. Each sheet costs about $700 each to revise, including
1901 CENTRAL DR., SUITE 550 · BEDFORD, TEXAS 76021 · 817/283-6211 · METRO/267-3367
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
March 4, 1991
BURSEY ROAD REVISIONS
Page
2
recalculation of construction quantities. Reducing the pavement width
will necessitate redesign and relocation of some proposed storm drains,
water lines, and sanitary sewer mains. Also, some curb grades will
change since the proposed curb split in several locations will have to be
decreased due to reduced pavement width. All cross-section sheets and
driveway grade sheets will require revisions. Ve would note that the
Engineering Budget, which includes surveying, totals $114,000.
Expenditures for engineering to date totals about $74,000, and surveying
costs to date total about $12,000, for a combined total of $86,000. The
remaining budget of $28,000 appears sufficient to cover the additional
engineering and surveying revision costs.
3. ROV ACQUISITION
Attached is a tabulation prepared by your ROV Agent, Mark Bradley, which
lists the required ROV Parcel Information and shows a comparison of the
48-foot street ROV costs versus the 40-foot ROV costs. The estimated ROW
acquisition costs for the 48-foot street, based on TAD Values, totals
$69,637, and $39,623 for a 40-foot street, or a difference of $30,014.
The estimated ROV acquisition costs for the 48-foot street, based on ROV
Agent Values, totals $57,789, and $31,980 for a 40-foot street, or a
difference of $25,809.
4. PAVING COSTS
As shown in the attached Assessment Rate Calculation letter, the reduced
pavement width from 48-feet to 40-feet, reduces the estimated paving cost
from $97.76 per linear foot to $81.05 per linear foot. The total cost
reduction is about 6,199 feet X $16.71 per L.F., or about $103,600.
5. ASSESSMENT COLLECTIONS
Attached are summary tabulations showing the assessments to adjacent
property owners using the current assessment policy method versus the new
proposed assessment policy method. One summary table shows these
assessments for a 48·foot street and the other is based on a 40-foot
street. The following table is a summary of the assessment totals for
each method:
STREET VIDTH METHOD 1 METHOD 2 DIFFERENCE
48-FOOT FIF $760,947 $442,007 $318,940
40-FOOT FIF 678,465 396,990 281,475
DIFFERENCES $ 82,482 $ 45,017
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
March 4, 1991
BURSEY ROAD REVISIONS
Page
3
The effect of the five (5) items listed above is to reduce the total project
costs about $57,700. The project will be delayed about 3 months as required
for surveying and engineering changes if the street is changed from 4-lane to
2-lane.
Please call if you have any questions.
~w,~
RICHARD Y. ALBIN, P.E.
RVA/lld/Enclosures
cc: Hr. Rodger N. Line, City Manager
Hr. Dennis Horvath, Deputy City Manager
~Hr. Barry LeBaron, Director of Community Development
Mr. Mark Bradley, R.O.Y. Agent
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
l'.¡Iarch 12, 1991
Plannin{! and Zoning Cornission
)Iayor and Ci ty Council
I will be unable to attend the hearing on the reconstruction
of Burs ey Rd. I have the following cOTnrnents I would like for you
to consider.
If this hearing is for the purpose of determining the width
of Bursey Rd. then the hearing is not necessary as this was determi-
ned at a public hearing when the city master plan was adopted.
As a rnat-:er of fact i t may be illegal to hold a public hearing
except for the purpose of assessment of property owners.
I strongly urge you to follow the master plan for Bursey ~d.
which calls for a 4 lane roadway. r:rhe present rnaster plan was in
effect \vhen 1nost people ~noved to this area. So!ne of deterTnined
that \Ale \vould have good access to our property when this street
\vas irnproved.. [i-his rneans that our property values would not go
down for lack of adequate s~ree~ access. ~his street has a lot
of traffic a~ the present time and this will increase quiet a bit
when the street is irnproved. If the street is only 2 lanes this
would be unsafe and cause congestion when people in subdivisions
try to access and !nin~le with the thru traffic. Some subdivisions
along Bursey only have this one way in and out.
'Two seg'nents of this street have already been built 4 lanes
wide. As you know transitions from 4 lanes to 2 lanes create
traffic hazzards and this could cause the city unnecessary liability.
It should be noted that this is not designated as a rnajor
arterial street but a 4 lane collector street. The purpose of a
collector street as I understand it is for the local subdivision
traffic to get to the rnaj or arterials safely.
At one ti!ne before the present roaster plan was adopted this
street \vas planned as a rnajor arterial. Since this \vas planned so
rnany years ago Tnost hornes along Bursey have been set back enough
distance to allow for a 4 lane street. If you look at other 4
lane streets in the city they work well with the neighborhoods.
(Harwood Rd., New portion of Srni thfi eld Rd., Rufe Snow N. end)
I urge you to follow the 'naster plan and irnprove Bursey Rd.
as a h lane collector street. If this is not done then you should
advertise properly throughout the whole city and ~ive notice of
a change in the rnaster plan.
Sincerly,
~
9~~2 ~~~~~~ord Lane
N. Richland Hills, Tx. 76180
485_-6725
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
March 14, 1991
Dear Mr. Wood and the Planning & Zoning Commission,
First, I would like to thank the commission for the work you
do on many difficult issues that affect all of us. I believe
that the issue at hand, whether to change Bursey Rd. from a
C4U to a C2U, will not be a difficult decision after examining
the facts.
I strongly support the designation of Bursey Rd. as a C2U
thoroughfare for the following reasons:
1. Future Traffic Needs: It is my belief that the North
Tarrant Parkway (which is only 1/2 mile north of Bursey Rd.)
should be the main east-west thoroughfare through this area
of N. Richland Hills. The planned 6 lane parkway should
handle any amount of projected traffic, therefore decreasing
the importance of Bursey Rd. as an east-west thoroughfare.
The completion of N. Tarrant Parkway through to Rufe Snow will
actually decrease traffic volume on Bursey Rd. Commuters
from Watauga and Keller will no longer need to use Bursey Rd.
and Smithfield Rd. to gain access to N. Tarrant Parkway.
2. Economic: I realize that money has already been spent on
the plans for a 4 lane Bursey Rd. However, much of the funds
spent already are fixed costs that would have needed to be
spent to improve the road regardless of whether it is 4 or 2
lane. Furthermore, the taxpayer money that would be saved
by constructing a new 2 lane road would more than cover any
money that will be required to redraw the plans (which I
believe is performed by computer-aided design systems).
Money would be saved in right of way purchases, new drainage
systems and actual road costs. Lastly, I do not believe that
the taxpayers of N. Richland Hills should pay for the expansion
of a road that would benefit commuters of other towns, especially
when these other municipalities have not completed their sections
of the N. Tarrant Parkway.
3. Safety: Widening of Bursey Rd. to 4 lanes may increase the
speed limit through this primarily residential area. Even if
posted speed limits are not increased, people will generally
travel faster on a wider road, thus putting children from
adjacent developments at a greater risk. I also believe that
limited sight distances in the vicinity of Hunter Lane and
Bursey Rd. is another argument for slower speed limits. In terms
of police and fire response, a 2 lane road has allowed suf-
ficient access in the past and should continue to do so in the
future.
4. Environmental: Many people talk about doing something for
the environment, but rarely do they get a chance to actually
do something about it. By limiting the new Bursey Rd. to
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
2 lanes, you will save up to 25-30 mature oaks from destruction,
as well as maintaining the semi-rural beauty along sections of
Bursey Rd.
5. Property Value: I believe that a case can be made that
shows a 4 lane road through a residential area will adversely
affect the property value of both homes on and in adjacent
developments to Bursey Rd. I do not believe that this would be
fair to current residents for the sake of outside commuters.
In summary, it is not often the case in which the Planning and
Zoning Commission can satisfy the wishes of the community and
at the same time spend a smaller amount of funds. I believe
that this is one such case.
The attached petition was signed by 200 residents who live on~
or near Bursey Rd. These people are well educated and know
what is best for their neighborhood. Therefore, by designating
Bursey Rd. as a two lane road, you will help all taxpayers in
N. Richland Hills as well as residents in the Bursey Rd. area.
Thank you,
~ 1l1.~
Kevin Beatty
7901 Kendra Lane
N. Richland Hills, TX
cc: Mayor Tom Brown
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
7916 Kendra Lane
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
February 2, 1991
Mayor Tom Brown
City of North Richland Hills
7301 N.E. Loop 820
N. Richland Hills, TX 76180
Dear Mayor Brown:
We are concerned about the plans for Bursey Road!
It is our understanding that there are plans to widen Bursey Road to four lanes. We find ourselves
wondering about the logic of such a plan. For example:
· East/west traffic along Bursey is relatively light. If a dramatic increase in traffic is expected,
from where would it come and to where would it go? There are no major roads or attractions
on the east end of Bursey that would merit a tour-Ianed road tram Rufe Snow.
· Bursey Road to the west at Rute Snow and Keller-Smithfield Road (into which Bursey feeds)
are both two-Ianed roads. Having a four-Ianed road between the two seems odd. The four-
laned stretch of Bursey that already exists is under-utilized.
· There are plans for a six-Ianed road just to the north of Bursey and a widening of Wautaga
Road to the south. So many major east/west roads through residential areas can only be
detrimental to property values.
Yes, property values are probably our major concern. We, like anyone, are seeking to protect our
investment. But we must also look realistically at the need for such an improvement. Bursey Road is
unquestionably in dire need of repair (from Hunter to Rufe Snow). A four-Ianed road, however, does not
appear to be the most pragmatic or cost-effective solution.
We are in full support at an improved, two-Ianed Bursey Road. We oppose a four -Ianed improvement.
~"i~Cj " ~
: 1~ f<"" - ¿-'l/
¿/ Lans P. Rothfusz vL__
~LJ/MJJu~
Kathryn J. Rothfusz [)
cc: Kevin Beatty, Bursey Road Committee
I ' ·
I
1M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
\0·' :'\ u.L ~ \llq\
~ ~ ~ f\' ~ Q )
~~~~ \l~) ~A~
~~~~~~(tL ~ ~
~~ R~ 'd~~~~ ~~
\.ÅA.)~ ~~ ~~)y . / -
~ 0J.A. ~ ~ d:o 10ctc,vu ~
~(¿. ~ 0Y\-~ ~~~.
\Q~~~~~~
J-,~~~~~-~~s
~~Ò~~6~~~
'-1'2~ ~ r ~
~o ~ ~~~ V"YV\~ L( ~~
\JA/~~ ~ ~~~
~>.. r 'J.J'.S) ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ clö ct:,L ~ ob
ß1\~- <gOls> ~)l~ ~~ ~
Ö\Ð\~ \.."w ~~. 0
~ clo 0.v~ t1.J ~~
~&-~~ ~ ~~~4- Q
~ ~~~ ~ ~ . '. .
~~, ~~
1~
'1~OD ~~ kQd
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
3-- /~- 9/
Zð
aY--
~ ~ ~'^-'L L{J~
~~ ~?
~
-;L ___Þ' ~ ~~ .
I
! I
J
:
~I
þ .
,Or.",'" ~" ..','., , ; ._.; "" ", .,....'.,,;-. ,~.:.. "(.,,,:'.7,;' p¡;;l,;,I'" ;>¡.,.:,;..;~ 0, r.~~.~4:,..~~~~4.w'¿'~;V.f¡,'~~;"t.~~~~'~'~~.f.l~¡~~~~~~j_\=.,,·~ :;~.~t.:~~~_;:..'t.\~W~~~'
1
I
BURSEY ROAD COMMITTEE
Dear Neighbors of Bursey Road:
I ~. This is an open letter to provide you with infonnation concerning the future plans of the City ofNonh Richland Hills for Bursey
~oad. These plans may very well affect your property size, your property value, as well as many aspects of our neighbomood.
Current city plans callfor:
1. Bursey Road to become a 4 lane undivided road with a road surface width of 48' and a right of way of 70'. (current
road width approx. 25', most expansion would occur on south side of existing road.)
2. Work could begin as early as 1992.
3. A bond sale to finance construction this year.
4. Plans, although fairly complete, have not yet been fmalized.
During an infonnal poll of some of our neighbors who live on or near Bursey, we found unanimous support for an improved
2 lane road as opposed to a 4 lane road for the following reasons:
1. A 4 lane road would encourage an increased volume of unwanted thru traffic, leading to:
Increased danger to children who use the road during outside activities.
Degradation of quiet residential atmosphere currently enjoyed by developments adjacent to Bursey Road. Please
note other developments located on other main thoroughfares (Le. Rufe Snow, Watauga Road) and the effect of
increased ttaffic on these residential areas.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I Name
I Street Address
2. Loss of yard frontage for homes on Bursey Road.
Leading to a loss of value in these homes, a loss which will "ripple out" to other homes in adjacent developments.
3. A 4 lane road may encourage commercial development along vacant land on Bursey Road. (Some land is already
zoned for commercial use, east of Rufe Snow on Bursey)
4. An improved 21ane road would be less expensive to construct than the proposed 4lane; thus, saving all tllxpayers
money.
s. Environmentally, a significant number of mature oak trees would be lost along Bursey Road with the 4 lane road;
none would be lost with an improved 2 lane road.
If you agree with any or all of the reasons for limiting the new Bursey Road to 2 lanes, now is the time to express your opinion
to the City ofNonh Richland Hills. Feel free to contact the Mayor, City Manager or Public Works Director at 281-0041 or just
provide your name, signature and address below. These sheets will be picked up in the next few days and turned into the city
govemment...your government. Please express your opinion. They are interested in what you want in your community.
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me at:
Bursey Road Committee
c/o Kevin Beatty
7901 Kendra Lane (comer of Bursey and Kendra)
577-0772
Thank. you very much.
------------------------------------------
I4Íhone (optional)
Signature
I
I
I
It
I
3 .
I
6.
..
10.
I:
13.
I:
16.
I:
20.
I'
2.
I:
I:
30.
I:
33.
I:
37.
I:
40.
I:
43.
I:
47.
~
I
PETITION FILED AGAINST THE WIDENING OF BURSEY ROAD
MARCH 14, 1991
Nancy & Andy Legault
Brian & Jo Ann Sikorski
Hugh & Yumi Etzell
Robert & Shawn Hyde
Celeste & Andrew John
R.T. & Katrina Matson
Eric & Linda (Houston) Williamson
Thomas & Patsy Hodge
Ken & Virginia Jendel
Elaine McCallion
George & Denise Parrott
Rita R. Frisque
Michael P. Hutchison
Mary & Ed Sholty
Mike & Valerie Province
Mr. & Mrs. Edward J. Mahoney
Bonnie & Keith Parsons
Robin & John Rongibch
Konrad & Sharon Roeder
Patrick & Donna Cheatham
Brian & Rhonda Crowson
Joe Pet e Li1e
R.N. Atherton & Fran Atherton
Bonnie & George Wilhelm
Michael Llewellyn
Mr. & Mrs. Jack J. Urso, Jr.
Ken Mahaffey
Philip & Lisa Carter
Michael W. McGee & Joyce McGee
Linda & Jose Prem
Bob Bingham
Gary W. Vautul
Joe & Anita Parr
Jim Goss
Helen Moore
Diane Gorenc
Charles Gorenc
Robert & LaDonna Perusse
W.S. Butler
Herbert & Claudia Kirkpatrick
M.E. Williams
Terry L. Murdock
Jo Lynn & Alan Emery
Harvey & Mary Lynn Alsup
Steven & Sherry Hooser
Joyce & Joe Beakley
A.W. & Avis Crisp Jr.
Cecil Carder
Sharon & Paul Erway
Mr. & Mrs. William Tooley
7817 Clover Leaf Drive
7828 Clover Leaf Drive
7824 Ember Oaks Drive
7944 Woodland Drive
7916 Ember Oaks Drive
8016 Valley Drive
7728 Western Oaks Drive
6885 Paintbrush Court
8017 Valley Road
7401 Continental Trail
8012 Hunter Lane
8025 Valley Drive
7813 Ember Oaks
7905 Whispering Woods Lane
7913 Whispering Woods Lane
7909 Ember Oaks Drive
7916 Whispering Woods Lane
7901 Whispering Woods Lane
8016 Hunter Lane
7905 Hunter Lane
7948 Kendra Lane
7337 Tipperary Court
7300 Bursey Road
8005 Kandy Lane
7320 Bursey Road
7312 Tipperary Court
7328 Londonderry
7912 Whispering Woods Lane
7900 ~fuispering Woods Lane
7901 Woodland Drive
7304 Wexford Court
7308 Wexford Court
7721 Western Oaks
7936 Kendra Lane
7324 Bursey Road
8028 Kendra Lane
8028 Kendra Lane
8029 Kendra Lane
8024 Kendra Lane
8025 Kendra Lane
8020 Kendra Lane
8001 Kendra Lane
7932 Kendra Lane
7924 Kendra Lane
7929 Kendra Lane
8028 Kandy Lane
7504 Bursey Road
7916 Hunter Lane
7928 Kandy Lane
7924 Londonderry Drive
Ige 2
I.
It
55.
I:
58.
I:
62.
I:
65.
I:
I:
72.
I:
75.
82.
I:
85.
I:
89.
Ii:
92 .
I:
95.
E:
99.
100.
01.
102.
-
I
John W. & Donna Alley
Mike & Stacy Wells
Adiene Jones
John & Betsy Colborn
David, Devvie & Amanda Miller
Stephen & Jeniffer Brandt
Amber Erickson
Stan P. Bullington
Jody A. Tarkowski & Jeffrey Oswald
Ed & Kathy Lichte
Clinton & LaDonna Henry
Ed & Kathy Meadows
Bill & Mona Bailey
Virgil & Leslie Bruinekool
Rodney & Mary Burns
Donald & Myra Gasser
Mike & Brenda Davis
Thomas & Andrea Tegtmeier
Billie Miller
Alan B. Gritzman
Jessie Simon, Jr.
Jerome E. Taylor
Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Roll
Tomas A. Casarez
Gary Lindsey
Tom Torre
Tim & Diane Settles
Donna & Mike Jowell
Mike & Sandy Nicely
Russell & Sandra .Clark
Jeanne H. Rush & Terrina R. Hutcheson
Jerry R. Walters
Norman E. Holmes
Craig & Diana Trice
David W. Wells & Edna H. Wells
John & Pat Jenkin ~
Mitch & Janet Mullenix
Linda Jones & Ben Jones
Mark & Gloria Huff
Rodney D. & Deanna B. Gill
Gary & Stephanie Barnett
Kevin & Penny Beatty
Mike & Debbie Neill
Tim A. Gross
Jay & Pamela Lunger
Matt & Karen Fagan
Candy & Keith Gerhardt
Stephen & Debra Daniel
Sherry Stevens
Gary Davenport
Richard M. & Sharon A. Niemi
Michael & Angelia Thomas
Ken & Marilyn Martin
7909 Hunter Lane
7420 Bursey Road
7512 Bursey Road
7912 Hunter Lane
7929 Hunter Lane
7925 Hunter Lane
8001 Hunter Lane
8013 Hunter Lane
7924 Hunter Lane
8025 Hunt er Lane
8000 Kendra
7941 Kendra Lane
8033 Kandy Lane
7912 Kandy Lane
7913 Kandy Lane
7920 Kandy Lane
7916 Kandy Lane
7925 Kandy Lane
7924 Kandy Lane
7932 Kandy Lane
7941 Kandy Lane
7801 Clover Leaf
7812 Clover Leaf
7948 Kandy Lane
7904 Kandy Lane
8004 Kandy Lane
7945 Kandy Lane
8008 Kandy Lane
8012 Kandy Lane
8021 Kandy Lane
8024 Kandy Lane
7933 Kendra Lane
7909 Kendra Lane
8029 Kandy Lane
7508 Bursey Road
900 Kendra Lane
7900 Kandy Lane
7912 Kendra Lane
7933 Kandy Lane
8017 Kandy Lane
7900 Hunter Lane
7901 Kendra Lane
7908 Kendra Lane
7904 Kendra Lane
7921 Kendra Lane
7937 Kendra Lane
7932 Hunter Lane
7908 Hunter Lane
7904 Hunter Lane
7936 Hunter Lane
7937 Hunter Lane
8016 Kendra Lane
7416 Brusey Road
Drive
Drive
Ige 3
14.
II
, .
108.
19.
o.
111.
12.
3.
4.
115.
16.
7 .
118.
19.
o.
121.
12.
3.
4.
125.
16.
7 .
128.
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Iíi
I
"
Paul & Sandra Humphries
Thomas J. Bell & wife
Randy & Carol Talley
Paul & Stephanie Stone
Charles R. Pennington & Patsy Pennington
Gary & Brenda Bishop
Jim, Tim, & Susan Pate
Yolanda R. Beenal
Don Burns
Traci Keister
Judy Rich
Mrs. Roscoe E. McGraw
Debbie & Paul Reese
David S. Bantham
James H. Yanowski
Sandra & Graham Baker
James Schulien
Darlene McCrimon
Alan T. Devenney
Erwin T. & Mary B. Pfirman
Harry & Mary Bantham
Wesley & Vanessa Hart
Greg & Betsy Pyle
Nel son Lumpkin
George Ellerbee
7312 Bursey Road
7308 Bursey Road
8021 Hunter Lane
7917 Kendra Lane
7224 Bursey Road
7401 Bursey Road
7332 Bursey Road
7328 Bursey Road
7316 Bursey Road
7316 Bursey Road
7316 Bursey Road
7012 Bursey Road
6882 Bluebonnet Court
7924 Ember Oaks Drive
7933 Ember Oaks Drive
7417 Continental Trail
7833 Ember Oaks Drive
7900 Ember Oaks Drive
7813 Clover Leaf Drive
7325 Continental Trail
7904 Ember Oaks Drive
7100 Bursey Road
7849 Ember Oaks
7845 Ember Oaks Drive
7008 Bursey Road
I'·¡
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I !
ORDINANCE NO. 1722
AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAHD HILLS
AMENDING THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN OF THE CITY
OF NORTH RICHLAHD HILLS, TEXAS, TO DESIGNATE
BURSEY ROAD AS A C-2-U COLLECTOR STREET; PROVIDING
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council
hearing to consider the said
hearing, determines that such
adopted, and
has conducted
modifications
modifications
a public
and, after
shall be
WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed its desire for
the city staff of North Richland Hills to work closely with
its neighboring cities to coordinate planning of major
thoroughfares traversing our common boundaries.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS,
I.
That, the Master Thoroughfare Plan (Ordinance # 1270) be
amended to reflect Bursey Road to be classified as a C-2-U
Collector street from Rufe Snow Drive to Davis Boulevard.
II.
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. That it is hereby declared to be the
intention of the City Council that the section, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are
severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or
section of this ordinance shall be declared invalid or
unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidi ty or
unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining
phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this
ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the
City council without the incorporation in this ordinance of
any such invalid or unconstitutional phrase, clause,
sentence, paragraph or section.
III.
SAVINGS CLAUSE. That the Master Thoroughfare Plan 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.
·
,
I·
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
- ~
IV.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage and publication as
provided by the North Richland Hills Charter and the laws of
the state of Texas.
PASSED, AND APPROVED this
day of
1991.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTORNEY
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Administration
Council Meeting Date: 3-25-91
Pledqinq Support for Carswell Air Force Base Agenda Number: GN 91-46
and its Expansion - Resolution 91-09
This resolution expresses the Councils support for the continued
operation of Carswell Air Force Base and its expansion.
This resolution was placed on the Agenda at Councilman Sibbet's
request.
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Acct. Number
Bonds (GO/Rev.) Suffici nt Funds Available
Operating Budget
o,~ ..¡-,
l µ¿'¿v~- k'~L!.
t Departmént Head Signature City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
, Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-09
WHEREAS, the citizens of Tarrant County have always supported Carswell Air
Force Base and its many varied activities which have contributed to the defense of our
nation over many decades; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Worth and suburban cities around Carswell Air Force
Base have been tolerant of what some areas of the nation may consider noise pollution; and
WHEREAS, complaints of noise or other features of a military installation which
some may deem to be offensive have been non-existent in this entire area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Carswell Air Force Base, its operations and
its personnel are an integral part of our way of life in Tarrant County which would be sorely
missed if the facility were to be closed; and
WHEREAS, the financial impact of closing Carswell Air Force Base would be
devastating to the economy of North Central Texas; and
WHEREAS, all of the citizens in the area stand united in full support of this great
military facility, for reasons other than financial, and are firm in their support for expansion
of the base.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, that:
1.
This Council does hereby go on record, on behalf of all its citizens, to pledge
continued support for Carswell Air Force Base and for its expansion.
2.
The Council further expresses its sincere gratitude to all of the many fine warriors
of Carswell Air Force Base who so gallantly gave of themselves in bringing victory in
"Operation Desert Storm".
I-
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
!I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
Resolution No. 91-09
Page 2
PASSED AND APPROVED this 25th day of March, 1991.
APPROVED:
Tommy Brown - Mayor
A TrEST:
Jeanette Rewis - City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex McEntire - Attorney for the City
I.
f
I Department:
._Ubject:
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Administration
Community Center Parkinq Lot
Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
Agenda Number: GN 91-47
We are all aware that this building is the most visible of any public
building in North Richland Hills. I think we share a common desire that it
somehow be showcased, aesthetically pleasing and serve as a functional
community building. Given the budget of $142,000, we have established the
I following priorities: 1) provide adequate over land drainage to prevent
further asphalt deterioration; 2) Improve safety by redesigning the
. potentially dangerous road around the gymnasium; 3) improve the driving
surface with a 2" overlay of asphalt and repair base as needed; 4) retain as I
many parking spaces as possible by efficiently stripping the lot; 5) provide
I" areas to plant appropriate trees and landscape as extensively as possible,
I" with type and quantity of plants to be determined at a later time.
¡ Many citizen committees have expressed their concern about the layout of the
I property. All are concerned about the availability of parking spaces, access
I to various offices and general aesthetics of the building. When deciding on
I the course of action, the Council may want to consider receiving input from
the Parks and Recreation Board, the Library Board, the Cable T.V. Board and
I the Beautification Commission. This obviously could delay the proj ect I
several months. The staff recommends that basic repairs and stripping be
I accomplished now, with further improvements considered at a later date.
I Following are the four basic alternatives to the parking lot repair.
I Alternative #1
Basic parking lot repair. This plan would require our maintenance crews to
I do the necessary repairs, concrete flumes and asphalt overlay. This
alternative would leave the parking lot similar to the way it appears today.
.
Extensive improvements are needed on the parking lot of the North Richland
Hills Community Center. This requirement has been known since the building
was purchased in 1985. In late 1990 the City Council budgeted $142,000 for
this project. During the past several months many ideas and suggestions have
been made, all of which have merit. They include: 1) a mini-park; 2)
extensive parking islands with landscaping and sidewalks; 3) permanent
landscaped area with large Christmas Tree; 4) a designated park and ride
area; 5) designated car pool parking area. None of these items are presented
in the attached proposals because of the simple fact that we currently have
at least a 40% deficiency in parking spaces, as defined by the Uniform
Building Code and funds have not been made available to purchase additional
land.
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
t Finance Director
~
I
Department Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
City Manager
Page 1 of
I
I
Page Two
There are three distinct disadvantages to this alternative: (1) The unsafe
l4IÞdriVeWay around the gym would still be in place; (2) no aesthetic
improvements, in fact, with removal of the "concrete pipe planters" it could
even look worse; (3) it would take seven employees a minimum of four weeks,
utilizing approximately 16 pieces of equipment. The loss of street
maintenance time in the middle of the summer is unacceptable. - Estimated
cost $127,525.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative #2 - Private Contractor
The only difference between Alternative #1 and #2 is the work would be
performed by a private contractor. City crews would be used in a limited
capacity, i.e. haul off concrete pipe planters. Estimated cost $192,000.
Alternative #3 - A new parking lot layout accomplished by private contractor
As shown on the attached drawing, this design includes additional handicapped
parking on the west side of the Library, an improved roadway around the
Gymnasium and an extremely large area for future landscaping. This revision
clearly defines and contains the flow of traffic through the parking lot.
The drive approaches along the State Highway will be relocated and widened to
improve access to the complex. It should be noted that this particular
design will result in some loss of parking spaces. - Estimated Cost $216,085.
Alternative #4 - Private Contractor (with new Parking Lot layout & Landscape
I Areas)
~Alternative #4 includes all the proposed parking lot layout revisions shown
_ on Alternative #3. The major difference is this alternative provides
I landscaped areas within the parking lot and around the buildings. All the
proposed landscape areas are designed to be encircled by concrete curbs and
gutter. The estimate does not include costs for plants, trees or ground
I cover. - Estimated Cost $299,300.
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
The parking space count for all alternatives as well as the existing parking
lot count is shown below.
Standard
18 X 9
Parkinq Space
Handicapped
Total
Required by
Uniform Bldg.
Code
Existing
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3
Alternate #4
406
406
406
241
206
4
4*
4*
16
16
410
410
410
257
222
680**
680
680
680
680
*Additional handicapped spaces can be provided with revised pavement
stripping.
**The Community Development Department is currently working with a local
developer in an effort to share parking spaces on the lot currently owned
by the church west of Redondo. We feel that some mutually agreeable
solution can be reached.
I
I
Page Three
Ie Funding Source:
The approved budget for the Library/Recreation Center Parking Lot is
$142,000. The balance needed may be appropriated from 1990/91 Unspecified.
That proposed transfer is indicated as follows:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
From:
1990/91 Unspecified
$74,100
$74,100
To:
Library/Recreation Center Parking Lot
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve Alternative #3.
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
'I
I
l I'
! I
I ,
I I
II ¡
i I
Ii
I I
~
'~"I:
o
Ct::
(.~.
UJ
u
<t:
Cl.
(~.
v)
v)
W
U
U
<[
~
("u
c:;:,
C'\J
ro
CL..
o
o
.....J
(,",
l..J
f_'
<:£:
ú..
(,,)
u-,
ru
---I
l l
I ~
(I
a "'0 ~ 3:3 N\# ^
>-
~
Ct:
lL..J
Û
CI
CL
CL
:r
u
~'
I_I
I,I'~
.-:.
I ~..
~ Ii ii
c 4 -
g: ~~~
I" -:~,
v:o
~-
~
------ --- --þ----
f(~
L->
-4
0.-
"',
<5"
t¡;>
0:.
W
~
~
U
Ù
L..J
u
] --;i
I ~~
ci~~
r ",ZOJ
I :J~8
LJL--1
\.~
,>
~~~;~\
~....."~
~.r.Ù
..J
Õ
-J
a::x.
~
3/\I~ II /'\ ON:5: 3.3 n d
(
~~?;
~..J::J:
~·:1W
v.t:X:Q.
_u.
XtnO
LLI <I t-
)
__ ___ _ ..__. '__04 ___ .._. ____
v.a
I.o.J
(,.)
4:
CL
(ñ
....,
--
oaNoa3~
"1
4J
~
~
t-
4J
Q::.
L:'
Z
o
L:'
Cì.J
~
--:7
L-
<r
>-
t-
O!
~
a:
a.
:x
u
~
0°
-z
"0
IIw
A;:i
~~
W -.
ê:c
;'i-
:co:.
q:
..~
o
~o...
z::L
-c2:~
..0
C) I...:)
.~
¡;)~
LLI~
~CL
f;;~
~~
~~
;te
~
(../)
LU
r-
<:.[
Z
~
LtJ
I-
_J
<~[
r. .~ ¿;~,~~~::y::
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
l f
I /
("
a\iO~ 3:JNtV^
(I
/1 /
I / >-
I I ~
/ I i
I.
U
b:
....
~
~
=-
~
ç¡
...-:1:
o
0::
VJ
VJ
W
U
U
<t:
c::>
(')j
CD
Cl...
o
o
~
>-
::;4
ê
~r
La.I
/ ~;~ ,'~
; ~~[
/. .:.:::: <
.........: /..;
~ I~,:_~ ._~I·
-:~) r (~'J
-_J
~
I
L)
~ /
~ /
a..
l.
~~~
~~~
.,.:I:CÆ:
_ CL
XfñCJ
.... c: ~
"... .... ".~"",,,,,'''''~- '.'~''''...'....... ....,
.. "" .".... '" " .,1
~,,\~~~'¿)
.-J
o
.-J
~
~
3/\,I~1I r',-ONS 3..:1n~
O(INDa3~
-J
<
~
~
,.....
U')
(U
(Y) .
~
....
a..
UJ D-
<
(..)
~ ë
~
<:,L :J..
,/ ~
..:-- .:::.
~ :z
") <
LtJ ...
w ('U
:z: ~ r;)
:::.
~ UJ
--.J L'
~
I&J g.;
~ <[
w ~
G::
U
:z: 52
c Q!
U <
Ü.
...J
~,
~
t:
....J
~
:z
2
ô
tL.
~
~
i
t ". ~ . .,-'.
;~~'. .::: ;j(::." .
Q'v'02:J 3')N~/\
(. r------======~
( I
1/ /
I' /
~ I /1
r t I
II / :~
( I' ~,
,I GJ
I ' Ll-
I / SI
/ I 3
it =f
I l ~ /
III ~ III
Î ~ /
( ~ J
, l_'~7~~- .. ,
I I ! .~.., " '"
~ l~ ili\z.~::::~~?>::~~~~'-?:J:I -
~ (J 1"'..«:·.»..'·«,'....>.: .... rr==-J'I .
~ V) I n I a '..~
~~ ~ I
;;~ ~
!f!~ ~
ê ·"·Jf r ~ ~~ J,:!.m :~.
~ ~~i ~
w -.J::E: L' '~
L.) ]
~i
c-:. I II
1I.J .~ ç' ~ ¡ .
Œo ? \ .\
8 "J u~r~::;:::;~:;:~::i:/;:~:~:~
-1
c-
60:1
;:;: :: j
~:;: : ~I
:; :~
." '/
.? :
r:~J
I
I
f /
I /
t, )
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
(" ;~
0~I~:'·~
".r ..< .:....
".:. ,'....
.~: <
, .~ ..'..
/ .;
...~~.
~dr·~
..;, :-:-: ./
HI:I~
~ ~m: .~:
." ." ......... ;
(: ::: =::, :~~
I
I
I
I
ð· ~~
I~?)
S(
w
.-. -._-==+-=.~
.-1
o
;;;
~
~ t-. ".:.1'
:::;..J~
to- c2:. L4I
~ t.: Cr'
x c.~.. 0
W4:t-
'~.' 1- --.,: = - - -
3/\]~ Cl f"~ ON::: 3~ nd
Ie
I
º-aNOQ3~
.J
~
~
OJ
OJ
OJ
A
:r
~~
Ã
~
LU~
r-' ::
.--r ~
L ;;:~
"1
ü::. l:;'
lLJ~
L- rl~
.- , ç'¡
~~ w
<:C ~ ~~
--.J
W
~t
2
W
~
~
Õ
r...:,
~
~~
~.::t
~ :tJ
~~
~.:, .:¡
8 ;; ~~:
?t~~
~~~-~
3
- !
W
ú..
~
:3
I
r::::~:1
~
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
ALTERNATE NO. 1
CITY OF NORTH R I ŒiLAND HILLS, TEXAS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
DATE: MARCH 19, 1991
PROJECT: NRH ~N I TY CENTER PARK I NG LOT
ESTIMATE NO.1: PAVEMENT REPAIRS BY CITY CREWS
RECPARK1.WKl
BY: JOHN A. JOHNSTON
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
QUANT I TY
UNIT
COST
----------------------------------------------------~---------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 SAW CUT ASPHALT FOR REMOVAL
2 UNClASS. STREET EXCAVATION
3 REMOVE CONe. DRIVE
4 ASPHALT BASE PATCH - CONCRETE
5 TYPE "D" HMAC - 2" PATCH WORK
6 TYPE "D" HMAC - 2" OVERLAY
7 TACK COAT
8 ASPHALT aJRBS - 6"
9 CONe. DR I VEWA Y - 5" THK
10 CONC. VALLEY GUTTER - 6" THK
11 CONC. SIDEWALK - 4" THK
12 PAVEMENT MARKING
13
14
15
3,500.00
650.00
1,200.00
2,400.00
2,400.00
23,000.00
23,000.00
1,500.00
1,200.00
3,500.00
1,200.00
21,000.00
SUB-TOTAL
SURVEY, ENGINEERING, AND CONTINGENCY (0%)
TOTAL
L.F.
C.Y.
S.F.
S.Y.
S.Y.
S.Y.
S.Y.
L.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
L.F.
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.75
$2.25
$2.25
$0.15
$3.50
$3.30
$7.55
$3.00
$0.09
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25,800.00
$5,400.00
$51,750.00
$3,450.00
$5,250.00
$3,960.00
$26,425.00
$3,600.00
$1,890.00
---------------
---------------
$127,525.00
$0.00
-~-------------~-
---------------
$127,525.00
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
ALTERNATE NO. 2
CITY OF NORTH R I CHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
DATE: MARCH 19, 1991
PROJECT: NRH COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING LOT
ESTIMATE NO.2: PAVEMENT REPAIRS BY PRIVATE CONTRACTOR
RECPARK2.WK1
BY: JOHN A. JOHNSTON
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
------~-------------------~---------------------------------------------~-------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-~------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, SAW CUT ASPHALT FOR REMOVAL
2 UNCLASS. STREET EXCAVATION
3 RE~VE CONe. DRIVE
4 ASPHALT BASE PATCH - CONCRETE
5 TYPE "0" HMAC - 2" PATCH WORK
6 TYPE liD" HMAC - 2" OVERLAY
7 TACK COAT
8 ASPHALT aJRBS - 6"
9 CONC. DR I VEWAY - 5" THK
, 0 CONC . VALLEY GUTTER - 6 II THK
11 CONe. SIDEWALK - 4" THK
12 PAVEMENT MARKING
13
14
15
3,500.00
650.00
1,200.00
2,400.00
2,400.00
23,000.00
23,000.00
1,500.00
1,200.00
3,500.00
1,200.00
21,000.00
SUB-TOTAL
SURVEY, ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY (10%)
TOTAL
L.F.
C.Y.
S.F.
S.Y.
S.Y.
S.Y.
S.Y.
L.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
L.F.
$2. 1 0
$5.00
$0.55
$18.90
$2.60
$2.60
$0.25
$6.50
$3.30
$7.55
$3.00
$0.15
$7,350.00
$3,250.00
$660.00
$45,360.00
$6,240.00
$59,800.00
$5,750.00
$9,750.00
$3,960.00
$26,425.00
$3,600.00
$3,150.00
-----------------
-------------...-
$175,295.00
$16,705.00
----------------.
----------------
$192,000.00
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
ALTERNATE NO. 3
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
DATE: MARCH 19, 1991
PROJECT: NRH COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING LOT
RECPARK3.WK1
BY: JOHN A. JOHNSTON
ESTIMATE NO.3: PAVEMENT AND OVERLAY REPAIRS BY CONTRACTOR
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
---------------------------------------------~----------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------~---------------
TOTAL
QUANT I TY
UNIT
COST
---------------------------------~----------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 SAWCUT ASPHALT FOR REMOVAL
2 UNClASS. STREET EXCAVATION
3 REMOVE CONC. DRIVES
4 ASPHALT BASE PATCH - CONCRETE
5 TYPE "D" ~C - 2" PATCH WORK
6 TYPE "D" HMAC - 2" OVERLAY
7 TACK COAT
8 ASPHALT aJRBS - 6"
9 NEW 6" aJRB AND 24" GUTTER
10 CONe. DR I VEWAY - 5" THK
11 CONC. VALLEY GUTTER - 6" THK
12 CONC. SIDEWALK - 4" THK
13 PAVEMENT MARKING
14
15
4,500.00
1,000.00
5,160.00
2,400.00
2,400.00
20,000.00
20,000.00
200.00
1,140.00
5,160.00
3,500.00
2,800.00
21,000.00
SUB-TOTAL
SURVEY, ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY (10%)
TOTAL
L.F.
C.Y.
S.F.
S.Y.
S.Y.
S.Y.
S.Y.
L.F.
L.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
L.F.
$2. 10
$5.00
$0.55
$18.90
$2.60
$2.60
$0.25
$6.50
$12.50
$3.30
$7.55
$3.00
$0. 15
$9,450.00
$5,000.00
$2,838.00
$45,360.00
$6,240.00
$52,000.00
$5,000.00
$1,300.00
$14,250.00
$17,028.00
$26,425.00
$8,400.00
$3,150.00
------------------
-------.,---------
$196 , 44 1 . 00
$ 1 9 , 644. , 0
--.-------~_.-_---
-.-.-------------
$216,085.10
I. '
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
II
I
I
I
Ie
I
ALTERNATE NO. 4
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
RECPARK4.WK1
DATE: MARCH 18, 1991
BY: JOHN A. JOHNSTON
PROJECT: NRH COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING LOT
ESTIMATE NO.4: PAVEMENT REPAIRS AND CURB AND GUTTER
WORK BY PRIVATE CONTRACTOR WITH LANDSCAPE OPTION
-------~--~-------------~--~------------------~--------------~----~-------~------
------------~---------------------~-----------~-----~--------------------------~-
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
-------~-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------~---------
1 SAWCUT ASPHALT FOR REMOVAL 9,500.00 L.F. $2. 1 0 $19,950.00
2 UNCLASS. STREET EXCAVATiON 1,730.00 C.Y. $5.00 $8,650.00
3 RE~VE CONe. DR I VES 5,160.00 S.F. $0.55 $2,838.00
4 ASPHALT BASE PATCH - CONCRETE 2,400.00 S.Y. $18.90 $45,360.00
5 TYPE "D" HMAC - 2" PATŒi WORK 2,400.00 S.Y. $2.60 $6,240.00
6 TYPE "D" t-t1AC - 2" OVERLAY 20,000.00 S.Y. $2.60 $52,000.00
7 TACK COAT 20,000.00 S.Y. $0.25 $5,000.00
8 NEW 6" CURB AND 24" GUTTER 4,500.00 L.F. $12.50 $56,250.00
9 CONC. DR I VEWAY - 5" THK 5,160.00 S.F. $3.30 $17,028.00
10 CONe. SIDEWALK - 4" THK 4,250.00 S.F. $3.00 $12,750.00
1 1 CONe. VALLEY GUTTER - 6" THK 3,500.00 S.F. $7.55 $26,425.00
12 PAVEMENT MARKING 21,000.00 L.F. $0. 15 $3,150.00
13 TOPSOIL FOR FILL - 4" THK 4,300.00 S.Y. $1 . 50 $6,450.00
14 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1 .00 L.S. $10,000.00 $10,000.00
15
---------------
----------------
SUB-TOTAL $272,091.00
SURVEY, ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY (10%) $27 , 209. 10
----------------
---------------
TOTAL $299 , 300. 10
I
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department:
.Ubject:
Public Works
Approve Agreement for Engineering Services with
TeaQue Nall and Perkins. Inc.
Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
Agenda Number: PW 91-10
Based on the Council action in PW 90-47 on November 12, 1990, staff has proceeded with
the agreement to utilize Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. engineering services as part of
a settlement arrangement. Before we proceed with their providing services, we need to
sign an agreement which outlines their costs of services. Staff has reviewed the
subject agreement and finds it in line with other current engineering service
agreements we have.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached contract for engineering
services with Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. and authorize the Mayor to sign in their
behalf.
N/A
Finance Review
Acct. Number N/ A
Sufficient Funds Available
Ð~
ant Head Signature City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
(Basic and Special Engineering for Public Works Projects)
This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ____ day of , 1991, by
and between the CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS hereinafter called the OWNER,
acting by and through its City Manager, or duly appointed representative
authorized to act and TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, INC., a corporation
hereinafter called the ENGINEER.
I
I
RECITALS
I
This AGREEMENT is applicable to the furnishing of Basic and Special
Engineering services by ENGINEER for Public Works type projects (or
programs consisting of multiple projects) of OWNER, whether funded directly
by OWNER, by private sources, and implemented by OWNER or by Grants or
other sources, but only in specific situations and to the extent that such
services from time to time are authorized in writing by OWNER, as provided
in Section III following.
Ie
CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKINGS
I
I
SECTION I
EMPLOYMENT OF ENGINEER
The OWNER agrees to employ the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER agrees to furnish
engineering services as stated in Section II following, and for having
rendered such services the OWNER agrees to pay to the ENGINEER compensation
as stated in the Section VI following.
I
I
SECTION II
CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF SERVICES
I
I
I
i'
I
The Basic Engineering Services to be rendered by Engineer are to be
considered distinguishable from other services and shall be performed as
required during the following phases of each project:
A. PRELIMINARY
B. DESIGN
C. CONSTRUCTION
In addition to the Basic Services, other services related to the project
that may be included by specific authorization are identified herein as "D.
SPECIAL SERVICES."
- 1 -
I
Ie
I
These various services are hereinafter more fully described as follows:
A. PRELIMINARY PHASE
I
1. Attend preliminary conference with OWNER regarding the project.
I
2. Prepare a preliminary engineering study and report on the project
in sufficient detail to indicate clearly the problems involved
and the alternate solutions available to the OWNER, to include
preliminary layouts, sketches and cost estimates for the project,
and to set forth clearly the ENGINEER'S recommendations.
I
3. Furnish the OWNER all necessary copies of the preliminary report,
including preliminary layouts, sketches and cost estimates. All
reports in excess of 30 copies are to be paid for separately as
provided hereinafter.
I
B. DESIGN PHASE
I
I
1. Establish the scope and advise the OWNER, of any soil,
foundation, or other subsurface investigations or any special
surveys or special testing which, in the opinion of the ENGINEER,
may be required for the proper execution of the project: assist
the OWNER in arranging for the conduct of such investigations and
tests. (The performance of these investigations and tests is not
a part of the ENGINEER'S Basic Services and will not be included
unless specifically authorized in writing under "D. SPECIAL
SERVICES" following.)
Ie
II
I
2. Furnish to the OWNER, where required by the circumstances of the
assignment, the engineering data necessary for applications for
routine permits by local, state, and federal authorities (as
distinguished from detailed applications and supporting documents
for government grants-in-aid, or for planning advances not
included in Basic Services).
I
3. Perform field surveys to collect information on surficial
topographic features, which in the opinion of the ENGINEER, is
required in the design of the project (as distinguished from land
surveys for boundary descriptions of sites, easements,
rights-of-way, etc.).
I
I
4. Develop the proj ect design combining the application of sound
engineering principles and economy which shall be manifested by
completed Construction Contract Documents, (Plans,
Specifications, etc.) and assist OWNER with submittal of such
Documents to local, state and federal agencies for approval as
may be applicable.
I
I
{'
I
- 2 -
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{'
I
5. Prepare detailed cost estimates identifiable with the proposals
of authorized construction, which shall include summaries of bid
items and quantities on the unit price system of bidding wherever
practical. The ENGINEER shall not be required to guarantee the
accuracy of these estimates.
6. Furnish to the OWNER all necessary copies of approved
Construction Contract Documents (plans, specifications, notice to
bidders, proposals, etc.). All copies in excess of 30 are to be
paid for separately as provided hereinafter.
C.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
1. Assist the OWNER in the advertisement of the project for bids.
2. Assist the OWNER in the opening and tabulation of bids for
construction of proj ect and recommend to the OWNER as to the
proper action on all proposals received.
3. Assist in the preparation of formal Contract Documents and in
coordinating their execution by the respective parties.
4. Represent the OWNER in the Non-Resident administration of the
project. In this capacity, the ENGINEER shall have the authority
to exercise whatever rights the OWNER may have to disapprove work
and materials that fail to conform to the Contract Documents when
such failures are brought to the ENGINEER'S attention. (This
function of ENGINEER shall not be construed as supervision of the
project and does not include on-site activities other than
occasional site visits to observe overall project conditions or
when specifically requested by OWNER to visit on-site for a
particular matter. It particularly does not involve exhaustive
or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or
quantity of the work or material; nor does it place any
responsibility on ENGINEER for the techniques and sequences of
construction or the safety precautions incident thereto, and he
will not be responsible or liable in any degree for the
Contractor's failure to perform the construction work in
accordance with the Contract Documents.)
5. Consult and advise the OWNER; issue such instructions to the
Contractor as in the judgement of the ENGINEER are necessary; and
prepare routine change orders as required.
6. Review samples, catalog data, schedules, shop drawings,
laboratory, shop and mill tests of material and equipment and
other data which the Contractor is required to submit, only for
conformance with the design concept of the project and compliance
with the information given by the Contract Documents; and
assemble written guarantees which are required by the Contract
Documents.
- 3 -
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
('
I
7 . Prepare or review monthly and final estimates for payments to
Contractors, and furnish to the OWNER any necessary
certifications as to payments to Contractors and Suppliers.
8. Conduct, in company with OWNER, a final inspection of the project
for conformance with the design concept of the project and
compliance with the Contract Documents, and approve in writing
final payment to the Contractors.
9. Revise contract drawings, with the assistance of the Resident
Project Representative to reflect available information as to how
the work was constructed. Furnish a set of prints of these
revised drawings to the OWNER.
D.
SPECIAL SERVICES
Various services incidental to the project, but not within the scope
of the Basic Engineering covered by A. B. & C. preceding, which may be
performed or arranged for separately by OWNER, or may be added to the
ENGINEER'S responsibilities by mutual agreement and written
authorization include but are not necessarily limited to the
following:
1. Furnish the services of a Resident Proj ect Representative for
continuous on-the-site observations of construction.
The authority and duties of such Resident Project Representatives
are limited to examining the material furnished and observing the
work done, and to reporting their findings to the ENGINEER. The
ENGINEER will use the usual degree of care and prudent judgment
in the selection of a competent Resident Project Representative,
and the ENGINEER will use diligence to see that said
Representatives are on the job to perform their required duties.
It is agreed however, that the ENGINEER does not underwrite,
guarantee or insure the work done by the Contractor(s). Since it
is the Contractor's responsibility to perform the work in
accordance with the Contract Documents, the ENGINEER is not
responsible or liable for the Contractor's failure to do so. So
long as the ENGINEER has exercised the usual degree of care and
prudent judgment in selecting the said Resident Representatives
and has used diligence to see that they are on the job to perform
the work, failure by any Resident Proj ect Representative, or
other personnel engaged in on-the-site observation, to discover
defects or deficiencies in the work of the Contractor(s) shall
never relieve the Contractor(s) for liability therefor or subject
the ENGINEER to any liability for any such defect or
deficiencies.
2. Perform land surveys, establish boundaries and monuments, furnish
construction layout, and provide other special field surveys not
provided for elsewhere in this AGREEMENT. Furnish descriptive
instruments related to the various surveys.
- 4 -
I
Ie
I
3. Appearances before regulatory agencies.
I
4. Assistance to the OWNER as an expert witness in any litigation
with third parties, arising from the development or construction
of the project.
I
5. Special investigations involving detailed consideration of
operation, maintenance and overhead expenses; preparation of rate
schedules; preparation of special reports as required for
marketing bonds; earnings and expense statements; special
feasibility studies; appraisals; valuations; and material audits
or inventories required for certification of any force account
construction performed by the OWNER.
I
I
6. Detailed mill, shop and/or laboratory inspection of materials or
equipment.
I
7. Soil and foundation investigations, including test borings, soil
tests and analyses of test results.
I
8. Extra travel required of the ENGINEER in connection with the
proj ect, other than trips between ENGINEER'S office and the
project.
Ie
9. Additional copies of reports and Contract Documents in excess of
30 as required for the initiation, bidding and administration of
the project.
I
10. Preparation of applications and supporting documents for
government grants or planning advances for public works projects.
I
11. Revision of reports and Contract Documents after specific
approval by OWNER, as provided in Section VII following.
I
SECTION III
AUTHORIZATION OF SERVICES
I
No professional services of any nature shall be undertaken by the ENGINEER
under this AGREEMENT until he has received written authorization from the
OWNER.
I
SECTION IV
PERIOD OF SERVICE
I
This AGREEMENT shall be effective upon execution by the OWNER and the
ENGINEER, and shall remain in force until terminated under the provisions
hereinafter provided in Section IX.
I
f'
I
- 5 -
I
Ie
I
SECTION V
COORDINATION WITH THE OWNER
I
The ENGINEER shall hold periodic conferences with the OWNER, or its
representatives, to the end that the project, as perfected, shall have
benefit of the OWNER'S experience and knowledge of existing needs and
facilities, and be consistent with its current policies and construction
standards. To implement this coordination, the OWNER shall make available
to the ENGINEER for use in planning the project, all existing plans, maps,
field notes, statistics, computations and other data in his possession
relative to existing facilities and to the project.
I
I
I
SECTION VI
THE ENGINEER'S COMPENSATION
I
For, and in consideration of, the services to be rendered by the ENGINEER,
the OWNER shall remit, and the ENGINEER shall receive a credit against an
existing liability to the OWNER (current = $39,500), hereinafter set forth
for the PRELIMINARY, DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION Phases of the work and
additionally for SPECIAL SERVICES that are in addition to the Basic
Services. All remittances by OWNER of such credit shall be mailed to the
ENGINEER'S home office as identified in the work authorization.
I
--
"Construction Cost" as used herein is defined as the total cost to the
OWNER for the execution of the work authorized at one time and handled in
each separate phase of engineering services, excluding fees or other cost
for engineering and legal services, the cost of land, rights-of-way, legal
and administrative expenses; but including the direct cost to the OWNER of
all construction contracts, items of construction, including labor,
materials and equipment required for the completed work (including extras)
and the total value at site of proj ect of all labor, materials, and
equipment purchased or furnished directly by the OWNER for the project.
I
II
I
"Salary cost" as used herein is defined as the cost of salaries of
engineers, draftsmen, stenographers, surveymen, clerks, laborers, etc. for
time directly chargeable to the project plus social security contributions,
unemployment, excise and payroll taxes, employment compensation insurance,
retirement benefits, medical and insurance benefits, sick leave, vacation,
parking, and holiday pay applicable thereto. (See Addendum No. 1 for these
costs - "Fringe Factor").
'I
I
The salary costs shall be based on the salary schedule attached hereto as
Addendum No. 1 to this AGREEMENT. Any revision of said schedule shall
constitute an amendment to this AGREEMENT requiring the prior approval of
the OWNER, which shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided, however,
said schedule shall not be revised more often than once annually during the
term hereof.
I
I
{'
A.
Credit for the Basic Engineering Services (PRELIMINARY, DESIGN &
CONSTRUCTION phases) on work covered by any given written
authorization for which Construction Cost is $50,000 or
less, shall be Salary cost times a multiplier of 2.50 and direct
non-labor and/ or subcontract expense at invoice or internal office
cost as documented to the OWNER.
I
- 6 -
I
Ie B.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
Credit for the Basic Engineering Services (PRELIMINARY, DESIGN &
CONSTRUCTION phases) on work covered by any given written
authorization for which Construction Cost is greater than $50,000
shall be a percentage of Construction Cost calculated for the
respective cost ranges of construction included in any given
construction contract, except in no case shall the total be less than
the maximum calculated under the next lower Construction Cost range,
as follows:
RANGE OF COMBINED BASIC CHARGE FOR
CONSTRUCTION COST PRELIM., DESIGN & CONSTR. PHASE
$ 50,001 to $ 100,000 9.50%
$ 100,001 to $ 250,000 8.50%
$ 250,001 to $ 500,000 7.50%
$ 500,001 to $ 750,000 6.50%
$ 750,001 to $ 1,000,000 6.00%
$ 1,000,001 to $10,000,000 5.60%
Over $ 10,000,000 5.00%
The PRELIMINARY phase portion of the· Basic Service shall be computed
at 10% of the COMBINED BASIC CHARGE; the DESIGN phase portion of the
Basic Service shall be computed at 75% of the COMBINED BASIC CHARGE;
and the CONSTRUCTION phase portion of the Basic Services shall be
computed at 15% of the COMBINED BASIC CHARGE.
Credit for the PRELIMINARY phase portion of the Basic Services shall
be due within 30 days after submission and acceptance by the OWNER of
the Preliminary Report, or other applicable sketches, estimates, etc.
Credit for the DESIGN phase portion of the Basic Service shall be due
in monthly installments in proportion to that part of the services in
the DESIGN phase which has been accomplished. Such credits shall be
based on ENGINEER'S estimate of "Construction Cost", as evidenced by
monthly statements submitted by the ENGINEER to the OWNER. Final
credit for services authorized in the DESIGN phase shall be due at the
completion of these services.
In the event that proposals for construction of any of the work
authorized in the DESIGN phase are received within 90 days after
submission of completed contract drawings and specifications to the
OWNER by the ENGINEER, the credit for the corresponding services in
the DESIGN phase and the credit for the corresponding services in the
PRELIMINARY phase shall be adjusted to the "Construction Cost", as
reflected by the lowest acceptable proposal; or lowest bona fide bid
if no contract is awarded. Where no proposal or bona fide bids are
received, the ENGINEER'S estimates shall be the basis for final credit
of these two phases. No reduction shall be made from the BASIC CHARGE
on account of penalties or liquidated damages or other sums withheld
from Contractor's payments.
Credit for the CONSTRUCTION phase of the Basic Service shall be due in
monthly installments in proportion to the construction work completed
on the basis of the Contractor's monthly payment estimates plus the
- 7 -
I
Ie
I
actual value of all materials and equipment purchased or furnished
directly by the OWNER for the project. Upon completion of all work
authorized in the CONSTRUCTION phase, the ENGINEER will be credited
the remainder of the charge for this phase.
I
C.
Credit for the services covered by any given written authorization
issued pursuant to Section III may be fixed by mutual agreement of
ENGINEER and OWNER and supercede other provisions herein when so
stated in said written authorization and endorsed by authorized
representatives of both parties. In the absence of such endorsed
statement of mutual agreement to the contrary, the provisions herein
for credit shall govern for all services furnished under this
AGREEMENT.
I
I
I
I
D.
Credit for SPECIAL SERVICES not covered by the PRELIMINARY, DESIGN and
CONSTRUCTION phases of the Basic Services provided hereinabove shall
be as follows:
For all of ENGINEER'S personnel time applied to the SPECIAL SERVICES,
"Salary cost" times a multiplier of 2.50.
I
For all direct non-labor and/or subcontract expense, including
mileage, travel and living expenses, all at invoice or internal office
cost.
Ie
Credits to the ENGINEER for authorized SPECIAL SERVICES will be done
monthly, upon presentation of monthly statements by the ENGINEER for
such services.
I
I
SECTION VII
REVISIONS OF REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS
AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
I
The revisions and re-work of reports, plans, specifications and other
documents during the formulative stages as an orderly process in the
development of the project to meet the needs of the OWNER shall be
considered as part of the Basic Services; however, after a definite plan
has been approved by the OWNER, if a decision is subsequently made by the
OWNER, which, for its proper execution involves extra services and expenses
for changes in, or additional to the drawings, specifications or other
documents, or if the ENGINEER is put to labor or expense by delays imposed
on him from causes not within his control, such as by (but not limited to)
the readvertisement of bids or by the delinquency or insolvency of
Contractors, the ENGINEER shall be credited for such extra expense which
shall be considered as Special Services.
I
I
I
I
{'
SECTION VIII
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Original documents, plans design and survey notes shall remain the property
of the OWNER, regardless of whether the instruments were copyrighted or
whether the project for which they were prepared is executed.
I
- 8 -
I
Ie
I
SECTION IX
TERMINATION
I
Either party to this AGREEMENT may terminate the AGREEMENT by gl.vl.ng to
other 30 days notice in writing. Upon delivery of such notice by the OWNER
to the ENGINEER, the ENGINEER shall discontinue all services in connection
with the performance of this AGREEMENT and shall proceed to cancel promptly
all existing orders and contracts insofar as such orders or contracts are
chargeable to this AGREEMENT. As soon as practical after receipt of notice
of termination, the ENGINEER shall submit a statement, showing in detail
the services performed under this AGREEMENT to the date of termination.
The OWNER shall then credit the ENGINEER promptly that proportion of the
prescribed charges which the services actually performed under this
AGREEMENT bear to the total services actually performed under this
AGREEMENT less such credits on account of the charges as have been
previously made. Copies of all completed or partially completed designs,
plans and specifications prepared under this AGREEMENT shall be delivered
to the OWNER when and if this AGREEMENT IS TERMINATED.
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION X
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNMENTS
Ie
The OWNER and the ENGINEER each binds himself and his successors,
executors, administrators and assigns to any other party of this AGREEMENT
and to the successors, executors, administrators and assigns of such other
party, in respec t to all covenants of this AGREEMENT. Except as above,
neither the OWNER nor the ENGINEER shall assign, sublet or transfer his
interest in this AGREEMENT without the written consent of the other.
Nothing herein shall be constituted as creating any personal liability on
the part of any officer or agent of any public body which may be a party
thereto.
I
I
I
EXECUTED IN 3 counterparts (each of which is an original) on behalf of
ENGINEER by its VICE PRESIDENT shown below, and on behalf of the OWNER by
its (thereunto duly authorized) this day of
, 1991.
I
I
I
I
{'
'I
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
OWNER
TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, INC.
ENGINEER
BY:
BY:
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
- 9 -
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
ADDENDUM NO. 1
to Contract for Basic and Special
Engineering for Public Works Projects
for Calendar Year 1991
PERSONNEL SALARY RANGES
Client (Project) Manager
Project Engineer
CADD Technician
Draftsman
Clerical
Surveyor
2-Man Crew
3-Man Crew
$24.00/hr. - $28.75/hr.
$13.85/hr. - $22.00/hr.
$ 9.50/hr. - $12.50/hr.
$ 9.00/hr. - $16.00/hr.
$ 7.00/hr. - $12.50/hr.
$55.00/hr.
$65.00/hr.
EXAMPLE OF HOURLY RATE CALCULATION:
Hourly Rate = (Employee Salary + Fringe Factor) x 2.5 (Multiplier)
($10.00/hr. + 28.2%) x 2.5 = $ 32.05/hr.
Where:
$10.00
28.2%
2.5
Employee Hourly Salary
Fringe Factor (28.2%)
Multiplier
- 10 -
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department:
_Ubject:
Public Works/utilities
Approve Contract for Enhancement study for
Nnr+h rr~nA Rn~ò ~nò V~lley Park Estates
Sanitary Sewer Main Extension
Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
Agenda Number: PW 91-11
The staff has negotiated an agreement with Appraisal Consultation Group (Dennis
Gruelle, MAI, Appraiser) to conduct an Enhancement Study regarding the above referenced
projects. The North Crane Road project affects 28 properties and the Valley Park
Estates project affects 40 properties. The similarity and close proximity of both
areas allow them to be evaluated together.
Mr. Gruelle's fee of $7,500.00 covers both areas. He has agreed to have the report
completed within 45 days of written authorization to proceed.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached contract for appraisal services
with Appraisal Consultation Group and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract on their
behalf.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Finance Review !)ocz: - O~-OR-O l-hOOO ~nd
Acct. Number 50% - 02-08-02-6000
nds Available
REV
. Finance Director
ent Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
City Manager
Page 1 of
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t'
I
APPRAISAL CONSULTATION GROUP
3003 Carlisle Street, Suite 112
Dallas, Texas 75204
(214) 979-0060
March 4, 1991
City of North Richland Hills
7301 NE Loop 820
P. O. Box 820609
N. Richland Hills, Texas 76182-0609
Attention: Mr. Mark Bradley
Right-of Way Agent
RE: PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT STUDY;
North Crane Road Sanitary Sewer Main Extension and
Valley Park Estates Sanitary Sewer Main
Dear Mr. Bradley:
As requested, I herein submit a proposal to prepare an Evaluation Enhancement Study for
the projects referenced above. This study will determine whether impacted properties in
each area are enhanced after completion of the new sewer main, and if enhanced, by what
percentage.
There are a total of 68 properties to be studied. Valley Park Estates has 40 properties and
North Crane Road has 28 properties.
The cost for the referenced enhancement study will not exceed $7,500. The completion time
for the study will be within 45 days after official written authorization is given. Additional
fee~ for court appearance and/or testimony will be at $ 75.00 /hour.
Sincerely,
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS:
~
Dennis Gruelle, MAl
Tommy Brown, Mayor
Rev 3/7
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Jeanette Rewis, City Secretary
Rex McEntire, Attorney for City
I
I
I Department:
I -SUbject:
I
I
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
I
Public Works
Approve Budget for 1991 Opticom Signal Light
Control Irqprovements at Two Intersections: Agenda Number: PW 91-12
Rufe Snow Dr./Watauga Rd. & Rufe Snow Dr./Glenview Dr.
Council Meeting Date: 3/25/91
The Fire Department has been trying diligently over the last five years to have all
signalized intersections equipped with "opticom" signal light controls. The optical
device mounted on the signal arm can receive an optical signal from a fire truck or
ambulance on an emergency run and switch the signals to give the fire truck a green
light and all other directions a red light.
All new traffic signals being installed are being equipped with these controls.
Currently, thirteen signalized intersections within the City are not equipped with
opticom controls.
The staff is recommending 2 of the 13 signalized intersections without opticom have
opticom installed. Estimated cost for engineering and construction of this project is
$24,000.
Funding Source:
Sufficient funds are available from City Council's Reserve for Contingency and may be
appropriated as follows:
From: 01-99-01-5970
City Council Reserve for Contingency
$24,000
To: 01-99-01-6150
Opticom Rufe Snow· Dr./Watauga Rd. and
Rufe Snow Dr./Glenview Dr.
$24,000
Recommendation:
The staff recommends approval of the subject budget and the transfer of funds as
indicated above.
Finance Review
. Finance Director
ent Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Page 1 of
1
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{'
I
TO
FROM
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Rodger Line, City Manager
REF:
91-052
Pat Hughes, Division Chief
DA TE:
02/20/91
SUBJECT: Intersections ~^lithout Opticom Systems
As per your request the following intersections in the city are
not equipped with optic om control equipment.
v' 1 .
2 .
3 .
4 .
5 .
6 .
7 .
v 8.
9 .
10.
11.
12.
13.
Rufe Snow Dr. and Watauga Rd.
Grapevine Hwy. and Edison Dr.
Grapevine Hwy. and Harwood Rd.
Grapevine Hwy. and Rufe Snow Dr.
Grapevine Hwy. and Vance Rd.
Glenview Dr. and Vance Rd.
Glenview Dr. and Flory
Glenview Dr. and Rufe Snow Dr.
Davis Blvd. and Main St.
Davis Blvd. and Emerald Hills Way
Rufe Snow Dr. and Chapman Rd.
Holiday Ln. and NE Loop 820
College Cir. and Davis Blvd.
The intersection of College Circle and Davis Blvd. has a temporary
signal light, and will be replaced with a permanent system when
Davis Blvd. is widened. All new traffic control devices along
Davis Blvd. including the permanent one at College Circle are the
City's responsibility to install Opticom Systems. They are not
included in the State contract. The cost to provide Opticom
capabilities at an intersection is estimated at $10,000.
In reference to your question about the signal light on Rufe Snow
that is presently flashing, this unit was provided with an Opticom
System but the controller was removed by the city and placed at
another intersection within the city.
Also within the last year two intersections have received new
traffic control devices and both were equipped with Opticom
Systems they are: Watauga Rd. and Smithfield Rd.
Holiday Ln. and Dick Lewis Dr.
If you have any other questions concerning this matter, please
don't hesitate to call on us.