Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC 2011-03-28 Agendas
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKROOM 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS Monday, March 28, 2011 5:15 P.M. A.1 Discuss Items from Regular City Council Meeting A.2 Update on Retaining Wall and Water Level at the Lake Adjoining the #2 Tee Box at Iron Horse Golf Course (10 Minutes) B.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION - The City Council may enter into closed Executive Session to discuss the following as authorized by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code B.1 Executive Session: Pursuant to Section 551.071, Texas Government Code for Consultation with Attorney regarding Pending Litigation including Possible Settlement - 1) Hometown Urban Partners, Ltd. vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 096- 236530 -09); 2) Arcadia Land Partners 25 Ltd., et al vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 067- 241297- 09) C.0 Adjournment Certification I do hereby certify that the above notice of meeting of the North Richland Hills City Council was posted at City Hall, City of North Richland Hills, Texas in compliance with Qhapter 551, Texas Government Code on March 25, 2011 at W. a. m. / A / nt City Secretary This facility is wheelchair accessible and accessible parking '6paces are available. Requests for accommodations or interpretive services must be made 48 hours prior to this meeting. Please contact the City Secretary's office at 817 - 427 -6060 for further information. The City Council may confer privately with its attorney to seek legal advice on any matter listed on the agenda or on any matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code. City Council Agenda — March 28, 2011 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS Monday, March 28, 2011 7:00 P.M. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hard copies of the full City Council agenda information packet are accessible prior to every regularly scheduled Monday Council meeting according to the following locations and schedule: ❑ City Hall on the day of the meeting Additionally, the agenda packet is available for download from the City's web site at www.nrhtx.com after 10 a.m. the day of every regularly scheduled Council meeting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- A.0 Call to Order - Mayor Trevino A.1 Invocation - Mayor Pro Tern Sapp A.2 Pledge - Mayor Pro Tern Sapp A.3 Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - NRH Mayor's Health and Fitness Initiative "Fittest District" Award presented by Councilman Lewis A.4 Citizens Presentation An opportunity for citizens to address the City Council on matters which are not scheduled for consideration by the City Council or another City Board or Commission at a later date. In order to address the Council, please complete a Public Meeting Appearance Card and present it to the City Secretary prior to the start of the Council meeting. The Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits deliberation by the Council of any subject which is not on the posted agenda, therefore the Council will not be able to discuss or take action on items brought up during the citizens presentation. A.5 Removal of Item(s) from Consent Agenda B.0 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All consent agenda items listed below are considered to be routine items deemed to require little or no deliberation by the City Council and will be voted on in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered. City Council Agenda — March 28, 2011 Page 2 of 4 B.1 Approval of Minutes of February 11 -12, 2011 City Council Work Session B.2 Approval of Minutes of March 7, 2011 City Council Meeting B.3 GN 2011 -023 Approve the Resolution for Designating an Official Name for the Future Recreation Center— Resolution No. 2011 -016 B.4 PW 2011 -005 Award RFB No. 11 -017 to Humphrey & Morton Construction Company, Inc. in the Amount of $135,730.60 for the Replacement of a 16 Inch Water Supply Line Crossing Big Fossil Creek (UT1107) B.5 PW 2011 -006 Revise the FY 2010/2011 Capital Projects Budget and Approve a Change Order to RKM Utility Services, Inc. in the Amount of $55,449.95 for the Briarwood Estates Drainage Improvements Project (DR0901) B.6 PW 2011 -007 Recommend Award of Bid for the 35th Year and 36th Year Community Development Block Grant Projects: Honey Lane, Phases I & II (Harmonson Road to Glenview Drive) Paving Improvements to Stabile & Winn, Inc. in the amount of $342,695.24 - Resolution No. 2011 -016 B.7 GN 2011 -024 Authorize 2011 Victim Coordinator Liaison Grant - Resolution No. 2011- 018 r B.8 GN 2011 -021 Authorize Contract Extension Agreement Modification with Medical Director for Liability Insurance Coverage B.9 GN 2011 -022 Authorize the Publication of Notice of Intent to Issue Certificates of Obligation - Resolution No. 2011 -015 B.10 GN 2011 -025 Resolution Requesting Consideration of City Limit Boundary Lines When the Texas Legislature Redistricts the State - Resolution No. 2011 -019 C.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS C.1 ZC 2010 -05 Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from the City of North Richland Hills for changes to the Town Center Regulating Plan and Zoning Ordinance and rezoning of the eastern portion of Home Town generally located in between Boulevard 26 and Mid Cities Boulevard - Ordinance No. 3133 C.2 ZC 2010 -05 Public Hearing and Consideration of Amending the Thoroughfare Plan within the Home Town North Richland Hills Addition - Ordinance No. 3134 D.0 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Items to follow do not require a public hearing. No items for this category. City Council Agenda — March 28, 2011 Page 3 of 4 ., ia--4 E.0 PUBLIC WORKS No items for this category. F.0 GENERAL ITEMS No items for this category. G.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS G.1 Action on Any Item Discussed in Executive Session Listed on Work Session Agenda H.0 INFORMATION AND REPORTS H.1 Announcements - Councilman Barth H.2 Adjournment All items on the agenda are for discussion and /or action. Certification I do hereby certify that the above notice of meeting of the North Richland Hills City Council was posted at City Hall, City of North Richland Hills, T as in compliance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code on March 25, 2011 at W. 1 a. m. This facility is wheelchair accessible and accessible parking spaces are available. Requests for accommodations or interpretive services must be made 48 hours prior to this meeting. Please contact the City Secretary's office at 817 - 427 -6060 for further information. The City Council may confer privately with its attorney to seek legal advice on any matter listed on the agenda or on any matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code. City Council Agenda — March 28, 2011 Page 4 of 4 City of North Richland Hills City Council Work Session Meeting Agenda North Richland Hills City Hall City Council Workroom 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Monday, March 28, 2011 5:15 P.M. A.1 Discuss Items from Regular City Council Meeting A.2 Update on Retaining Wall and Water Level at the Lake Adjoining the #2 Tee Box at Iron Horse Golf Course (10 Minutes) B.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION - The City Council may enter into closed Executive Session to discuss the following as authorized by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code B.1 Executive Session: Pursuant to Section 551.071. Texas Government Code for Consultation with Attorney regarding Pending Litigation including Possible Settlement - 1) Hometown Urban Partners, Ltd. vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 096 - 236530 -09): 2) Arcadia Land Partners 25 Ltd., et al vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 067 - 241297 -09) C.0 Adjournment CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Agenda No. A.1 Subject: Discuss Items from Regular City Council Meeting CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Manager's Office Presented by: Jared Miller Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. A.2 Subject: Update on Retaining Wall and Water Level at the Lake Adjoining the #2 Tee Box at Iron Horse Golf Course (10 Minutes) Summary: Staff will provide an update on the retaining wall and water level at the lake adjoining the #2 tee box at Iron Horse Golf Course. General Descri tp ian'. At the March 7 "' City Council Meeting, during the Citizens Presentation section, a citizen expressed concerns about the retaining wall and water level at the lake adjoining the #2 tee box at Iron Horse Golf Course. Specifically, the citizen felt that the retaining wall was aesthetically un- attractive and structurally un -sound and expressed concerns that failure of the retaining wall would damage hole #2. The citizen also felt that the water level in the lake fluctuated too much and that the level should remain constant. In 2007 an engineer who was designing gabion wall supports at a few locations along Big Fossil Creek in Iron Horse Golf Course was also asked to look at the retaining wall at hole #2 and provide the city his professional opinion concerning the structural integrity of the wall. The engineer looked at the wall and his findings at that time indicated that there was not structural damage to the wall. The deteriorated or missing rail road ties only impacted the visual aesthetics of the wall. In early 2010, the city had the same engineer re- evaluate the condition of the retaining wall. The opinion of the engineer was consistent with his previous evaluation. He found that retaining wall did not appear to have any structural damage and he did not see any concerns for the tee box at hole #2. City staff recognizes that the retaining wall is not aesthetically pleasing and has it identified as a future capital project. However, due to the number of future improvements identified for Iron Horse, improvements are prioritized based upon severity of need. This project is not prioritized as high as other projects because the retaining wall is not at a highly visible location for the golf course and does not have an adverse impact on the functionality or playability of the course. Staff will continue to monitor the wall and if the deterioration of the wall increases staff will adjust the priority of this project accordingly. The lake in question is also referred to as the lower lake or lake #2. The two lakes at Meadowlakes were constructed with the irrigation of Iron Horse in mind. Water from the lower lake is used for irrigation of portions of the course south of Loop 820. Water, replenished via wells into the upper lake, flows over the upper spillway and on to the lower lake. The lower lake is constructed with an 18 inch high wall at the spillway. The lake is designed so that the water levels will fluctuate within the 18 inches. It will never be higher since the water will flow over the spillway and the Iron Horse staff ensures that it does not get below the 18 inch wall. While the lake level is designed to fluctuate as much as 18 inches, actual levels rarely vary more than 6 to 8 inches. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Agenda No. B.CI Subject: EXECUTIVE SESSION - The City Council may enter into closed Executive Session to discuss the following as authorized by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Agenda No. B.1 Subject: Executive Session: Pursuant to Section 551.471, Texas Government Code for Consultation with Attorney regarding Pending Litigation including Possible Settlement - 1 ) Hometown Urban Partners, Ltd. vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 096 - 236536 -09); 2) Arcadia Land Partners 25 Ltd., et al vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 067- 241297- 09) Department: City Secretary Presented by: Subject: Adjournment CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. C.0 City of North Richland Hills City Council Regular Meeting Agenda North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Monday, March 28, 2011 7:00 P.M. A.0 Call to Order - Mayor Trevino A.1 Invocation - Mayor Pro Tern Sapp A.2 Pledge - Mayor Pro Tern Sapp A.3 Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - NRH Mayor's Health and Fitness Initiative "Fittest District" Award presented by Councilman Lewis A.4 Citizens Presentation An opportunity for citizens to address the City Council on matters which are not scheduled for consideration by the City Council or another City Board or Commission at a later date. In order to address the Council, please complete a Public Meeting Appearance Card and present it to the City Secretary prior to the start of the Council meeting. The Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits deliberation by the Council of any subject which is not on the posted agenda, therefore the Council will not be able to discuss or take action on items brought up during the citizens presentation. A.5 Removal of Item(s) from Consent Agenda B.0 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All consent agenda items listed below are considered to be routine items deemed to require little or no deliberation by the City Council and will be voted on in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered. B.1 Approval of Minutes of February 11 -12, 2011 City Council Work Session B.2 Approval of Minutes of March 7, 2011 City Council Meeting B.3 GIN 2011 -023 Approve the Resolution for Designating an Official Name for the Future Recreation Center — Resolution No. 2011 -016 B.4 PW 2011 -005 Award RFB No. 11 -017 to Humphrey & Morton Construction Company, Inc. in the Amount of $135,730.60 for the Replacement of a 16 Inch Water Supply Line Crossing Big Fossil Creek (UT1107) B.5 PW 2011 -006 Revise the FY 2010/2011 Capital Projects Budget and Approve a Change Order to RKM Utility Services, Inc. in the Amount of $55,449.95 for the Briarwood Estates Drainage Improvements Project (DR0901) B.6 PW 2011 -007 Recommend Award of Bid for the 35th Year and 36th Year Community Development Block Grant Projects: Honey Lane, Phases I & II (Harmonson Road to Glenview Drive) Paving Improvements to Stabile & Winn, Inc. in the amount of $342,695.24 - Resolution No. 2011 -016 B.7 GN 2011 -024 Authorize 2011 Victim Coordinator Liaison Grant - Resolution No. 2011 -018 B.8 GN 2011 -021 Authorize Contract Extension Agreement Modification with Medical Director for Liability Insurance Coverage B.9 GN 2011 -022 Authorize the Publication of Notice of Intent to Issue Certificates of Obligation - Resolution No. 2011 -015 B.10 GN 2011 -025 Resolution Requesting Consideration of City Limit Boundary Lines When the Texas Legislature Redistricts the State - Resolution No. 2011 -019 C.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS C.1 ZC 2010 -05 Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from the City of North Richland Hills for changes to the Town Center Regulating Plan and Zoning Ordinance and rezoning of the eastern portion of Home Town generally located in between Boulevard 26 and Mid Cities Boulevard - Ordinance No. 3133 C.2 ZC 2010 -05 Public Hearing and Consideration of Amending the Thoroughfare Plan within the Home Town North Richland Hills Addition - Ordinance No. 3134 D.0 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Items to follow do not require a public hearing. No items for this category. E.0 PUBLIC WORKS No items for this category. F.0 GENERAL ITEMS No items for this category. G.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS G.1 Action on Any Item Discussed in Executive Session Listed on Work Session Agenda H.0 INFORMATION AND REPORTS H.1 Announcements - Councilman Barth H.2 Adjournment liftrArfial NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Mayor Oscar Trevino Agenda No. A.0 Subject: Call to Order - Mayor Trevino liftrArfial NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Mayor Pro Tern Ken Sapp Agenda No. A.1 Subject: Invocation - Mayor Pro Tern Sapp liftrArfial NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Mayor Pro Tern Ken Sapp Agenda No. A.2 Subject: Pledge - Mayor Pro Tern Sapp CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Presented by: Adrien Pekurney Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. A.3 Subject: Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - NRH Mayor's Health and Fitness Initiative "Fittest District" Award presented by Councilman Lewis During the spring of 2010, Mayor Oscar Trevino introduced the NRH Mayor's Health & Fitness Initiative as an educational and wellness incentive program for the community. The program encouraged residents of all ages to improve their fitness levels by participating in regular physical activity and charting their progress. The program also endorsed healthy and improved nutrition. The Initiative was simple: Sign Up, Show Up, Keep It Up! Throughout the initiative, NRH residents had an opportunity to sign up and track their physical activity through the American Heart Association's online program, Start!. This program is the American Heart Association's movement to get America walking — at home, at work and everywhere in- between. The NRH Mayor's Health and Fitness Initiative identified six "Fit Districts" throughout North Richland Hills. The districts were established to allow staff to determine the "Fittest District" in NRH by March 9, 2011. Once individuals registered through the American Heart Association Start! program, they could begin logging their individual physical activity. By March 9, 2011 a total of 42,818,052 million steps had been logged by North Richland Hills residents participating in the Mayor's Health and Fitness Initiative. This is equivalent to eight and a half round trips from Texas to California. All six districts had great representation of steps logged over the last year. When the program officially ended on March 9, 2011 the clear winner was the Red Fit District with 17,902,717 million steps logged. The Blue Fit District was the second fittest district with 14,154,272 million steps logged. We are pleased to present the top five Red District participants. Congratulations to the following NRH citizens: Betty Vandiver 4,332,090 steps logged Mike Filis 3,006,677 steps logged Cathy Filis 2,782,456 steps logged Jennifer Holderead 1,892,721 steps logged Mayor Oscar Trevino 1,771,911 steps logged We congratulate the Red Fit District and will encourage the NRH Community to continue their health and fitness pursuits throughout 2011 and beyond! CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Agenda No. A.4 Subject: Citizens Presentation An opportunity for citizens to address the City Council on matters which are not scheduled for consideration by the City Council or another City Board or Commission at a later date. In order to address the Council, please complete a Public Meeting Appearance Card and present it to the City Secretary prior to the start of the Council meeting. The Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits deliberation by the Council of any subject which is not on the posted agenda, therefore the Council will not be able to discuss or take action on items brought up during the citizens presentation. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Presented by: Subject: Removal of Item(s) from Consent Agenda Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. A.5 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Agenda No. B.0 Subject: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All consent agenda items listed below are considered to be routine items deemed to require little or no deliberation by the City Council and will be voted on in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered. liftrArojal NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Patricia Hutson Agenda No. B.1 Subject: Approval of Minutes of February 11 -12, 2011 City Council Work Session Recommendation: To approve the Minutes of the February 11 -12, 2011 City Council Work Session. MINUTES OF THE STRATEGIC VISION/GOALS WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD AT HILTON GARDEN INN, 635 EAST PEARL STREET, GRANBURY, TEXAS - FEBRUARY 11-12,2011 Council Present: Oscar Trevino Ken Sapp Tom Lombard Tim Barth David Whitson Scott Turnage Tim Welch Staff Present: Mark Hindman Karen Bostic Jimmy Perdue Mike Curtis Vickie Loftice Jimmy Perdue Patricia Hutson Dana Alden Patrick Hillis Craig Hulse Andy Jones Larry Koonce Mark Mills Mary Peters John Pitstick Kyle Spooner JoAnn Stout Kristin Weegar Absent: John Lewis Mayor Mayor Pro Tern, Council, Place 2 Council, Place 3 Council, Place 4 Council, Place 5 Council, Place 0 Council, Place 7 City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant City Manager Managing Director Managing Director Director of Public Safety City Secretary Assistant to City Manager Human Resources Director Economic Development Director Fire Chief Finance Director Budget Director Public Information Director Director of Planning Information Services Director Neighborhood Services Director Management Assistant, Public Works Council, Place 1 The City Council met on February 11, 2011 beginning at 10:34 a.m. and concluded on February 12, 2011 for the purpose of reviewing and setting goals, objectives and strategies. Mr. Randy Pennington, Pennington Performance Group, was the facilitator for the work session. Mayor Trevino called the work session to order on February 11, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. with Council and Staff present as recorded. Mayor Trevino and City Manager Hindman gave opening remarks and each of the Council Members were given an opportunity for remarks. Mr. Pennington gave a brief overview of the planning session and reviewed the agenda and the objectives. Ground rules were established for the work session and the group discussed opportunities to maximize the goal setting process to make it more effective. Opportunities to improve communications were discussed. The discussion focused on: • What Staff does to allow Council to be successful and what Staff could do to enable Council to be more effective. • What Council does that allows Staff to be successful and what Council could do to enable Staff to be more successful. Mayor Trevino recessed the work session at 12:04 p.m. and called the work session back to order at 1:01 p.m. Discussion resumed with what Council is doing that allows it to be successful and what would help Council to be more effective. The Council discussed their desire to receive a long -term goal /direction (10 years plus) of where the City was going with a five -year forecast and financial plans. Council expressed a desire to ensure the alignment between Council goals and staff activities. Mr. Pennington reviewed with Council their Code of Conduct (House Rules) agreed to in 2009. Council concurred that while some of the rules were not relevant for the existing Council, they needed to remain in writing for future Councils to understand expectations. Council agreed with the rules previously established and felt no modifications were needed. The group was asked to identify accomplishments since the last planning session in 2009. Mr. Pennington reviewed the City's mission and 2020 vision statement. After a brief discussion, Council reconfirmed the mission and vision. City of North Richland Hills Mission: To ensure an exceptional quality of life and long -term viability of North Richland Hills through local leadership and regional corporation. City of North Richland Hills Vision 2020 The City of Choice to live, work, and play A community for • Quality neighborhoods (sustainable & revitalized) • Exceptional family living and leisure activities ■ Access to great business and job opportunities. Mr. Pennington reviewed from the 2009 Goals Work Session who the Council had established as the target population to live, work and play. After discussion, the Council concurred that the list was relevant with one change needed: Single- family homes (with pockets of other types of housing) was changed to "Quality single family homes and pockets of other types of quality housing that promote neighborhood sustainability ". The group began a discussion on the gaps between reality and the vision for the City. The Mayor recessed the work session at 2:30 p.m. and called the work session back to order at 2:44 p.m. Discussion continued on the barriers that make it difficult to achieve the vision. The Mayor recessed the work session at 3:40 p.m. and called the work session back to order at 3:55 p.m. Following the break, the group ranked the barriers /gaps that had been discussed and identified earlier. The primary and secondary barriers identified were: Primary: • Uncertainty of how to pay for city facility needs • Accessibility barriers affecting economic development • Lack of focus on creating alliances with communities that share the city's vision for development and services • Lack of progress in addressing gaps in Blvd. 26 development Secondary: • Lack of funding for regional rail • Potential for unfunded mandates • Unknown support levels for future grants • Lack of daytime population on north side of City • Lack of quality commercial in desired areas to promote quality neighborhoods • Limited ability to influence use of private ownership of large tracts • Losing potential commercial real estate to other uses • Potential challenges with maintenance and operation budgets to keep parks vibrant • Lack of funding for the animal shelter. Council was asked to review the eight goals set at the previous planning work session in 2009 and to determine if the goals were still relevant or needed to be modified. Goal #1: Quality Community Development and Revitalization Goal #2: Efficient and Effective Transportation Systems Goal #3: Safety & Security Goal #4: Financial Stability Goal #5: Positive City Image Goal #6: A Sense of Community Goal #7: Targeted Economic Development Goal #8: Local and Regional Leadership The consensus was all the goals are still relevant and a ninth goal was added- Efficient and Effective Delivery of City Services. The goals were then ranked into Highest Priority (Urgent and Important) and High Priority (Important to Maintain at Current High Level). The goals were ranked as follows: Highest Priority Goals — Urgent and Important • Financial Stability • Targeted Economic Development • Quality Community Development and Revitalization • Efficient and Effective Transportation System • Efficient and Effective Delivery of City Services High Priority Goals — Important to Maintain at Current High Level • Safety and Security • Positive City Image • A Sense of Community • Local and Regional Leadership Mr. Pennington led the group in a review of each of the 2009 objectives for relevance with modifications and deletions being made. The review was completed the following morning. Mayor Trevino recessed the work session for the evening at 5:04 p.m. and called the work session back to order on February 12, 2011 at 8:35 a.m. with Council and Staff present as recorded the previous day. Council continued their discussion from the previous evening reviewing and establishing objectives for each of the goals. The outcome of the discussion was the establishment of the following objectives for each of the goals: Goal #1: Quality Community Development and Revitalization Objectives: • Redevelop Calloway Creek Commercial Area • Implement Loop 820 study objectives • Implement Blvd 26 Study • Revitalize residential neighborhoods • Ensure compliance with quality housing standards Goal #2: Efficient and Effective Transportation System Objectives: • Maintain leadership role on regional transportation issues • Continue to address congestion as it relates to local traffic flow • Continue to improve street conditions • Ensure future local rail stations • Establish effective communication and cooperation with our regional transportation partners Goal #3: Safety and Security Objectives: • Maintain low response time • Maintain low crime rate • Provide effective and efficient Police, Fire and EMS • Engage community in public safety programs and initiatives • Maintain the City's ability to respond to all large scale emergencies • Implement shared regional core public safety services where possible Goal #4: Financial Stability Objectives: • Continue pay -as -you go where possible • Maintain a stable tax rate and predictable income stream • Update the long -range financial plans annually • Maintain cash reserve policies • Maximize targeted grant funding • Identify and evaluate funding alternatives for achieving strategic vision Goal #5: Positive City Image Objectives: ■ Enhance public information initiatives • Continue and enhance communication flow with citizens • Focus on and recognize city successes • Promote and initiate environmentally responsible programs • Continue the Public Art Program • Increase regional awareness of our positive city image Goal #6: A Sense of Community Objectives: ■ Complete and implement trails plan • Maintain parks and recreation facilities and programs at current high level • Encourage volunteerism and community wide involvement • Maintain cultural arts program • Promote life long learning through library services • Prepare for demographic changes to maintain our sense of community • Cultivate the next generation of community leaders • Encourage community support of local businesses • Solidify and move forward on the future TCC facility in Town Center Goal #7: Targeted Economic Development Objectives • Attract the types of businesses and primary jobs we want to our community • Promote diversity in economic development • Proactive strategic land acquisition and management • Maximize use of under utilized real estate and business locations • Retain and grow our current businesses Goal #8: Local and Regional Leadership Objectives: • Continue to be involved in setting direction for the region • Build & maintain relationships that influence decisions in areas where we have an interest • Promote service and involvement that bring prominence as leaders that influence the direction in key issues • Lead by example, do it better • Maintain leadership role on legislative issues Goal #9 — Efficient and Effective Delivery of City Services • Maintain quality public facilities • Maintain an effective work force and infrastructure that can meet current and future needs • Address critical, present and future municipal facility needs • Explore improved efficiency, cost savings and effectiveness through shared services During the discussion to identify the objectives, the following were also identified as possible action items: • Emphasize what city is doing to address streets — provide citizens with information on how streets are ranked and a ranking comparison of streets in the City • Seek more opportunities to engage CERT • Establish long range plans with five year forecast and financials; plans should include a variety of scenarios and strategies to achieve the objectives • Establish NRH as a brand • Implement a Citizen Academy • Encourage developers to maximize use of existing real estate and locations (e.g. Loop 820, Blvd. 26, Cotton Belt, existing buildings and real estate) City -wide priorities were set for 2011 -2012 by ranking the objectives. The objectives were categorized into Highest Priorities Objectives - Urgent and Important and High Priority Objectives — Important to Maintain at the Current High Level. Results of the rankings were: Highest Priorities Objectives — Urgent and Important • Address critical present and future municipal facility needs ■ Maximize use of under utilized real estate and business • Retain and grow our current businesses • Cultivate the next generation of community leaders ■ Solidify and move forward on the future TCC facility in Town Center • Continue and enhance communication flow with citizens ■ Maintain a stable tax rate and predictable income stream ■ Identify and evaluate funding alternatives for achieving our strategic vision ■ Provide effective and efficient police, fire and EMS • Establish effective communication and cooperation with our regional transportation partners ■ Continue to address congestion as it relates to local traffic flow ■ Continue to improve street conditions ■ Revitalize residential neighborhoods • Ensure compliance with quality housing standards ■ Implement Blvd 26 Study High Priority Objectives — Important to Maintain at the Current High Level • Redevelop Calloway Creek Commercial Area • Implement Loop 820 study objectives • Revitalize residential neighborhoods ■ Ensure compliance with quality housing standards • Maintain leadership role on regional transportation issues • Continue to address congestion as it relates to local traffic flow ■ Continue to improve street conditions • Ensure future local rail stations ■ Maintain low response time • Maintain low crime rate ■ Engage community in public safety programs and initiatives ■ Maintain the City's ability to respond to all large scale emergencies ■ Implement shared regional core public safety services where possible ■ Continue pay -as -you go where possible ■ Update the long -range financial plan annually ■ Maintain cash reserve policies • Maximize targeted grant funding • Enhance public information initiatives • Maintain quality public facilities • Focus on and recognize city successes ■ Promote and initiate environmentally responsible programs • Continue the Public Art Program • Increase regional awareness or our positive city image ■ Complete and implement trails plan • Maintain parks and recreation facilities and programs at current high level ■ Encourage volunteerism and community wide involvement • Maintain cultural arts program • Promote life long learning through library services • Prepare for demographic changes to maintain our sense of community • Encourage community support of local businesses ■ Attract the types of businesses and primary jobs we want to our community ■ Promote diversity in economic development ■ Proactive strategic land acquisition and management ■ Continue to be involved in setting direction for the region • Build and maintain relationships that influence decisions in areas where we have an interest • Promote service and involvement that bring prominence as leaders that influence the direction in key issues ■ Lead by example, d❑ it better ■ Maintain leadership role on legislative issues ■ Maintain quality public facilities ■ Maintain an effective work force and infrastructure that can meet current and future needs • Explore improved efficiency, cost savings and effectiveness through shared services Mr. Pennington discussed with Council how they would like to define success for the corning year. Council identified as criteria for success — • Ability to complete or make progress towards achieving objectives • Citizen satisfaction from survey • Good response of citizen academy Mayor Trevino adjourned the work session on February 12, 2011 at 12:05 p.m. I:1» ZZ6I►1413 Oscar Trevino - Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Hutson - City Secretary CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Agenda No. B.2 Subject: Approval of Minutes of March 7, 2011 City Council Meeting Recommendation: To approve the Minutes of the March 7, 2011 City Council Meeting. MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 — MARCH 7, 2011 WORK SESSION The City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas met in work session on the 7th day of March 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Workroom prior to the 7:00 p.m. regular Council meeting. Present: Oscar Trevino Mayor Ken Sapp Mayor Pro Tem, Council, Place 2 John Lewis Council, Place 1 Tom Lombard Council, Place 3 Tim Barth Council, Place 4 David Whitson Council, Place 5 Scott Turnage Council, Place 6 Tim Welch Council, Place 7 Staff Members: Mark Hindman City Manager Jared Miller Assistant City Manager Karen Bostic Assistant City Manager Mike Curtis Managing Director Vickie Loftice Managing Director Patricia Hutson City Secretary Monica Solko Assistant City Secretary George Staples City Attorney Dana Alden Assistant to City Manager Mary Peters Public Information Officer John Pitstick Director of Planning & Development Larry Koonce Finance Director Gregory VanNieuwenhuize Assistant Public Works Director Dave Pendley Building Official Sean Hughes Emergency Management Coordinator Andrew Jones Fire Chief Andy Kancel Assistant Police Chief Chris Swartz NRH20 Park Manager JoAnn Stout Neighborhood Services Director Stephanie East Environmental Health Supervisor Call to Order Mayor Trevino called the work session to order at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Trevino recognized Ms. Sally Proffitt from Tarrant County College Northeast and students from her Business Leadership course. A.1 Discuss Items from Regular City Council Meetinq Agenda Item C.1, SUP 2010 -07 — Mayor Trevino questioned if the continuance was based only on the applicant needing to make changes to the site plan. Mr. Pitstick advised the applicant was requesting a continuance to enable him to bring back a revised site plan that would detail the signage and landscaping amendments approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting Agenda Item C.2, SUP 2011 -02 — Mayor Trevino commented that the applicant was running a business from the home and questioned if the applicant had been advised of available commercial areas. Mr. Pitstick advised that Staff first learned that the home was not the applicant's primary residence during the Planning and Zoning meeting. Staff has since pointed out to the applicant that the structure will have to be used as a permanent residence before any customary home occupation would be allowed. Agenda Item CA, GIN 2011 -010 — Mayor Trevino advised that the item would be heard by the Sign Review Board after the adjournment of the City Council meeting. A.2 Recreation Center Naming Recommendation Update Councilman Turnage advised that following the February 14th Council work session in which the naming of the recreation center was discussed by Council, the Naming Board met to further discuss the naming of the recreation center. The Naming Board arrived at two names for Council's consideration. The Naming Board is unanimously recommending NRH Centre, as the preferred name. The second name presented to Council for consideration is NRH Community Centre. After a brief discussion by Council, the consensus was to name the facility NRH Centre. The item will be formally considered at the March 28 City Council meeting. A.3 Presentation of New Grant Funded CERT Web -site Mr. Sean Hughes, Emergency Management Coordinator, presented to Council the North Richland Hills Community Emergency Response Team's (CERT) new website. Council was given a demonstration of the different features of the website. B.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION - The City Council may enter into closed Executive Session to discuss the following as authorized by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code B.1 Executive Session: Pursuant to Section 551.071. Texas Government Code for Consultation with Attorney regarding Pending Litigation - 1) City of North Richland Hills v. Laura Friend, et al (No. 02 -09- 00166 -CV) 21 Hometown Urban Partners, Ltd. vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 096 - 236530 -09); 3) Arcadia Land Partners 25 Ltd., et al vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 067 - 241297 -09) Mayor Trevino announced at 6:17: p.m. that the Council would convene into Executive Session as authorized by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, pursuant to Section 551.071 for consultation with Attorney regarding pending litigation - 1) Hometown Urban Partners, Ltd. vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 096 - 236530 -09); 2) Arcadia Land Partners 25 Ltd., et al vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 067- 241297 -09). Mayor Trevino reconvened the meeting in open session at 6:20 p.m. and announced that the Council would convene into Executive Session at 6:20 p.m. as authorized by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, pursuant to Section 551.071 for consultation with Attorney regarding pending litigation 1) City of North Richland Hills v. Laura Friend, et al (No. 02 -09- 00166 -CV) 2) Hometown Urban Partners, Ltd. vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 096- 236530 -09); 3) Arcadia Land Partners 25 Ltd., et al vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 067 - 241297 -09) C.0 Adjournment Mayor Trevino announced at 6:39 p.m. that the Council would adjourn to the regular Council meeting. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING A.0 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Trevino called the meeting to order March 7, 2011 at 7:00 p.m ROLL CALL Present: Oscar Trevino Mayor Ken Sapp Mayor Pro Tem, Council, Place 2 John Lewis Council, Place 1 Tom Lombard Council, Place 3 Tim Barth Council, Place 4 David Whitson Council, Place 5 Scott Turnage Council, Place 6 Tim Welch Council, Place 7 Staff Mark Hindman Jared Miller Karen Bostic Mike Curtis Vickie Loftice Patricia Hutson Monica Solko George Staples City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant City Manager Managing Director Managing Director City Secretary Assistant City Secretary Attorney A.1 INVOCATION Councilman Barth gave the invocation. A.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilman Barth led the pledge of allegiance. Mayor Trevino recognized Ms. Sally Proffitt from Tarrant County College Northeast and students from her Business Leadership course. A.3 SPECIAL PRESENTATION {S} AND RECOGNITION(S) - CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 Mr. Larry Koonce, Finance Director, introduced Mr. Fred Werner, Director of Finance, City of Grapevine and representing the Government Finance Officers Association of Texas. Mr. Fred Werner presented the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the Comprehensive Financial Report to the City. The City has received the Certificate of Achievement Award for the last 27 years. Fifteen percent of the cities in the State of Texas and five percent of the cities in the United States received the award. A.4 SPECIAL PRESENTATION(S) AND RECOGNITION(S) - ANNUAL BUNNY AND BEAR DRIVE PRESENTED BY HALEY WHATLEY Ms. Haley Whatley presented the Council with a memento from her 11th Annual Bunny & Bear Drive benefiting Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth. A few years ago, Ms. Whatley was selected by the National Association of School Principals to be the Community Service Ambassador for the State of Texas and traveled to Washington, D.C. She was proud to be from the City of North Richland Hills and shared with our senators all the good work the community has done and will continue to do. A.5 CITIZENS PRESENTATION Mr. Charles Cole, 6125 Riviera Drive, wanted to compliment Patrolman McGuire for his politeness and thoughtfulness he displayed when he came to his home after his house alarm went off. He also wanted to again bring to the attention of Council the importance of recycling in the city for future generations and to again bring to the attention of Council the second hole tee box at Iron Horse Golf Course. Mayor Trevino asked Mark Hindman, City Manager to update the Council at a future Work Session on the status of the second tee box. Mr. Hindman stated that there was a current paper drive benefiting the Animal Shelter and paper recycle bins could be found at our local Walmart. None. A.6 REMOVAL OF ITEM(S) FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA B.0 APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED B.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 201'1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING B.2 PU 2011 -009 REVISE THE FY 2010/2011 CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,958 AND AWARD THE BID FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE GREEN EXTREME SWITCHGEAR TO HURST ELECTRIC IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,958 COUNCILMAN LOMBARD MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MAYOR PRO TEM SAPP SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 7 -0. C.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS C.1 SUP 2010 -07 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM ARFA GROUP LLC FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) FOR AN AUTO RENTAL BUSINESS AT 7109 BOULEVARD 26. (REQUESTED CONTINUANCE BY APPLICANT) CONTINUANCE Mayor Trevino opened the Public Hearing and stated that the applicant was requesting a continuance on the item. MAYOR PRO TEM SAPP MOVED TO CONTINUE SUP 2016 -07. COUNCILMAN TURNAGE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 7 -0. C.2 ZC 2011-02 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM JANET HALLMAN FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM AG AGRICULTURAL TO R -1 SINGLE FAMILY ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, FRENCH ADDITION LOCATED AT 8808 AMUNDSON DRIVE - ORDINANCE NO. 3131 DENIED Mayor Trevino opened the public hearing and called on the applicant to come forward. Doug Hallman, 8801 Amundson Drive, came forward. Mr. Hallman stated that they were requesting that the zoning be changed from AG to R -1 Single Family to use as a home. He was available to answer any questions. Councilman Whitson questioned that the P&Z report to Council stated that the home would be used as a counseling business. Mr. Hallman stated that they were applying for a home occupation permit which counseling was listed as one of the home occupations. John Pitstick, Planning and Development Director, summarized the item. The property owner, Janet Hallman, is requesting a zoning change on a 0.782 acre parcel from AG (Agricultural) to R -1 (Single family). The applicant desires to operate a counseling business in the home. Although this is an approved home occupation according to the Code of Ordinances, home occupations are not permitted in the AG district. This change in zoning would accomplish both the goal of bringing the business activity on the property into conformance as well as properly zoning a single family home. At this point staff is supportive of the rezoning from Agricultural to R1, but has some concerns regarding the proposed use as a customary home occupation. From a principal standpoint staff is opposed to rezoning the property to a residential use (R1) if the primary intended use is essentially of a commercial nature. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 5 -0 vote. Councilman Turnage asked Mr. Pitstick if this location would be the Hallman's primary residence? Mr. Pitstick stated that the Hallman's have indicated that it would be. The home will have to be the primary residence before a customary home occupation would be allowed. Mayor Trevino asked Mr. Pitstick how the City would know if the location would be used as a primary residence or as a commercial counseling business? Mr. Pitstick stated that it would be difficult to monitor but would have to rely on neighbors to call in a complaint. Mayor Trevino called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of the request to come forward. Johnathan Killebrew, 4012 Penny Royal, Keller, Texas, a third party inspector, came forward. Mr. Killebrew stated that in his opinion this was a home which consisted of a bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and an office like many other homes. In his opinion allowing the Hallman's to rezone to an R -1 zoning would benefit the City because an R- 1 zoning has more restriction than an AG zoning. After remodeling the home, the Hallman's were advised by the City to rezone the property from AG to R -1 because AG did not allow a home occupation. Mayor Trevino called for anyone wishing to speak against the request to come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Trevino closed the public hearing and called for the motion. COUNCILMAN WELCH MOVED TO APPROVE ZC 2011-02. COUNCILMAN EARTH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE FAILED 3-4, COUNCILMAN WELCH, COUNCILMAN BARTH, AND COUNCILMAN LEWIS VOTING FOR THE APPROVAL AND MAYOR PRO TEM SAPP, COUNCILMAN TURNAGE, COUNCILMAN LOMBARD, AND COUNCILMAN WHITSON VOTING AGAINST THE APPROVAL. Mayor Trevino announced that motion failed and called for another motion. MAYOR PRO TEM SAPP MOVED TO DENY ZC 2011-82; ORDINANCE NO. 3131. COUNCILMAN TURNAGE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO DENY CARRIED 4 -3, MAYOR PRO TEM SAPP, COUNCILMAN LOMBARD, COUNCILMAN WHITSON AND COUNCILMAN TURNAGE VOTING FOR DENIAL AND COUNCILMAN LEWIS, COUNCILMAN BARTH, AND COUNCILMAN WELCH VOTING AGAINST DENIAL. Councilman Welch left the Council Meeting at 7:26 p.m. C.3 ZC 2011 -01 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM BRIAN JAMES FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM AG AGRICULTURAL TO R -1 SINGLE FAMILY ON TRACT 2T, ABSTRACT 1055 LOCATED AT 6832 CLIFT STREET - ORDINANCE NO. 3130 ❑PPRnvPn Mayor Trevino opened the public hearing and announced that Councilman Welch would be abstaining from item C.3. Councilman Welch was the Engineer on record for the project. An affidavit of disqualification has been completed by Councilman Welch and filed with the City Secretary stating the nature of the interest was Engineer consultant for the applicant. Mayor Trevino called on the applicant Brain James to come forward. Brian James, 8920 Rumfield Road, came forward. Mr. James stated that he was requesting a zoning change from AG zoning to R -1 zoning in order to build a home on one of the lots. After the zoning change, the property will be split into three lots. Mr. James will be building his home on one lot and selling the other two lots. John Pitstick, Planning and Development Director, summarized the item. The applicant, Brian James, is requesting a zoning change on a 2.237 acre parcel from AG (Agricultural) to R -1 (Single Family). Mr. James is proposing to divide the tract into three lots for the construction of single - family homes. He plans to build his personal home on one of the lots and sell the remaining two. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 5 -0 vote. Mayor Trevino called for anyone wishing to speak for or against the request to come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Trevino closed the public hearing and called for the motion. COUNCILMAN TURNAGE MOVED TO APPROVE ZC 2011 -01; ORDINANCE No. 3130. COUNCILMAN LOMBARD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 6 -0 -1, COUNCILMAN WELCH ABSTAINING. CA GN 2011 -020 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST SRB 2011 -02 REGARDING SECTION 106(12) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY GOLDEN CORRAL RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 7660 BOULEVARD 26 REMOVED Mayor Trevino announced that item CA was being removed from the City Council Agenda to be discussed and voted on during the Sign Review Board Meeting immediately following the City Council Meeting. Mark Hindman, City Manager left the Council Meeting at 7:34 p.m. Councilman Welch and City Manager, Mark Hindman returned to the Council dais at 7:35 p.m. D.0 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Items to follow do not require a public hearing. No items for this category. No items for this category. E.0 PUBLIC WORKS F.0 GENERAL ITEMS F.1 GN 2011-018 PRESENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2010 AUDITED FINANCIAL REPORT APPROVED Mr. Larry Koonce, Finance Director, presented the 2010 Fiscal Year Audited Financial Report advising of year -end results and fund balance data for the various funds. Mr. Terry Kyles from the independent audit firm of Deloitte and Touche presented the audit opinion and report. The auditor's opinion was an unqualified opinion or a "clean" opinion meaning that they found the Financial Statements of the City to fairly represent the City's financial position. COUNCILMAN WHITSON MOVED TO APPROVE GN 2411 -418 ACCEPTING THE 2010 FISCAL YEAR AUDITED FINANCIAL REPORT AS PRESENTED. COUNCILMAN WELCH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 7 -4. F.2 PU 2411 -010 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF PROXIM TRAFFIC SIGNAL RADIO COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT FROM ANIXTER, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,478.27 AND SOLE SOURCE RADIO COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION THROUGH JTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,974.38 ❑PPRC)Vpn Jimmy Cates, Public Works Operations Manager, summarized the item. This item is a request for authorization to purchase and install traffic signal radio communication equipment at signalized intersections along Rufe Snow Drive from Meadow Lakes Drive to Starnes Road, Mid - Cities Boulevard from Holiday Lane to Home Depot /Birdville Fine Arts Complex, and Holiday Lane from Lola Drive to Dick Lewis Drive. This project includes a turn key implementation by Anixter, Inc. and JTS in the amount of $93,452.65. This signal radio communication equipment is being purchased as part of the Capital Improvement Project ST1004, the Traffic Signal Light Adaptive System. Funding for the project was approved by Council in the Capital Improvements Budget for Fiscal Year 201012011. Council also approved a grant through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for stimulus funds on February 8, 2010 that will help cover some of the equipment cost. The real time operation will optimize the signal timing plans which will reduce stops, travel time, delay and fuel consumption for motorists traveling along the arteries. COUNCILMAN WELCH MOVED To APPROVE PU 2411 -410 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF PROXIM TRAFFIC SIGNAL RADIO COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT FROM ANIXTER, INC IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,478.27 AND SOLE SOURCE RADIO COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION THROUGH JTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,974.38 FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF $93,452.65. COUNCILMAN LOMBARD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 7 -4. F.3 GN 2011-424 SUPPORT PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS OF THE 35W COALITION APPROVED Karen Bostic, Assistant City Manager, presented the item. The City of North Richland Hills, as a member of the 35W Coalition, has been asked to support two resolutions that have been proposed by the Coalition. The 35W Coalition has supported improving mobility along north IH35W, northeast IH820 and SH121/183 Airport Freeway through the use of innovative funding concepts, public private partnerships and other funding alternatives. The first resolution supports the use of public- private partnerships to specifically enable the completion of all segments of the North Tarrant Express. The second resolution the Coalition is seeking city support for the delivery of IH35E and SH183 by the Texas Department of Transportation through public - private partnerships, specifically IH35E managed lanes from US380 to IH635 and SH183 managed lanes from SH161 to IH35E/Trinity Parkway. MAYOR PRO TEM SAPP MOVED TD APPROVE GN 2011 -028 IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS OF THE 35W COALITION. COUNCILMAN BARTH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 7 -8. G.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS G.1 ACTION ON ANY ITEM DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION LISTED ON WORK SESSION AGENDA No action needed. H.0 INFORMATION AND REPORTS H.1 ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilman Lombard made the following announcements. More than 140 local businesses are now participating in the Shop NRH program and offering exclusive discounts and coupons to residents. To take advantage of these special offers, log on to the website shopnrh.com. The NRH Recreation Center is offering several art classes for adults this spring. Upcoming classes include jewelry making, screen printing and painting. To register or get more information, contact the Recreation Center at 817- 427 -6600. A Job Seekers Help Group meets from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. each Thursday at the NRH Public Library. Participants will receive resume, cover letter and interview advice from experts and other job seekers. Call the Library at 817 -427 -6814 for more details. Kudos Korner - Wesley Millsap, Public Works Department — A resident wrote the City to express thanks for the prompt and courteous response he received to a water service call on New Year's Day. "Wesley was pleasant, efficient and made a great impression on everyone," the resident stated. The resident said he tried to tip Wesley for troubling him on a holiday and he politely declined citing policy. "This gentleman is a true professional, an honorable city employee," the letter said. H.2 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Trevino adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Oscar Trevino — Mayor Patricia Hutson, City Secretary CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Parks and Recreation Presented by: Vickie Loftice Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. B.3 Subject: GN 2011 -023 Approve the Resolution for Designating an Official Name for the Future Recreation Center — Resolution No. 2011 -018 Summary The Naming Board is formally submitting NRH Centre as the recommended name for the recreation center currently under construction. Ordinance No. 2517, Sec 2 -91 requires that City Council take action on all naming recommendations by the Naming Board. General Description The Naming Board first convened on October 25, 2010 and reconvened two other times on December 8th, 2010 and February 28th, 2011 to consider names for the 86,000 square feet recreation center, scheduled to open in late April 2012. The Board considered several names for the facility before arriving at a final recommendation. After hearing input from the Council at two previous work sessions, the Naming Board, by a unanimous vote, is recommending NRH Centre as the official name for the new facility. The name incorporates NRH in the name and is simple, classic and timeless. The name is broad in scope, which is helpful given the multiple functions and amenities of the facility. NRH Centre can also be creatively presented and used, providing a variety of opportunities for branding. Staff will begin working with BrandEra on logo and graphic development of the name along with strategic positioning and branding of the new facility. Recommendation To approve Resolution No. 2011 -016 officially naming the new recreation facility, NRH Centre. 101 +.A_I RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -016 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS OFFICIALLY NAMING THE NEW RECREATION CENTER AS "NRH CENTRE ". WHEREAS, the Naming Board of the City of North Richland Hills convened on October 25, 2010, December 8, 2010 and February 28, 2011 to consider various names for the recreation center; WHEREAS, the new recreation center is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed by the end of April 2011; WHEREAS, the Naming Board recommends that the official name of the new recreation facility be "NRH Centre ". BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: SECTION 1. THAT the new recreation center currently under construction be officially named "NRH Centre ". PASSED AND APPROVED this 28th day of March, 2011. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS e ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: George A. Staples, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Vickie Loftice, Managing Director Oscar Trevino, Mayor CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Public Works Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Jimmy Cates Agenda No. B.4 Subject: PW 2011 -005 Award RFB No. 11 -017 to Humphrey & Morton Construction Company, Inc. in the Amount of $135,730.60 for the Replacement of a 16 Inch Water Supply Line Crossing Big Fossil Creek (UT1107) Summary: The City Council is being asked to award a construction contract for the CI P Project identified as a "Water Line (16" Forth Worth Supply Line)" in the Capital Projects Budget. Council revised the FY 201012011 Capital Projects Budget and approved funding for this project at the January 24, 2011 Council meeting. General Description: This project is funded for the replacement of 100 feet of a major 16 -inch water supply line that runs from the City owned Stanley Keller Pump Station located in Haltom City to the City of North Richland Hills. The 100 foot section that will be replaced is located adjacent to Diamond Oaks Country Club and crosses Big Fossil Creek in Haltom City. Severe erosion has occurred in the creek area which has caused the water line to be exposed. The exposed water line could be struck by debris from heavy rainfall or flooding inside the creek resulting in a break in the line. The repairs are considered an emergency to prevent loss of water deliveries from one of the City's three potable water entry points from Fort Worth. Notice of the city's Intent to Bid was advertised in local newspapers and posted on the city's website. On February 24, 2011, a bid opening was conducted and seven (7) bid proposals were received. The lowest bid was received from Humphrey & Morton Construction Company, Inc. for a total cost of $135,730.60. The following are the bids reviewed by the City: Contractor Bid Humphrey & Morton $135,730.60 Prim $161,634.73 Sabre Development Corp $174,080.50 Gra -Tex Utilities $188.920.00 Gin -S en $196,060.00 2L Construction $281,910.00 Atkins Bros. $351,500.00 Humphrey & Morton has completed many projects within the city during the past several years. In the past, this construction company has met all project schedules and performed very well. Their work has been very good. References were checked on the company and positive feedback was provided. A financial statement showing the company is in good standing was also submitted to the city. Recommendation: PW 2011 -665 Award RFB No. 11 -0117 to Humphrey & Morton Construction Company, Inc. in the Amount of $135,730.66 for the Replacement of a 16 Inch Water Supply Line Crossing Big Fossil Creek (UT1107). Water Line '�► R1V EE l'o (16° Fork Worth I � { a `rw11.11.11 11.11.11.1.11 .1.11.11.11.11 Supply Line} J 11. 11.11.11..11.11. Water Line (15" Fort Worth, Supply Line Diamond Oaks Country Club f WATERLINE N t W. G t } 1.11.11.11.11 *11.11.11.11.11.1.11.11.11.11; � ± NORTH o11i11.,1.1 RICHLAND �R a HILLS co Z) r� Project Locator Map h •"ry j °0 R� s:Mn E9nn KSrnH Lw �n iri 1.11.11 Q) �XX r� f 14JAN11 Standard MapEICIP U_WL.ForM43rlh_Supply_Une —d Ininr —b Sera i— Oepartm m - GIS audio. 1 — iuvu rFri.= .I� a ��. '. � H. // _ .� I'.kf , �� ,�.-. .4 s. r r s r 1iN F FE _� �; .� � �� � � i � v:' ;, . e y r..slrt �� � .R . �; y � � F � '� .4 "�� `` i �A ,�: .�a ✓�' f 1 ,,: � .� �Y •� �� ` s �� ��' r s. r.i _� ��: �" �,� ;, .�. �. q ' r 4 � � �. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Public Works Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Gregory Van Nieuwenhuize Agenda No. B.5 Subject: PW 2011 -006 Revise the FY 2610/2011 Capital Projects Budget and Approve a Change Order to RKM Utility Services, Inc. in the Amount of $55,449.95 for the Briarwood Estates Drainage Improvements Project (DR0901) Summary: The City Council is being asked to approve a budget revision and a change order — both for work related to pavement restoration as part of the CIP Project identified as "Briarwood Estates Drainage Improvements Project" in the Capital Projects Budget. General Description: On August 23, 2010, the City Council awarded the project to RKM Utility Services, Inc. ( "RKM ") in the amount of $1,615,420.06. This project was funded along with a number of other drainage projects as a result of the 2607 flooding events. The project consists of constructing a parallel storm drain system beginning at the intersection of Briardale Drive and Noneman Street and then continuing south to connect with the existing concrete -lined channel at the end of Hewitt Street. Approximately 4,860 linear feet of reinforced concrete storm drain ranging from 18 -inch diameter round pipe to 9X4 -foot box culverts are being installed, along with 35 new storm drain inlets. Ultimately, the completion of the project will result in a reduction of the floodplain along Hewitt Street, potentially removing 14 residential properties from FEMA's designated Special Flood Hazard Area. As a part of the project's improvements, Briardale Drive is to have various sized reinforced box culverts installed below the pavement section. Prior to any construction, Briardale Drive had a condition rating of 31 on the Public Works Department's Street Inventory which is considered as a very poor rating. In fact, this portion of Briardale Drive is listed near the top of the Public Works Department's 10 -year Capital Improvement Plan of streets needing to be reconstructed. The expectation was that the pavement section would hold up for another 1 -2 years, giving the city time to solve the drainage problems posing the most imminent danger to residents, while at the same time allowing the city to identify funding sources for the reconstruction of the pavement. Unfortunately it appears that the construction equipment required for the construction of the project has taken a serious toll on this already failing Briardale Drive pavement section, which has further deteriorated the already poor condition of the asphalt. An immediate solution to this pavement failure situation involves using $160,066 in unspecified street funds to rehabilitate approximately 1,700 LF of the Briardale Drive street section. This work would consist of a joint city /contractor effort. The contractor would remove the deteriorated asphalt and then stabilize /compact the subgrade. City crews would then mobilize to place six inches (6 ") of new asphalt over the newly stabilized /compacted six inch (6 ") deep subgrade. This would all be done while salvaging the curb & gutter along the street. This would thus minimize the impact to the adjacent residents and would help in reducing the cost. The use of city crews for the asphalt work would also help in further reducing costs. This approach is not equivalent to a full reconstruction, but will extend the life of the street for at least ten (10) years and dramatically improve the rideability and condition of Briardale Drive. A Budget Revision is necessary to cover the costs of both the work required of the contractor ($55,449.95) and the cost of materials (approximately $104,500) that the city will purchase for the asphalt construction. There is adequate funding in the Unspecified Street Funds Account to fund this budget revision and corresponding change order. Recommendation: 1. Approve the Budget Revision allocating $150,000.00 in Unspecified Street Funds to the Biarwood Estates Drainage Improvements (DR0901) in the FY 2010/2011 Capital Projects Budget; and 2. Approve a Change Order to RKM Utility Services, Inc. in the Amount of $55,449.95 for the Briarwood Estates Drainage Improvements Project (DR0901) S o 9 GREEN V M UNIn' 1ARA JO NA TRY RD °`" Briarwood 11 CI Estates S TIMBER PARK - 'BASEBALL DMPLE?� +� 1 „ Drainage 4 ¢ t improvements N ET �i 'I�ERNI4L flRS l7jVBE PARK, AAVIF [dRlw Okwl EST O�Q • ,ONE ER DR GWEP WOOECT `- BRWtRO a ffylryci ' T Z - gk]A'CS EAIIM•9i Y. nR �F.4CCHPi BRW1W°OECT O _ BRUwsssEG N a T' •i $YBNFR -@T T— b T T 5 T N R T H � RICHLAND Briarwood-Btates HILLS NiRTiF =OBPPF9Q Drainage Imps- YTN R r cT T Project Locator Map R =CT CT J W LL 2 cMr er.e 'rte _w R �y e/SER4 Ef— � 1 iB➢ IFl 'PARK f1� $$ J 6AlYt p* J6Q CNF ! W O 9Cif5. d.. BrEir J ct f Ot �T TO D, �s Streets and Drainage Capital Projects Briarwood Estates Drainage Improvements DR0901 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & JUSTIFICATION This project consists of constructing a parallel storm drain system beginning at the intersection of Briardale Drive and Noneman Street and continuing south to tie in with the existing concrete -lined channel at the end of Hewitt Street. Approximately 3,30D Lineal Feet of reinforced concrete storm drain pipe ranging from 24 -inch diameter to 6D -inch diameter will be constructed with this project, with approximately 50% of the storm drain pipe being 60 -inch diameter. The storm drain pipe and curb inlets will be designed and constructed to handle the difference in runoff resulting from the changes in drainage criteria from the time this subdivision was constructed (1972) to the City's current criteria. Briarwood Estates was originally designed in 1972 in accordance with the drainage criteria in place at that time. However, the drainage design criteria for the City has changed over the past 36 years. These changes require more conservative calculations, and in turn, higher capacities within the street and storm drain system water runoff. The recent rain events highlighted the difference between past and present drainage criteria. Additionally, the drainage area around this subdivision has evolved with significant growth and the redirection of additional runoff into the watershed basin over the past 36 years. A parallel storm drain system is needed to retrofit this neighborhood to account for the difference in runoff between the original design and current design criteria. Staff received calls form 3 separate residents within the Briarwood Estates subdivision during the 2007 summer rain events. Each of the residents experienced multiple floods during the storm events. PROJECT STATUS Original 2010111 Original 2010111 Start Date Revision End Date Revision EngineeringlDesign 0112009 nla 0412010 nla Construction 0512010 nla 1012010 nla REVISION EXPLANATION The existing Briardale Drive pavement section at Briarwood Estates (currently under construction) is in need of some urgent street repairs; the cost to perform these repairs is approximately $160;000. The construction equipment has taken a toll on the already failing pavement and worsening the poor condition of the pavement section. A budget revision from the 94 BE - Streets 2001 CO Project Savings will provide sufficient funds for the needed street repairs. This work will consist of a joint CitylContractor effort. The contractor would remove the deteriorated asphalt and stabi I izelcompact the subgrade; the City will then place 6" of asphalt over the newly treated subgrade. By salvaging the curb & gutter along the street the impact to adjacent residents will be minimized. Although this approach is not equivalent to a full reconstruction, this should extend the I ife of the street for roughly 10 years, and dramatically improve the rideabilily and condition of Briardale Drive. FINANCIAL DATA IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET There is no anticipated impact on the operating budget Annual Operating Impact 2010/2011 201112012 201=013 2013/2014 201412015 Total Projected $0 $0 $D $D $0 $0 Adapted Proposed Revised Total Funding Source Budget Thru Project Budget Thru Remaining Project 2010111 Revision 2010171 Balance Cast Prior Funding Allocations: $1,785,000 $D $1,785,000 $0 $1,785,000 Streets 2001 CO Project Savings in 94 BE 0 160,000 160,000 D 160,000 Total 51,785,000 $160,000 $1,945,000 $0 $1,945,000 Project Expenditures Engineeri ng $170,000 $D 5170,000 $0 $170,000 Construction 1,615,000 160,000 1,775,000 D 1,775,000 Total $1,785,000 $160,000 $1,945,000 $0 $'1,945,000 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Public Works Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Gregory Van Nieuwenhuize Agenda No. B.6 Subject: PW 2011 -067 Recommend Award of Bid for the 35th Year and 36th Year Community Development Block Grant Projects: Honey Lane, Phases I & II (Harmonson Road to Glenview Drive) Paving Improvements to Stabile & Winn, Inc. in the amount of $342,695.24 - Resolution No. 2011 -016 Summary: The City Council is being asked to recommend an award of a construction contract to Tarrant County for the CI P Projects identified as "Honey Lane, Phase 1 [CDBGI' (CDBG10) and "Honey Lane, Phase 11 [CDBGI' (CDBG11) in the Capital Projects Budget. General Description: The Honey Lane, Phase I and Phase II, Paving Improvements Projects (the "Projects ") consist of the City's 35th Year and 36th Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects. These projects were initially submitted to Tarrant County as follows: ■ On February 23, 2669, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2669 -066 which requested Tarrant County to include the reconstruction of Honey Lane, Phase (Harmonson Road to approximately 400 feet north) as part of the City's 35th Year CDBG Program. • On February 8, 2610, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2610 -009 which requested Tarrant County to include the reconstruction of Honey Lane, Phase II (an additional 400 feet north of Phase 1) as part of the City's 36th Year CDBG Program. Although the City of North Richland Hills is an entitlement city and therefore receives CDBG funds directly, the city has contracted with Tarrant County's CDBG Department to administer the city's CDBG funds. Essentially, the city determines the projects and the county administers the projects. However, the city reviews all bids and consultant contracts and makes recommendations to the county for approval. Tarrant County therefore awards both the design consultant and construction contracts. Tarrant County's administration of the city's CDBG Projects does not include construction inspection; the city will provide these services. While the Projects were initially conceived to comprise approximately 800 fleet of the overall length of Honey Lane (approximately 1,200 feet) because of recent favorable bid prices, staff and Tarrant County believed that the entire length of Honey Lane (Harmonson Road to Glenview Drive) could be constructed with the available funding. The entire project consists of reconstructing Honey Lane from an asphalt street section to a concrete street section. The project was bid with a base bid which consisted of the street and drainage construction and four (4) additive alternates. Each additive alternate is for a portion of sidewalk construction. Presently, there are seven (7) properties where the city does not have adequate right -of -way to construct sidewalks. The addresses of these property locations are: • 3916 Honey Lane • 3920 Honey Lane • 3921 Honey Lane • 4001 Honey Lane • 4008 Honey Lane • 4009 Honey Lane • 6505 Harmonson Road A sketch of these seven (7) properties is included with this agenda item following the Honey Lane Location Map. At some of these locations, the property line is at the edge of the street and in other locations it appears that the property line is in the center of the street. The City Attorney has indicated that the city has the right to reconstruct the street in front of these seven (7) properties within the current width of the street. However, in order to additionally construct sidewalks along these seven (7) properties, additional right -of -way would need to be obtained. The project was bid in such a manner to allow for the construction of specific portions of sidewalks, sidewalks on both sides of Honey Lane for the entire length of the project, or for the street to be constructed without sidewalks. Tarrant County staff reviewed and approved the project's contract documents prior to bidding and scheduled a Bid Opening for March 9, 2011. Bids were received by Tarrant County at their offices on this date. A total of four (4) contractors submitted bids; these bids are summarized in the table below: Name of Contractor Base Bid (Street Reconstruction ) Additive Alternates (A, B, C & D for Sidewalk Construction ) Total (Base Bid + All Alternates Stabile & Winn, Inc. $ 295,371.24 $ 47,324.40 $ 342,695.24 McClendon Construction $ 298,967.95 $ 47,424.40 $ 346,391.50 JLB Contracting $ 335,718.12 $ 50,915.35 $ 387,633.47 Ed A. Wilson $ 378,662.00 $ 48,930.40 $ 427,592.00 Tarrant County is requesting the city to recommend an award of the bid for this project. Because the city's criteria is to have sidewalks installed on all new and reconstructed streets and since there is adequate funding for the projects to be awarded with sidewalks constructed on both sides, staff is recommending that the projects be awarded with all alternates included in the contract amount. If the Council agrees with this recommendation, staff will immediately begin trying to acquire the necessary right - of -way for the construction of sidewalks as a part of the projects. It should be noted that if property owners are not willing to grant the city the necessary right -of -way, sidewalks may not be continuous along the entire length of Honey Lane. Additionally, the construction of sidewalks may require some utilities to be relocated (gas meters, power poles, etc.) at the city's expense. Bath the city and county have had prior experience with the low bidder on projects of similar scope and size and both believe Stabile & Winn to be a reliable contractor. Sufficient CDBG funds are available from Tarrant County for this project. Construction is anticipated to begin in late April /early May and take 180 calendar days to complete. Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2011 -016 recommending the award of bid for the 35th Year and 36th Year Community Development Block Grant Projects: Honey Lane, Phases I & 11 (Harmonson Road to Glenview Drive) Paving Improvements. Honey Lane Location Map ienvlew give raw tor 1 � arm c� o ,�. .. 4 Honey Lane Map of 7 Properties Lacking R.O.W. Y i µ w O Glenview Drive S Q, Harlpon on-' a ♦ A- :)a a X �� T NRH 0=Rio] Iti'll0IQ ► t ►191WIZ1Z`Q+Z[.1 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AWARD BY TARRANT COUNTY OF A BID OF CDBG PROJECTS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HONEY LANE WITHIN THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS. WHEREAS, by Resolution 2009 -006 passed February 23, 2009, the City Council approved the Honey Lane, Phase I, Paving Improvements Project as a part of the 35th Year Community Development Block Grant program; and, WHEREAS, by Resolution 2010 -009 passed February 8, 2010, the City Council approved the Honey Lane, Phase II, Paving Improvements Project as part of the 36th Year Community Development Block Grant program; and, WHEREAS, Honey Lane, Phases I & II (Harmonson Road to Glenview Drive) Paving Improvements Project (the "Project ") was bid by Tarrant County as a single combined project; and, WHEREAS, Tarrant County's consultant and City staff have recommended award of the Project's bid to Stabile & Winn, Inc; and, WHEREAS, Tarrant County desires a recommendation by the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills; NOW THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: SECTION 1. THAT the City of North Richland Hills hereby recommends for Tarrant County to award the contract for the Honey Lane, Phases & II (Harmonson Road to Glenview Drive) Paving Improvements Project to Stabile & Winn, Inc. for the base bid plus all Additive Alternates (A, B, C & D) in the amount of $ 342,695.24. 0 I 11111 E- 149110 *161lk►1413 PASSED AND APPROVED on this the 28th day of March, 2011. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Oscar Trevino, Mayor Patricia Hutson, City Secretary FA U,:1167 ►1 =1 B1_h'1111 C9l;191 k ►o I :1:1911 1 *H_14Ica George A. Staples, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT; Mike Curtis, P.E., Managing Director CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Police Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Andy Kancel Agenda No. B.7 Subject: GN 2011 -024 Authorize 2011 Victim Coordinator Liaison Grant - Resolution No. 2011 -018 Summary: The City of North Richland Hills has been a partner in the existing joint Crime Victim's Liaison program which has been operating for approximately two years. This program is funded under a Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG) grant which offers up to $42,000 annually for such programs. The Police Department is seeking authorization to participate in the Crime Victim's Liaison program for an additional two years. General Description: The joint Crime Victim's Liaison program has been utilized by three partner cities, North Richland Hills, Richland Hills, and Watauga and has allowed each city to exceed the minimum legal mandate for providing victim services. Since its inception in 2009, the program has served over 964 victims seeking safety, compensation, and legal services. No matching funds for this grant are required but are allowed. The partner cities are seeking to renew this grant for another two years, with available funding estimated at $84,000. The North Richland Hills Police Department plans to use the proceeds of this grant award to assist in paying the salary of a Crime Victim Liaison. The balance of the portion required by the City of North Richland Hills, approximately $10,000 annually, will be funded through the Special Investigations Seized Fund. To proceed, the City Council must grant its formal approval to apply for the Victim Coordinator and Liasion grant and name the City's agent to act in its dealings with the Texas Office of Attorney General. Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2011 -018 101147=1 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -018 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: WHEREAS, The City of North Richland Hills, Texas possesses legal authority to apply for the Victim Coordinator and Liaison Grant and make appointments for the conduct of business relative to the Grant; and WHEREAS, The City Council of North Richland Hills finds it in the best interest of the citizens of North Richland Hills that we collaborate with Richland Hills and Watauga to form a combined Victim Assistance Liaison Project; and WHEREAS, The City Council of North Richland Hills designates Chief of Police Jimmy Perdue as the grantee's authorized official. The authorized official is given the power to apply for, accept, reject, alter or terminate the grant on behalf of the applicant agency and to approve interlocal agreements with other entities. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of North Richland Hills approves submission of the grant application for the Victim Coordinator and Liaison Grant, the designation of the Authorized Official, as well as the approval of interlocal agreements with other entities. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 28th day March, 2011. Is] I was] M:I:QAd:IN191:1W :1►1 III :11II&I Oscar Trevino, Mayor r- 0100 16 Patricia Hutson, City Secretary FA U x:161 ►1 =1 BFAT-lt 1191191910 d, I :1:1911 1 =15013 41 cis George A. Staples, City Attorney FAUx:1161►1=1B1_h'tCOI0167►10=1►16 Jimmy Perdue, Chief of Police CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Fire Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Agenda No. B.8 Subject: GN 2011 -021 Authorize Contract Extension Agreement Modification with Medical Director for Liability Insurance Coverage Summary: The Medical Director is seeking approval to lower the minimum amounts of Medical Director Professional Liability Insurance required due to a severe premium increase associated with maintaining the current levels. General Description: Under the current Extension Agreement of the contract with the Medical Director, the Medical Director is responsible for maintaining Medical Professional Liability Insurance and Medical Director Professional Liability Insurance. Dr. Yamada was recently informed that the premium on his Medical Directors Professional Liability Insurance is increasing $10,000 per year to maintain the current limits required by the City. The current limits are $500,000 per claim and $1,000,000 aggregate. Dr. Yamada is asking that the City approve to lower these limits to $300,000 per claim and $600,000 aggregate. This will allow him to continue to afford maintaining this insurance. There are no proposed changes to the Medical Professional Liability (malpractice) amounts which is a separate insurance policy required by the City. Those amounts will remain at $200,000 per claim and $600,000 aggregate. The City's liability insurance adviser was contacted and indicated that the proposed insurance levels for the Medical Director were adequate. Recommendation: Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to sign a modification to the existing agreement with the Medical Director that would allow him to Lower the Medical Director Professional Liability Insurance minimum coverage amounts required from $500,000 per claim and $1,000,000 aggregate, to $300,000 per claim and $600,000 aggregate. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Finance Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Larry Koonce Agenda No. B.9 Subject: GN 2011 -022 Authorize the Publication of Notice of Intent to Issue Certificates of Obligation - Resolution No. 2011 -015 Summary In the Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 CIP Budget, City Council authorized certain projects to be financed with general obligation bonds (G.O.'s) and certificates of obligation (C.O.'s). The proposed bond sale will occur on May 9th and total $11,275,000 (see attached list of projects). $3,165,000 of the sale will be 2003 general obligation (G.©.) bonds, and $8,110,000 will be certificates of obligation (C.O.$). As part of the legal requirements for the planned issuance of C.D.s, the City Council must authorize the City Secretary to publish, by no later than April 3, 2011, a notice in a newspaper of general circulation the intent of the City to issue Certificates of Obligation in an amount not to exceed $8,110,000. General Description The attached 2011 Bond Sale Projects lists the cost of each certificate of obligation project. These costs include: • $2,500,000 for TIF 1A (expansion) Boulevard 26 street improvements • $2,500,000 for the senior citizen component of the recreation center • $2,125,000 for improvements at NRH2O Water Park • $150,000 for an ambulance replacement (approved by Council in February 2011) • $260,000 (reduced from $285,000 because of bids) for public works equipment replacement • $575,000 for drainage improvements Debt service payments for the senior citizen component of the recreation center will be paid from 4B sales tax. Debt service payments for NRH2O projects will be paid from revenue generated by the water park. Debt service payments for the TIF 1A projects will be paid from TIF 1A taxes, and drainage improvements will be paid from drainage utility fees. The notice of intent to issue certificates of obligation must be published once a week for two consecutive weeks. The first publication date shall be at least (31) days prior to the date stated therein for the passage of the ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Certificates of Obligation. The notice of intention is attached and labeled Exhibit A. The proposed calendar for the bond sale is as follows: April 19th Rating Agency Meetings April 26 th Receive Ratings from Agencies April 27th Distribute NRH Official Statements for G.O & C.O. Sales May 9th City Council Awards Bids June 14th Accept Delivery of Bond Proceeds for Projects Recommendation Approve GN 2011 -022 and pass Resolution No. 2011 -015 authorizing the City Secretary to publish the intent to issue Certificates of Obligation not to exceed $8,11 0,000. N R H RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -015 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, has determined that certificates of obligation should be issued under and pursuant to the provisions of V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, Subchapter C of Chapter 271 (the "Act "), for the purpose of paying contractual obligations to be incurred for (i) constructing, improving and equipping NRH2O water park, (ii) purchasing equipment for ambulance service, including vehicles related thereto, (iii) purchasing equipment for public works department, including vehicles related thereto (iv) constructing and improving City of North Richland Hills streets and drainage, (v) constructing and equipping the senior citizen component of the new recreation center facility, and (vi) professional services rendered in relation to such projects and the financing thereof, and WHEREAS, prior to the issuance of such certificates, the City Council is required to publish notice of its intention to issue the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: SECTION 1. THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice to be published of the Council's intention to issue certificates of obligation during a meeting scheduled to begin at 7:00 P.M. on the 9th day of May, 2011, which certificates of obligation shall be issued in a principal amount not to exceed $8,110,000 for the purpose of paying contractual obligations to be incurred for (i) constructing, improving and equipping NRH2O water park, (ii) purchasing equipment for ambulance service, including vehicles related thereto, (iii) purchasing equipment for public works department, including vehicles related thereto (iv) constructing and improving City of North Richland Hills streets and drainage, (v) constructing and equipping the senior citizen component of the new recreation center facility, and (vi) professional services rendered in relation to such projects and the financing thereof, and shall be payable from ad valorem taxes and a limited pledge of the net revenues of the City's combined Waterworks and Sewer System. The notice hereby approved and authorized to be published shall read substantially in the form and content of Exhibit A hereto attached and incorporated herein by reference as a part of this resolution for all purposes. SECTION 2. THAT the City Secretary shall cause the aforesaid notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for two consecutive weeks, the date of the first publication to be at least thirty -one (31) days prior to the date stated therein for the passage of the ordinance authorizing the issuance of the certificates of obligation. SECTION 3. THAT it is officially found, determined, and declared that the meeting at which this Resolution is adopted was open to the public and public notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public business to be considered at such meeting, including this Resolution, was given, all as required by V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 551, as amended. SECTION 4. THAT this Resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its passage on the date shown below. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 28th day of March, 2 011. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary Oscar Trevino, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: George A. Staples, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Larry Koonce, Director of Finance EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, shall convene at 7:00 o'clock P.M. on the 9th day of May, 2011, at the City Hall, 7301 N.E. Loop 820, North Richland Hills, Texas, and, during such meeting, the City Council will consider the passage of an ordinance authorizing the issuance of certificates of obligation in an amount not to exceed $8,110,000 for the purpose of paying contractual obligations to be incurred for (i) constructing, improving and equipping NRH2O water park, (ii) purchasing equipment for ambulance service, including vehicles related thereto, (iii) purchasing equipment for public works department, including vehicles related thereto (iv) constructing and improving City of North Richland Hills streets and drainage, (v) constructing and equipping the senior component of the new recreation center facility, and (vi) professional services rendered in relation to such projects and the financing thereof, and shall be payable from ad valorem taxes and a limited .pledge of the net revenues of the City's combined Waterworks and Sewer System. The certificates are to be issued, and this notice is given, under and pursuant to the provisions of V.T.C.A., Local Government Code, Subchapter C of Chapter 271. Patricia Hutson City Secretary City of North Richland Hills, Texas 2011 Bond Sale Projects Approved Project Budget Amount FY 2010 -11 Needed Budgeted General Obligation Projects 2003 Bond Election Street & Drainage Improvement Projects Terry Drive (Susan Lee Lane to North Richland Boulevard) Construction Tabor Street (Rufe Snow to Steven Street) Construction Meadowview Estates Channel Drainage Improvements (Finish Engineering / Design, begin Construction) Bud Jensen Road Street and Drainage Improvements NRH Recreation Center Project NRH Animal Adoption & Rescue Center - New Facility Total G.D. 2003 Bond Election Projects Total 2010 G.D. Bonds Budget Maturity $ 310,000 $ 310,000 20 years 330,000 330,000 20 years 1,115,000 1,115,000 20 years 110,000 110,000 20 years 1,300,000 1,300,000 20 years 3,165,000 3,165,000 $ 3,165,000 $ 3,165,000 2111 Bond Sale Projects Approved Project Budget Amount FY 2010 -11 Needed Budgeted Certificates of Obligation Projects TIF 1 Expansion Boulevard 26 Intersection Improvements 1 Utility Burial Subtotal C.O. TIF 1 Expansion Facility Project Senior Citizen Component of Recreation Center (to Be Repaid with 4B Sales Tax) Subtotal C.O. Facility Project Aquatic Park Projects Food Service Building (Construction) New Attraction 2011 (Construction) Subtotal C.O. Aquatic Park Project Maturity Through $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 2018 End of TIF 1A 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 20 years 2,500,000 2,500,000 595,000 595,000 20 years 1,530,000 1,530,000 20 years 2,125,000 2,125,000 2011 Bond Sale Projects Approved Project Budget Amount FY 2010 -11 Needed Drainage Projects Meadow Creek Road Drainage Improvements Meadow Road Drainage Improvements Subtotal C.D. Drainage Projects Capital Equipment Replacement Dump Truck Replacement Unit 680 Dump Truck Replacement Unit 682 Dump Truck Replacement Unit 690 Ambulance Replacement (Approved February 2011) Subtotal C.O. Equipment Replacement Total 2011 C.O.s TOTAL 2011 G.O.s AND C.O.s Maturity 225,000 225,000 20 years 350,000 350,000 20 years 575,000 575,000 95,000 87,000 10 Years 95,000 87,000 10 Years 95,000 86,000 10 Years 150,000 10 Years 285,000 410,000 $ 7,985,000 $ 8,110,000 $ 11,150,000 $ 11,275,000 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Manager's Office Presented by: Karen Bostic Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. B.10 Subject: GN 2011 -025 Resolution Requesting Consideration of City Limit Boundary Lines When the Texas Legislature Redistricts the State - Resolution No. 2011 -019 Summary: During the 82"d Legislative Session, the Texas Legislature will be working on redefining legislative district boundaries. We are asking that the city in its entirety be kept in a single district for State Representative, State Senatorial and U.S. Congressional Districts. General Description: Redistricting is a major topic of concern every 10 years as a result of the US Census. According to 2010 Census reapportionment data, Texas will gain four Congressional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, more than any other state in the nation. Once the state receives data from the U.S. Census Bureau, both Houses of the Legislature introduce bills to redraw the state legislative and congressional boundaries. Two committees, one in the House and one in the Senate, review the data and draft redistricting plans. These plans go to the full bodies of the Legislature for approval. If the Legislature fails to approve a redistricting plan, the state constitution requires a state redistricting board to be formed to complete the plan. The Legislative Redistricting Board is comprised of the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, Land Commissioner, Comptroller and Attorney General. Prior to redistricting in 2001, North Richland Hills was represented by three Texas House of Representative districts, two Texas Senatorial Districts and two U.S. Congressional Districts. Since 2001 we have been fortunate to be represented by one Texas House Representative, one Texas Senator and one U.S. Congressman. We are asking that the city continue to be represented as we currently are because it has worked well for the city for the last ten years. The current representation provides a single point of contact for the city as well as residents of our community, plus the city is viewed holistically and not based on geographical divisions. It has the added benefit of having a State Representative that resides in our community that can relate to our citizen's issues. The attached resolution is a request that city limit boundary lines be considered when redefining representation boundaries as part of redistricting. If approved by Council, this resolution will be provided to our local State Representative and State Senator, as well as the Legislative Redistricting Board for their consideration. Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2011 -019. N R H RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS REQUESTING CONSIDERATION BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE OF CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY LINES WHEN REDEFINING REPRESENTATION BOUNDARIES AS PART OF REDISTRICTING WHEREAS, the Texas State Legislature is being tasked with redefining State and Federal representation boundaries as the result of the 2010 Census; and WHEREAS, the citizens of North Richland Hills share a unique history and sense of place; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of North Richland Hills to support the best possible representation at both the Federal and State levels of government; and WHEREAS, the citizens of North Richland Hills have been well served by having a single district encompass the city in its entirety at both the Sate and Federal levels; and WHEREAS, a set of established redistricting criteria will serve as a framework to guide the redistricting plans being considered by the Texas State Legislature. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas request that the Texas Legislature consider city limit boundary lines and the unique traits of the City of North Richland Hills when redefining representation boundaries. SECTION 1 THAT where possible, easily identifiable geographic boundaries should be followed, such as city limit boundaries. SECTION 2 THAT communities of interest should be maintained in a single district, where possible, and attempts should be made to avoid splitting neighborhoods and splitting the City into more than one district. SECTION 3 THAT consideration should be given to the preservation of incumbent - constituency relations by recognition of their history in representing certain areas. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 28th day of March, 2011. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary Oscar Trevino, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: George A. Staples, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Karen Bostic, Assistant City Manager CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Presented by: Subject: PUBLIC HEARINGS Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. C.0 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning and Development Presented by: John Pitstick Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. C.1 Subject: ZC 2010 -05 Public Hearing and Consideration of a request from the City of North Richland Hills for changes to the Town Center Regulating Plan and Zoning Ordinance and rezoning of the eastern portion of Home Town generally located in between Boulevard 26 and Mid Cities Boulevard - Ordinance No. 3133 Summary: The culmination of the Town Center zoning revisions is being forwarded to City Council following 16 months of study and public hearings by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Significant public input has been undertaken through a total of 18 available public meetings. Revisions include new text revisions, permitted uses, density caps and the proposed 2011 Town Center regulating and thoroughfare plans. Text revisions have been made to increase the quality and value through new building and architectural controls. As a result of public input and concern, detailed studies have been undertaken regarding traffic congestion, school impacts and impacts of the proposed development on existing single family home values. The Planning & Zoning supported staff recommendations on text and map revisions but has recommended a reduction of overall apartments from staffs recommendation from 956 to 820 units on the remaining undeveloped 93 acres on the east side of the Lakes. The Commission has recommended that Tract 1 apartment density be reduced from 630 total multifamily units to a maximum of 560 units. Tract 4 P &Z recommendations have been reduced from 260 total multifamily to a maximum of 206 units. Tract 7 would retain a maximum of 60 multifamily units. Background: The City Council voted unanimously at the May 24, 2010 City Council meeting to direct staff to draft updated regulations and set public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on amendments to the Town Center zoning district. The Council requested that all areas of the ordinance be reviewed and for the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend changes to the TC District. Recommended changes could include but not be limited to the creation of density caps, clarifying mixed use building types, defining minimum building standards, clarifying architectural elements and removing requirements for Special Use Permits for multifamily development. The Council also stressed that the public was to be fully involved with Town Center zoning changes. The Planning & Zoning Commission has conducted 8 work sessions and 7 formal public hearings over the past 10 months. In addition the city conducted 4 citizen stakeholders meetings during this same time period. A brief description of each meeting is as follows.. June 3, 2010 — Initial P &Z work session introducing general proposed changes to Town Center zoning district June 17, 2010 — P &Z work session with draft zoning document introducing new building types, reducing number of stories, requiring minimum open space standards, new site design criteria, new architectural standards, quality building amenities added, new section on administration, changes to permitted use tables. July 15, 2010 — P &Z work session introducing developers proposed regulating plan map with proposed density caps July 27, 2010 — Citizen Stakeholders meeting with public presentation of zoning text changes, proposed new regulating map and proposed density caps August 5, 2010 — P &Z work session regarding density issues included presentations by city staff, homeowners association and developer August 19, 2010 - P &Z work session regarding discussion of proposed thoroughfare plans east of the Lakes with presentations by the homeowners association. September 16, 2010 - P &Z work session regarding discussion of proposed signs in commercial core area, live /work buildings, proposed cottages in lieu of townhomes east of the Lakes and review of proposed density caps. October 7, 2010 — P &Z work session regarding impacts on elementary school, actions promoting a viable town center and quality development standards. October 21, 2010 — P &Z work session with presentation by developer's representative regarding proposed densities. November 4, 2010 — Initial public hearing and introduction of zoning text revisions by staff. November 18, 2010 — Continued public hearing regarding issues related to traffic concerns. December 16, 2010 — Continued public hearing with traffic study results by Kimley Horn and Associates. January 20, 2011 — Continued public hearing with recommendations to restrict proposed cottages to special use permit approval. February 10, 2011 — Continued public hearing with final recommended density caps by staff. February 17, 2011 — Continued public hearing with review of crime statistics by Police Department. March 1, 2, 3, 2011 — Citizen Stakeholder meetings with presentations regarding traffic, school impacts and property value impacts by GideonToal (65 attendees) March 17, 2011 — Final P &Z public hearing with presentation by GideonToal regarding property value impacts. A total of 65 residents attended at least one of the stakeholder meetings. Presentations included zoning text changes, proposed final densities and community impacts involving traffic, impact on the elementary school and impacts on property values. David Pettit and Steven Pepper from GideonToal gave a presentation regarding review of national studies and a multiyear Tarrant County wide analysis regarding the affects of apartments on surrounding single family neighborhoods. While there were many questions by each group, the overall sentiments were positive after all questions were answered by staff. Home Town residents seemed appreciative of the analysis that was undertaken regarding community impacts. They were also supportive of new zoning and architectural regulations and moving apartment and commercial development away from the school and the central part of the Lakes. Apartment density is still a concern by most residents, but residents seemed to understand the potential risks of loosing zoning and architectural controls which they see as critical in maintaining quality and value. Please see below the comparison of density requests including the original special use permit request in 2008 by the developer that was denied and the recent developer compromise with the latest City compromise regarding total remaining allowed residential units for the east side of Home Town. 1,616 1,023 950(-660) 820 (-130) P &Z - 370 293(-77) - 94 144(+50) 1,610+ 1,487 1,387 ( -223) 25,000 82,000 70,000 (- 12,000) Staff has provided all documents supporting a formal revision to the Town Center zoning code and is recommending approval of these changes. Consultants from GideonToal and Kimley Horn will also be present to give presentations regarding potential impacts. Significant changes have been made to the Town Center zoning code to strengthen building and architectural features and promote quality and value throughout Home Town that were previously not addressed. Primary text revisions include the reduction in building heights, clarification of minimum first floor commercial ceilings, minimum required open space, wider streets, new streetscape regulations, new architectural standards and quality building amenities including requirements for elevators, roof top HVAC, alarm and sprinkler systems and up to date energy codes. Citizen input has also been invaluable. Staff wishes to thank the citizens for being active and enduring this process. The primary changes promoted by local citizens include all single family along the Lakes, no apartments or commercial in the central area adjacent to the Lakes and the elementary school, enhanced architectural features across from the elementary school, enhanced building materials for townhomes, restriction on cottages, and finally because of citizen concerns, detailed analysis has been undertaken regarding traffic impacts, school impacts and property value impacts. GideonToal, Kimley Horn and Staff will have presentations and will be available to answer any questions during the public hearing. Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning & Zoning Commission met on Thursday, March 17, 2011 and voted 5 -0 to recommend approval of the Town Center zoning revisions, regulating and thoroughfare plans and density caps with recommended changes on Tract 1 from 630 total multifamily units to a maximum of 560 units and on Tract 4 from 266 total multifamily units to a maximum of 200 units. The density changes outlined above represent the only difference between Staff's and P &Z's recommendation. Protest Letters: Letters of opposition based on the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation have been received by Arcadia and Home Town Urban Partners. Based on these letters it will require a 314ths vote by City Council to approve the P &Z Commission's recommendation. Staff Recommendation: As a result of the letters of opposition from the primary property owners (Arcadia and Home Town Urban Partners) and concerns over potential loss of development controls, staff is recommending approval of the Town Center zoning revisions with the density caps as presented by staff. It is important to note that the Planning & Zoning Commission has not been involved in any negotiations or legal settlement issues and made their recommendations solely from public hearing input. The Planning & Zoning Commission also made their decision without knowing of any potential concerns regarding development controls as a result of property owner opposition. There are several reasons for staff s recommendation. • Opposition from property owners with continued law suit - The primary concern involves the fact that the property owners have not agreed to the P &Z recommendations. Staff and Arcadia and Home Town Urban Partners have worked for a number of years to reach a compromise on both densities and qualitative issues. Both parties have agreed that if a compromise can be reached the owners would drop the law suit against the city. The owners have indicated that they will not support the changes in densities being recommended by P &Z and have indicated that if the city pursues any densities less than those being recommended by staff they will also not support any of the qualitative issues. This would result in no compromise being made and the law suit continuing. This most likely would jeopardize many of the proposed architectural and quality control issues that have been added to the Town Center regulations and being considered by Council. o Specific concerns involving loss of controls under the proposed zoning include: ■ Potential Foss of open space (5% in new regulations) • Potential loss of tract designations specifying the location and heights of multifamily and commercial buildings • Concerns over 2,000 sq.ft. lots with 1,200 sq.ft. homes allowed on entire east side (allowed under current regulations) • Concerns over 22 foot wide townhome lots on east side (allowed under current regulations) • The zoning itself does not give the City a position on the private Architectural Review Committee. This is an important tool for maintaining the quality of the design characteristics within the district. • New apartments are similar to adjacent developments - The densities being proposed and being recommended by staff are similar to the densities that currently exist for the Venue and Franklin Park. The existing Venue has densities of approximately 23 units/acre and Franklin Park has densities of 26 units/acre. The apartment densities being recommended by the property owners for the new portions of Home Town are 21 to 23 units/acre. • Town Center densities were planned as urban district with higher densities -The Town Center and TOO areas have always allowed denser development than the rest of the city based on urban mixed use concepts. • Building and architecture to be superior to garden apartments - The quality building and architectural controls for Town Center apartments are clearly superior to conventional garden apartments found in other areas of the city. • Clarification of apartment maximums on Tract 1. The total number of apartments allowed on Tract 1 should be correctly displayed as 600. As an incentive for the property owners to build commercial space, staff and the property owners reached a compromise that allows the owners to use a portion of the commercial space in Tract 1 for residential purposes. Residential units placed in commercially constructed areas are classified as "flexible units ". Under this compromise the owners would be able to use 60,000 square feet of commercial space to provide up to 60 flexible units, so long as the total number of flexible units and apartments did not exceed 630. In example, if the owner is using all 60 of the allowed flexible units they would only be able to have 570 apartment units. If they are only utilizing 30 flexible units they could construct the maximum of 600 units. If all commercial space is used for commercial purposes the maximum number of apartments would still be limited to 600. This is an important distinction that was not made before the Planning and Zoning Commission Staff recommends approval of ZC 2010 -05 with the proposed text revisions and density caps as presented by City Staff which will require a simple maiority approval. Any vote approving the P &Z Commission's recommendation will require a 3i4ths vote by City Council to approve based on protest letters from the affected property owners. Planning & Zoning Commission Density Recommendations Section 118- 472 Town Center Capacity Rules for property east of the Lakes The fallowing density rules shall be in effect for the 93.3 acres of property east of the Lakes at Home Town based on the attached Tract Map and Regulating and Thoroughfare Plan. Tract 1 — (30.6 acres) Maximum of 639 560 total multi - family apartment units allowed including apartments and flexible units, maximum of 30 townhouses allowed, single family detached required fronting the Lakes and allowed without limits in the General and Center subzones, no single family detached is allowed in the Core subzone. Tract 2 — (16 acres) Maximum of 95 townhomes allowed, no apartment units allowed, single family detached required fronting the Lakes, no limit on single family detached homes. Commercial allowed in the Center subzone with no limits. Tract 3a & 3b — (25 acres) Maximum of 120 townhomes allowed, no apartment units allowed, single family detached required fronting the Lakes, no limit on single family detached homes. Tract 4 - (11.1 acres) Maximum of 269 200 apartment units allowed, no limit on commercial space. Tract 5 — (4 acres) Maximum of 48 residential units allowed, including townhouses and/or single family detached homes, no apartment units allowed, no limit on commercial space. Tract 6a & b — (4.5 acres) no residential units allowed, only public and commercial buildings allowed. Tract 7 - (2.7 acres) Maximum of 60 apartment units allowed, no limit on commercial space. Core Commercial Space: Buildings 1, 2a and 2b in Venue I shall maintain the street floors as commercial space. (36,500 square feet) A minimum of 70,000 square feet of commercial first floor space is required to be constructed on Tract 1 within the Core subzone area. Required commercial space ratios: Tract 1 shall be allowed to construct not more than 280 apartment units prior to any required commercial space being built. Any additional apartments built above 345 280 units shall be required to construct a minimum of 235 square feet of commercial space for each new apartment unit up to 70,000 square feet. Flexible 15t floor units in Core subzone built to commercial standards : The first floor space in Buildings 3a and 3b in Venue I are allowed to convert to a maximum of 22 residential units. Tract 1 in the Core subzone will be allowed to convert a maximum of 60,000 square feet of first floor commercial space to a maximum of 60 residential units. Staff Final Density Recommendations Section 118- 472 Town Center Capacity Rules for property east of the Lakes The following density rules shall be in effect for the 93.3 acres of property east of the Lakes at Home Town based on the attached Tract Map and Regulating and Thoroughfare Plan. Tract 1 — (30.6 acres) A maximum of 600 apartment units and up to 60 flexible units with no more than a maximum of 630 total multi - family apartment residential units allowed including apaFtments flexible units, maximum of 30 townhouses allowed, single family detached required fronting the Lakes and allowed without limits in the General and Center subzones, no single family detached is allowed in the Core subzone. Tract 2 — (16 acres) Maximum of 95 townhomes allowed, no apartment units allowed, single family detached required fronting the Lakes, no limit on single family detached homes. Commercial allowed in the Center subzone with no limits. Tract 3a & 3b — (25 acres) Maximum of 120 townhomes allowed, no apartment units allowed, single family detached required fronting the Lakes, no limit on single family detached homes. Tract 4 - (11.1 acres) Maximum of 260 apartment units allowed, no limit on commercial space. Tract 5 — (4 acres) Maximum of 48 residential units allowed, including townhouses and/or single family detached homes, no apartment units allowed, no limit on commercial space. Tract 6a & b — (4.5 acres) no residential units allowed, only public and commercial buildings allowed. Tract 7 - (2.7 acres) Maximum of 60 apartment units allowed, no limit on commercial space. Core Commercial Space: Buildings 1, 2a and 2b in Venue I shall maintain the street floors as commercial space. (36,500 square feet) A minimum of 70,000 square feet of commercial first floor space is required to be constructed on Tract 1 within the Core subzone area (a maximum of 60,000 allowed for flexible space based on Tract 1 rules). Required commercial space ratios: Tract 1 shall be allowed to construct not more than 315 apartment units prior to any required commercial space being built. Any additional apartments built above 315 units shall be required to construct a minimum of 235 square feet of commercial space for each new apartment unit up to 70,000 square feet. Flexible 1" floor units in Core subzone built to commercial standards : The first floor space in Buildings 3a and 3b in Venue I are allowed to convert to a maximum of 22 residential units. Tract 1 in the Core subzone will be allowed to convert a maximum of 60,000 square feet of first floor commercial space to a maximum of 60 residential units. _ ALL ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATE 1�= TRACT 1 30.6 ac TRACT 4 TRACT 2 16.2 ac TRACT 3A 4.0 ac TRACT 3g 20.3 ac !� TRACT 4 11.1 ac TRACTS 3.9 ac TRACT 6A 2.4 ac 3B TRACT 6B 2.1 ac TRACT 7 2.7 ac TRACT 5 TRACTS 8.5 ac TRACT 6B CT 3 TRACT BA TRACT 7 TRACT 2 _�- CT 1 P ACT 8 TOWN CENTER REGULATING PLAN, 8e THOROUGHFARE PLAN HOMETOWN, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TX JULY, 2010 PAGE 2 OF 2 MID CITIES BLVD Legend NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD CENTFP. s - NEIGHBORHOOD CORE - CIWIC 6TEpa8 8TdM13& OPEN SPACE PLAN ROAD Iwo I T-77 0 250 500 1000 Feet I�H 2011 HOME TOWN REGULATING & THOROUGHFARE PLAN RegulatlngPlan v6.0 March 8, 2011 LOCATION MAP W R " IN EI-MI T Area of Proposed Changes to Regulating Plan awls Ave 200 Foot Notification Area N MRH ZC 2010- 05 Town Center Regulating Plan & Zoning Ordinance Changes November 4, 2010 Prepared by Planning 10/21 /10 I LJ U I I (Feet 0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600 PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION FOR P&Z PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION r�xA` Case #: ZC 2010- 05 Applicant: The City of North Richland Hills Location: The eastern portion of Home Town generally in between Boulevard 26 and Mid Cities Boulevard (see map) You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner of record of the subject property or are located within 200 feet of the property shown on the attached map. Purpose of Public Hearing: A Public Hearing to Consider a Request from The City of North Richland Hills for changes to the Town Center Regulating Plan and the Town Center Zoning Ordinance. Public Hearing Schedule: Public Hearing Date: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2010 Meeting Time: 7:00 P.M. Meeting Location CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7301 N. E. LOOP 820 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS If you have any questions or wish to submit a petition or letter concerning the above request, please contact: Planning Department - City of North Richland Hills 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76180 Phone (817) 427 -6300 Fax (817) 427 -6303 PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION FOR COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS � y CITY COUNCIL r�xA` Case #: ZC 2010- 05 Applicant: The City of North Richland Hills Location: The eastern portion of Home Town generally in between Boulevard 26 and Mid Cities Boulevard (see map) You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner of record of the subject property or are located within 200 feet of the property shown on the attached map. Purpose of Public Hearing: A Public Hearing to Consider a Request from The City of North Richland Hills for changes to the Town Center Regulating Plan and the Town Center Zoning Ordinance. Public Hearinq Schedule: Public Hearing Date: Meeting Time: Meeting Location CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7301 N. E. LOOP 820 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS If you have any questions or wish to submit a petition or letter concerning the above request, please contact: Planning Department - City of North Richland Hills 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76180 Phone (817) 427 -6300 Fax (817) 427 -6303 LIST OF NOTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS William Etux Deborah Wheeless Cresthaven Properties LP 8529 Mid Cities Blvd PO Box 1604 NRH Tx 76182 -4706 Hurst Tx 76053 -1604 Mark E Fields 4603 Colleyville Blvd Ste 100 Colleyville Tx 76034 -3974 Arcadia Land Partners 25 Ltd 3500 Maple Ave Ste 1155 Dallas Tx 75219 -3948 Michael R Makens 8713 Cardinal Ln Fort Worth Tx 76180 -5301 Branch Banking & Trust Co 2000 Interstate Park Dr Montgomery Al 36109 -5421 Stephen R Etux Kathleen Koons 6054 Lake Way Mews NRH Tx 76180 -5318 Louan M King Lloyd D & Louan M King Fam Trs 6017 Lake Way NRH Tx 76180 -5321 Crr Property Holdings Inc 4631 S Hulen St Fort Worth Tx 761 32 -1401 Mega Life & Health Ins Co 9151 Grapevine Hwy NRH Tx 76180-5605 Hometown Apartments Ltd 8333 Douglas Ave Ste 110 Dallas Tx 75225 -5811 Legacy Church of Christ 8801 Mid Cities Blvd NRH Tx 76182 -4821 Lawa nda Osborn 9061 FM 1885 Weatherford Tx 7608E -1445 Nytex Sports LLC 804 Meandering Woods Dr Keller Tx 76248 -8463 Birdville ISD 6205 Broadway Ave Fort Worth Tx 76117-4211 Peter P & Jeanette M Waitkus Waitkus Family Liv Tr 6050 Lake Way Mews Fort Worth Tx 76180 -5318 Roc Hometown Apartments Ltd 8333 Douglas Ave Ste 110 Dallas Tx 7 52 25 -5 81 1 Kroger Texas LP Dba Vandervoorts 1331 E Airport Fwy Irving Tx 75062 -4818 Venue At Horne Town Ltd Etal 8333 Douglas Ave Ste 110 Dallas Tx 7 52 25 -5 81 1 Texas Teton Partners Ltd 4406 Eaton Cir Colleyville Tx 76034 -4652 Franklin Park Hometown Ltd 21250 Gathering Oak Ste 101 San Antonio Tx 78258 -3387 Clinton R Brooks 8709 Cardinal Ln NRH Tx 76180 -5301 Birdville ISD 6119 E Belknap St Fort Worth Tx 761 17 -4204 James Etux Janis A Burckhard 134 Pecos Ct Alto Nm 88312 -9562 Stephen Etux Jerri K Stage 6021 Lake Way NRH Tx 76180-5321 Mega Life & Health Ins Co Attn Glenn W Reed 9151 Grapevine Hwy NRH Tx 76180 -5605 Gateway Grant Inc % Emmes Asset Mgmt Co LLC 420 Lexington Ave Rm 900 New York Ny 10 170-0999 Oncor Electric Delivery Co LLC State & Local Tax Dept PO Box 219071 Dallas Tx 75221 -9071 VIII N STEAD Austin Dallas Fort Worth Houston San Antonio The Woodlands Washington, D.C. March 22, 2011 gstaDlesCcDtoase. corn George Staples, Esq. North Richland Hills City Attorney do Taylor, Olson, Adkins, Sraila &'Elam, L.L,P. 6000 Western Place, #200 Fort Worth, TIC 76107 -4654 5460 Renaissance Tower 214.745.5400 "Rc 1201 Elm Street 214.745.5390 ra� Dallas. Texas 75270 winstead com ARTHUR J. ANDERSON direct dial: 214.745,9745 aandeMon winslead corn Re: Nome town Urban Partners v. NR", Cause No. 96- 3236530 -09 Dear George: As you know, the Forth Richland Hills Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Home Town rezoning application with conditions that were different than the staff recommendation. The following revisions to the parties' agreement by the P &Z are unacceptable to Hometown Urban Partners ( "Hometown "): 1. Reduction in multi family units for Tract 1 below 630. 2. Reduction to the number of apartment units in the required corrlmerdal space ratio below 315. Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Compromise Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"), please accept this letter as Hometown's notice that any changes to Exhibits B and C of the Agreement are unacceptable to Hometown. Further, please accept this letter as Hometown's written protest to any rezoning by the City Council which is different than the exhibits to the Agreement pursuant to § 211.006, Tex. Loc. Gov't Code. Therefore, it will require a 314ths vote of the City Council to approve any rezoning of Hometown's land which is inconsistent with the exhibits to the Agreement. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call. (Sincerely, Arthur J, Ancle7san AJAIpIg cc, John Pitstick igitstickCcanrhtx.com Dallas 115 65 225' \ 1 47656 -2 3+21,201 l YY I N3 ! EAD Austin Dallas Fort Worth Houston San Antonio The Woodlands Washington, D.C. 5400 Renaissance Tower 214.745.5400 omce 1201 Elm Street 214.745.5390 F�.r Dallas, Texas 75270 winstead.corn March 22. 2011 Al2THuR .1. ANDERSON direct dial: 214.745.5745 aanderson[3��nrinst�a� _nom gstal2les@toase.com George Staples, Esq. North Richland Hills City Attorney clo Taylor, Olson, Adkins, Sralla & Elam, L.L.P. 5000 Western Place, #200 Fart Worth, TX 76107 -4654 Re: Arcadia Land, et al v. City of North Richland Hills, Cause No, 067 - 241297 -09 Dear George: As you know, the North Richland Hills Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Home Town rezoning application with conditions that were different than the staff recommendation. The following revisions to the parties' agreement by the PU are unacceptable to Arcadia 1. Reduction in multi - family units for Tract 4 below 260. Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Compromise SetHement Agreement ("Agreement"), please accept this letter as Arcadia's notice that any changes to Exhibits B and C of the Agreement are unacceptable to Arcadia. Further, please accept this letter as Arcadia's written protest to any rezoning by the City Council which is different than the exhibits to the Agreement pursuant to § 211.006, Tex. Loc. Gov't Code. Therefore, it will require a 3l4ths vote of the City Council to approve any rezoning of Arcadia's land which is inconsistent with the exhibits to the Agreement. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call. Sincerely, Arthur J. Anderson AJA1plg cc: John Pitstick ipitstickonrhtx.com Dallas x15652200\1 4(1946.4 312 [a 11 WINSTEAD PC ATTORNEYS ORDINANCE NO. 3133 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 118 OF THE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CODE OF ORDINANCES AND THE TOWN CENTER ZONING AND REGULATING PLAN; PROVIDING A PENALTY, FOR SEVERABILITY; FOR PUBLICATION AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission has determined the need to amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances by changing the regulations, regulating plan and table of uses pertaining to the Town Center subdistricts; and WHEREAS, after appropriate notice and public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council for amendment of the City's zoning ordinance as set forth herein; WHEREAS, notice has been given and public hearings held as required for amendments to the subdivision and zoning ordinance; now therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS; Sec. 1. The North Richland Hills Comprehensive Plan and the North Richland Hills Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended by amending Section 118 -632 of the North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances to read as follows: "See. 118 -632. Town center permitted uses. (a) Table of per pitted uses. The following table presents the district sub - zoning classifications and the permitted uses within those classifications. Uses are listed in accordance with permitted uses (P), uses permitted by a special use permit (S), ancillary uses (A) and prohibited uses (blank). Ancillary uses shall be regulated by Section 115 -727 Customary home occupations. (b) Special land use regulations. Special land use regulations for this district must comply with those requirements established in section 118 -633 unless otherwise provided for in section 118 -471, "North Richland Hills Town Center Development Standards ", section 118 -470, "Town Center Parking Standards ", or city approved, properly filed, conditions, covenants, and restrictions for property zoned to the TC district. 1 Town Center Table of Permitted Uses TABLE INSET: Town Center Districts Table of Permitted Uses Edge Subzone General Center Core Subzone Subzone Subzone A. RESIDENTIAL USES Single - Family Detached Dwelling P P P Unit Small Lot Single Family Cottage S S P (not P (not Multifamily Dwelling Unit permitted in per Tracts 2, 3 a, in Tract 3b, 5, 6b) 6a) P (only Townhome permitted P S east of Lakes) Personal Care Home (16) S S S S Assisted Living Center S S Senior Independent Living S S Apartments B. UTILITY, ACCESSORY. & INCIDENTAL USES Accessory Building (1) P P P P Gas Drilling and Production Home Occupation (2) P P P P Interim Enclosed Parking P Public and Private Utility Use (Not P P P P Office) Radio, Television or Cellular S S Telephone Tower Telephone Exchange, Switching, S S S S Relay Station C. EDUCATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES Cemetery/Mausoleum Church, Sanctuary, Rectory or Synagogue P P P P Civic, Social/Fraternal Organization S S College/University P P Community Center P P P Dance Studio/Martial Arts Studio P P Day Care Center/Kindergarten S P P Emergency Clinic P P Facility for care of alcoholic, narcotic, psychiatric rehab Family Counseling Clinic P P Fire Station P P P P Hospital S S Library P P P P Medical Clinic P P Museum P P Nursing Home /Orphanage S S Post Office P P P P Private or Parochial School P P Public Building (not listed elsewhere) P P Public School P P P P Senior Citizen Center (Noncommercial) P P P Senior Citizen Center (Commercial) P P Social Services Administrative Office P P Trade or Business School P P D. RECREATIONAL & ENTERTAINMENT USES Amusement Arcade (indoor) (5) S S Billiard Parlor (6) S S Bingo Hall Bowling Lanes P P Carnival, Circus, Street Festival or Special Fundraising Event (Temporary) (7) P P P P Children's Entertainment Center P P Commercial Recreation (outdoor) S S Country Club P P Dance Studio or Martial Arts Studio P P P Drive -in Theater Golf Course Golf Driving Range Miniature Golf Course P P Movie Theater (indoors) P P Outdoor Festival, Cultural Event, Celebration P P P P Park or Playground P P P P Private Club/Nightclub S S Race Track Rodeo Ground (S) Roller or Ice Skating Rink P P Spa, Health Studio, Fitness or Recreation Center P P Stable (commercial) Swim or Tennis Club P P Commercial Amusement Indoor P P E. AUTOMOBILE & TRANSPORTATION RELATED USES Airport, Heliport/Landing Field S S Auto /Truck Dealer - New (9) S (internet sales only) Auto Parts and Accessory Sales (w/machine shop) Auto Parts and Accessory Sales (w /o machine shop) Auto, Truck, Trailer Rental Automobile & Light Truck Repair Shop Automobile Inspection Station Automobile Lubrication Center Auto Stereo and Alarm Store Auto Upholstery Shop Automotive Window Tinting Store Bus Passenger Terminal 5 Car Wash/Auto Laundry LPG /CNG Dispensing Station Marine Equipment Sales/Repair Paint and Body Shop Railroad or Motor Freight Terminal RV or Camper Sales Lot Service Station Tire & Battery Sales Store Truck Service Center Used Vehicle Sales Lot (10) Vehicle Storage Facility (11) Wrecker/Towing Service WreckingfAuto Salvage Yard (12) F. OFFICE USES Accountant's Office A A P P Advertising Agency A A P P Administrative Offices A A P P Attorney's Office A A P P Chiropractic Clinic P P Contractors Office (w/o shop & garage) A A P P Computer Consultant A A P P Consultant A A P P Dental Office P P Governmental Office P P General Office Uses A A P P Graphic Design A A P P Insurance Agency A A P P Investment Broker Office A A P P Marketing Consultant Office A A P P Mortgage Loan Business Office A A P P Optometrist/Optician's Office P P Physician's Office P P Private Investigator's Office A A P P Professional/Business Office A A P P Real Estate Office P P Telecommunications Office A A P P Tax Return Preparation Office A A P P Telemarketing Office A A P P Temporary Employment Agency A A P P Title Company/Abstract Company P P Travel Agency /Airline Ticket Office A A P P G. RETAIL AND SERVICE USES Alcohol Beverage Sales On- Premises P P Antique Shop P P Arts & Crafts Store P P Audio - Visual Sales and Service Store P P Bakery Shop P P Bank or Savings and Loan P P Barbershop/Beauty Salon P P Bicycle Shop P P Bookstore P P Beauty Supply Store P P Camera Sales and Service Store P P Carpet and Tire Sales Store P P Cart Based Retail (outdoor) P P Clock Store P P Cleaning and Pressing Pickup Station P P Clothing Store P P Coffee Shop /Tea Room P P Computer Sales and Service Store P P Computer Software Store P P Consumer Electronics Store P P Copy Center P P Convenience Store S S Department Store P P Dog Training School Dry Cleaners (13) P P Equipment Rental Requiring Outdoor Display Area Fabric Shop P P Farmer's Market S S Florist Shop P P Furniture & Home Furnishings Store P P Gift Shop P P Greeting Card Store P P Grocery Store /Supermarket P P Hardware Store P P Health and Nutrition Foodstore P P Hot Tubs and Spas Imported Goods Store P P Jewelers P P Kennel Key Shop/Locksmith P P Laundry, Self - Service S S Luggage Sales Store P P Medical Appliances and Fitting P P Mortuary/Funeral Parlor Music Instruction A A P P Nail Salon P P Nursery Retail Sales Office Supplies and Equip. Store P P Paint Retail Store P P Pawn Shop Pet Store P P Pharmacy P P Photofinishing Store P P Photography Studio A A P P Private Tutoring A A P P Produce Market S S Restaurant or Cafeteria P P Retail Store and Shop P P Sales and Service of Heavy Equipment Shoe Repair Shop P P Shoe Store j P j P Shopping Mall or Shopping Center P P Sporting Goods Store P P Sports Card Store P P Tailor /Alteration Shop P P Tanning Salon P P Telecommunications Business/Sales Office P P Toy Store P P Trophy & Awards Shop P P Veterinarian Clinic (w/outdoor kennels) Veterinarian Clinic (w/o outdoor kennels) P P Videotapes and Records Store P P Weight Loss Center P P Women's Accessory Store P P H. COMMERCIAL USES Contractor's Office (w/shop & garage) (17) Feed and Seed Store Garden Center Hardware & Building Materials Retaib Wholesale Home Improvement Center Janitorial Supply and Service Company Lawn Maintenance Service Shop Lumberyard Miniwarehouse (Self- Storage) Motel or Hotel (14) S S Moving or Storage Company Newspaper Printing Plant Pest Control Service Store Printing Shop S P Research Laboratory P P Sign Shop Swimming Pool Sales and Service Store Truck & Heavy Machinery Sales/Service/Rental Upholstery Shop Warehousing Wholesale Distributor Warehousing & Storage of any commodity except heavy steel, large diameter pipe, junk, salvage, explosive or hazardous chemicals I. AGRICULTURAL USES Agricultural including the raising of field crops, horticulture animal husbandry, subject to the rules and regulations of the city, county, and state health dept. (15) Farm Or Ranch Greenhouse or Plant Nursery (wholesale) J. MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL USES Asphalt or Concrete Batching Plant (permanent) Asphalt or Concrete Batching Plant (temporary) Assembling Operations of Commodities, all operations S S conducted in fully enclosed building Cabinet Shop S Chemical Laboratory 1) Cold Storage Plant Commercial Bakery Plant Commercial Carpet Cleaning Commercial Laundry/Dying Plant Food Processing Plant Furniture Manufacturing Plant Machine Shop Manufacturing and Assembling operations of commodities except large steel structures Micro - Brewery S S Petroleum Collection/Storage Facility Reclamation Center Sheet Metal Shop S S Soft Drink Bottling Plant Storage of Stone, Rock, or Gravel Welding Shop/Foundry 1) a Section 2. THAT DIVISION 10 of Article N of Chapter 118 (the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance) and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances are hereby amended by amending such Division to read as follows: "DIVISION 10. TC TOWN CENTER DISTRICT 118 -461. Purpose. (a) The TC town center district is intended to establish development standards to promote a sustainable, high quality, mixed use development scenario that provides the opportunity for many uses typically associated with a city's town center to develop in an integrated manner. (b) The town center is comprised of the following subzones: the "neighborhood edge," the "neighborhood general," the "neighborhood center," and the "neighborhood core." These subzones provide for a gradient of development and use intensity. 11 (c) Development in the edge subzone is almost exclusively single - family detached houses. This subzone most closely resembles the single use development patterns of conventional suburban development (CSD). The general subzone is primarily developed as single - family. There is the opportunity, however, to provide for a limited amount of office use in a house. The center and core subzones allow for a true mix of uses, including residential and nonresidential uses in the same building. Each of the above zones has a different character. This is the result of the intensity and variety of permitted uses. All the components of each zone -- the buildings, the streets, and the public spaces -- are scaled for that zone. As a result, the town center neighborhood is an integrated living environment, instead of an assemblage of single -use areas. (d) The town center is much more complex than the CSD, which consists of simplified zoning concepts that segregate activities into districts. Since this is the case, the interrelationship between land uses in a town center drive the creation of atypical development standards when compared to those established with CSD. Sec. 118 -462. Permitted uses. Uses permitted within this TC district are provided in section 118 -632, town center table of permitted uses, as well as those that are further defined in section 118 - 471, "T Use Standards" in "North Richland Hills Town Center Development Standards.,' Sec. 118 -453. Lot and area requirements. The following lot and area requirements, as shown in section 118 -471, "North Richland Hills Town Center Development Standards," and further defined in "3. Urban Subzones," "4. General Building Types," "5. Frontage Standards," and "6. Urban Standards" shall be required of all development located within the TC district. Sec. 118 -464. General conditions. The following general conditions shall be required of all development located within the TC district unless otherwise provided for in section 118 -471, "North Richland Hills Town Center Development Standards," or provided for in city approved, properly filed, conditions, covenants, and restrictions for property zoned to the TC district. (1) Fences. See section 118 -871, screening walls and section 118 -873, general screening wall and fence criteria. Town Center exceptions include front yard residential picket fences up to 40 inches in height as approved by the Home Town homeowners association. (2) Customary home occupations. See section 118 -727, customary home occupations. (3) Landscaping requirement. See Section (8) Open Space Standards, Section (9) Thoroughfare Types and Section (11) Site Design Criteria within the Town Center Development Standards of this code. 12 (4) Signs. Except as specifically listed below, all other signage and sign standards must comply with Chapter 106 of the City of North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances, as amended. (4a) Town Center Allowed Sign Table Character Zone Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Standard Core Center General Edge Sign T e (1) wall p P NP NP • For all commercial (Building) Signs uses (retail, office, and restaurant): One sign per tenant space; area to be calculated at 1.5 sq- fk per linear foot of public street frontage with a maximum of 100 sq- ft- (all commercial uses greater than 18,000 shall be allowed to utilize a maximum of 15% of the occupied wall space for a wall sign and wall sign is required to be placed within the sign band on the building elevation) • Second floor commercial uses may also be permitted one second floor wall sign per tenant space per public street frontage; area to be calculated at 0.75 sq_ ft- per linear foot of second floor frontage along that public street- • May encroach a maximum of 12" an to a sidewalk while maintaining a vertical clearance of 8 fl- from the finished sidewalk- * wall signs may be internally or externally lit- • Neon signs are permitted - (2) Monument p P NP NP One monument sign Signs (only with (only with per lot per street frontage on frontage on frontage (no more than major arterials) major arterials) 2 per lot separated by at least 100 ft_) himted to a maximum of 50 sq- fk per sign face and 6 fl- in height_ (3) window P P NP NP Limited to 2590 of the 13 Character Zone Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Standard Core Center General Edae Signs window area - The following shall be exempt from this limitation- • Addresses, closedlopen signs, hours of operation, credit card logos, real estate signs, and now hiring signs- • Mannequins and stwefront displays placed at least 1 foot behind widow- • Interior directory signage identifying shopping aisles and merchandise display areas - (4) Blade Signs P P P NP . Shall be permitted (only for all commercial uses permitted for only (retail, restaurant, customary and office) home a 15 sq- ft- occupations as maximum per sign a 5 sq- ft- max face - shingle a May encroach a attached to the maximum of 4 ft- over first floor of a public sidewalk/R-0- buildings w- facing Bridge a Blade signs may Street east of be attached to the Parker building or hung under Boulevard and the soffit of an arcade facing Parker or under a Boulevard east canopy /awning while of Bridge maintaining a vertical Street) clearance of 8 ft- from the finished sidewalk (5) For salelfor P P P P a Single family size lease signs limited to 6 sq- ft- all other uses size is limited to 32 sq- ft- per sign face • All other standards are the same as Sign Ordinance (6) Address P P P P Same as Sign signs Ordinance (7) Temporary P P P P 1 free standing sign construction signs per lot during construction only, tainted to 32 sq- ft- (8) Banners P P P P Same as Sign Ordinance 14 Character Zone Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood Standard Core Center General Edge (9) SandA ich P P NP NP . Permitted only for board signs retail, service, or restaurant uses • Limited to 8 sq- R_ per sign face per storefront; • Sign may not exceed 2 ft- in width or 4 ft- in height- • A minimum of 6 ft- of sidewalk shall remain clear- • Chalkboards may be used for daily changing of messages - Readerboards (electronic and non- electronic) shall be prohibited- • Sign shall be removed every day after the business is closed - (10) Light Pole P P P p a 10 sq- ft- per sign Banners face- • Limited to one per light pole • Light pole banners shall be limited to publicize romTiumity- wide events, holiday celebrations, public art, and other city and property owner's association sponsored events - (11) Directory P P NP NP a Shall be allowed signs for all multi- tenant buildings only • Two directory signs per multi- tenant building hunted to 10 sq- ff in area • Design of the sign shall be integral to the facade on which the sign is to be affixed- (12) Any sign N-P NP NP NP . Will be reviewed with LEIS lights or as part of city wide electronic reader boards regulations- (13) Additional P P P NP a Real Estate signs Signs allowed in rights placed directly in front of way of affected buildings • Traffic Directional Signs allowed only on 60 feet or greater streets-, can include multiple locations-, only showing name and direction of commercial or civic facilities at least 15,000 square feet of space or identify districts or 1� Character Zone Neighborhood Core Neighborhood Center Neighborhood General Neighborhood Edae Standard locations; consistent color and theming and approved by the Sign Review Committee • All Real Estate and Traffic Directional Signs within the right of way shall not exceed six square feet in area with a maximum height of 40 inches (5) Inoperative equipment. No inoperative equipment or vehicle shall be stored or parked in a "common" parking lot. Sec. 118 -465. Outdoor activities or other uses. In connection with any permitted use in the TC district, there shall be allowed the incidental display of merchandise out of doors, subject to the following limitations: (1) Display and/or storage of merchandise outdoors shall not exceed more than 20 percent of the total area of the lot. (2) All display areas out of doors shall be confined to a pedestrian walkway or courtyard or plaza immediately adjacent to the building housing the primary use and shall not extend from such building a distance of more than ten feet. In no instance shall there be less than six feet of clear space on the walkway for maneuvering. (3) All sales of such merchandise shall be consummated indoors, and no cash register or package wrapping counter shall be located out of doors. (4) Temporary outdoor sales of merchandise, including cash transfer and package wrapping, may be allowed by the holder of a permanent certificate of occupancy at the location upon application and granting of a temporary use permit, subject to the regulations as specified in article V of this chapter. (5) Cart retail and temporary seasonal retail shall be allowed only as an assessoly use to a primary business on the adjacent sidewalk space with a required sidewalk right of way permit and a minimum 6 foot wide clear public pathway maintained at all times. (6) All outdoor sales and/or special event activities within a public right of way will require a right of way use permit as established by the City of North Richland Hills. Sec. 118 -466. Parking and loading requirements. 16 Development located within the TC district shall provide for parking and loading per article VII, parking and loading regulations, unless otherwise provided for in section 118 -470, town center parking standards. Sec. 118 -467. Zoning request submission requirements. Zoning requests for this TC district must comply with those requirements outlined in section 118 -471, Exhibit B, North Richland Hills Town Center Development Standards, and in addition, include as a minimum, the following: (1) A request to amend the city's comprehensive plan to the town center land use designation. This request shall run concurrently with the zoning request. Property may not be rezoned to the TC district unless the city council approves such an amendment to the comprehensive plan prior to action on the zoning request. (2) A regulating plan that identifies subsections (2 )a.- d. of this section. If the zoning change request is approved by the city council, such regulating plan shall be attached as an exhibit to the ordinance. Development of the project should generally be in compliance with the approved regulating plan. Any significant change to the regulating plan shall require approval of the city council. A significant change to the regulating plan shall be viewed as a zoning amendment and shall be reviewed and processed as such. a. Proposed land uses. A designation of the proposed uses of land within the subject property. This shall include the designation of applicable subzones within the TC district. b. Proposed streets. The regulating plan shall indicate the location and dimensions of proposed streets. 60' or greater in right -of -way width. Streets less than 60' in ROW width shall be shown on the Preliminary Plat. C. Proposed Tacks. The regulating plan shall show all proposed blocks. d. Proposed dedicated parks, playgrounds and other pudic spaces. Sites, if any, to be reserved or dedicated for parks, playgrounds, trails, pedestrian access easements, or other public uses complying with minimum open space requirements. Sec. 118 -468. Property owners' associations. Conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC &Rs) for all property within the town center district must be filed in the county by the owner before a final subdivision plat may be approved, a lot sold, or a building permit issued. Conditions, covenants, and restrictions which relate to provisions required in this District must be approved by the city attorney, and they must: 17 (1) Create a property owners' association with mandatory membership for each property owner. (2) Establish architectural standards that are in conformity with the requirements of this TC district. (3) Create an architectural review committee to review development for compliance with the architectural standards and issue certificates of approval prior to a building permit being applied for. Such committee shall have as one of its voting members a representative of the city as determined by the city council. (4) Provide for the maintenance of the landscaping and trees within the right -of -way. (5) At a minimum, the conditions, covenants, and restrictions establishing and creating the mandatory property owners' association shall contain and/or provide for the following: a. Definitions of terms contained therein; b. Provisions acceptable to the city for the establishment and organization of the mandatory property owners' association and the adoption of bylaws for the association, including provisions requiring that the owner of any lot within the applicable subdivision and any successive buyer shall automatically and mandatorily become a member of the association; C. The initial term of the covenants, codes, and restrictions establishing and creating the association shall be for a 50 -year period and shall automatically renew for successive ten -year periods, and the association may not be dissolved without the prior written consent of the city; d. The right and ability of the city or its lawful agents, after due notice to the association, to remove any landscape systems, features, or elements that cease to be maintained by the association; to perform the responsibilities of the association if the association fails to do so in compliance with any provisions of the covenants, codes, and restrictions of the association or of any applicable city code or regulations; to assess the association for all costs incurred by the city in performing said responsibilities if the association fails to do so; and/or to avail itself of any other enforcement actions available to the city pursuant to state law or city codes or regulations; and e. Provisions indemnifying and holding the city harmless from any and all costs, expenses, suits, demands, liabilities or damages, including attorney's fees and costs of suit, incurred or resulting from the city's removal of any landscaping, features, or elements that cease to be maintained by the association or from the city's performance ofthe aforementioned operation, 18 maintenance or supervision responsibilities of the association due to the associations' failure to perform said responsibilities. Sec. 118 -469. Special land use regulations. Special land use regulations for the TC town center district must comply with those requirements established in this section, unless otherwise provided for in section 118 -471, "North Richland Hills Town Center Development Standards," section 118 -470, town center parking standards, or city approved, properly filed, conditions, covenants, and restrictions for property zoned to the TC district. Sec. 118 -470. Parking standards. (a) Shared parking. The TC town center zoning district is intended to provide for a sustainable, high quality, mixed use development. The components of the development create an integrated living environment, instead of the assemblage of single -use areas that is typical of conventional suburban development (CSD). Since the town center is much more complex, the interrelationship between land uses drives the creation of atypical development standards. One such standard is the concept of shared parking. When compared to CSD, the parking demand generated for individual uses may be overstated if those same uses are developed in a mixed use development. This occurs for a number of reasons: (1) Different activity patterns of adjacent or nearby land uses result in variations of peak accumulation by time of day, day of week, or season of the year. (2) People often patronize two or more land uses in close proximity to each other in a single trip. (3) The density of development and other modes of transportation (walking, bicycles, etc.) reduce the reliance on the use of the automobile, particularly among residents. Some of the benefits resulting from shared parking include efficient parking; maximization of parking, which eliminates potential areas of nonused parking spaces, as well as the cost associated with those nonused spaces; and the allowance for the development of other nonparking functions such as open space or other people generating usage. Application of the shared parking concept is to be on a block by block basis. The required parking for a specified block shall be provided for on -site, on- street, and in specific instances (theater, recreation center, etc.) on an adjacent block or on adjacent property in accordance with a joint parking agreement between property owners. Double counting ofparking spaces for different blocks is not allowed. To facilitate the monitoring of the shared parking concept, any development that wishes to use the shared parking concept shall have a mandatory property owners' association (POA). One of the functions of the POA shall be to create a town center parking authority (TCPA). As each block is developed, the TCPA will verify the parking requirements. When a building permit for the first building on a block is submitted to the city, the amount of on -site parking to be provided in conjunction with the building shall not be less than 50 percent of the total proposed on -site parking for the entire block. The TCPA will 19 determine the required number of parking spaces for the proposed development of the entire block using the city approved parking ratios for the town center district. A minimum of 50 percent of the total required on -site parking spaces must be constructed prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for any use in the first building on the block. Once building permits have been submitted to the city that account more than 50 percent of the total development on the block, the concept of shared parking may be applied. The shared parking concept includes on- street and off - street parking spaces. When building permits have been submitted to the city for the proposed development on a block that exceeds 50 percent, the total number of required on -site parking spaces shall be provided for. The TCPA shall determine the number of required parking spaces, based on the city approved parking ratios for the town center district. Once a block is totally developed, the TCPA shall monitor all parking for the block. Any changes to building occupancy must be reviewed with the TCPA to confirm that the proposed building usage has an ample parking supply. Any application for building permit or certificate of occupancy to the city shall be stamped for parking compliance by the TCPA. This includes new development, as well as modifications or changes of existing building usage. (b) Shared parking study criteria. Uses may join in establishing a shared parking area using the city approved parking ratios and percentage of peak hour parking tables where it can be demonstrated before the city staff that parking for two or more specific uses occurs at alternating periods. Such shared parking areas shall be established in accordance with the following provisions: (1) It shall be demonstrated as a condition precedent to consideration of a shared parking area that such area will result in a reduction of at least ten percent of the aggregate required parking for such uses. (2) The applicant shall submit a parking analysis to the planning director for his approval, in accordance with the following provisions. Such analysis shall utilize the hourly accumulation of parked vehicles by percentage of peak hour weekday and weekend tables, which provides: a. An analysis of the anticipated hours of operation of such use or uses; b. A summary of peak parking demand for such uses; The total square footage of floor area of such uses; d. Employment and/or customer characteristics of such uses, whichever is applicable; and Miscellaneous pertinent information as may be applicable to the request or as may be requested by the city staff. (c) Hourly accumulation a, f parked vehicles by percentage a, f peak hour weekdays and weekends. See tables 1 and 2 at the end of this division. 20 (d) Town center parking authority (TCP 4). The responsibilities of the TCPA shall be outlined in the covenants, codes, and restrictions for the mandatory property owners' association in the town center district. Those responsibilities shall include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Establish parking authority requirements and staffing; (2) Review proposed developments and verify required parking capacities based on shared parking requirements. Stamp drawings of proposed development indicating, if applicable, compliance with parking requirements; (3) Enter into shared parking agreements with owners of adjacent property; (4) Maintain an updated plan of available parking on -site and oft -site; (5) Verify parking requirements for changes in building usage and occupancy. Stamp drawings of proposed development changes, if applicable, for compliance with parking requirements; (6) Maintain a copy of parking maintenance manuals for all parking areas; (7) Conduct quarterly site tours to verify maintenance and need for repairs; direct requirement for repairs where required; (8) Maintain ongoing record of special events in the town center and develop parking allocation/management for special event parking; (9) Establish the need to construct new parking facilities; (10) Verify development and construction of new parking facilities; and (11) Develop policy for enforcement and violations of parking regulations. (e) Shared parking locational criteria included herein. (1) Residential (exclusive of single - family detached): On the same block as the use or on that portion of the street immediately adjacent to that block. (2) Institutional (library): On the same block as the use or on that portion of the street immediately adjacent to that block, or within 500 feet from a library or other institutional use. (3) Recreational (ice rink, cinema, or amphitheater): On the same block as the use or on that portion of the street immediately adjacent to that block, or within 500 feet of the use. 21 (4) Office, retail, and service uses: On the same block as the use or on that portion of the street immediately adjacent to that block. (5) Storage (flex office /warehouse). On the same block as the use or on that portion of the street immediately adjacent to that block. (f) Schedule of minimum number of parking spaces. All parking shall be calculated on gross square footage of building area. 1. RESIDENTIAL a. Single-family dwelling: 3 per elling unit b. Ancillary apartment in an edge or general subzone: 1 per bedroom c. Townhouse: 2 per dwelling unit Id. Mansion apartment (fourplex): 2 per dwelling unit e. Apartment: 1.5 per 1 bedroom, 2 per 2 & 3 bedrooms f. Ancillary lodging in an edge or general subzone: 1 per bedroom rented 2. INSTITUTIONAL a.. Recreation center: 1 per 400 sq. ft. b. Library: 1 per 400 sq. ft. 3. RECREATIONAL a. Ice rink: 1 per 333 sq. ft. b. Cinema (theater): 1 per 3 seats c. Amphitheater: 1 per 3 seats 4. IPERSONAL SERVICE a. Retail 1 per 250 s . ft. b. Office 1 per 250 sq. ft. c. Restaurant 1 per 150 sq. ft. 5. BUSINESS SERVICE Ia. Corporate office: 1 per 300 sq. ft. b. Small business/ professional services: 1 er 300 sq. ft. 6. STORAGE a. Flex office /warehouse: 1 per 400 sq. ft. Parking for any other use not specifically listed shall be provided for at the ratio established by the city in this chapter. 22 TABLE I HOURLY ACCUMULATION OF PARKED VEHICLES BY PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR WEEKDAYS TIME OF DAY OFFICE* % FLEX OFFICE/ "WAREHOUSE* * RETAIL* % CINEMA* % RESIDENTIAL ** % REC. CENTER* * % ICE RINK ** % LIBRARY ** % AMPHITHEATER ** % RESTAURANT* %° 6:00 a.m. 3 3 0 0 100 30 5 0 0 0 7:00 a.m. 20 35 8 0 81 35 10 0 0 2 8:00 a.m. 63 75 18 73 40 25 5 0 5 9:00 a.m. 93 95 42 0 67 30 20 5 0 10 10:00 a.m. 100 100 68 0 62 15 15 15 0 20 11:00 a.m. 100 94 87 0 53 15 25 25 5 30 12:00 p.m. 90 85 97 25 54 25 35 35 10 50 1:00 .m. 90 90 100 55 53 25 30 40 15 70 2:00 p.m. 97 95 97 55 54 15 40 50 15 60 3:00 .m. 93 90 95 55 54 15 65 50 25 60 4:00 p.m. 77 75 87 60 60 20 85 40 50 50 5:00 P.M. 47 44 79 65 67 65 60 60 75 70 6:00 p.m. 23 20 82 70 79 85 95 75 90 90 7:00 p.m. 7 7 89 75 88 100 100 100 100 100 8:00 .m. 7 7 87 85 90 90 100 100 100 100 9:00 .m. 3 3 61 85 95 75 100 60 85 100 10:00 P.M. 3 3 32 85 99 50 75 0 75 90 11:00 P.M. 0 0 1.3 70 100 15 35 0 25 70 12:00 a.m. 0 0 0 55 100 5 20 0 20 50 NOTE: The hourly accumulation by time of day is based on * "Shared Parking" (ULI) and * *Carl Walker, Inc. proprietary database. 23 TABLE 2 HOURLY ACCUMULATION OF PARKED VEHICLES BY PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR WEEKENDS TIME OF DAY OFFICE* % FLEXOFFICE/ WAREHOUSE ** RETAIL* % CINEMA* % RESIDENTIAL ** % REC. CENTER* % ICE RINK ** LIBRARY ** % AMPHITHEATER ** % RESTAURANT* % 6:00 a.m. 1 0 0 0 0 100 25 20 0 0 0 7:00 a.m. 20 30 3 0 95 30 60 0 0 2 8:00 a.m. 60 70 10 0 85 45 80 0 0 3 9:00 a.m. 80 100 30 0 75 60 100 0 10 6 10:00 a.m. 80 90 45 0 70 70 75 35 20 8 11:00 a.m. 100 85 73 0 64 80 50 60 30 10 12:00 p.m. 100 70 85 30 64 95 60 70 45 30 1:00 p.rn. 80 60 95 70 65 85 50 75 50 45 2:00 p.m. 60 50 100 70 64 80 60 85 50 45 3:00 p.m. 40 40 100 70 65 60 50 100 60 45 4:00 .m. 40 35 90 70 65 55 60 100 75 45 5:00 .m. 20 10 75 70 67 35 70 75 85 60 6:00 .m. 20 5 65 80 69 30 95 60 90 90 7:00 p.m. 20 3 60 90 75 30 100 60 100 95 8 :00 .m. 20 0 55 100 82 20 100 60 100 100 9:00 P.M. 0 0 40 100 90 5 100 0 85 100 10:00 P.M. 0 0 38 100 96 5 80 0 75 95 11:00 P.M. 0 is 13 80 98 5 50 0 25 85 12:00 a.m. 0 0 0 70 100 5 20 0 20 70 NOTE: The hourly accumulation by time of day is based on * "Shared Parking" (ULI) and * *Carl Walker, Inc. proprietary database. 24 Sec. 118 -471. Town Center Development Standards, 2011 (1) TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (TND). 1.000 INTENT; The TND is designed to foster development in the pattern of cores and neighborhoods within urbanized areas and villages within the countryside. 2.100 DESCRIPTION: The TND supports the following conventions: • A neighborhood pattern to be limited in size by the walking distance from its edges to its center. • A variety of housing, shops, workplaces and civic buildings located in close proximity. • Housing which serves a range of income and age groups. • Workplaces that provide for home occupation and business incubators as well as for conventional offices. • Thoroughfares that equitably serve the needs of the pedestrian, the bicycle and the automobile. • Public open spaces in the specific form of parks, squares and plazas to serve as places of recreation and community activity. • Sites reserved in locations that foster civic buildings as symbols of community. • Private buildings that clearly define the public spaces and mask the majority of the parking lots. • Architecture and landscaping which respond to the climate and character of the region. 2.200 JUSTIFICATION: The TND supports the following intentions: • To provide the elderly and the young with their independence by locating most daily activities within walking distance. • To minimize traffic congestion by reducing the number and length of necessary automobile hips. • To make public transit a viable alternative by organizing appropriate building concentrations. • To help citizens watch over their collective security by providing appropriate public spaces. Page 25 • To integrate a wide range of household types by providing a full range of housing types. • To support a sense of community by encouraging suitable civic buildings. 3.000 DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS: 3.100 Parcel Location: The TND is a specialized zoning district which may be permitted land zoned residential, commercial or industrial. 3.200 Parcel Size: The minimum parcel for a Traditional Neighborhood Development TND shall be 80 acres. There shall be no maximum size limit. In the event that the owner of the property adjacent to the land zoned for TND development, irrespective ofwhether or not a street or other light -of -way separates the properties, wishes to develop in a similar manner, there is no minimurn acreage requirement. Any tract that is proposed to be developed as a TND shall be further subdivided into neighborhoods. 3.300 Neighborhood Size: The minimum size of each neighborhood shall be 40 acres and the maximum shall be 200 acres. Larger parcels shall be developed as multiple neighborhoods, each subject to the set of TND provisions. Each neighborhood shall be finther divided into the following subzones: Edge, General, Center and Core. 4.000 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING: 4.100 Master Plan: The city master plan may show areas where TNDs are encouraged. See (2) Regional Zones 4.110 Toning: The city may create a specialized zoning district for TND's which will include detailed descriptions of standards for: Regional zones, urban subzones, general building types, frontage standards, urban standards, use standards, open space standards, thoroughfare standards, parking standards, and architectural standards. 4.200 Regulating Plan: The owner's zoning submittal shall include a regulating plan showing center and general subzones and where appropriate edge and core subzones. These subzones create a range, from urban to rural by specifying a coordinated set of requirements for private buildings, public open spaces, and thoroughfares. See (1) Regulating Plan and (3) Urhan Suhrones 4.21 Shared Parking Standards: The owner's zoning submittal may include shared parking areas for uses in center and core subzones. Any shared parking area shall only be so designated upon approval of the city council as part of the zoning change. Such shared parking standards shall be identified on the regulating plan and shall be monitored and maintained by a mandatory property owners association. These regulations allow compact pedestrian friendly blocks and produce a finer grain of development. Page 26 4.314 Private Buildings: The requirements refer to type, use and frontage according to subzone. Public buildings are not coded in this manner. Their specifications will be subject to approval by the town center architect. See (4) General Building Types, (6) Urban standards, (7) Use Standards and (5) Frontage Standards 4.320 Public Spaces: The requirements specify parks, greens, squares and plazas. See (8) Open Space Standards 4.330 Thoroughfares: The requirements specify velocity and streetscape to create boulevards, avenues, streets and roads with corresponding rear alleys and lanes. The size of the thoroughfares is determined by adjacent land uses, desired traffic movement, and design speed. See (9), Thoroughfare Standards 4.340 Architecture: See (12) Architecture Standards ( 2) REGIONAL ZONES consist of. C CORRIDOR N NEIGHBORHOOD D DISTRICT • Corridor: open space • Neighborhood: compact urbanized areas providing a • District: urbanized connectors and linear balanced range of human needs. areas specialized transportation rights of The neighborhood includes a transportation corridor. around a predominant way. balanced set of activities: The optimal size of a activity. The corridor includes shopping, work, schooling, neighborhood is a quarter mile The district is restricted natural and manmade recreation, and dwelling. from center to edge. This from allowing the full components ranging This is particularly useful for distance is the equivalent of a range of activities of a from wildlife trails to rail those such as the young, old, five- minute walk at an easy neighborhood. A lilies. or handicapped. pace. This limit assures a district is only justified The natural corridors are The neighborhood provides population within walking to accommodate uses formed by the assembly business incubators as well distance of many of its daily that cannot be of natural, agricultural, as housing for a variety of needs. This size is determined, incorporated into the and recreational open lifestyles. Inclusive housing not by density but by a neighborhood structure. spaces, such as parks, refers to the housing needs of maximum walking radius. Examples are theater schoolyards, and golf people at all stages of life. Larger areas are reapportioned districts, capitol areas courses. These The neighborhood has a as multiple neighborhoods. and college campuses. continuous spaces can be center and an edge which Smaller areas should be Other districts part of a larger network, contribute to the identity of concurrently planned with accommodate large connecting the urban the community. The center is adjoining holdings. scale transportation or open spaces to the a public space, which maybe A transit stop within walking manufacturing uses, countryside. a plaza, a square, a green, or distance of most homes such as airports, The transportation an important street enhances the usefulness of container terminals, corridor is determined by intersection. It is located near public transportation. refineries, and "big - its intensity. Heavy rail the center of the The neighborhood is structured box" retailing. corridors should remain neighborhood, unless on a fine- grained network of The structure of the tangent and external to compelled by a geographic thoroughfares to shorten district should parallel all urbanized areas. Light circumstance to be pedestrian routes. This that of the rail and streetcar elsewhere. Eccentric interconnecting street pattern neighborhood: an corridors may occur at locations may be justified by provides multiple routes that identifiable focus boulevards at the edges a shoreline, a transportation diffuse traffic, keeping local encourages orientation of neighborhoods. Sus corridor, or a compelling traffic off regional roads and I and identity, while Page 27 C CORRIDOR N NEIGHBORHOOD D DISTRICT corridors may pass into view. The center is the through traffic off local streets. clear boundaries neighborhoods on appropriate location of the Neighborhood thoroughfares facilitate the streets. The corridor may neighborhood's public are designed to provide formulation of special also be a continuous buildings. Shops and equitably for pedestrian management parkway, providing workplaces are usually comfort and for automobile organizations. long- distance walking associated with the center. In movement. Pedestrian activity Interconnection with and bicycle trails. The the aggregation of encourages the casual meetings adjacent neighborhoods corridor should not be neighborhoods which create that form the bonds of encourages pedestrian the residual space towns and cities, these community. access. Districts benefit bounding separate zones. buildings should be at the The neighborhood identifies from transit systems, Rather, it is a public edge, where they gain appropriate locations for civic and should be located element characterized by synergy as neighborhoods buildings. These enhance within the regional its visible continuity. connect. community identity and foster network. The edges of a neighborhood community participation. Districts must be vary in character. In villages, .ustified by a public the edge is usually defined by process leading to open space. In towns and approval by the cities, the edge is often appropriate public another neighborhood or body. Page 28 (3) URBAN SUBZONES. Zoning Cross Section: The systematic arrangement of the neighborhood into zones. The natural internal structure of the neighborhood includes three zones -Edge, General, and Center — which progress from the most rural (Edge) to the most urban (Center) areas of the neighborhood. The Core is the area where several neighborhoods meet, and is characterized by a high intensity and variety of uses. The Civic zone is an overlay zone, applicable anywhere in the neighborhood. Each zone has a different character that results from the intensity and variety of permitted uses. All of the elements within each zone- the buildings, the streets, the public spaces - are all scaled for that zone. As a result, the traditional neighborhood is an integrated living environment, instead of an assemblage of single -use areas. Page 29 <- LESS URBAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MORE URBAN NE EDGE ZONE NC GENERAL ZONE NC CENTER ZONE TC CORE ZONE -`i'hc Neighborhood Edge Zone is -The Neighborhood General -The Neighborhood Center -The Town Core Zone is the most the least dense, most purely Zone is mixed in function, but Zone is the multifunctional dense business, service, and residential zone of the neighborhood. principally residential. It has a social center of a neighborhood. institutional center. It is usually shared The size varies as a proportion of the generalized character, and is It is usually at a central location, by several neighborhoods. It always overall area depending on whether the usually the largest area of the within walking distance of the straddles thoroughfares at their most model is more rural (village -like) or neighborhood. surrounding, primarily residential active intersection. It is usually within more urban (town - like). A areas. walking distance of a substantial Neighborhood Edge Zone is residential population. A Core Zone is dependent on site conditions and may optional, usually necessary only for be optional, not usually necessary for towns and cities. cities. Summary ofperm�tted combinations for each zone: BUILDING USE Restricted use, combining residential with certain other uses only within an Limited use, permitting the controlled combination of Open use, encouraging the combination of residential and other uses. Open use, encouraging the combination of residential and See (7) Use �rnaci'wrn ds outbuilding. residential with other uses. other uses. There is usually a mandatory retail frontage at the street level. F— LESS URBAN MORE URBAN —> Page 29 <— LESS URBAN NE EDGE ZONE LNG GENERAL ZONE MORE URBAN —} NC CENTERZONE ITC COREZONE -The Neighborhood Edge Zone is -The Neighborhood General -The Neighborhood Center -The Town Core Zane is the most the least dense, most purely Zone is mixed in function, but Zone is the multifunctional dense business, service, and residential zone of the neighborhood. principally residential. It has a social center of a neighborhood. institutional center. It is usually shared The size varies as a proportion of the generalized character, and is It is usually at a central location, by several neighborhoods. It always overall area depending on whetherthe usually the largest area of the within walking distance of the straddles thoroughfares at their most model is more rural (village -like) or neighborhood. surrounding, primarily residential active intersection. It is usually within more urban (town -like). A areas. walking distance of a substantial Neighborhood Edge Zone is residential population. A Core Zone is dependent on site conditions and may optional, usually necessary only for be optional, not usually necessary for towns and cities. cities. Summary of permitted combinations for each zone: NE EDGE ZONE ING GENERAL ZONE NC CENTER ZONE TC CORE ZONE -The Neighborhood Edge Zone is *The Neighborhood General -The Neighborhood Center Zone is -The Town Core Zone is the the least dense, most purely Zone is mixed in function, but the multifunctional social center of a most dense business, service, and residential zone of the neighborhood. principally residential. It has a neighborhood. It is usually at a central institutional center. It is usually The size varies as a proportion of the generalized character, and is location, within walking distance of shared by several neighborhoods. overall area depending on whether the usually the largest area of the the surrounding, primarily residential It always straddles thoroughfares model is more rural (village -like) or neighborhood. areas. at their most active intersection. more urban (town - like). A It is usually within walking Neighborhood Edge Zone is distance of a substantial dependent on site conditions and may residential population. A Core be optional, not usually necessary for Zone is optional, usually cities. necessary only for towns and cities. Summary ofpermitted combinations for each zone. Page 30 Buildings of the low density Buildings of the medium density Buildings of the higher density Buildings only of the high BUILDING TYPE freestanding edge yard type. freestanding side yard and edge attached courtyard, rear yard, and also density attached court-yard and See (3) wilding Types yard types. side yard types. rear yard types. Frontages which weakly define the Frontages which are varied with Frontages which create continuous Frontages which create FRONTAGE TYPE public space with deep setbacks: medium setbacks: dooryard, and street walls with shallow setbacks: continuous street walls with common lawn and porch and fence. porch and fence. arcade shop front stoop, and shallow setbacks: arcade shop Page 30 <— LESS URBAN NE EDGE ZONE GENERAL ZONE -The Neighborhood Edge Zone is -The Neighborhood General the least dense, most purely Zone is mixed in function, but residential zone of the neighborhood. principally residential. It has a The size varies as a proportion of the generalized character, and is overall area depending on whether the usually the largest area of the model is more rural (village -like) or neighborhood. more urban (town -like). A Neighborhood Edge Zone is dependent on site conditions and may be optional, not usually necessary for cities. Summary ofpermitted combinations for each zone: (5) Frontage MORE URBAN —} NC CENTERZONE ITC COREZONE -The Neighborhood Center -The Town Core Zane is the most Zone is the multifunctional dense business, service, and social center of a neighborhood. institutional center. It is usually shared It is usually at a central location, by several neighborhoods. It always within walking distance of the straddles thoroughfares at their most surrounding, primarily residential active intersection. It is usually within areas. walking distance of a substantial commercial street, and avenue. residential population. A Core Zone is Thoroughfares are roads and drives. optional, usually necessary only for Thoroughfares are avenues and streets. towns and cities. forecourt. front, stoop, and forecourt. STREETSCAPE Streetscapes which create the most Streetscapes which create a Streetscapes which create urban Streetscapes which create the TYPE See (9) —(11) rural conditions: road, and lane. variety of conditions: road, conditions: residential street, most urban conditions: Thoroughfares residential street, and avenue. commercial street, and avenue. commercial street, and avenue. THOROUGHFARE Thoroughfares are roads and drives. Thoroughfares are avenues, Thoroughfares are avenues and streets. Thoroughfares are streets. All TYPE Buildings may be served by rear streets, and roads. Most buildings All buildings are served by rear alleys. buildings are served by rear See (9) —(11) lanes except that wider lots with are served by rear lanes. may alleys. Thoroughfares them. dispense OPEN SPACE Open space may be parks within an Open space is organized as parks Open space is organized as plazas or Open space is organized as TYPE See (8) Open adjacent greenbelt, and greens. squares. plazas or squares. Space Standards Page 31 (4) GENERAL BUILDING TYPES. There are four general categories of building types: edge yard, side yard, rear yard, and court yard. Types are most easily defined by their various relationships to their lots, expressed as the residual yard. These types are able to accommodate all common residential and commercial uses. The specialized category is expected to accommodate exceptional types. General Categories ISpecialized <-- LESS URBAN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J i l l 1 MORE URBAN ---> -._.—.—._.� P}^177y 9 I�I NEK.—Jj I — 0 . _ - __ — c o EY SY RY Cy XY Edge Yard: a building that occupies the center of its lot with setbacks on all sides. It is the least urban of types as the front yard sets it back from the street. It is usually assigned to General or Edge Zones. The front yard is intended to be semipublic and visually continuous with the yards of adjacent buildings. The rear yard can be secured for privacy by fences and a well - placed outbuilding. Side Yard: a. building that occupies one side of the lot with the primary open space to the other side. The visual opening of the side yard on the stree frontage causes this building type to appear freestanding, so that it may be interspersed with edge yard buildings in the General Zone. (SYl) The shallow front setback, when completed by a street wall parallel with the facade also permits its use in Center Zone. (SY2) If the adjacent building is also a side yard type with a blank party wall on the lot boundary, the side yard can be quite private. This type permits systematic climactic orientation with the long side yard elevation to the sun ear Yard: a {Court Yard: a gilding that building that :cupies the full occupies the Dntage of its lot boundaries of its lot iminating most side while internally Ards, leaving the defining one or more r portion as a large A This is a very )an type 3ropriate for nter and Core nes. The building wade steadily fines the edge of :public space pile the rear vation may be iculated for >ctional purposes. its residential m, this type is )resented by the v house with a .k building and 11-placed out - dding creating vacy; in its umercial form, the nth of the rear yard parking. Page 32 private patios. This is the most urban of types as it is able to shield the private realm from all sides. This type is common in hot climates, but its attributes are useful everywhere. Because of its ability to accommodate incompatible activities in close proximity, it is recounnended for workshops, lodging and schools within residential areas. Specialized: a building that is not subject to typological categorization. Buildings dedicated to manufacturing and transportation such as factories or airports are often distorted by the trajectories of machines. Civic buildings, which must express the aspirations of institutions may be exempt from the discipline of type. Certain communal residential types, such as hospitals, may evolve unprecedented types. Such specialized buildings where not envisioned by code may be permitted by variance approved by both the town center architect and the appropriate public body. General Categories Specialized Category LESS URBAN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MORE URBAN ---> or the breeze. This building may be built with offset setbacks in combination with exclusive use easements to accommodate overhangs and maintenance. Use and maintenance easements wrill be required at platting for side setbacks of less than 3 feet. {4a} TABLE OF ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES. Building Types permitted by Sub Zone: Table below shall establish the building tunes permitted by Sub -Zone. The drawings contained in this table illustrate the general height in stories and the type of frontage of the proposed building types and do not represent a building design that must be replicated either in detail or in generalities, except as described in the text. Page 33 Building Type Matrix. (P= Permitted, NP--Not Permitted, S= Special Use Permit) Sub Zone Neighborhood Building a Edge General Center Core Shopfront commercial building (single or NP NP P P multiple stories) J f/• � D 3 -Story Mimed Use (loft building) NTP NP P P (not permitted in Tracts 2, 3a, � 3b, 5 and 6b as indicated 4 �.. on Regulating Plan) q f 4 -Story Nixed Use (loft building) NP NP NP P �k 7... Page 34 2 -and 3 story live -work (I- floor must have 15 feet minimun ceiling heights measured from floor to floor) - v I a hyy�p R r G� @ • r NP NP P (For any platted lot in Tracts 2, 3a, 3b,5 & 6b the use can contain only one residential dwelling unit or multiple commercial units i.e. no apartment dwellings allowed in Tracts 2, 3a, 3b,5 & 6b) P Apartment building NTP NIP P 1`Y {not permitted in Tracts 2, 3a, A5 &6b as indicated on Regulating Plan) k b il� r W Multi -imit house NP NP P N-P Y / Page 35 Townhouse NP P P S (only T pernritted on property east % ,I J of the Lakes) I 4r� w Detached house P P P NP % 4 Small lot less than 40 feet wide with detached NP S S N-P house (cottage) (only (only allowed east allowed east of Lakes in place of of Lakes in place of townhomes townhomes by SUP) by SUP) 4 av PaL-e 36 (5) FRONTAGE STANDARDS. An illustrated matrix referenced by the Urban Standards that describes the range of frontages available for residential and commercial construction, and assigns those frontages to the different sectors of the regulating plan. Streetscape and Frontage: The combination of the private frontage and the public streetscape which defines much of the physical character of the public realm. The combination constitutes the layer between the building and the vehicular lanes. Streetscape frontages range in character from urban to rural as a function of their setback and of the composition of their elements. Public Streetscape: The publicly -held layer between the lot line and the edge of the vehicular lanes. The variables of streetscape are the type and dimension of curbs, walks, planters, street trees, and streetlights. Private Frontage: The privately -held layer between the facade of a building and the lot line. The variables of private frontage are the dimensional depth of the front yard and the combination of architectural elements such as fences, stops, porches, and colonnades. Correlation: The codes that govern the frontages and streetscapes of traditional neighborhoods are based on the urbanism inherent in the great cities, towns, and villages of the world. These specified frontages and streetscapes define the public realm and expand the available options beyond the limited number found in conventionally - planned subdivisions. Note: Frontages are independent of building type. For example, a row house type may have as its frontage a stoop, a door yard, or a porch. Non Town Center street frontages: Extended building setbacks up to a maximum of 1 00 feet may be approved by DRC with the inclusion of major entryway features and a minimum of a 15 foot landscape buffer in front of buildings directly adjacent to non Town Center arterial street frontages. Page 37 • Arcade Frontage: The building overlaps the sidewalk above while the ground story remains set back at the lot line. This type is indicated for retail use, but only when the sidewalk is fully absorbed within the arcade so that a pedestrian cannot bypass it. An easement for private use of the right -0f - -way shall be required. In addition, provisions for indemnifying and holding the city harmless from any and all costs, expenses, suits, demands, liabilities or damages, including attorney's fees and costs of suit from such an encroachment shall be required. To be useful, the arcade should be no less than 10 feet wide. The arcade and its supports shall be a. minimum of 4 feet from the back of the curb. • Shop Frontage: The facade is aligned close to the frontage line with the entrance at sidewalk grade. This type is conventional for retail frontage. It is commonly equipped with a cantilevered shed roof, an awning or an attached colonnade. The absence of a raised, ground story makes residential not a preferred use on the ground floor, although this use is appropriate above. An encroaching stoop shall always maintain a minimum of 6 feet passage clear on a. sidewalk. An easement for private use of the right -of -way shall be / / , , Z required. In addition, provisions for indemnifying and holding the city harmless from any and all costs, expenses, suits, demands, Page 37 6. URBAN STANDARDS. The urban regulations are a matrix of drawings and text regulating those aspects of the private building types which form the public realm. It differs from conventional zoning codes in that, rather than being generally proscriptive, it is specifically prescriptive. For example, all buildings must place a specified percentage of their street facades on a common frontage line, and parking is regulated to certain areas to avoid interruptions in the street frontage. The urban regulations may encourage or require the provision of certain building elements which enhance the sense of community such as stoops, porches, garden walls, and outbuildings. Lot: lot width and depth shall be according to the designated dimensions. Lot coverage by buildings shall not exceed the designated ratio. Page 38 liabilities or damages, including attorney's fees and costs of suit from such an encroachment shall be r aired. • Stoop Frontage: The facade is aligned close to the frontage line with the ground story elevated from the sidewalk securing privacy for the windows. This type is suitable for ground floor residential uses at short setbacks with row houses and apartment buildings. An easement for private use of the public right -of -way shall be required to accommodate the encroaching stoop. In addition, provisions for indemnifying and holding the city harmless from any and all costs, expenses, suits, demands, liabilities or damages, including attomey's . fees and costs of suit from such an encroachment shall be required. This type may be interspersed with the shop front. An encroaching stoop shall always maintain a minimum of 6 feet passage clear on a sidewalk. • Forecourt Frontage: The facade is aligned close to the frontage line and a portion of it is set back. The forecourt thus created is suitable for gardens, vehicular drop -offs, and utility off - loading. This type should be used sparingly and in conjunction with the two ML frontage types above, as a continuous excessive setback is boring and undesirable for pedestrians. Trees within the forecourts should be placed to have their canopies overhanging the sidewalks. • Dooryard Frontage: The facade is set back from the frontage line with an elevated garden, terrace, or a sunken light court, in between. This type can effectively buffer residential quarters from the sidewalk, while removing the private yard from public encroachment. ' The terrace is suitable for restaurants and cafes as the eye level of the sitter is level with that of the passerby standing. " • Porch and Fence Frontage: The facade is setback from the frontage line with a protecting porch appended. The porch should be within a conversational distance of the sidewalk while a fence at the frontage line maintains the demarcation of the yard. To be usefiil, the t i porch should be no less than 8 feet wide. There is a great variety of r porches. f • Common Lawn Frontage: The facade is set back substantially from the frontage line. The front yard thus created should remain unfenced and be visually continuous with adjacent yards. The ideal is , W r to simulate buildings sitting in a common rural landscape. A front porch is is not required, as social interaction Thom the enfronting thoroughfare is unlikely at such a distance. ��/ 6. URBAN STANDARDS. The urban regulations are a matrix of drawings and text regulating those aspects of the private building types which form the public realm. It differs from conventional zoning codes in that, rather than being generally proscriptive, it is specifically prescriptive. For example, all buildings must place a specified percentage of their street facades on a common frontage line, and parking is regulated to certain areas to avoid interruptions in the street frontage. The urban regulations may encourage or require the provision of certain building elements which enhance the sense of community such as stoops, porches, garden walls, and outbuildings. Lot: lot width and depth shall be according to the designated dimensions. Lot coverage by buildings shall not exceed the designated ratio. Page 38 Setback: buildings shall be set upon lots according to the designated dimensions relative to the boundary lines. Arcades, and/or unscreened porches, stoops, bay windows, and balconies may encroach up to 10 feet into front setbacks and 5 feet into side setbacks along a street. Arcades, stoops and balconies may encroach into R.O.W. as illustrated on the frontage standards. Frontage: buildings shall be provided with one or several of the frontages diagrammed in Frontage Standards for each zone. The front setback shall be measured to the principal facade. Facade: elements of facades shall be built out to the required percentage of the lot frontage. Facade articulation shall not exceed the designated number of exterior corners. Height: buildings shall not exceed the maximura number of stories and the designated dimensions measured from the enfronting sidewalk. Parking: the parking areas shall conform to the criteria established in Exhibit C, "Town Center Parking Standards." The parking count for commercial (office and retail) buildings may be adjusted according to the city approved shared parking regulations. Required parking for single - family detached types shall be on site. This shall also apply to any nonresidential use that is being conducted on a lot where a single - family use is the principal use. Other building types may count on -street parking or central parking areas toward parking requirements. Uses: buildings within each zone shall accommodate uses as described within the use standards and as identified in the Town Center Table of Permitted Uses. Frontage Wall: a wall parallel to the frontage line, coplanar with the building facade used to connect the void between buildings, maximum height is 4.0 feet. Frontage Fence: a fence placed directly on the frontage line; maximum height is 4.0 feet. Outbuilding: a small building associated with a principal building by ownership and shared lot. An outbuilding may be used as a home office, a garage or an accessory dwelling to be rented but not sold separately from the principal building. An outbuilding shall be not exceed 550 feet2 in enclosed area in addition to the garage area. Syn. Accessory building, ancillary building, backyard cottage, garage apartment, granny flat. Page 39 LESS UP-BAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MORE URBAN --I, NE EDGE ZONE NG GENERAL NC CENTER TC CORE ZONE ZONE ZONE LOT Lot Size 5,500 ft.2 min 3,200 SF min(1) 2,000 ft.2 min for 2,500 ft.2 min 2,000 SF min(2) Commercial, 2,400 SF min (3) apartments and mixed use buildings; all other residential uses follows General zone standards Width 55 ft. mil 40 ft. min, 70 ft. 1 25 ft. min 220 ft. 1 25 ft. min 220 ft. Page 39 Page 40 LESS URBAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MORE URBAN —> NE EDGE ZONE NG GENERAL NC CENTER TC CORE ZONE ZONE ZONE max(1) max for commercial, maX 25 ft. min, 40 ft. apartments and max(2) mixed use buildings; 30 ft. min, 70 ft. all other residential max(3) uses follows General zone standards Depth 100 ft. min 80 min-t 80 ft. min 100 ft. min Building Coverage 50% max 70% max(1) 75 %6 max 80%6 max 80% max(2) 75% max 3 SETBACK At Building Front 25 ft. min @ 10 ft. 20 ft. @(1) 0 ft. 20 ft. @(4) 0 ft.-20 ft. @(4) 0 ft. 10 ft.(2,3) At Building Side 5 ft. min 0 ft. min-10 ft. 0 ft. min 0 ft. min total(1) 0 ft. min, 12 ft. max 2.3 At Building Rear 0 ft. min + 0 ft. min + 0 ft. min + 0 ft. min + At Outbuilding Rear 0 ft. min + 0 ft. min + 0 ft. min + Oft. min + FRONTAGE Minimum 30% min 60 %6 min(1) 809/6 min 80% min percentage of 80% min (2,3) Building on Lot building line Of Porch on None req. if one is None Req. if one is None req None req Building provided, 209/6 min. req'd, 209/6 Arcade/Porch 8 ft. recommended 8 ft. min(1) 496 ft. min (porch) 4"ft. min (porch) Depth(5) 6 ft. min (porch)(2,3) 10 ft. min (arcade) 10 ft. min (arcade) 10 ft. min (arcade) (2,3) Second floor balconies no min Of Frontage Wall None allowed None allowed Allowed Allowed HEIGHT Number of StoHes 2.5 max 3 max 3 max 4 naax At Eave 35 ft. max 35 ft. max 55 ft. max 75 ft. max Residential Entry 1.5 ft. min 1.5 ft. min 1.5 ft. min 1.5 ft. req Floor Residential Ceiling 9 ft. min 9 ft. min 9 ft. min 9 ft. min Commercial Entry -- - 0 ft. req 0 ft. req Floor Commercial -- - 15 ft. min 15 ft. min Ceiling {floor to floor distance Of Frontage Wall -- -- 10 ft. max 10 ft. max USE Type Restricted Use Limited use Open Use Open Use RESH}ENTUL SITE SF Detached 1,7502 1,450 SF (1) 1,450 SF (1) NA 1,200 SF 3 1,200 SF (3) SF Attached NA 1,000 sf min(2) 1,000 ft.2 1,000 sq.ft. wISUP Page 40 Notes: -- not applicable min minimum max maximum req required (1) SINGLE FAMHIY DETACHED STANDARDS (2) TOWNHOME STANDARDS EAST OF THE LAKES ONLY (3) : SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED COTTAGES EAST OF THE LAKES ONLY BY SPECIAL USE PERNM APPROVAL (4) : Extended building setbacks up to a maximum of 144 feet may be approved by DRC with the inclusion of major entryway features and a miuirrnun of a 15 foot landscape buffer in front of buildings directly adjacent to non Town Center arterial street frontages. (5) : Front porches and porch steps may not extend into the right of way + Garage Doors facing rear lanes (LA -15) must be set back at least 7.5 ft. fi-om R.D.W. @a In the absence of a lane or alley, garages and parking may be provided a minimum of 18 ft. behind the front property line. 7) USE STANDARDS. The use standards are a matrix of text referenced by the urban standards that designates the general category of uses permitted in each of the zoning categonies. The uses include residential, lodging, office, retail, and manufacturing, each to various degrees, with emphasis on allowing flexibility wherever possible. Uses are fully identified in the Town Center Table of permitted uses. Parking requirements are correlated to the various combinations of use, and are cumulative according to zone. Parking requirements are contained in the approved parking regulations. LESS URBAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Y I MORE URBAN —> NE EDGE ZONE NG GENERAL NC CENTER TC CORE ZONE CV CIVIC D DISTRICT ZONE ZONE ZONE Multi - Family NA NA 650 ft.2 650 ft.2 SILA (Senior NA NA 400 ft.2 440 ft.2 Independent Living Open Use Public Use Prohibited Use Apartments) Residential: Residential: The Residential: Organizations IMPROVIOUS COVERAGE Type 74 %a 840/0 (1) 100% 140 %a commercial available for 95%(2,3) dwellings per lot dwellings per Notes: -- not applicable min minimum max maximum req required (1) SINGLE FAMHIY DETACHED STANDARDS (2) TOWNHOME STANDARDS EAST OF THE LAKES ONLY (3) : SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED COTTAGES EAST OF THE LAKES ONLY BY SPECIAL USE PERNM APPROVAL (4) : Extended building setbacks up to a maximum of 144 feet may be approved by DRC with the inclusion of major entryway features and a miuirrnun of a 15 foot landscape buffer in front of buildings directly adjacent to non Town Center arterial street frontages. (5) : Front porches and porch steps may not extend into the right of way + Garage Doors facing rear lanes (LA -15) must be set back at least 7.5 ft. fi-om R.D.W. @a In the absence of a lane or alley, garages and parking may be provided a minimum of 18 ft. behind the front property line. 7) USE STANDARDS. The use standards are a matrix of text referenced by the urban standards that designates the general category of uses permitted in each of the zoning categonies. The uses include residential, lodging, office, retail, and manufacturing, each to various degrees, with emphasis on allowing flexibility wherever possible. Uses are fully identified in the Town Center Table of permitted uses. Parking requirements are correlated to the various combinations of use, and are cumulative according to zone. Parking requirements are contained in the approved parking regulations. Page 41 <— LESS URBAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I l 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 MORE URBAN — NE EDGE ZONE NG GENERAL NC CENTER CV CIVIC D DISTRICT ZONE AND CORE Definitions ZONES TC Restricted Use Limited Use Open Use Public Use Prohibited Use Residential: Residential: Residential: The Residential: Organizations Drive - through Premises The number of number of The number of chartered as commercial available for dwellings per lot dwellings per lot dwellings per not- far -profit where patrons long -term is restricted to is restricted to lot is limited by limited to the remain in human one within the one within the the requirement fallowing: automobiles, habitation by principal principal building of parking except service Page 41 <- LESS URBAN I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MORE URBAN —r Definitions NE EDGE ZONE NG GENERAL ZONE NC CENTER AND CORE ZONES TC CV CIVIC Restricted Use Limited Use Open Use Public Use means of building and one and one within an spaces for each Religion, Arts, ownership and within an ancillary dwelling, height Culture, rental, but ancillary building. Both of buildings, Recreation, excluding short- building. Both dwellings shall be established Education, term renting of dwellings shall under single Urban Government, less than a be under single ownership, Standards and Transit Stop month's ownership, sharing a single restrictions For -profit duration. sharing a single set of utility outlined in available for area available set of utility connections. The approved regional limited to the first connections. The habitable area of Regulating sports habitable area of the ancillary Plans. (e.g.: facilities are parking space the ancillary dwelling shall not apartment allowed in the building. (e.g.: dwelling shall exceed 500 ft2 buildings) Civic subzone not exceed 500 and shall have as a public reduced ft2 and shall central heat and according to the use. have central heat air-conditioning. and air - conditioning. (e.g.: single family house). Lodging: Lodging: Premises Not permitted. available for short-term including daily, weekly renting, and assisted living arrangements. Office: Office: The area Premises available for available for the office use is transaction of restricted to the general business, ancillary including building. (e.g.: professional and home information occupation). services but excluding retail sales and activity. Lodging: Lodging: Not permitted. The number of bedrooms available for lodging is limited by the requirement of one parking spaces for each bedroom. Food service may be provided at all times (e.g.: boarding house or hotel). Office: The area Office: The available for area available office use is for office use is limited to the first limited by the story of the requirement of principal building one assigned and/or to the parking space ancillary for each 250 ft2 building. (e.g.: of gross office home occupation) space, a ratio which may be reduced according to the Page 42 11311E319[W1 Prohibited Use stations, book and video drops, and banking facilities. Vending machines, except within buildings. ATM's are permitted. Detached signs and billboards. Regional retail including "Big - Box" (large retail stores over 35,000 ft2 ) with fronting parking lot.. Industrial enterprises creating noise, vibration, smell, or light beyond the boundary of their site. Animal husbandry. Prisons except as accessories to police stations. Terminals for large scale transportation including airports. Depots for large scale storage or distribution of Page 43 <- LESS URBAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MORE URBAN - NE EDGE ZONE NG GENERAL NC CENTER CV CIVIC D DISTRICT ZONE AND CORE Definitions ZONES TC Restricted Use Limited Use Open Use Public Use Prohibited Use shared parking goods. regulations (e. g.: corporate Scrap Yards office). for the processing, storage and Live/Works: Live/Works: Live/Works: LivelWorks: Multi -story Not Permitted Not Permitted Open uses with disposal buildings with required waste materials, first floor office parking of one uses and above parking space excepting first floor living for each 250 recycling quarters. square feet of collection office/retail and Centers. one parking Automotive space for each sales. 150 square feet of restaurant Golf Course and other large space addition to open spaces required including residential nurseries. parking- Retail: Retail: Retail Retail: Retail use Retail: The Premises use is forbidden. is forbidden. area available Surface available for the for retail use is Di7Wng commercial sale generally not Mineral of merchandise limited to the Extraction or and prepared first story of mining. foods, but buildings and excluding by the manufacturing requirement of activity. parking space for building area.. First story retail may expand vertically. (e.g.: shopfront, store). When permitted by the city, retail may include carts, booths, stalls, and tents on the public R.O. W.'s, parks, and plazas. Manufacturing: Manufacturing: Manufacturing: Manufacturing: Premises Manufacturing Manufacturing The area Page 43 8) OPEN SPACE STANDARDS. Open space areas remaining free of building which, together with a well - designed system of thoroughfares, provides the public reahn at all scales of urbanism, from the region to the block. Open space should be specialized in function and appropriate in location. Open space within a traditional neighborhood ranges from watersheds to roof gardens. The types of open space are defined by location within the neighborhood zone, size, landscaping, enfronting condition (buildings at the edge), and equipment. The majority of open space within a traditional neighborhood is public, rather than private, and is located within greenways, parks, squares or playgrounds, rather than individual back yards. Open space, to be truly public, should be enfronted by building facades and circumscribed by thoroughfares. Open space provides community gathering places and enhances the value of the neighborhood for all residents, as well as for individual landowners. Open spaces, to be fully used, should straddle pedestrian corridors or be adjacent to meaningful destinations. Care should also be taken that open spaces have visual supervision from fronting buildings. Required Public Open Space. All new development within the Town Center District shall provide a minimum of S% of the gross area of the site as described on a concept plan as usable civic or open spaces. Required public open spaces may include pocket parks, children's play Page 44 <— LESS URBAN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MORE URBAN — NE EDGE ZONE NG GENERAL NC CENTER CV CIVIC D DISTRICT ZONE AND CORE Definitions ZONES TC Restricted Use Limited Use Open Use Public Use Prohibited Use available for the uses are uses are available for creation, forbidden. forbidden. manufacturing assemblage, and use only repair of includes arts products and crafts including their materials retail sale except limited to when such 1,000 ftz within activity creates the first story of adverse impacts the ancillary as determined by building. the city. Artifacts including inventory and raw materials shall not be stored in the yard. Required on site parking must be maintained. 8) OPEN SPACE STANDARDS. Open space areas remaining free of building which, together with a well - designed system of thoroughfares, provides the public reahn at all scales of urbanism, from the region to the block. Open space should be specialized in function and appropriate in location. Open space within a traditional neighborhood ranges from watersheds to roof gardens. The types of open space are defined by location within the neighborhood zone, size, landscaping, enfronting condition (buildings at the edge), and equipment. The majority of open space within a traditional neighborhood is public, rather than private, and is located within greenways, parks, squares or playgrounds, rather than individual back yards. Open space, to be truly public, should be enfronted by building facades and circumscribed by thoroughfares. Open space provides community gathering places and enhances the value of the neighborhood for all residents, as well as for individual landowners. Open spaces, to be fully used, should straddle pedestrian corridors or be adjacent to meaningful destinations. Care should also be taken that open spaces have visual supervision from fronting buildings. Required Public Open Space. All new development within the Town Center District shall provide a minimum of S% of the gross area of the site as described on a concept plan as usable civic or open spaces. Required public open spaces may include pocket parks, children's play Page 44 areas, greens, squares, promenades or linear greens. Open Spaces should be designed to be prominently featured and add value to the neighborhood. Required public open spaces can be publicly or privately maintained but must provide general public access and pedestrian connectivity to be counted as a required open space. Shaded pedestrian corridors such as promenade's are encouraged to link neighborhoods to civic and core areas and provide linkage between major destinations and neighborhoods. Required yards and retention/detention areas are not considered as public open spaces. Courtyards, porches, patios and balconies are considered private open spaces. Court: a private exterior space partially surrounded by a building and opening to a thoroughfare. It is often used as a vehicular entrance or drop -off, and its landscape may be paved Green: an open space of limited extent available for unstructured recreation, circumscribed by building frontages, its landscape consisting of grassy areas and trees, naturalistically disposed, and requiring only limited maintenance. Patio: a private area entirely surrounded by a single building invisible from the public thoroughfare, and valuable for isolating incompatible uses from neighboring buildings. Playground: a small open area specifically designed and equipped for the play of children. A playground is usually fenced and may include an open shelter. Playgrounds should be interspersed within residential areas, a short walking distance from dwellings. Plaza: A primarily hardscaped civic /open space with formal landscaping, available for civic purposes and commercial activities. A plaza shall be spatially defined by buildings. Promenade: A promenade is a linear form of open space with a broad 8' sidewalk and trees on both sides. It may be incorporated into the Public right of way. Benches shall be provided at least once for each 100 linear feet of promenade. Square: a public space, seldom larger than a block, at the intersection of important streets, set aside for civic purposes and circumscribed by building frontages. Its landscape consists of paved walks, lawns, trees, and civic buildings, all formally disposed and requiring substantial maintenance. (g) THOROUGHFARE TYPES. All pavement widths are measured from "face of curb" to "face of curb ". At final site plan approval the City shall designate no parking areas with required improved bump -outs or chokers to establish fire fighting staging areas as needed. Final tree species approved by DRC with final site plan approval. Page 45 Page 46 Avenue lCommercial Streets HW: Highway K` f' K RR: Rural Road i„' s ,: „,ra x ---� g }-- --_ r� s' rY 2Y rr r� 05' 17' 17 10' 77 ,Y 15' RD: Road r r� 1 LA: Lane DR: Drive BV: Boulevard AV: Avenue E: , ST: Street CS: Commercial Street':: AL: Alley_ PT: Path PS: Passage? a o J o BP: Bike Path Wmin bk =Bike Lane Avenues are appropriate as app - 34 =Pavement roaches to civic buildings. In Commercial streets are appropriate for commercial buildings at the Neighborhood Center. Trees are Width residential neighborhoods, avenues confined by individual planters, creating a sidewalk of maximum width, with areas accommodating street 80 = Right -of -Way have a median that may be planted furniture. Clear trunks and high canopies are necessary to avoid interference with shopfronts, signage and Width naturalistically to become a awnings. AV = Mare Type greenwa . AV-94-40 CS -68-38 CS- 86-56 CS -98-58 Movement Free Movement Seed Movement Slow Movement Slow Movement Vehicular Design 30 MPH 30 MPH 20 MPH 20 MPH Speed Traffic Flow Two was Two was Two was Two ways Parking Lanes Striped both sides Striped both sides Diagonal parking boar sides Diagonal parking both sides Curb Radius 15 feet To be determined To be determined To be determined R.O.W. Width 84 feet 68 feet 86 feet 98 feet (minimum) Pavement Width 20 and 20 feet 38 feet 56 feet 58 feet Sidewalk Width 6 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet minimum Planter Width 8 ft wide planters & 14 ft w 4 feet 4 feet 4 feet Planter Type Continuous Individual wl Tree Well Individual w/ Tree Well Individual w/ Tree Well Planter Pattern Staggered Alley 30' on Center Allee 30' on Center Alley 30' on Center Allee 30' on Center Page 46 HW: Highway 72,' 75 RR: Rural Road 115' RD: Road 17' 2Z iii i 17' �' 17' __L 1D Min, i�' s zz e' 15' + 17' 13' LA: Lane DR: Drive BV: Boulevard 4' MIN AV: Avenue , f ] ST: Street l` l CS: Commercial Street { a CE - AL: Alley 4 PT: Path PR.O PS: Passage n A n ro o -0R4 1 CE BP: Bike Path L I bk = Bike Lane Commercial streets are appropriate for commercial buildings at the Neighborhood Center. Trees are confined by individual 34 =Pavement Width planters, creating a sidewalk of maximum width, with areas accommodating street furniture. Clear trunks and high canopies 80 = Right -of -Way Width are necessary to avoid interference with shopfronts, signage and awnings. AV = Thoroughfare Type CS -72 -47 CS -81 -56 CS- 66-38 CS -75 -47 Movement Slow Movement Slow Movement Slow Movement Slow Movement Vehicular Design Speed 20 MPH 20 MPH 20 MPH 20 MPH Traffic Flow Two was Two was Two was Two ways Parking Lanes Diagonal one side 1 Diagonal parking both sides Parallel parking both sides Diagonal one side 1 Parallel one side Parallel one side Curb Radius To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined R.O.W. Width 72 feet 81 feet 66 feet 75 feet Pavement Width 47 feet 56 feet 38 feet 47 feet Sidewalk Width (minimum) 6 feet min. one sides' 15 feet & 10 feet 6 feet min one side/ 15' other 6 feet min. one side/ 15' other side 15' other side side Planter Width 4 feet 5 feet 7 feet 7 feet Planter Type Tree Well Bldg Tree well or continuous Planter Tree well or continuous Planter Tree Well Bldg side/Planter Park side side/Planter Park side Planter Pattern Allee 30 feet o.c. Allee 30 feet o.c. approx Allee 30 feet o.c. approx Allee 30 feet o.c. approx approx Page 47 Page 48 Residential Streets sa` HW: Highway RR: Rural Road 441 0` 15' 8' 14.0 RD: Read 22".13-4 LA: Lane ' ° DR: Drive if BV: Boulevard'` a AV: Avenue f , ST: Street a r CS: Commercial `. Street ' f AL: Alley PT: Path 1 PS: Passage; E , fi � BP: Bike Path bk =Bike Lane 34= Pavement Width Streets are appropriate for residential buildings at the Neighborhood Center and General. A single 80= Right -of -Way species of tree should be planted in steady alignment in continuous planting strips. A vertical Width canopy is necessary to avoid building facades at shallow frontage setbacks. A V= Thorough fare Type ST -64-38 ST -60-31 Movement Free Movement Slow Movement Vehicular Design 30 MPH 20 MPH Speed Traffic Flow Two Was Two Ways Parking Lanes Both Sides Both Sides Curb Radius 15 feet 10 feet R.O.W. Width 64 feet 60 feet Pavement Width 38 feet 31 feet Sidewalk Width 6 feet 6 feet Planter Width 7 feet 8.5 feet Planter Type 1continuous Continuous Planter Pattern jAllee 30 feet o.c. lAllee 30 feet o.c. Page 48 Page 49 Roads as f� — --i 50, ii /T : Highway r am. 71.5 7.6 12 7.5 11.5 RR: Rural Road k I + P RD: Read + r LA: Lane v + DR: Drive N BV: Boulevard.= v i AV: Avenue ST: Street C CS: Commercial Street FtFi ; will,i AL: Allev PT: Path' PS: Passage BP: Bike Path r. bk =Bike Lane Roads are relatively rural, appropriate in the Neighborhood General and Edge. Since the 34--Pavement Width frontage usually includes a substantial setback, the tree canopy may be quite wide. The rural 80= Right -0f - -Way Width aspect may be supported by the provision of alternating tree species in imperfect alignment. AV= Thorou hfare Type RD42 -20 RD- 50-27 Type Small Road Residential Street Movement Yield Movement Free Movement Vehicular Design Speed 15 MPH 15 MPH Traffic Flow One way Two Ways Parking Lanes Allowed one side One Side/No parking posted on opposite side Curb Type Raised Raised Curb Radius To be determined To be determined R.O.W. Width 42 feet 50 feet Pavement Width 20 feet 27 feet Sidewalk Width 6 feet 6 feet Planter Width 7 feet 5.5 feet Planter Type Continuous Continuous Plantin ,, Pattern Clusters @ 30' o.c. Allee 30 feet o.c. Page 49 Page 50 SFRN ICII; PASSAGE AND PATH HW: Highway W aa' RR: Rural Road r 51 RD: Read #i LA: Lane DR: Drive f h BV: Boulevard?�'r�� AV: Avenue • -.> ST: Street CS: Commercial Street, AL: Alley PT: Path PS: Passage BP: Bike Path - Alleys provide service Lanes service the Lanes service the rear Passages provide pedestrian Bicycle paths are available bk = Bike Lane areas, parking access, rear of buildings of buildings usually shortcuts through long blocks for bicycle use, connecting . 34 =Pavement Width and utility easements in usually houses in houses in the and connect rear parking to the general network of 80 = Right-of-way Width the rear of more urban the Neighborhood Neighborhood Center areas with street frontages. streets and roads while A V A = Thoroughfare Type buildings. They are General and Edge. and Core. They are Passages are not required to providing access to paved from building They are rural in urban in character be, but may be roofed over, recreational destinations. face to building face, character with a 12 with a 12 ft strip of lined by shopGonts, or with drainage by ft strip of paving at paving at the center. landscaped where inverted crown. the center. appropriate. Passages are also those walkways shown on the Regulating Plan that separate the buildings in the Center and Core Zones. AL-30 LA -15 LA -20-15 PS -18-6 BP -18-8 Movement Slow Movement Slow Movement Slow Movement Pedestrian only Bicycle & Pedestrian only Vehicular Design Speed 5 MPH 5 MPH 5 MPH NIA NIA Traffic Flow Two way Two way Two way N/A N/A Parking Lanes No parking No parking No parking NIA NIA Curb Radius To be determined To be determined To be determined NIA NIA R.O.W. Width 30 feet 15 feet 20 feet 18 feet 18 feet Pavement Width 30 ft concrete, 20 ft 12 feet min concrete 15 feet NIA 8 feet (minimum) clear striped for fire access Page 50 (10) PARKING STANDARDS. Parking: the technique for storage of automobiles when not in use. The man- ner of accommodation of parking is the distinguishing characteristic between a CSD and a TND. TND masks parking behind buildings to enhance the pedestrian quality of the frontage. Parking capacity determines density. Shared parking regulations allow compact, pedestrian friendly community design. Off- Street Parking: a parking area located within a lot, generally to the rear of a building frontage, masking it from the public space. On-Street Parking: a single line of parking located along the curb line of a thorough fare accessible directly from a moving lane. flu -street parking counts toward the required parking ratio in the Center and Core Zones. Parallel Parking: a pattern of parking where the vehicle is stored parallel to the curb line. Parallel parking permits a narrower street section and creates a positive sidewalk experience. It requires a difficult maneuver and provides the lowest density per frontage foot. ��On-Street Parking Surface Parking � �l/f!G����//Il/f�� now«/ / / / /./ /!f / //l%l / / // /,/!/�/// //� rre w� A� IM r - r —; � —owl 1 r r� I Front A r m ivad rrwl knit CmAlan Rm P�Niea n cmre zw.t' Shored Dlkrt my Rear Access Parking I Ahy/Lam X J151 low( Side Entry Rear Enrry ®r MUM Rear Enrry Warm P,jr, Diagonal Parking: a pattern of parking where the vehicle is stored at an angle to the curb line. Diagonal parking creates a less positive sidewalk experience, but it permits the easiest maneuver and provides a higher parking density. Head -In Parking: a pattern of parking where the vehicle is stored perpendicular to the curb line. Head -in parking requires the widest street section and a dangerous maneuver backing out. This pattern provides the highest parking density. Deck Parking: a specialized building type dedicated to parking in quantity by vertical stacking. Deck parking is usually appropriate only in Core Zones. This building type being destructive to pedestrian quality, should be assigned to the B -grid, masked by liner buildings, or provided with a habitable frontage at the ground level. Page 51 Buildingside Parking: the requirement that parking be adjacent to the destination of the trip. This rule of thumb commonly holds true when the pedestrian experience is unpleasant, as it usually is in CSD. Within a TND there is seldom a need for building side parking as the pedestrian experience is designed to be positive. To walk some distance (even several blocks) intentionally is designed to be acceptable and even pleasurable. Teaser Parking: a small amount of on- street parking which is highly visible, usually at the front of a building, signaling the location of a more substantial parking area hidden behind the building- Interim Enclosed Parking: interim enclosed parking may be allowed on the first floor of vacant commercial space within the commercial core area behind a store front tinted window or fagade not clearly visible from the street front and with entry from the rear of the building. (11) SITE DESIGN CRITERIA: Public Land (Areas labeled A and B in the site section fi e The following Design Criteria shall be used to establish minimum standards of quality for development within the Town Center District. Single family detached and attached units are exempted from Site Design Criteria requirements. These standards do not constitute submittal requirements for the Concept plan, but may be verified throughout the submittal process that includes construction documents and Site plan submittals. PUBLIC LAND PRIVATE LAND i , : nlrmroHa+i E C 3X 4. LEGEND A VEHICLE PORTION OF THE STREET - REFER TO TOWN CENTER THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS B PEDESTRIAN PORTION OF THE STREET - (STREETSCAPE) C BUILDINGS: PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT D PRIVATE LAND, PRIVATE ACCESSORY USES E PORTION OF BUILDING GOVERNED BY ORDINANCE F PRIVATE. OPEN SPACE Vehicle Portion of the Street. This includes the Drive lanes and curbside parking configuration between the curbs. Refer to the Town Center Thoroughfare Standards for design criteria. Page 52 Pedestrian Portion of the Street (Streetscape): This includes the sidewalks, street trees, parkway plantings, street lights, furniture, sidewalk dining, and signage. The Streetscape is bounded by the front facade of the adjacent buildings. Streetscape dimensions and planting requirements are identified in the Town Center Thoroughfare Standards. DRC may permit changes to the streetscape standards provided: the goals and intent of the Town Center District are maintained 0 the proposed design fits the context 0 the proposed design provides public benefits the proposed design does not hinder or erode future opportunities for development Width: The streetscape is a continuous strip of land between the street and the private property to allow for circulation and plantings. The streetscape must be at least 11 feet wide and not more than 17 feet, unless approved by the DRC. Landscape Materials: In the absence of sidewalk paving, the minimum planting schedule requires trees located no more than 36 feet apart. Tree species must comply with the permitted species list in the Town Center Zoning Ordinance Street Lights: The streetlights must comply with the development standard for streetlights. The fixtures are to be placed not more than 140 feet apart. Fixtures may be equipped with 2 banner arms on each pole, placed perpendicular to the street Installed under the City Franchise Agreement with the local electricity franchise. Street Signs: Street signs must comply with the development standard and must indicate the names of both streets at the intersection. A minimum of two signs per intersection, on opposite corners, is required. Street Furniture: Benches, trash receptacles, drinking fountains must comply with the Home Town development standards. Sidewalks: The minimum allowable clear pathway must be at least 6 feet wide. Sidewalks within public Rights of Way may be used for sidewalk dining and temporary merchandise sales subject to Section 118 -465 Outdoor activities and other uses and the requirements of right of way use permits established by the City. Public Open Space. This is green space and open space owned and operated by public or private entities for the use and enjoyment of the public. A minimum of 5% of the gross area of the site within all sub -zones shall be public access open space in addition to the street ROW as established in the Town Center Thoroughfare Standards. Please see Section 8 OPEN SPACE STANDARDS — Required Open Space. Page 53 SITE DESIGN CRITERIA: Private Land Private Open Space: This is green space and open space owned and operated by private owners for the use and enjoyment of the residents, tenants, customers, or guests. Courtyards: Courtyards or Plazas are located adjacent to a public R.D.W. or public space and permit public habitation, although access may be through a restaurant or other business space. Courtyards are bounded by building walls on at least 2 sides. No minimum dimension is required to count as Private Open Space. Balconies: Balconies shall be considered as Private Open Space provided the balconies are at least 5 feet deep and located on the type `A' facades. Off- Street Parking: Area used for the storage of vehicles for employees, residents, customers, or visitors. Land for parking may be publicly or privately owned. Shared parking is permitted in conformance with Section 118 -470 of the Town Center Zoning Ordinance. Landscape Requirements: Provide one tree and 200 SF of landscaping for each 20 parking spaces. Location: No more than 20% of the street frontage may contain parking. This is a restricted condition. Lighting: Lighting must comply with City regulations. Light poles cannot exceed 36 feet in height. Light fixtures must comply with the development standard, HPS type with a light shielding design to limit lighting to parking lot ground surfaces, and illuminate 1" floor facades. Fixtures must be screened to prevent glare into 2nd story windows. Ancillary Structures: Uninhabited structures located on private property serving the primary structure. This would include covered parking, temporary structures, as well as those listed below. Dumpster Enclosures: Masonry (or material on primary building) enclosure with opaque access gate. Utility Appurtenances: Such as transformers, switchgear, utility meters, splice- boxes, check- valves, etc. must be located at an inconspicuous place on the back or side of the building or concealed by a landscape and or masonry screen. Covered Parking (Carports): Structures shall comply with the regulations governing building materials for Type `A' or Type `B' Facades. Fencing: Fencing bounding a commercial use must be metal or masonry or other material as approved by the DRC. Chain link fencing or fencing of a quality or character similar to chain link fencing is prohibited. Entryway Features: Entryway features required for all lots with frontage on non -Town Center arterial streets. Page 54 (12) ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. The following standards include publicly required architectural criteria for commercial, mixed - use, apartment buildings and townhomes. Single family detached dwelling units have separate private architectural review by the Town Center Architect. A. BUILDING DESIGN CRITERIA; Commercial and Mixed -use Buildings The following design standards and guidelines shall provide property owners, developers, city staff, and decision makers adequate design guidance for new and existing commercial and mixed use buildings. The image below is an example of a building facade to indicate the meaning of the terms used in the context of these guidelines. 3__CWni6-V Window e Uppe r facade Ex�r+i�r� G�ri� --Sign - 6" - J1 E I I 7ransorn V ispuy iEFd ry Bu tkhieiRci Building Facades: Facades are the portion of the building subject to public view or forming a wall or boundary to an open space or public right of way. The primary surface of the wall is the plane from which recesses and projections are measured. The quality of the facades determines the quality and character of the adjacent outdoor space. Since the public ROW requires a higher quality fagade than the parking lot, the facade regulations are divided into Type `A' (better quality) and Type `B' (lesser quality). Type A facades face public R.Q.W. or any structures adjacent to non Town Center zoned properties. Type B facades face parking lots and alley areas. Build -to Line: Any building located on a lot with frontage on the public ROW not including alleys, must place the primary surface of the front wall of the building on the front property line for at least 80% of the length of the frontage. The front property line is the Required Build -to line. Habitable courtyards are encouraged and do not count against the 20% maximum setback frontage. Proportions: The proportions of walls, windows, and portions of walls shall be predominately vertical. Areas that are predominately horizontal shall be subdivided by pilasters, mullions, columns, trim work, or other architectural elements to achieve a balanced or vertical appearance. Page 55 Vertical stripes, however, are undesirable. Generally, windows shall be oriented vertically, and bay windows shall have external bottom supports. Towers: Towers afford a gracious and civic method of providing landmarks and consequently should be used sparingly. Locations for towers and ultimate tower height are subject to the approval of the DRC. Towers may project from the front wall primary surface a maximum of 4 feet. Pilasters and Columns: Pilasters and columns are an expression of the actual or imaginary structural system on the exterior of the building. These elements divide the horizontal facade into smaller, more vertical panels. Pilasters should be placed no farther apart than they are tall and they should extend to the eave or above the parapet. They may project from the primary surface of the front wall into the public ROW a maximum of 16 inches. Entry Conditions: The pedestrian entry is required to be placed on the public ROW facade and requires at least one pedestrian entry into the building for each 75 feet of frontage on the property line. Civic buildings may have fewer entries. These entries must be located and designed in a ceremonial manner. Maximum Facade Length: One story buildings may be 75 feet long with a single building facade design; two or more stories are unlimited. Commercial one -story buildings of 20,000 SF or more and facing Boulevard 26, are exempt from this requirement. Minimum Ground Floor Height: Ground floor commercial and mixed use building plate heights (floor to floor) shall be at least 15 ft. in height. Upper floor to floor heights shall be a minimum of 10 ft. Transition A to B Facades: An A Facade must front all public ROW's not including alleys, and continue around a corner a minimum of 15 feet or 30% of the distance to the next building whichever is less, before transitioning to a B Facade. Storefront: The Storefront is the retail or service presentation to the sidewalk and to the street. A storefront with ample glass and visibility into the space behind contributes to the entertaining character and provides things for pedestrians to see as they walk. Full floor -to- ceiling glass is not desirable since it detracts from the building facade. Storefront regulations do not apply to `B' Facades. Total Glass Area.: Between grade and the heads of 1 st floor windows on the `A' Facades, the total glass area including window frames, must be a minimum of 50% of the area, and a maximum of 85% of the area. Bulkhead: This is a section of wall under the display window elevating the glass above the sidewalk. Permitted materials include all materials in the materials section of the Guidelines except glass. The minimum height is 6 inches; maximum height is 36 inches. Display Window, Glass: The intent of the regulation is to provide as much opportunity for observation as possible, achieving the maximum visibility into the display window. Clear, single pane glass is recommended, insulated glass is permitted, light tinting for LTV protection is Page 56 permitted, medium and heavy tinting is prohibited. Glass panels should have a generally vertical proportion. Display Window, Sills: Window sills must be sloped to drain over the window pediment. Display Window, Jambs: The minimum return from the primary wall surface to the jamb is 3 inches. A trim or panning is recommended. Display Window, Head: For retail storefronts, a transom windows, shall be used. Above the glass and frame, unit masonry walls must have a visible masonry lintel above the glass. Stucco - style walls do not require a visible masonry lintel. Building entrances may be defined and articulated by architectural elements such as lintels, pediments, pilasters, columns, porticos, porches, overhangs, railings, balustrades, and others as appropriate. Entrances to upper level uses may be defined and integrated into the design of the overall building facade. Doors and windows that operate as sliders are prohibited, unless approved by the DRC. Entry Doors: Entry doors must be a minimum of 30% glass, no maximum. Entry Doors, Jambs: Trim, panning, or a section of wall is required between the door jamb and the adjacent jamb of the display window. Entry Doors, Transom: A transom or transom -type panel is recommended above the entry doors). Entry Doors, Canopy: If an awning or canopy is placed over the entry doors, a canopy may extend into the Public ROW and may be supported on columns; however, the columns may not interfere with the ADA accessible route of the sidewalk. Sign Band: The Sign Band is designed to display the identity of the business within and express in graphic form the character of the business. Location: The top of the head of the display window is the bottom of the sign band and the bottom of the second floor window sills or the bottom of the cornice is the top of the sign band. The band ends horizontally either at a pilaster, a tower, or an adjacent facade. Maximum Height: The maximum height that is uninterrupted by a change in plane, change in material or a change in color, is 5 feet. Maximum Length: The maximum length that is uninterrupted by a change in plane, change in color, or a change in material is 50 feet on a one story building, unlimited on two or more stories. Upper Facade: The regulation of the facade design for the building above the first floor allows for wide latitude to encourage dignified, beautiful, creative, and gracious design. Page 57 Windows: Total window area on the street facade may range from 20% of wall surface area to 70% of wall surface area as measured from the head of the first floor windows to the bottom of the eave or cornice across the length of the `A' Facade. Generally, windows should align with windows above or below and left to right creating a regular pattern within each facade design, although interrupting the regular pattern to improve the design is encouraged. Windows, Sills: Recommended, masonry or metal or wood, sloped to drain. Windows, Jambs: Trim or panning recommended. Jamb must be recessed from the primary wall plane a minimum of 3 inches unless trim or panning is used. Windows, Heads: In unit masonry construction, a visible masonry header is required. Stucco does not require a masonry header. Balconies, Doors: Swinging doors required; sliding doors prohibited. Balconies, Door Heads: In unit masonry construction, a visible masonry header is required. Stucco does not require a masonry header. Balconies, Floors: Floors must be a solid, concrete surface; metal grates are prohibited. Floors may project into the public ROW. See Zoning Ordinance. Balconies, Railings: Ornamental railings are required and should be consistent with architectural character of the facade. Top of railing shall be convex shaped to prevent placement of objects on the railing. CorniceiEavelParapet: A cornice shall delineate the tops of facades that do not utilize a pitched roof: The design of the top of the building should be consistent with the architectural style of the facade. If the parapet is not tall enough to conceal the rooftop equipment, an added screen will be required behind the parapet to do so. Roof: The water repelling surface covering the building area below. Material Specifications: For flat or low -slope roofs, white membrane roofing is recommended, but not required For sloped roofs, slate or simulated slate, metal, metal shingle, clay tile or clay file appearance is acceptable. Mansard roofs are prohibited unless two thirds of the roof area is above and behind the plane of the front facade wall. Flat membrane -type roofs that are visible are prohibited . Eaves: Surface of the soffit under the overhang is to be treated as finished surface. Trim is required at least at the intersection of the soffit and wall surfaces. Paint or other finish is required. Venting is to be incorporated into the design of the soffit surface. Gutters and downspouts: If they are to be visible on the `A' FaVade, they must be incorporated into the facade design. They must be made of architectural metals. Scuppers are permitted for overflow drains only on Type A facades, but are permitted on type B facades. Page 58 TWO THIRDS MIN. ROOF LENGTH BEHIND WALL ONE THIRD MAX ROOF PERMISSIBLE MANSARD DESIGN Visible Interior: The portion of the building interior that is, or is intended to be, part of the pedestrian experience visible from the public ROW. Window Display: The window display is to be visible at least 1 foot into the interior. The display should be well lighted, clean and organized. Window Display Floor: A raised floor is recommended but not required. Window Display Lighting: Lighting should be warm in color and either incandescent, color corrected fluorescent, or metal halide. *Exception to requirement for visible interior includes approved interim enclosed parking allowed on the first floor of vacant commercial space within the commercial core area behind a store front tinted window or facade not clearly visible from the street front and with entry from the rear of the building. Materials: The materials employed to construct the buildings and public areas of Home Town carry cultural, social, economic and architectural qualities that may or may not be appropriate to the character of the development. DRC will review all material proposals for compliance with these regulations. The material lists are divided into materials that generally are unrestricted, materials that are desirable in small quantities, and materials that are undesirable unless used in an unusual or artistic fashion. All materials permissible on "A" Facades are also permissible on `B' Facades. Unrestricted Materials: These materials may be used without limits for walls in `A' or `B' Facades: Brick, Stone, Cast Stone, Ceramic Tile, and Stucco. Masonry materials shall be installed in a craftsman like manner that are a minimum of one inch thick and imbedded in a cementitious reinforced substrate Restricted Materials: The following materials may be used only for walls above the first floor in `A' and `B' Facades: Reinforced Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EFIS) and Page 59 Cementitious horizontal siding, in a smooth, paintable finish and of traditional dimensions with a 50-year warranty. Limited Materials: The use of the following materials is encouraged provided the material does not exceed 15 % of the area of the `A' or the `B' Facade: wood, fiberglass, metal, ceramic -faced concrete block. `B' Facade Materials: Rear facades shall not be designed as blank walls and while they may not have the same level of detailing as the other facades, they shall be designed to incorporate vertical and horizontal changes in color, materials, that are in keeping with the other street facing facades. The following materials may be used on `B' Facades: Concrete masonry units, EIFS and cementitious horizontal siding, in a smooth, paintable finish and of traditional dimensions with a 50-year warranty. Murals are allowed as public art. Prohibited Materials: The following materials may not be used for buildings subject to these guidelines unless specifically exempted by an approved Special Development Plan. Aluminum siding, vinyl siding, wood siding, or corrugated metal siding. All other materials not specifically listed above fall into this category unless approved by the DRC. B. BUILDING DESIGN CRITERIA: Multi- family and attached residential townhome buildings Standards Specific to all multifamily buildngs (apartments & condos) in the Neighborhood Center and Neighborhood Core zones: Single family, fee simple properties are not covered under this section. Location on the street: • For corner buildings, at least one primary entrance shall address the one primary street unless configured as a courtyard or forecourt building. • Town homes and courtyard apartments shall utilize rear - loaded, or side loaded garages. Pedestrian- Friendly Building Massing and Scale: • On residential buildings, at least one of the following shall be utilized: porches, stoops, bay windows, balconies, masonry clad chimneys, attached pergolas or colonnades. Those architectural elements may encroach beyond the setback line. Architectural Elements: • Gable roofs, if provided, shall have a minimum pitch of 5112. When hipped roofs are used, the minimum pitch shall be 5112. Other roof types shall be appropriate to the architectural style of the building. • Roofs covering courtyards or porches may have a minimum pitch of 2112. • Architectural embellishments that add visual interest to the roofs, such as dormers and masonry chimneys may be provided. • All new residential buildings shall have windows or doors covering no less than 30 % of all street facing facades. Page 60 • Architectural metal downspouts required; no open scuppers allowed, on the Type `A' facades. Type B facades may have scuppers. Building Materials: Unrestricted Materials: At least 75 % of each facade (excluding doors and windows) visible from any public right -of -way or adjoining properties (except alleys) of new buildings shall be finished in one the following materials. No more than any combination of three of the following different materials shall be used on any single facade: Masonry (brick; stone; man -made stone or stucco utilizing a three -step process). Masonry materials shall be installed in a craftsman like manner that are a minimum of one inch thick and imbedded in a cementitious reinforced substrate; Restricted Materials: Cementitious horizontal siding, m. a smooth, paintable finish and of traditional dimensions with a 50 -year warranty shall be restricted to a maximum of 50% of the block face on the first floor of any building block face. Deviations can be granted by the Development Review Committee on the end cap of a block face based on architectural significance. • The following shall be only allowed up to 25'%0 of each facade as an accent material- - Decorative wood (naturally resistant to decay), metal, synthetic materials or reinforced Exterior Insulating Finishing System (EIFS) or similar material over a cementitious base, rock, glass block and tile. • Alley facing facades and all buildings adjacent to non Town Center zoned properties shall be of finished quality and of the same color and materials that blend with the front of the building. • Roofing materials (visible from any public right -of -way): copper, factory finished painted metal, slate, synthetic slate, terra cotta, cement tile, glass fiber and architectural grade asphalt shingles. • An enclosed garage or carport shall be designed and constructed of the same material as the primary building. Street Wall Facades on Major Collector Streets - All buildings on Parker Boulevard and Bridge Street facing Walker Creek elementary school property shall be required to have at least 85% of the street facing facade (excluding doors and windows) in brick or stone in a complementary manner to the existing elementary school. Up to 15% of the street facing facade for these buildings are allowed an accent material limited to decorative wood, metal, synthetic materials, or tile. All buildings facing Parker Boulevard north of Grand Avenue and south of the elementary school property shall be required to have at least 85% of the street facing facade (excluding doors and windows) in brick, stone or stucco. Page 61 C. BUILDING DESIGN CRITERIA: Single- family detached residential buildings Single family detached dwelling units on a lot 40 feet or greater in width shall be regulated by the general standards in the Town Center district, building materials as described below and require architectural standards enforced by private deed restrictions. Single family detached dwelling unit on a lot between 30 feet and less than 40 feet in width measured at the front building line (cottage) shall only be allowed in lieu of townhomes lots as approved under a special use permit. Cottages are subject to general standards in the Town Center district and the following building materials and public architectural standards. These smaller single family detached units are considered an alternative owner occupied housing unit that can serve as a substitute for more traditional attached townhome units. These units can be single or two story and require a rear or side garage entry. The typical dwelling unit size of these units are between 1,200 and 1,800 square feet, generally similar in size to a townhome but detached and frequently single story. The public architectural standards for single family detached dwelling units on lots less than 40 feet wide measured at the front building line have an emphasis on the requirement of a veranda or front or side porch with unique architectural features that promotes high value and quality on a smaller single family residential lot. The value of these homes will be higher than similar sized townhomes. Building Materials: The following building materials will be required on all single family detached dwelling units in the Town Center district. Unrestricted Materials: At least 75 % of each facade (excluding doors and windows) visible from any public right- of-way or adjoining properties of new buildings shall be finished in one the following materials. No more than any combination of three of the following different materials shall be used on any single facade: • Brick; stone; man -made stone; stucco utilizing a three -step process; or cementitious horizontal siding, in a paintable finish and of traditional dimensions with a 50 -year warranty. Masonry materials, with the exception of dry stack stone, shall be installed in a craftsman like manner that are a minimum of one inch thick, face to back, and imbedded in a cementitious reinforced substrate. Restricted Building Materials: these materials shall be only allowed up to 25% of each facade as an accent material: • Decorative wood (naturally resistant to decay), metal, synthetic materials or reinforced Exterior Insulating Finishing System (EIFS) or similar material over a cementitious base, rock, glass block and tile. • Roofing materials (visible from any public right -of -way): copper, factory finished painted metal, slate, synthetic slate, terra cotta, cement tile, glass fiber and architectural grade asphalt shingles. • An enclosed garage or carport shall be designed and constructed of the same material as the primary building. Page 62 Required architectural features: The following architectural features will be reauired as hart of a special use neimit on all single family detached cottage dwelling unit buildings on lots between 30 feet and less than 40 feet in width measured at the front buildiniz line. • Front (or Charleston -style side) porch + Porch roof or second story porch • Roof overhang of 1 foot minimum on the street facade unless the architectural style (i.e. French Country) calls for a smaller overhang + Finished or decorative soffit on roof overhang + Cementitious horizontal siding construction must have a minimum 4 inch wide rake boards, corner boards, and window and door trim. • Brick construction must have Soldier course or arch over doors and windows and along roof rake + Stucco/ElFS construction must have decorative or raised head and sill at windows and doors and along roof rake on the street facade. + Finished floor elevation at least 3 six -inch risers above grade at building frontage. Unless topography makes this unfeasible. • Windows: single or double hung, and divided light on the street facade. Casement windows are allowed when architecturally appropriate. • Porch columns: decorative in traditional style • At least three of the following ornamentations required on the primary street facing front: • Porch and step railing with balusters • Decorative gable feature • Decorative window molding or lintels • Attic window or dormer • Soffit/eave running trim • Window shutters • ornamental roof top feature • Picket fence • At least two of the following porch ornamentations required on all buildings: • Turned balusters with finials • Spandrel and bracket additions • Porch ceiling fan • Porch swing • Lighting sconce (13) QUALITY BUILDING AMENITIES. The following regulations shall be required on all non - single family dwellings and buildings within the Town Center zoning district. (a) Elevators required on all 3 story and above buildings with the exception of individually platted townhome lots Page 63 (b) Required enclosed stairways and corridors. Operable windows may be installed in corridors but must be architecturally compatible to the building as approved by the Town Center architect. Corridors are not required to be heated or air conditioned when not inside the insulated envelop. If there is adjacent structured parking, the corridor may be located between the building and the parking structure, but may not be visible from the public right -of -way. (c) Alarm systems required (d) Sprinklers required (e) All HV AC units required on roof tops except for individually platted townhome lots and mixed use buildings less than 12,000 square feet in size. All allowed ground HVAC units shall be screened and placed at the side or rear of the lot and not visible from the street. (f) All non - single family dwellings shall conform to the latest version of the International Energy Conservation Code (i.e. 2009 IECC) (14) ADIVIINISTRATION OF TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE. This section sets forth the provisions for reviewing and approving development applications within the Town Center District. The intent is to ensure that all development and redevelopment is consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and the goals for the Town Center zoning district. All sections of this ordinance shall be applied during the review process. a. Ovei view of the Development Review Process: Development and redevelopment within all sub zones is streamlined and shall follow the following guidelines: i. The Development Review Committee shall approve all concept and site plans. The Planning & Zoning Commission shall approve all preliminary plats and the P &Z Commission shall recommend and City Council shall approve all final plats. ii. All development or redevelopment of one or more properties shall submit a concept plan prior to a site plan. iii. All development must have a site plan and final plat approved by the city prior to building permit application. b. Concept Plan: The Concept Plan in the Town Center District is intended to illustrate that the general development pattern proposed is consistent with the purpose and intent of the standards. The applicant shall submit a Concept Plan for the entire contiguous property under consideration for development. A Concept Plan is not intended to be a detailed proposal; rather, it shall illustrate general location of land uses, street layout, treatment of transition areas to adjacent uses and any other appropriate information required by this ordinance. The Concept Plan in this Zone shall illustrate the general design direction of the site(s) with adequate information on the design intent, intensity, and phasing of the project. Requirenients of Concept Plan Submittal- The applicant shall prepare a Concept Plan demonstrating compliance with the District's purpose and standards and the City's Page 64 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for review by the Development Review Committee (DRC). A Concept Plan shall include the following: Map(s) and/or reports that include the following information (maps drawn to an appropriate scale): 1) location of the subject property including delineation of Sub Zones, required and recommended streets, and any special frontage requirements. 2) the layout of proposed blocks and streets consistent with this ordinance and other city ordinances and plans. 3) delineation of the proposed street type of each new and existing street. 4) the location, proposed acreage, and type of open space areas with an indication for each whether it will be privately owned, a common area for residents only or dedicated to public use. 5) the location, proposed acreage, and delineation of building types, civic, and open space uses by Sub Zone and compliance with the Standards for each Sub Zone. 6} conceptual images of proposed buildings, open spaces, and streets including typical elevations, photographs or other graphics. 7} A schedule for the proposed development (or for each phase, if it is to be developed by phases), which schedule shall not be binding but shall be provided in order to show generally how the applicant will complete the project containing the following information: ■ The order of construction by section delineated on the Concept Plan; ■ The proposed schedule for construction of improvements to open space areas; ■ The proposed schedule for the installation of required public or utilities improvements and the dedication of public rights -of -way, easements and properties. C. Site Plan: All multifamily and mixed use developments within the Town Center District must have a site plan approved by the Development Review Committee prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All Site Plan applications shall meet the submittal requirements for a PD Site Plan in Section 118 -241 of the City of North Richland Hills Zoning Ordinance d. The City's Development Review Committee shall be responsible for the following: Page 65 i. Reviewing applications for concept plans, site plans, and any other development related applications within all sub zone areas with the exception of preliminary and final plats which will follow approvals through the Planning & ,Zoning Commission and City Council. ii. Make determinations on the applications and interpretations of guidelines, standards, and requirements of this ordinance. ill. Approval of Concept and Site plans within all sub zone areas that comply with all applicable city ordinances including approval of minor changes to subzone boundaries up to 100 feet in distance with approval of final site plans. e. Appeals and Special Development Plans All applications that appeal the decision of the DRC, request a modification to any of the standards within this district, request any development bonuses, or development incentives shall be reviewed and processed as "Special Development Plans" Special Development Plans: Special Development Plans are intended to allow applicants development flexibility to address specific market opportunities and/or contexts. An application for a Special Development Plan may only be approved by the City Council after a recommendation has been made by Planning and Zoning Commission. The DRC shall review and make recommendations on all SDPs prior to forwarding it to the Planning and Zoning Commission. In evaluating a Special Development Plan, the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the extent to which the application meets the following: • the goals and intent of the Town Center District in the city • provides an alternative "Master Plan" approach by consolidating multiple properties to create a predictable, market responsive development for the area • fits the adjoining context by providing appropriate transitions • provides public benefits such as usable civic and open spaces, livable streets, structured and shared parking, and linkages to transit • does not hinder or erode future opportunities for development of a sustainable mixed use urban core f. Amendments to Approved Site Plans The Planning Director may approve minor changes to and deviations from approved site plans with the applicant's written justification of the nature of changes. Minor changes are those that do not materially change the circulation and building location on the site, increase the building area, or change the relationship between the buildings and the street. Any significant changes to and deviations from approved site plans shall be regarded as an amendment to that particular plan and shall be reviewed and subject to DRC approval. The Planning Director shall make the determination as to whether a proposed change is minor or significant. g. Amendments to the Regulating Plan and/or Zoning Text: Page 66 Amendments and changes to the Regulating Plan, text changes, changes that move the boundary lines of subzones, roadways, parks, or open space by 100 feet or greater or requests for Special Development Plans shall be processed as an amendment to the zoning ordinance under Article 11, Division 5 of the North Richland Hills Zoning Ordinance. h. Plat Approval: i. Preliminary Plat Approval: An application for Preliminary Plat may be submitted only after approval of a Concept Plan or site plan for development. A Preliminary Plat may be submitted for all of a planned development or for a portion of development. The Preliminary Plat shall generally conform to the approved Concept Plan. The applicant shall follow Chapter 110, Article IV of the city's Subdivision Regulations, for the Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements. Simultaneous Submittals - Applications for a Preliminary Plat approval may be submitted for review simultaneously with the Concept or Site Plan application. In such cases, any approval of the Preliminary Plat must be conditioned upon the approval of the Concept or Site Plan. If the approved Concept or Site Plan includes any additions or conditions by the DRC, the Preliminary Plat undergoing simultaneous review must be amended to conform to the approved Concept or Site Plan. ii. Final Plat Approval: An application for Final Plat approval shall be submitted only after a Preliminary Plat has been approved for development. A Final Plat may be submitted for all of a planned development or for a portion of development. The Final Plat shall conform to the approved Preliminary Plat and Concept or Site Plan. The applicant shall follow Chapter 110, Article V of the city's Subdivision Regulations, for the Final Plat Submittal Requirements. Sec. 118 -472. Town Center Density restrictions. The following density rules and requirements shall be in effect for the 93.3 acres of property east of the Lakes at Home Town based on the attached Tract Map and Regulating and Thoroughfare Plan. Tract 1— (30.6 acres) A maximum of 600 apartment units and up to 60 flexible units with no more than a maximum of 630 total multi - family residential units allowed including flexible units, maximum of 30 townhouses allowed, single family detached required fronting the Lakes and allowed without limits m' the General and Center subzones, no single family detached is allowed in the Core subzone. Tract 2 — (16 acres) Maximum of 95 townhomes allowed, no apartment units allowed, single family detached required fronting the Lakes, no limit on single family detached homes. Commercial allowed in the Center subzone with no limits. Page 67 Tract 3a & 3b — (25 acres) Maximum of 120 townhomes allowed, no apartment units allowed, single family detached required fronting the Lakes, no limit on single family detached homes. Tract 4 - (11.1 acres) Maximum of 260 apartment units allowed, no limit on commercial space. Tract 5 — (4 acres) Maximum of 48 residential units allowed, including townhouses and/or single family detached homes, no apartment units allowed, no limit on commercial space. Tract 6a & b — (4.5 acres) no residential units allowed, only public and commercial buildings allowed. Tract 7 - (2.7 acres) Maximum of 60 apartment units allowed, no limit on commercial space. Core Commercial Space: Buildings 1, 2a and 2b in Venue I shall maintain the street floors as commercial space. (36,500 square feet) A minimum of 70,000 square feet of commercial first floor space is required to be constructed on Tract 1 within the Core subzone area (a maximum of 60,000 allowed for flexible space based on Tract 1 rules). Required commercial space ratios: Tract 1 shall be allowed to construct not more than 315 apartment units prior to any required commercial space being built. Any additional apartments built above 315 units shall be required to construct a minimum of 235 square feet of commercial space for each new apartment unit up to 70,000 square feet. Flexible lst floor units in Core subzone built to commercial standards : The first floor space in Buildings 3a and 3b in Venue I are allowed to convert to a maximum of 22 residential units. Tract 1 in the Core subzone will be allowed to convert a maximum of 60,000 square feet of first floor commercial space to a maximum of 60 residential units. Section 4. Violations of Chapter 118 of the Code of Ordinances as amended by this ordinance shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day a violation continues shall be a separate offense punishable hereunder. Section 5. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable and, if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or otheiwise invalid by the final judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the city council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such invalid phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. Section 6. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage. Page 68 PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 28"' DAY OF MARCH, 2011. i ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Oscar Trevino, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: George A. Staples, Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT. John Pitstick, Director of Planning & Development Page 69 EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 17, 2011 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ZC 2010 -05 Continue Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from The City of North Richland Hills for changes to the Town Center Regulating Plan and the Town Center Zoning Ordinance for the eastern portion of Home Town generally located in between Boulevard 26 and Mid Cities Boulevard. John Pitstick said this was the fourteenth meeting in ten months regarding this case. He said Craig Hulse would introduce Gideon Toal for the next presentation. Craig Hulse came forward and thanked the Commission and citizens for their patience while working with Staff on coming to the conclusion of this hearing. He introduced Gideon Toal as the Consulting Firm who will give a presentation on the economic impact on property values to the Hometown Development. David Pettit, a Principal with Gideon Toal came forward. He said they are an Architectural Planning and Economic Development Firm with public and private clients, located at 500 W. 7th St. #1400, Fort Worth, TX 76102. He said their final recommendations on the Woodhaven development were to decrease the multi- family density and seek a better balance of uses. He gave a power point presentation of a market analysis which studied the impacts of the development on adjacent properties. Stephen Pepper, an Associate with Gideon Toal also gave part of the presentation. In summary Gideon Toal believes the proposed expansion of Hometown with design standards and zoning revisions by the City of North Richland Hills will provide the Hometown residents and City significant protection against the development of substandard housing or commercial development. They found no evidence that the development of multi - family housing has a detrimental impact to the adjacent property values. John Pitstick gave a power point presentation summarizing the 2011 Hometown Regulating and Thoroughfare Plan and the proposed changes in reduction of apartments, townhomes, and commercial, with an increase in single family homes. He said the numbers presented to Planning and Zoning Commission and to the citizens have not changed since February 10, 2011 and have been on the website for over a month. He said Staff recommends approval of the proposed Town Center Zoning Regulations, permitted uses, density caps and the 2011 Hometown Regulating and Thoroughfare Plan as presented. He said we are requesting that Planning and Zoning Commission complete the Public Hearing for ZC 2010 -05, vote tonight and send formal recommendation to City Council. Staff is available to answer any questions along with all previous studies that have been completed are available for review. Chairman Randall Shiflet opened the Public Hearing and read the cards of those present and requesting to speak. Dale "TD" Jenkins, 8001 Limerick Lane, NRH came forward speaking against apartments being built. He is in favor of more single family homes. John Osborne, 8528 Bridge St., came forward and asked how many parking spots are being provided by Arcadia and Realty Capital in the apartments at the Venue and Franklin Park? John Pitstick said he didn't know specifics but the new regulations require 1.5 spaces for every one bedroom, 2 spaces for two and three bedroom units. There was a general discussion about how many parking spots are currently at the Venue and Franklin Park. John Pitstick clarified that on street parking adjacent to the complex would be allowed in the proposed development. John Osborne said he has one objection with the green belt on the northern part which is designated as business town homes and will most likely have a child's playground on it. He thinks they should have the same treatment as the public school. He is asking the developer to consider not building commercial townhomes on that green belt. William Livesy, 5950 Lakeway Mews came forward with concerns on the conceptual plan subject to change for more spacing between his house and proposed apartments. He has concerns with the trusting the developer to do what they say they will do. In addition, he is concerned with drainage after the new development because there have been many instances in the past with the dock being underwater in pond. There was a general discussion about drainage. Matt Shaffstall, 8524 Olmstead Terrace came forward speaking on behalf of his neighbors not wishing to speak and against the proposed development saying it's too dense, a bad ratio and not consistent with the original vision. Carolyn Curtis, 5249 Winter Park, came forward against multi- family with concerns of declining property values due to poor zoning choices. Steven Cooper commented on the question raised about drainage in the lake and asked for someone from the City to clarify. Mike Curtis said the plan presented today is not exactly what will be built but as the development comes in each phase and will have to meet the City's drainage criteria. The issue raised about blockage with cattails for growth will be addressed and looked into. Don Bowen asked if it was a City park? Mike Curtis said yes it is and we will look into that issue. Sean McGaughey , 6229 Sherbert Drive asked if the proposed water canal City owned or privately maintained by the Home Owners Association. Mike Curtis said it would be privately owned. Chairman Shiflet asked if anyone else wished to speak for or against? Seeing none he closed the Public Hearing and entertained a motion. ❑PPRCIVFn Don Bowen motioned to approve ZC 2010 -05 as presented by Staff with a few recommendations. He said he shares the concerns with residents about density and multifamily therefore recommends changing Tract 1 from maximum of 630 to 560 total multi - family apartments, Tract 4 from 260 to 200 apartments and on required commercial space ratios in Tract 'I from 315 units to 280 units. Steven Cooper seconded the motion and still has concerns about the parking, but feels that the reduction of density might solve some of the parking issues. The motion passed unanimously 6 -0. Chairman Shiflet thanked all the Staff and Commission who have been diligent through this process as it is important to all the citizens of North Richland Hills, not just Hometown citizens. He said in the beginning it seemed there was a rush to get this done, but no one on the Commission was comfortable with that. They have had the opportunity to look at all the considerations and feel good about the outcome although has major concerns with the traffic, but the wider streets will make a significant difference. He agrees with the school traffic issues but these Issues are the same throughout the entire City. Bill Schopper said he agrees with the school traffic issues, but suggested avoiding these areas during school hours. He commented that the report by Gideon Toal suggested that the demographics are more concerning than density. He agrees with the motion by Don Bowen. Don Bowen said he appreciated the hard work by the City Staff and zeal of the Hometown citizens during this process. Steven Cooper said he appreciated all the hard work by City Staff and zeal of the Hometown citizens, we want the best for Hometown as we do for the rest of the City. Mike Benton said that this is only a recommendation to the City Council but they will make a final decision on the plan. Town Center zoning revisions PUBLIC COMMENTS (received via email and letters from July 20, 2010 to March 16, 2011) From: Bill Holland [mailto:bill.holland @ltcfp.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:22 AM To; John Pitstick Subject: Hometown I've heard some disturbing news recently about the plans for the section of hometown that are undeveloped. I understand that the plans call for hundreds of apartments and townhouses far that area. Sadly, it sounds like the leadership of North Richland Hills is falling into the same trap that many suburban cities have fallen into, doing what is expedient rather than what is right for the ongoing legacy of the city. Look at all of the surrounding cities: Bedford, Hurst, Euless, Watauga, Haltom City. They have been built out and are now aging. They have no heart, no central core. What makes Southlake and Grapevine unique? It's not building another sub - division or 1,000 more apartments. It a gathering place, an identity. They have that. The questions you need to ask yourself as you consider this agreement are: is it making the city better today and 50 years from now; will this plan help the long term development of the city; will my grand children be proud of the decisions I made for the city? The developer is looking at dollar signs. Once the land is developed he will move onto something else, he won't care what happens moving forward. I know the city is concerned about spending the money to fight the suit. Are we being penny wise and pound foolish? Do what's right. Don't rush into something because you think it's the best thing to do. You have one chance to do this thing right. I hope you are up to the task. Thanks, Bill Holland Partner, Long Term Care Specialist LTC Financial Partners 1833 Bedford Rd. Bedford, TX 76021 817 - 903 -4981 817 - 685 -7012 Fax Licensed in TX, AZ, CO, LIT, ID, IL, ME, AL, FL, DE www.ltcfp.com bill.holland @ltcfp.net Ms. Sharon Chatterton 8628 Nickels Way North Richland Hills, TX PHONE: 817 - 781 -3124 Ms. Chatterton called to voice her concerns regarding the possibility of developing apartment buildings in the Hometown area. She said that she is opposed to this type of development. She would appreciate a call back to discuss Ms. Stacy Thorn 8621 Olmstead Terrace North Richland Hills, TX PHONE: 817- 715 -7155 Ms. Thorn called in reference to a rumor she heard regarding the possibility of there being developments built for multi family living in the Hometown area. Ms. Thorn is requesting your help to prevent this from happening. She would appreciate a call back to discuss ►�iT�'.i cne i". , Mr. Holland called to voice his concerns in requesting that the Hometown area not be disturbed by developing multi family living facilities in their area. He would appreciate a call back to discuss. From: ginny irvine rmailto:ginnyirvine @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:26 PM To: Mayor Subject: Town Center District Proposal Dear City Council Members and Mr. Mayor; I just looked at the Power Point presentation on the Town Center Proposal. I am very concerned. Why is there so much commercial proposed when what is already there can not rent out now? I have heard it is the City requiring the commercial. That is so wrong. If it is the city requiring the commercial, then, it is the City, and not the developer causing the need for the multi family in order to get the number of people needed to support the commercial. Why so much multi family? Why so little single family? I live in HomeTown, and when we were looking at buying here, I visited City Hall to find out the plans for across the lake. This is NOT what I was told to expect. This will make the traffic horrendous, and that much transit populous due to the apartments will hurt our school. The one thing I see that I really really do appreciate is the change on street flow by the elementary school. In the old plan that side rode went straight out to Mid - Cities. In the new plan it does not, and the traffic between Mid Cites and Hwy 26 will now flow on Hawk, which is where is should be. Thank you very much for that change. Thankyou Virginia Irvine 817 798 0114 6058 Lake Way Mews M. Richland Hills, TX 76180 From: Hayes, Cindy (Psychology) <c.hayes @tcu.edu> Subject: development of HomeTown east To: "'nrhoscar @sbcglobal .net'" cnrhoscar @sbcglobal.net> Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 10:26 AM Dear Mayor: I am a homeowner in Meadowlakes, south of 820. 1 have become aware of the plan to build apartment buildings all along Midcities Blvd. My husband and I would hate to see hundreds of additional vehicles on the road as we try to make our way to the Library and soon the city Recreation Center. Since everything is being moved away from 820 and into an already congested area of town, this would be a terrible idea to add more congestion. We vote for more single family homes — I don't want our city to be choked with apartment buildings. Sincerely, Cindy Hayes 817- 257 - 7411/6717 Department of Psychology Institute of Behavioral Research Texas Christian University Planning and Zoning team, I trust this email finds you well. I reach out to share candid feedback about this project. To begin, I am personally very excited that this is now moving forward and hope that the next critical steps past muster so that we can actually move forward in earnest1 1. I fully support future development of the 93.3 acres across the lakes. 2. In looking at the proposed development, I like the layout, i.e. placement of streets, parks, roads, single family and multifamily. 3. 1 strongly feel that the qty of apartments in tract 1 and tract 4 is too high. 4. 1 like the architectural requirements and believe this will afford us with a high level of aesthetics. 5. I'm very concerned about the street width's and the ability for the city to respond in the event of an emergency. Since these specific details haven't been released yet, it's hard to make an educated response. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that we are not comparing apples to apples {east side vs west side of lakes} because the volume of people cars will be much more when developed. Reference: The gentleman on Olmstead who needed emergency response. The responders couldn't get to his house and had to carry a stretcher down the street. Just think of the litigation possibilities here. I don't believe the city wants to be held liable and frankly I'm surprised there wasn't a lawsuit filed. 6. 1 am completely flabbergasted and confused with the situation involving the lengthy litigation and SUP process involving the city, Bill Gitema/Realty/Arcadia/ Richard Myers. While I completely understand that negotiations are sometimes necessary, I find it disturbing and borderline negligent that the city would accept a proposal from developers that potentially won't fully meet the financial and civil needs of the city residents and government. 7. Density Caps —I would like to know exactly what process was used to create the approved density caps. Without knowing the facts, I have a strong feeling that these were created only as a direct result of the city's negotiations in order to make piece and prevent costly litigation. In speaking for myself and my wife, and in speaking with many others in the HomeTown community, we have been presented many pieces of information, both verbally and written, which build a very clear expectation of the future development of the remaining 93.3 acres. As a matter of fact, the brochure given to us when we were deciding to move into HomeTown shows a very different layout from the current proposal. However, it conveniently has the following disclaimer at the bottom. This has created much angst. I ask you, `Really ?' "The interest in HomeTown has been so great that the community is constantly being updated and revised. No warranty or representation of intended use, design, or proposed improvements are made herein. All plans for land or facilities are subject to change without notice. Nothing presented herein shall obligate the developer, or any other entity, public or private, to construct facilities or develop land as shown" In closing, I believe the HomeTown community is indeed excited about the development. But, we approach this with due diligence and discretionary caution. As we have in the past with all elements of our community, we will be heavily involved throughout the process. All parties, including the city leadership team and the developers, will certainly see a level of participation they have never seen before. It's no secret, there is a team of very savvy and committed stakeholders, specifically HomeTown residents, that are currently mobilizing. The primary goal is to send a clear message that we want to be part of the solution. But, that we will explore and exploit all resources to ensure that the future development will meet the needs of all North Richland Hills residents, current and future while meeting the needs of the city as it continues to be showcased as its flagship community. I look forward to the future! I would encourage you to attend the stakeholders meeting on July 27th at 6pm at the City Library. Best Regards, Daniel Rusnak From: "Russell Maddox" < rmaddox @bluffcreekconsulting.com> Date: July 22, 2010 10:06:25 AM CDT To: rnrhoscar @sbcglobal.net> Subject: Hometown Development Plan Dear Oscar, Thank you for providing the numbers for the development plan. It is the information that I needed to make a reasoned analysis. I have studied the numbers for several days and I have to admit I am very disappointed. It is very clear that the city has given both developers everything they wanted and none of it is consistent with the original vision of Hometown. My biggest disappointment is the lack of commercial development. Very little is proposed and most of what currently exists will disappear —so much for a town center. Face it, without commercial there will not be a town center. The development plan also provides far too much multi- family housing, both apartments and small, low quality townhomes. It won't provide the kind of environment that will benefit the library, recreation center, school, performing arts center and hockey center or Kroger, for that matter. It won't be the destination for NRH residents originally envisioned in the Town Center plan. So, after much thought, I am asking you to vote against the proposed development plan. It is not good for Hometown or North Richland Hills. Russell Maddox July 22, 2010 Perry, Utah You may wander why you are getting a letter from Utah regarding zoning in Hometown NRH, TX. I live in Hometo -wn 8 -9 months each year but live in Perry during the summer months. When I purchased my Texas home in 2065, I did so on the basis of a property development plan which called for private homes and public buildings to occupy most of the land on the East side of the lake. That plan had a population density which I considered to be rather high but given the high level of private residences seemed acceptable. I recognize that the market for homes has declined with the recession and that the developers would Re to switch to a much higher percentage of apartments and town houses so they can get their money out of the development and disappear. This would. leave NRH and the residents of Hometown to cope with the inevitable results of a largely apartment mix. I have lived in or near several cities and have seen the seemingly inevitable declme in living quality that follows such development. In Houston I saw very nice neighborhoods decline to drug infested slums in as little as 5 years after completion of large apartment complexes. I have seen similar situations in New Jersey, Chicago suburbs and Washington DC. I purchased my home in Hometown with expectation that quality of life would be maintained because of strict zoning and adherence to a development plan I would feel betrayed if there were substantial deviations from the original plan just to accommodate the wealthy developers. We elect public officials with the expectation that they will serve us in an honest and forthright manner. Much larger amounts of apartments will not be in our best interests and would constitute a violation of public trust. Sincerely, J�/i ' Bruce Nel son . - son. 817 503 -1910 435 723 -3504 361367 -8724 baneIson@yahoo.cor t On Jul 24, 2010, at 7:33 PM, V V <vcfIynn @hotmail.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Trevino, It is evident that the city staff has worked hard to reach a compromise and avoid costly litigation. But, I remain disappointed in the high number of proposed apartments and townhomes in relation to the very low number of single family homes. Yes, I always knew there would be some apartments and townhomes, but never envisioned there would be upwards of a thousand units. That number would have knocked Home Town off my list seven years ago, and I would not be living in North Richland Hills today. While Home Town is a jewel, there have been some missteps. The Portrait townhomes are one example. The interiors are lovely, and the exteriors are charming, with the exception of the unsightly parking lot on the street just outside the front doors. You know the streets to which I refer. The driveways are too tight and /or garages too small. Parked cars and large trucks congest the street. It is a given that most townhomes will need space for two automobiles. What a disservice to the homeowners) They certainly need more than the extra three feet of lot width, and developers must understand that there are factors just as important to quality of life as a pretty fagade such as adequate parking. My next area of concern is the five percent requirement for open /public spaces. Why do we in Texas think we must cover 95% of land with buildings and concrete? The first time I went to Pennsylvania, I was amazed at how many trees there were, well, everywhere. Preserving and creating green space should be a priority and, the developer should be willing to sacrifice some apartments or townhomes to do the right thing. I want to remain optimistic about my neighborhood. So far I love it here, and thank you for your efforts in making it an awesome place to live. Sincerely, Victoria Flynn 8255 Bridge Street From: Dianne Spradling <24ds @junk- emails.com> Subject: Town Center Development To: "'David Whitson "' <wdwhitson @sbcglobal.neta, "'John Lewis "' <jhlewis @sbcglobal.net >, "'Ken Sapp "' rnrhksapp @sbcgloba1.net>, "'Oscar Trevino "' cnrhoscar @sbcgloba1.net >, "'Scott Turn age ' "' <nrhstrunage @sbcglobal.net>, "'Tim Barth "' <nrhtbarth @sbcglobal.neta, "'Tim Welch "' <tim- welch @sbcglobal.net>, "'Tom Lombard "' <nrhlombard @att.net. Date: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 5:40 PM City Council Members, I live in Hometown and want to share with you my thoughts on the proposed zoning for Hometown. While I live in Hometown, I want to make it clear that I feel the paramount issues are North Richland Hill's issues, and not just Hometown's. That's because, if the proposed development proceeds as planned, the long term effects on the city will be severe and that will become the legacy of the current City Council and Staff. The planned density risks creating a depreciating neighborhood where the only people who can, or will, get near the elementary school, Library, Recreation Center and Civic Center are those living in the west side apartments and townhomes. Is this what you want? I fully understand that the NRH City Council gave away the farm in 1998 and handcuffed this Council with limited options. However, taking the easy way out now to avoid legal costs is not the best long term solution for the City of NRH and its residents. I and others want the City to keep the SUP's in place and continue to defend the right to use SUPS to regulate multi - family as well as commercial development against the developer's lawsuits. If the City's current legal counsel feels it cannot successfully defend the SUP process then find legal counsel that feels they can. In no case should the City agree to remove the SUP requirement as a result of negotiated rezoning! Don't compound the mistakes made in 1998 and don't give in to the scare tactics of "It could be worse ". It's already very bad. All of you are probably the best City Council to date. I respect each of you. Thanks for listening, Dianne Spradling From: Cindy Martin rcindymartinl3 @sbcglobal.net> Subject: Hometown To: nrhoscar @sbcglobal.net, nrhksapp@sbcglobal.net, jhlewis@sbcglobal.net, nrhlombard @att.net, nrhtbarth @sbcglobal.net, wdwhitson @sbcglobal.net, nrhsturnage @sbcglobal.net, "Tim Welch" <tim- welch@sbcglobal.net. Date: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 5:31 PM With all due respect ...................have you guys lost your collective minds? What has happened? John & 1 just returned from a couple of weeks vacation and felt much like l had returned to another planet! The once composed neighborhood l left was now in a state of uproar and everyone was outraged as l have grown to understand. My email box was full and my voice mail was nasty from neighbors with comments like, " well so much for your honorable City Councilmen, the ones you promised would support us to the end" and "well, Cindy it looks like the City Council has given up on the Town Center project and decided we need a village of multi family!" I am not use to nor do 1 enjoy trying to defend what l can't understand. 1 cannot understand where the promise to stand by the residents of Hometown for the best interests of all residents of the city; to protect the future of the Town Center and to protect the project in general... what happened to 'we will do whatever we have to do; what has changed? Why does everything have to move so quickly now..... that is as disturbing to residents as the facts themselves and brings them all to believe that their opinions are not important and that the facts are being swept under the rug for the benefit of the developer? You must know how all this looks! Why now is the City of NRH afraid to stand strong in the belief that the future of Hometown Center is something worth fighting for? Ask yourselves one question; would you make the same decision, react the same way and feel compelled to back down if you had made the investments we have made? The majority of the residents in Hometown have grown to feel they were misled into purchasing homes in this development and we bought into an idea that will never materialize. If you make the decision to allow the developer to go forward with a multifamily development we will only be assured of having Woodhaven, phase 11. How very sad.......... what a legacy you leave..... be sure you make allowances for the sub police stations that will be required to control the inevitable crime that is sure to follow. Oscar, Ken, John, Tom, Tim B, David, Scott, & Tim W, ...... guys, please, let's regroup and take another look. l realize that fighting the lawsuit comes with some risk. l also realize that that the possibility of losing might present us with something worse than the existing plan, but honestly from the standpoint of the residents in Hometown, the current plan is so unacceptable that anything more is just numbing. We have come too far to back down now and give up on all that's possible for this City and the vision we have all had for the future of Hometown Center . It is a vision worth fighting for and we are all prepared to fight the fight but expected you would be there to lead the troops! Please don't 'cave' .............. give the vision a chance!! Your friend, supporter & concerned resident, Cindy Martin 6062 Lake Way Mews NRH, Tx 817 -485 -7556 From: Baileys [mailto:billmona_1 @charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:35 AM To: Oscar Trevino Subject: Re: NRH Council Thanks for the quick reply, Oscar. Are you coming to the meeting tonight? We live on Lake Way, facing the water -- have a corner lot, so lots of space -- and we really are not happy about the extra number of apartments that will be added across the way. I do understand that there will be single- family homes there as well, and that we will see those as we look across; but the extra traffic, the hardship on the school, and the value of our homes, are all considerations in our unhappiness over the new plan. I do know that the City Council had to compromise with the developer in order not to have an expensive court fight. However, is there anything that can be done, other than our protesting the plan, that will actually change what they want to do? Mona From: Lydia Rambo [mailto:lydiarambo @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:42 AM To: Mayor Subject: Hometown I will be at the meeting tonight, but I wish to express my utter disgust with the proposed plan for the open land in Hometown and the fact that we have to keep coming in and fighting with developers over the ridiculous plans that are being proposed for the other side of the lakes in Home Town. Most of us who bought into this community were sold on the idea of Hometown and that the other side of the lake would mirror this side of the lake, but now we find that city - -to make a few dollars is selling the homeowners out and is actually supporting a plan that would destroy the city and ruin Hometown. Most of financed our homes with 30 year mortages, willing to work for our comunity for at least 30 years of our work lives. However, developers and " city council " who do not live in Hometown (except Dr. Barth) want to decide for us how our community is going to look -- -the developers stake in this purely profit driven. How about the schools? they will be ruined. I cannot wait to sell my home as I am stressed out over having to constantly watch out for the I gothcas being proposed by developers . You can also bet that every resident in this city will be watching how the residents in Hometown will be treated during this process and the next election cycle will tell all. Totally disgusted, Lydia Rambo To whom it may concern: I heard the news report last night about the changes taking place in the HomeTown development, and like many others I want to voice my opinion. HomeTown has a really good thing going and the developers of the community have done an i n cred i ble j ob. I will admit, I do not know all of the issues at hand. What I do know is like most issues like this, most people will come out to tonight's meeting not supporting multi - family or density. They will try and lead you to believe it will hurt their property values, which is completely false... research it, create to much traffic which again is false, and bring in undesirable people ... won't even comment on something so ignorant. I want to voice my opinion the other way. Please support good urban design and density. Density is not bad. We need better solutions for the challenges being created by an ever changing demographic, environmental problems, shrinking municipal budgets, and traffic congestion. We need developments that are walkable, vibrant, have a mix of uses and that support sustainable growth. I encourage you to look at the bigger picture and encourage development that will support the current town square and a walkable urban form. I also encourage you to make sure you are as educated as possible on the myths and facts of density. Best of I uck, James K. Public Comments made at July 27, 2010 Town Center Stakeholders Meeting Dan Heth — concerns over abundance of apartments similar to Woodhaven, concerns over parking Sean McGaughey — concerns over quality controls and density, how will the city regulate, pedestrian connectivity to recreation center, impacts on elementary school, no consistent message from developer Daniel Rusnak — supports general development, wants more commercial, concerns about crime, drop in property values, introduced citizens survey Rusty Caranfa — suggested alternative plan, limited housing next to NYTEX and elementary school, traffic concerns, suggests more property taxes with single family homes Bill Holland — concerns that the law suit is dictating density Carol Palazzolo — concerns over empty commercial space at Venue, dropping property values Sam Akins — concerns of more renters, wants townhomes to look like single family homes Maureen Gayle — concerns over implications on elementary school, apartments creating run down neighborhood Dallas Holmes — too many apartments, 53% of east side is apartments Dianne Spradling — wants what was promised a mirror image on east side Bill Livesey— lives on Lakes, was told other side would be single family, wants to continue SUP Bill Bailey — wants a formula for density caps, traffic concerns Steve Henry — who is the client? Pay attention to residents not developers Cary Shroader — doesn't want Iive / works near elementary school, traffic is bad at NYTEX Justin French — wants more pedestrian friendly environment, safe routes to school, connectivity to Health Markets, wants mix of uses, senior living, placemaking, traffic Matt Sheffetall — doesn't want high density, 15 units per acre no more, wants 4 acre tract 3a turned into a park, concerns over traffic Boyd Dollar — wants to visit other successful mixed use developments and visualize the future Jahn Osborne — concerns over traffic and parking From: June Richmond [mailto:jpriO8 @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:49 AM To: NRHPI Subject: Question from resident My husband and I would appreciate an answer to something we've heard conflicting reports about for three years. We are John and June Richmond, residing at 5235 Lake Way Mews, phone # 817 - 555 -0157. Our home is at the end of Lake Way Mews, and our side yard is at the end of Riverdale. We have a huge concern regarding what will be done at the end of Riverdale. There is no street in front of our home. If Riverdale is extended to go across the water, then our home will be right at that bridge entrance. As you can imagine, our property value would sink! In addition to that, the cut - through traffic to the east side would be beyond comprehension. Even now, the impact is big because guests visiting the residents of the retirement community have to park on Riverdale, thus making the street quite crowded at times. The bike/walking trail ends in front of our property. We were told that the plan was to extend that trail to go across to the east side. We think that's a proper solution to the situation. People are now walking across the water at the point of the dam... dangerous? I would appreciate a response from you as to what the plan is for the end of Riverdale and the extension of the walking /bike trail. Thank you. June Richmond From: Glenda Koonce [mailto:glnalou @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:03 PM To: Mayor Subject: Tonights meeting about HomeTown development Greetings Mayor, I am sure you will be at the meeting tonight about the additional development in HomeTown. I will be there and have several questions for the "developer ". I do ask one thing from You: I have been told that we cannot put up a Flag Poll to display the American Flag by the "land owner". I am a Vet and many of us live in HomeTown. I would like you to ask as this "person" why we cannot display the American Flag which we fought and died for? I really don,t know where this man is coming from. Thanks, Chuck Retrired Army From: Madeline Leamy <mleamy @sbcglobal.net> Subject: rezoning Hometown To: nrhoscar @sbcglobal.net Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 1:201 PM We have had many notes and concerns placed on our website on the rezoning of the property east of the lake in Hometown. The major concern I have is that right now the apartments that are occupied are almost to capacity for parking. And to add another 800+ to the area you would need a parking garage to handle the cars. When and if they convert the retail space to apartments there will not be enough parking available to the tenants. The traffic flow will not be able to handle the extra traffic with just those units not alone the single family homes and the townhomes. Just stand on the corner of Bridge and Winterpark in the morning when school is in session to get a feel of the traffic in that area or after school lets out with parents parking on the other side of the bridge to p children. When that area fills in it will be out of control. The Ice House has its own issues with parking all over the streets and the empty lots, what is going to happen when that fills in. I think a lot will be said at the meeting tonight and it should be reconsidered for some other possibilities. The school will be an issue because with all the extra families can the school handle the extra children and with apartments they do not pay taxes but will have the benefit of great resources. I know it will work out in the end but there are a lot of issues that need to be considered. Sincerely Madeline and Jim Leamy 8609 Olmstead Terrace NRH TX Hello, my name is Eric Tom and I live at 6105 Lake Way. I attended the Stakeholder's Meeting last night at City Hall. First of all, 1 would like to say "thank you" to the city employees involved in the Hometown NRH development plans. I moved into my house in February of 2003 and when I was considering the purchase of my home, I was given a sales brochure by Cambridge Homes. In the brochure, there was a map or artist's rendering showing what was envisioned for Hometown NRH and Town Center. Contrary to what many people were saying at the meeting last night, the map in the brochure did indicate that the east side of the lake would include higher density housing, including apartments and townhomes in addition to single family units. The "planned" single family units were along the lakefront and somewhat a "mirror image" of the west side. This aspect is very important to my concerns being that I live on Lake Way and that will be my future view some day. I believe to a certain extent, the plans being negotiated thus far indicate that the NRH city planners are attempting to retain this aspect of the plan which I applaud. Although apartment complexes may have been included in the original plan, many residents brought up some very valid points and concerns last night including density, safety and crime issues, traffic flow, parking and the very real potential for negative impacts on home and property values. Will the existing schools have sufficient capacity to absorb the increased population resulting from the increase of multi- family housing? The "flavor" of Hometown includes streets that are narrower than the norm today which don't support high volume traff ic flows. The narrower streets also create safety concerns, especially in and around Walker Creek Elementary far young children walking from and to school. As stated, parking is a problem near the NYTEX ice center on game days and around the school. The location of the "Lifeworks" units across the street from the school and on up towards the ice center indeed seem like a strange location given safety concerns and parking. I think the primary over- riding concern that was voiced last night was the potentially negative impact of apartment construction. Although apartments may have been planned all along, why can't development plans be changed for the better? Hometown NRH has a very unique character and has become a model neighborhood in Tarrant County. There is definitely a sense of community on the west side of the lake, more so than anywhere I've lived before. People are out walking the streets or paved trails, sometimes with their pets (my two miniature Schnauzers LOVE their walks every evening), riding bicycles, jogging, etc. Often while walking my dogs I'll stop to visit with neighbors sitting on their front porches ... a main component of the Hometown atmosphere. Is it coincidence or imagination that the crime rate is on the increase in Hometown ever since the school and apartments were constructed? I don't know, but it does seem that there has been an increase in such activities as speeding cars, auto thefts or burglary, egging incidents, the vandalized wrought iron railings on the bridge, vandalism in our parks, thefts of homeowner garden fixtures, etc. One gentleman brought up the example of Woodhaven. I played that golf course for the first time a couple of months ago and it's an accepted fact amongst residents there that the construction of apartments severely tarnished the area. Playing the golf course, the front 9 is a stark contrast to the back 9. The front 9 1 believe was exclusively lined with single family homes, many that were fairly large in size and nicely landscaped. The back 9 on the other hand has a large number of holes bordered by apartments that have become an eyesore. I was playing with 3 ladies that day and I'll tell you factually that on the 12th hole, we actually saw a male person watching our group, masturbating in a vacant lot adjacent to the golf course as we were teeing off. This is a vivid example of the sort of unsavory element that apartments can bring to a neighborhood. These are some of my main thoughts and concerns. I believe development on the west side of the lake has turned out to be everything that the city planners envisioned and has been a huge success. Let's do the right types of development on the east side of the lake to retain the highly desirable atmosphere of living in Hometown NRH. I would appreciate your further consideration and efforts to make Hometown NRH the best neighborhood it possibly can be. Eric M. Tom Price Management BNSF Railway eric.tom @bnsf.com 817 -593 -1139 Reference my personal comments I made during the "Stakeholder Meeting " evening of July 27, 2010, 1 am including a synapsis of my comments far your record: My name is Dan Heth, 8504 Passionvine St., NRH HomeTown. I am opposed to the inclusion of ANY apartments, including the 230 -250 bordering Mid Cities Blvd & the 520 bordering Blvd 25, in the HomeTown land east of the lakes. Although I didn't include one point intended, I want to include the fact -- that the Venue Apartments are upscale and complement the east side of the lakes, are close to the existing shopping area as they should be, and are sufficient in apartment quantity for the HomeTown community. Apartments anywhere else on the east side of the lakes are unacceptable and would cause too many problems for the HomeTown residential area. I included in my comments the "case in point " of the severe problems experienced in the Woodhaven Community in NE Fort Worth (east of 820 & north of I- 20), Woodhaven was a Upscale Community with upscale homes, a private Golf Club and Clubhouse, which unfortunately included a large number of multi -story apartments in its center. The apartments attracted the usual "low - life " apartment dwellers who move in and out of lower cost apartments. The resultant crime, vandalism, even gangs, became rampant in that upscale community. The Police Department numbers had to be increased substantially to try to protect homeowner from being attacked, robbed and vandalized. Woodhaven "corporate " owners finally evicted all the apartment dwellers, in that central area, and subsequently demolished that entire group of apartments (number unknown) - down to the ground. This unfortunate experience occurred 4 or 5 years ago. That central area of Woodhaven is still completely vacant. HomeTown should never permit any more apartments to be included in our Community, avoid such a costly and terrible experience in NE Fort Worth, and include that in our study as "a lesson learned ". M. N. (Dan) Heth HomeTown Homeowner Darla and Jim Batchler 8617 Olmstead Terrace North Richland Hills, Texas 76180 8171577 -3206 dabatchlerl@vahoo.com We have been watching this development since 2001. We sadly have to say that we do not like the style of the Venue. The first plan we saw showed a different style and look to what the downtown area would be. We were going to move our business from Grapevine to the downtown area until we saw the new style. We have seen Historic Grapevine and Southlake Town Center work. We have watched the businesses in the Colleyville Town Center struggle and even go out of business for years. When we bought into Home Town Subdivision we were led to believe that it would be a look from the past for the downtown and the homes. We believed that there would be 750 single family homes on both sides of the lake. We have several reasons why we do not agree with the new plan. While I believe that the developers are good men and have great plans for this community they are drawing up, we know in the end who has to live with what they build and what they bring. They will move on to other places one day to develop other areas. We like the small community, the protected streets, walkways, parks and lake. We like knowing each of our neighbors and their children, grandchildren, dogs and cats. We like that our children can walk to the schools and feel somewhat safe. We do not want to see the area get over populated or have a style come into our community of 8 years that does not even fit. If the plan worked then there would not be so many vacant buildings for lease. What the Venue offers at the moment is that we can start at the Rise N Dine (now Sunny Side) and walk down to eat Chapps, then go over and have Yogurt Patch, then walk in and talk to the Army Recruiters, stop by Roots to have some coffee and end with Firehouse Subs. Of course, on the back side of the center is apartment garages and carports that we can enjoy. This is sad. The first plan we saw had an area that looked very much like Southlake and was inviting. While I'm sure this sounds harsh to the person who developed it, Soutlake works. Grapevine works. Why reinvent the wheel when you have this much opposition? Please go back to the original version that had front /back door entrances for shops, gazebos, sitting parks, great places to shop, etc. We have other thoughts on the subject, but I do not want to make this too long. Thank you very much for listening. We do not like what we see coming. We bought into something that was a much better plan. Thank you, Darla and Jim Batchler 8617 Olmstead Terrace North Richland Hills, Texas 76180 817/577 -3206 dabatchlerl@vahoo.com Dear City Zoning Planners, My husband and I have lived in Hometown for 5 years. We are concerned about the proposed changes to the Hometown structure. Since Hometown is represented by the city as the premier neighborhood of North Richland Hills, the decisions made now must be very carefully evaluated. A planning mistake could easily change this once prominent and desired neighborhood into an overpopulated and congested undesirable area with dropping property values. This outcome would neither benefit the city nor please the citizens. The current proposal has far too few single family homes. Why does the current proposal not more closely mirror the fantastically successful west side of the lakes? Why mess with a proven plan that has been so successful that magazines and television shows feature it? The core majority of the neighborhood should continue to be single family homes, a small periphery near the commercial area becoming condos, and then a limited number of apartments on the busy streets of Mid - Cities Blvd and Blvd. 25. This is the overall concept of Hometown and no Hometown resident would object to such a plan! However, a plan with only 70 single family homes and hundreds of condos and apartments is not acceptable to the residents and should not be acceptable to the city. Who would even be willing to buy one of these 70 homes that would be surrounded by hundreds of multi - family housing units? If these plans proceed, a huge mistake will be made where the desireabiltiy of Hometown as well as the quality of life in North Richland Hills will be diminished beyond repair, not the least of which would be over crowding at the local elementary school, undesirable traff ic density, school children safety, and lower property values for homeowners. Please keep the original design and concept in Hometown with predominately single family homes for quiet safe living. Pat and Brad Marling 8513 Olmstead Terrace North Richland Hills, TX 75180 817 - 3548228 Hello NRH City Leaders: My husband and I have owned a home in NRH Hometown since 2005. We love our diverse community and the original plans for the development. We have enjoyed increased property values over the years, and we thank you and the zoning commission for doing such a beautiful job thus far. We are, however, very concerned about the proposal submitted to develop the land between South of Bridge Street/North of Grapevine highway/West of Walker Creek Elementary. For our P &Z commission to even consider approving a plan that would include dense apartment homes and businesses so close to our wonderful neighborhood is of great concern to us. We are afraid of diminished property values, increased traffic, reduced safety for children walking to and from Walker Elementary, and increased crime that so often results from large apartment complexes. The traffic that cuts through our neighborhood is already a nuisance. I see so many cars driving up Bridge, turning left on Winter Park just to cut through to the neighborhood and apartment complex off Emerald. They come back through the same path, drive up Frost (accelerating in front of my home) to Mid - Cities. My recommendation would have been to eliminate that particular entry into our neighborhood. We do want the land to the East of the lakes to be developed; however, we hope that you will consider approving proposals that are more closely aligned with what the Hometown community represents — pride of ownership, active residents, safe streets and walking trails, and a true sense of community. To be specific, please help us find a plan that provides the following: • Single family homes South of Bridge Street along the East side of the lake, along Bridge Street, and facing Walker Creek Elementary. No apartments or townhomes right across from the school. • Recognize that parking at the Ice Rink is already not sufficient and note how many cars are forced to park up Bridge and on the grass/mud during Brahma's hockey games • Apartments / townhomes/ commercial are acceptable if directly West of the Venue and directly North of Grapevine Highway (further away from our neighborhood/school on the Southern side of the land) • Apartments /townhomes/commercial ok off Mid - Cities Blvd. • We do not want to see buildings higher than 3 stories • Single family homes on the North side of Bridge Street between the lake and the ice hockey complex with Town homes and/or commercial directly across & next to the hockey rink • Traffic studies to ensure the safety of children attending Walker Elementary and our residents Please include our email in the P &Z committee members' packets for the August meeting(s). We will attend all open meetings along with our Hometown neighbors. Thank you for your time, Catherine and David Long 5004 Frost Street NRH, TX 817.581.8517 HomeTown Development East of Walker's Creek August 2, 20101 A traffic study needs to include the following: Walker Elementary Morning drop off's and especially afternoon pickup's back up on Hawk Avenue to get onto school property (cars are now parking on both sides of Lake Way in order to stay away from the school). School events such as Meet the Teacher Night, Parent /Teacher Meetings, school programs (daytime as well as nighttime) have cars parked in the grass from the NYTEX Sports Centre to the bridge to the Venue and on Lake Way across the bridge due to inadequate school parking. NYTEX Sports Centre Cars are usually parked in parking spaces at Walker Elementary down to Bridge and Parker. During big games cars are parked in grass areas from Cardinal Lane down to Bridge and Parker. Health Markets Observe cars leaving the building and creating long lines on Hawk Avenue and Mid Cities. Walker /Cannon and Blvd. 26 Intersection Excessive wait times at the light due to the lack of traffic coming from Cannon (these cars seem to trip the light); and when cars are coming from Cannon, cars turning north (left) onto Blvd. 26 impede cars going straight and sometimes as few as four cars get through the light. Allowing traffic from Cannon to go separately from Walker would move more cars through each sequence. Sometimes cars on Walker can back up beyond the Chipotle restaurant. Replace the stop sign taken down when the park was constructed at Grand and Parker. Locals know to stop on Grand before turning left; but others don't stop at all before turning. Consideration should be given in reconfiguring the NRH20 parking lot to allow the street in Tract 1 to connect to the light on Blvd. 26. Think of the impact 2,000 plus cars, trucks, and buses everyday would have on this small footprint which would include approximately 700 children walking and riding their bikes to the two immediate schools in the area and the one across Mid Cities. Don't forget to factor in traffic izenerated by the "recreation center" and the "performing arts center ". Green Space Only 5% of acreage dedicated to open space is inadequate, especially for the density being proposed. Once it's developed you can't make more. Is it really necessary to concrete over everything? Open space helps with pollution and keeps temperatures down. We have observed an eclectic population of birds from waterfowl to hawks, kingfishers and owls. Include a footbridge on the north end of the waterway, by Riverdale Drive, to allow a continuous loop of the hike and bike trail. Increase the open space by putting single family homes on the waterway and the street (alley) behind them to mimic houses on Lake Way west of the waterway. Replace dead landscaping within two years of planting. HVAC units on top of roofs need to be screened. All power, phone, and cable lines to be buried. Buildings should not exceed three stories. General Comments: The proposed density for 93.3 acres is way too much. This is not a neighborhood in a big city (Uptown in Dallas, Wrigleyville in Chicago, or any sections of Manhattan). Approximately 700 children will inundate the school system. You need to contact BirdviIle now and not after the fact. We do not want portable units crammed on the property at Walker Elementary. There are storefronts in the Kroger /Kohl's area that have been vacant for four years plus. Some storefronts at the Venue have never been leased. They should not be allowed to be converted to residential. Commercial store fronts should stay towards Blvd. 26 or on Mid Cities Blvd. and not be allowed anywhere else. This will overload emergency services and increase response times not just for HomeTown but the city as a whole. It is in the city's best interest to retain or increase the property values in Hometown, west of the waterway, instead of seeing a decline in property values and tax assessments. Please vote NO on this plan. The developer needs to come back with a revised plan with more single family, less apartments, and leave commercial on Mid Cities and Blvd. 26. Hometown is the crown jewel of North Richland Hills. Why hasn't the developer had a meeting with the City, HomeTown residents, and commercial owners to get everyone's inputs and ideas to maintain a high quality standard? John and Karen Cienki HomeTown Residents, 2004 From: Madeline Leamy [mailto:mleamy @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:12 PM To: 'T Oscar Trevino Jr' Cc: Mark Hindman; NRHPI Subject: RE: rezoning Hometown Dear Oscar Since it is close to the date for the work session I wanted to add the issue of the Ice House once again to the mix. Last Saturday there was an event there, cars were parked everywhere. All the way to the school, this is just another example of parking that I was talking about in my previous email. What we have now is not handled correctly, they park all over the empty land across the street after the lot is full. Once building goes into place then what! Just something to think about. Thanks Madeline Leamy Dear P & Z: I am glad to have this opportunity to voice my concerns about what is happening in Home Town. I have lived here in Home Town from the beginning, lured in by the city's description of the town center planned and by slick David Weekly salespeople, promising new urbanism and a truly different type of neighborhood. I met frequently with Bill Guitema, developer, who painted a vision of both a cozy neighborhood and a neighborhood with forward - thinking vision. But you know all this. The proposal most recently floated to us for our opinions is lacking in vision and backbone. We can see that someone in afraid of the pending lawsuits. Lawsuits are expensive and scary. However, now is not the time to settle the lawsuits with such a developer - friendly plan. We in Home Town (and we have spent considerable effort making sure we are on the same page as the overwhelmingly vast majority of our neighbors) would rather the city went to court and lost than put in place this plan with so many apartments and townhomes. Fight in court! It is our right as Americans to fight greedy developers who seem to want carte blanche in developing their land. True, what BG has developed so far has been nice, but he and RM seem to be tired of us and seem to aim to get as much money from the remaining Home Town land and then plan to get out. Does Bill Guitema live here in NRH? No, he does not. Does Richard Meyers live here in NRH? NO! Then you must listen to us, your citizens, who are adamantly opposed to "Apartment City" instead of Home Town. You are serving us, as public servants, correct? Then please, please listen to our outrage. Read the comments in the survey we just did of our residents. Read the emaiIs. Fight for us!!!! I have few strong opinions on the commercial development, I must leave that in your capable hands. It does seems to me that the commercial area on the bottom floor of the Venue is a bit empty and the adjacent shopping area between Kroger and Kohl's is also a bit empty, to be adding a lot of commercial, but I understand you are planning for the future and that part of the idea of Home Town was to have this sort of commercial /office space within walking distance. I like the live /work units planned, I think that is cool and different and brings something new to Home Town. I thought that sort of thing was what we were going to get at the Venue, but then it changed. I do worry where the customers of these downstairs businesses are supposed to park, when the parking problems near the school and the ice rink are already insane. Add thousands of people and their cars to that and you have a nightmare for anyone wanting to go there and pop into a CPA or an art gallery or a nail place. Don't doubt that many will put their houses up for sale if you go ahead with this terrible plan. The problem will be that we will be stuck, most of us, because who will want to live in a neighborhood that is planning the density numbers you are proposing with this plan? Who will buy our houses? What will happen to their value? Your leaders claim this is not at all like the Woodhaven fiasco, but I was there and I claim it is. I can see that no matter what I say they will disagree. But they weren't there and I was. It is eerily similar. And HT is not as nice as Woodhaven was, with custom homes on large lots with a golf course! All factors are not identical, but if we ignore the factors that are similar, we are making the mistake of not learning from history. Apartments and tow nhomes are fine, in smaller numbers. Why are you making HT more dense than anyplace else in the city? Take away 2/3 of what you propose here and people will settle down. Of course, not all will be happy but so what? There is no way you are going to make everyone happy at this point, now that they feel their homes and largest monetary investments are threatened like this. I've heard city leaders suggest these huge numbers of multifamily units are necessary to support the commercial that is planned. I say poppycock. I know a few people who live at the Venue. They have roommates because they cannot afford to live there alone. People who make $10 an hour can afford to live in those apartments if they have a roommate. They can NOT afford to go to cute chaps and expensive restaurants, like people who currently live in most of the single family dwellings in Home Town can. True, you also have a sprinkling of newlyweds and newly divorced people from nearby living at the Venue, but again, not the kind of people in general with a lot of expendable income. So the argument that a huge number of additional apartments will support the commercial is ludicrous. I am also concerned that the already crowded library and the soon to be built Recreation center would be so crowded by the thousands of people in the surrounding multifamily that is being proposed would swamp these public facilities. How are the rest of the citizens of NRH going to get to use their public facilities under this plan? If Bill G got out of using his land for the Rec center, for whatever reasons, why isn't he being held accountable for reserving that chunk of land for a public recreational use, such as a park or community garden? These are the majorities of my concerns. I do feel like I have been misled by the city of NRH who released press releases and other media reports of what an amazing place Home Town was going to be. The plan currently being proposed does not describe what I consider to be a town center. Look at our property deeds, they still say "Town Center ". Look at the town centers in Allen, Frisco and Southlake if you need a better town center model. Don't make OUR town center a joke. I hope you get lots of input at this email address we were given at the stakeholder's meeting but I fear people are getting burned out. An effort was made to get people to write the city leaders, and many did. An effort was made to get people to respond to a survey, and people did. An effort was made to get people to the stakeholder's meeting and the citizens spilled out into the hallway, despite a last minute change of venue. An effort has been made for citizens to come to your P &Z meeting on Thursday this week. We have now asked them to make this additional effort, and I fear burnout will prevent this from happening so soon after all our other fevered requests for input. All of this has happened in an extremely compressed time period when many are away on vacation. Please make an effort, if you indeed need further convincing of the opinion of your citizens, to access those emails and voice mails sent to the mayor, the city manager and the city council members, on this topic. Victoria Barth Citizen of NRH 8400 Bridge Street I want to comment to the P &Z Commission on the proposed Hometown rezoning. The density being proposed is outrageous! The proposal calls for multi - family density per acre not seen anywhere else in the city. The proposed density on the HT east side of Walker Creek is 3 times the density of the HT west side on one -third the amount of land. The streets will be too few and too narrow, and the traffic far an estimated 2000+ additional vehicles will create a safety problem for emergency vehicles and the kids at the elementary school. Access to the city library, recreation center, civic center and school will be problematic and tend to discourage residents outside of the east side tenants to use those facilities. This is a serious problem for ALL NRH residents. If a layperson such as myself can foresee and understand this fatal flaw, I know studied professionals such as those on our NRH P &Z commission can as well. I encourage the P &Z to postpone ANY further consideration of this or any rezoning of the Hometown undeveloped property until a complete, competent, and unbiased traffic study can be completed and made public for review and comment. Thank You Gary SpradIing 8609 Lantana Dr NRH, Tx 75180 817- 431 -4555 To all members of the Planning and Zoning Department: You and the council have worked very hard to keep hometown a great place to call home. I am extremely upset at the information being released about the remaining property to be developed. I thought the whole reason the SUP was put into place was to keep the density in the remaining phases down. I understand that there has to be some apartments and townhouses but the number in the plan are extremely high. The number of single family residences in the remaining phases need to be increased dramatically. There should only be single family home sites bordering the lake and walker creek elementary to keep the serenity of the lake and trails. I don't understand why the city is paying an attorney to fight the lawsuits from the developers when it appears you and the city are now letting Bill Gitema and Capital Realty have everything they want. I think someone needs to look at the number of vacant spaces in the Kroger Shopping Center and the Venue before moving forward on anything further. 230 -260 apartments bordering Mid Cities Blvd. 520 new apartments bordering Blvd. 25 (in addition to the 189 units currently at the Venue - in other words, more than three more Venues) • 400 town homes on the land in between the above boundaries (there are currently 110 town homes near Davis Blvd.) • 91 single - family residents mostly located near the lake (there are about 400 single family homes in our part of the neighborhood, west of the lake) I think this plan needs a little balance. I think what we all were led to believe by the developer when we purchased here was similar to the following: 120 Apartments bordering Midcities Reduce the apartments bordering Blvd 25 to at least 310 which would be about double the capacity of the existing venue. We have already 189 town homes so to balance things there should be 200 in the remaining phases. We have 400 single family homes in Hometown. We should have at least 300 additional single family homes including patio homes. The land in front of the elementary school and along the lake should be single family only to preserve the neighborhood. We were told the remaining sections built would remind us of quality properties like Southlake and its town center. The reason Town Center does so well is that the City leaders in South lake evaluated the developer and plans to make sure it would be a quality project. Don't compromise with the developers, they do not care about the residents or this city they only want to make money. Mr. Gitema has made many promises in the past that have not transpired. He always made it clear to the residents that he was in control of what would be built. P &Z and the city need to send the developers a clear message that you are in control of the quality, density and future of the town center. In hometown, we have support the Mayor and council in all the election and would appreciate their support in keeping this area the jewel of the city. Thank You, Mary Jo Houtchens To whom it may concern, We moved to hometown, almost three years ago. We were told that there would be single family homes, as well as small retail venues across from us on the other side of the lake. One of the major deal clinchers for us buying in hometown, was the small town appeal, single family homes, town - homes, the ability to walk on the walking trails, to quaint shops, lots of green space and open blue skies.The proposals for more high density apartments and fewer single family dwellings is not what we bought into. Please oppose the proposal for so many apartments and so few single family homes. Lets repeat what we have on this side of the lake, it works very nicely. Best regards, Sharen Chatterton 8628 Nichols Way NRH, TX 75180 817 - 781 -3124 This project has been back and forth with the City Staff and the developers for several months. Then the new plan is presented to P &Z with an urgency to get it pushed thru, leaving the general public little time to understand all the ramifications this will pose to our quality of life now and in the future. You each had good concerns when this was first submitted to P &Z, then a complete about face occurred. The concerns have not been erased. Why continue down a path that surely will end up in a bad spot a few years down the road for all of NRH. Too much density, mare than any other area in NRH. Even if the proposed density is built, this project will not fly. There is not enough people to support it. In fact it will cause too much traffic and not enough parking in and around Walker Creek, the Library, proposed Performing Arts Center, the new recreation center and NYTex Sports Complex. This will be all of NRH's problem not just Home Town's. Kids walking and riding their bikes to school will be dangerous. When Walker Creek lets out, these kids will hit a very busy street with only a sidewalk between them and traffic. They say traffic will be only on Hawk Ave.. You know that's not true. Drivers will go anyway they canto get thru. Congestion will only cause frustration and road rage. The developers mislead this community when we bought into "The Dream ". Now they are trying the same thing with the City, using bullying tactics to get what they want. We as homeowners and the City do not owe these developers a profit. They have not done the right thing here... I hope you do. Thanks for listening, Dianne Spradling I am so disappointed in the proposed building of apartments and townhouses east of HomeTown. When my husband and I bought a house in the HomeTown Neighborhood, it was the first time in our then 27 years of marriage that we were able to purchase a NEW home. We were so excited about moving to North Richland Hills, and about the future plans for HomeTown. What we were told would happen on the east side of lake in HomeTown was that the two sides would basically "mirror" each other -- single family homes, some patio homes, others larger. We were told the recreation center would be relocated there and there would be a theater for plays built near the center. After discussing the latest proposals with neighbors, we find most of us are surprised that the City of North Richland Hills would change from the original proposal of single - family homes to rental properties. As you know, HomeTown has many "common areas " -- greens between roads -- throughout the neighborhood. This gives a true sense of neighborhood, and cuts down on the density of traffic. The proposed apartments/townhouses will greatly increase traffic, school enrollment, and will reduce home values. Several of our neighbors have said they will move if the proposed number of apartments and townhouses are built. Both the house across from ours, and the one next to us are already up for sale. They do not intend to relocate within North Richland Hills. Please vote to keep this area as first proposed -- single - family homes. Thank you for your consideration. Susan Tucker 5809 Winter Park Drive Hometown First, let me thank you for continuing to review this development and listen to current residents' concerns. I know you are trying to get the best scenario for all parties involved. I just reiterate concerns previously voiced: 1. traffic - at every meeting I've attended, someone has asked for a traffic study. Will this be done? Hawk Avenue and the intersection of Bridge and Walker Elem. will become a bottleneck without some street direction consideration. I make an assumption that street widening is in the works? 2. apartment density -enough said on that topic. I'd like more owner - occupied dwellings, whether they be single family, town homes, four- plexes. I'm thinking these would create less occupant turnover, retain value, and maintain the aesthetics we want to carry throughout the neighborhood. 3. 3 -way stop at Walker Elem. - I'd like to see some green space on the southeast corner rather than have a line of sight issue if any type of building in constructed at that corner. There could be a turn lane put it now and that would help all of us. There are no shoulders. 4. impact on schools - while I realize that the influx of children will be gradual, I still find it odd that BISD has not been involved in the proceedings. They should know what the existing facilities can tolerate and projections for staffing. Is the district ready to deal with more latch -key children; is the Library? While I don't pretend to be learned in the intricacies of planning/developing a project like this, I do know that common sense must be applied. This is not a 'if you build it, they will come' economy. South lake, Col IeyviIIe, and Keller town centers are not full; many commercial ventures are leaving; those apartments have never been full. Our own Venue isn't full. Why do we have to build what may sit empty for years, gathering dust and being an eyesore? Thanks for your efforts and consideration, Judy Briley 8521 Lantana Drive Council Welch; Please add our names to the Home Town folks who are requesting more time to digest the P &C numbers. These are not the same housing numbers that we were sold in 2001 and we are requesting that NRH give this whole thing a chance to be looked at closer before committing. We see no reason for the hurry. This is a very important part of NRH... can't we slow the process down and look more carefully at it? With regards, Jerry and Avis Sorenson 8628 Bridge Street NRH Planning and Zoning Council, I have lived in Hometown for 7 years, bought here expecting a Multi Use Development which I knew would include multifamily housing. I feel we need the density to support the retail and commercial aspects of the development. I do feel that we need to scale back the number of apartments. I have no issues with the town homes. I also would like the city to put some additional effort into having the developers create better streetscapes, making the neighborhood more walkable, requiring large trees with a minimum truck diameter and height (be specific they will do the bare minimum). The city should also require more open space/ park area of the developers. I feel one negotiating point would be for the developers to put up some funds for a community built park and donate a portion of the remaining acreage for that purpose. Arcadia and Realty Capital could put up 75K each as good will gesture (they were willing to spend double or triple or more than that on litigation). You are our only line of negotiation with them — we are relying on you and the City Council to guaranty a bright future for the development. Thanks, Bryan Barrett 8305 Bridge St We bought in Hometown 4 years ago. At that time there was talk of building homes to °mirror" the lakes, and the building of some apartments, some restaurants and some commercial units in the Venue. That sounded nice and charming, but not excessive. Although the apartments in the Venue have not impacted us too much, the ridiculous set up of the street in that area that has cars snaking around the library, and through the Venue's parking lot, leaves little to be desired. However, in regard to the Venue I have no problem with the owners of the Venue converting the bottom floors that were designed for commercial use into apartments, but not really sure I understand what is going to happen to those tenants, once the market returns. (Don't we want to build a community ?) I would not have bought in here, had I known that there would be 1000 plus apartments at some point in the future. But if there is a compromise needed between the city and the developer (to avoid lawsuits), then it sounds like apartments are going in whether we want them or not. The miscommunications and "what was supposed to happen" are neither here nor there at this point, but I am disappointed that the city seems to be reacting in fear of lawsuits instead of doing the right thing. Does North Richland Hills have a cap on apartments city wide and is a moratorium on apartment building ever going to be in the city plan.? Why can't the development be made up of Towhhomes and Single Family Homes? At any rate if apartments are going to be put in, then I would ask that they be kept to a minimum, (880 - 1000, it's too much!) and I would ask if the city can insure that they would be of a high end caliber property, so that those tenants would be prideful of the community. Then there is the traffic. The speeding along Bridge St. is already a problem and will just worsen. Regardless, of efforts to direct traffic to 26 and/or Mid Cities, Bridge St. and Winter Park are going to be cut thro ugh s. Is the city going to put in speed bumps to try to control the speed? The stop signs that were put in, help some but not enough, as I see them being ran and rolled through constantly. Many families walk on this street and I am fearful of someone getting hit one day. The obvious extra traffic of 1000 ++ families from apartments, 100+ in single family and townhomes, well do the math! The traffic is going to increase. Also, there is the parking issue. Where are the tenants, homeowners, and customers to the proposed businesses going to park? Parking is already an issue everytime there is an event at Walker Creek Elementary, as well as the area around the Brahmas facility. I can't imagine that from what I have seen in the proposal with every inch of land taken up in apartments, live /work, homes, townhomes, etc. where people are going to park? Also, has there been any input from BirdviIIe ISD in putting these proposed live /work type business across the street from Walker Creek? Again, parking is already an issue during school events, not even counting the daily pick up and drop off times. Many children dart out, run across the street, and although they shouldn't, it is inevitable. With such a dense area around a school, I also can't imagine a business wanting to office right across the street from a school. It seems BISD should have some input as the increased influx of families is going to impact them at some point, and they will have to rezone their districts to accommodate the additional students. Then there is the money. The property values are going to fall, and therefore the property tax revenues will also decrease. Many may not be in a financial position to move elsewhere, but even in a tough market, those who can leave, will. I lived in North Dallas for 20+ years, and I have worked in the Irving area. I left those areas. I enjoy the neighborhood feel of Hometown, and enjoy the calmness it offers. I did not want to live in the midst of an Urban Town Center, but am willing to accept that there will be changes in this area, but not what is currently being proposed. I know you say it is much better than what was originally proposed, but you all need to keep working to make it better and livable and practical. Great leaders are not always popular but they do the right thing. I look to the city leaders to take care of its citizens, grow the community in a positive way, and do the right thing. Regards, Darlene Hutzel needed to express my concern for proposed development plans for across the lake from Hometown. My greatest concern is for all the children that are attending school there, walking to and from school, which is such an awesome thing (think reduction in childhood obesity). However with 800 + apartments in the area, the risk of a child being abducted and abused becomes that much more great. Also with the NRH2O so close by, and the proposed Rec center. Think about how we can help keep our children safe. Thanks, Amy Gillis Hometown resident and mother of a 7 1/2 year old daughter We leave on the lake in Hometown. We believe that 1300 apartments will over crowd the schools, roads, walking trails and increase vandalism. This is our retirement home and we don't want to be scared to stay here. The city wants this to be an exemplary community, but where in the US is so many apartments considered exemplary. Please reconsider this as you vote on what to do when so many lives are at stake. After 10 years will it still be outstanding or be inner city? Thank you, Vonnie and Walt Waiser To the P &Z of North Richland Hills, It is with great concern that I write this email. I feel the proposed development on the East side of the lake in Hometown will have a huge negative impact on our neighborhood of HomeTown and the city of North Richland Hills. Our property values will certainly decline which could be a huge blow to retirees that have invested so much in our homes here. The schools will be affected with the influx of the many children from the large number of apartments proposed and the traffic will be horrendous to deal with. The people who own their homes here take great pride in the community and I feel that individuals who rent will not take the interest in or care for the places where they live or the community. It is just a temporary situation for them and they will be off to greener pastures. HomeTown is a unique neighborhood and if the original plan of mirroring the West side is carried out it will increase the uniqueness of the area. Everyone who comes to HomeTown wants to live here. Why destroy a good thing with a wrong thing? Please take into consideration these issues and get the number of apartments reduced by at least half the 800+ that is being proposed and a reduction of the commercial/live-in properties being proposed. Thank you for all the hours you have put into this matter and hold out for what is right for HomeTown and North Richland Hills. Sincerely concerned, Pat Franklin 5801 Arbor Road Traffic at the Icehouse is a major problem now. Whenever there is an event, cars can line all the way down the street and around to Parker on some some nights. Even at small events trucks will jump the curbs and park in the grass. According to the proposal, this area is going to be lined with homes. Where in the proposal is there a plan to add additional parking to the Icehouse? It seems that current parking needs to be doubled already. Also, it seems the Icehouse is being designated as a civic area. This means we are losing the civic area that was originally planned near the bridge. David Byczek 8608 Olmstead Ter To whom it may concern: The proposed development of the undeveloped portion of Hometown on the East side of the lakes is inevitable. I am not against developing the property. I am not against having a "mixed use" development including single family homes, townhomes, apartments and retail. What I do question is the amount of "multi - family" versus "single family" units. The problems associated with large multi - family complexes might include traffic congestion, school overcrowding, and parking issues. If you want proof of traffic and parking issues you should try to get down Hawk Avenue or Bridge Street on a night that there is an event at the NYTEX Sports Center or at the Birdville High School Baseball/ softball fields. Its a nightmare) Try to get on Bridge Street or Parker near Walker Creek Elementary between 7:45AM and 8:00AM or 3:15PM and 3:30PM on a school day. Lots of anxious parents and small school children can casue traffic headaches already. If you add the traffic created by the apartment occupents and there is a potential for a disaster. Now add the traffic generated by the new rec center and it gets further complicated.These are the types of traffic and parking issues that I have gladly put up with to be a part of this wonderful development, I am just concerned that without the proper planning and development they will get worse and someone might get hurt. I think the development also will have a detrimental effect on the local Birdville ISD schools which include Walker Creek Elementary, Smithfield Middle School and Birdville High School. My child is moving up from Walker Creek Elementary to Smithfield Middle this fall but it has seemed to me that the hallways at walker Creek have been getting fuller as the development of Phase III has been completed. I don't beleive that the additional load of students generated by the suggested development can be absorbed by the current facility. I don't know the current student numbers as compared to the planned load at the other facilities but I am concerned about my child getting the quality of education I originally expected. I know that this development is going to proceed and I just hope that both the City and the developer work together to the benefit of our community. Hal Haas 5205 Winter Park Drive North Richland Hills, TX 75180 There was absolutely no information given about the effect of the proposed 1400 dwellings on the BISD schools especially Walker Creek. How may students can Walker Creek take on? I'm not sure of the exact figures but I believe it is near capacity already. I know of at least one teacher with an office in a janitor closet. Where will these kids go? Will the school just be over crowded and the quality of education suffer? Will they add trailers? Will they be shipped off to other schools? Will the current school be added onto? Why has BISD not been included in this process? I would want a rep from BISD to give their input and vision according to this proposal at the next meeting. David Byczek 8608 Olmstead Ter The proposed number of apartments is outrageous) I Just look at how many apartments are within less than a mile around Home Town now: College Circle near Davis Blvd Davis Blvd just south of Emerald Hills Emerald Hills next to the Park Blvd 26 between Mountasia and Emerald Hills Harwood Rd just East of Blvd 26 (I know, those are in Hurst but they are still less than a mile) The Venue How many more apartment do we want in this area? We residents want people with a stake in our neighborhood, NOT people who do not have a 'stake' in this community. Can you say WOODHAVEN? Apartments do not age well. I would even say they start to go downhill after a few years. They will also wreck our property values, especially later on. Why was another retirement community not proposed? I believe most residents would welcome another one. It seems the one we have now is top notch. David Byczek 8608 Olmstead Ter I would like to voice my real concern with the the proposed development on the East side of Hometown. I moved from Arlington in the Parkway North neighborhood for the very reason of we were over run by apartment projects. When we bought our house new in 1974 it was very similar to the current residential phase of Hometown. They began to build "best in class" apartment complexes all around our neighborhood. It did not take to long for those apartments to begin to deteriorate. Unfortunately, those that live in apartments do not have the same stakeholder position as those who purchase a home and pay local taxes. When we moved to Hometown in 2005 we had to rent our Arlington home due to the fact that the area had deteriorated to such that the property value had greatly depreciated. The crime in this area has continued to increase and the amount of transient foot traff ic has greatly increased. We could never leave a garage door open without the fear of having belongings stolen. I would encourage NRH to take a hard position in protecting itself from becoming the victims of an out of balanced level of renters in this prestigous city development. Your help on any level is greatly appreciated. Regards, Colby and April Shannon 5224 Winter Park Drive Three years ago, we sold a big house on a big lot in Keller, and downsized to a patio home in N. Richland Hills. We liked the idea of the lifestyle here, with the lovely homes of all styles, different age families, and the walking trails and the water. We live on a corner lot, facing the lake. One day we figured to have a view of other homes like ours across that lake, as our community grew. I do understand the need for some apartments and some condos, and I think that putting those over near Mid - Cities would work well. There will be a lot of car traff ic involved with the density of that area, and they would have a way to get to Mid - Cities quickly. The larger area across the water from us should be single- family homes, a mirror image of what we have here. Property values are important, as I am sure you realize. One of these days, we might want to sell and move on, and we want to show prospective buyers a community in which they will feel comfortable and safe, and which will be attractive. Increased traff ic, increased crime, a problem for our one little elementary school -- these are all legitimate concerns, and I would hope that you would think through all of these issues carefully before making this tough decision. You started something good here in Hometown -- the "jewel" of NRH. Don't mess it up now! Thank you. Bill (ret. Col.) and Mona Bailey 5200 Lake Way 817- 577 -0440 My name is Greg Pierce and I live at 8312 Euclid Avenue, in HomeTown. I don't have a lot of detailed comments regarding the plans for the new development areas. I agree with most of what the city has presented in terms of control over the quality of the development. Generally, my concern is the density. I would like to see an overall reduction of the total rental units proposed by 30 -40 %, pushing that development a little farther from the lake and school if possible. Also, I would like to see special attention paid to parking needs. Preferably with some multi level parking provide for the rental units, and something done to help address parking for NYTEX events. Thanks, Greg Pierce agiletortoise@gmail.com To the NRH P&Z committee: I am very concerned about the new development plans for the areas near Walker Creek Elementary and NRH2O. My understanding is the following is being proposed: 230 -260 apartments bordering Mid Cities Blvd. 620 new apartments bordering Blvd. 26 (in addition to the 189 units currently at the Venue - in other words, more than three more Venues) • 400 townhomes on the land in between the above boundaries (there are currently 110 townhomes near Davis Blvd.) • 91 single - family residents mostly located near the lake In my opinion, this is extremely too dense of development for this area. I am certainly in favor of some townhomes and apartments - but these #s are much too high and not in the best interest of NRH in the long term. Sincerely, Cassie Murphey -Green 817- 514 -9985 For the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting this Thursday: As HomeTown residents, we are very concerned that too many apartments and not enough single family residences on the East Side of Walker Creek will create too much density with resulting traffic issues, crime issues, decline in value of property, and overpopulation of Walker Creek Elementary. Thank you, Alice and Ben Logan 8617 Lantana Drive North Richland Hills, TX 76180 817- 937 -9454 I have lived in HomeTown three years. . We were told that the east side of the lake would mirror the west side. I am very concerned about the number of apartments that are proposed. 880 new apartments plus the approximately 359 apartments that are already in the development are way too many. I believe that there should, also, be less townhomes and more single family homes. Jaylon Buie 8621 Nichols Way In comparison with neighboring communities, North Richland Hills currently has plenty of apartments, many with vacancy signs. In our opinion North Richland Hills does not need additional apartments, especially in Hometown. JoAnne and Dallas Holmes 5028 Frost Street From: John Hoffmann <john.hoffmann53 @sbcgloba1.net> Subject: Hometown concerns To: nrhoscar @sbcglobal.net Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2010, 10:44 AM Dear Mayor Trevino, We are four -year residents of Hometown, here in Nort h Richland Hills and vitally interested in the proposed plans to expand our community. Since the minutes of the most recent City Council meeting were not yet available, we have only the article from the Star Telegram to go on. That piece places the interests of Capital Development versus those of we Hometown residents..... quite squarely. Twice, the Planning and Zoning group has denier! the proposals put forth by the developer, only to have the same plan advanced again. This time there is at least one lawsuit over the zoning because of an alleged change from the original zoning. This is as I seem to understand things so far. The paper talked of a compromise being worked on by the developer and the community's managers). That a compromise with the developer needs to happen is readily recognized. And properly so, we would agree. However, it does not seem that Mr. Gitema's vision for we residents in Hometown, as expressed in the Star Telegram, adequately reflect our concerns: 880 apartments is too many for our constricted area's present infrastructure (narrow, crowded streets mainly). Furthermore, these apartment residents will likely be transient as well as flood the area with cars and potentially lots of school children. Moreover they do not maintain property values, historically. They may spend money in the commercial ventures that are proposed. We do note that the existing Hometown Venue and Kroger/ Kohl center is not full of thriving businesses yet. This despite the new apartments in the Venue. We see the addition of so many more residents as a large gamble for possible commercial success too. Too big? Also significantly, we fear our home values that are already under duress will suffer more losses. Certainly we would not buy in this area now that the future is clouded with this unpopular development. Having to sell in the next few years portends more financial loss for us ....... a big deal for we retirees! We are asking our elected mayor every member of our City Council to consider these concerns and to represent them strongly against the proposed number of 880 apartments in our community. Thank you sir for your time to consider this and for your service to NRH. Sincerely, John and Sara Hoffmann 5800 Arbor Road Hometown, NRH 817- 514 -1626 Town Center Zoning Revisions- I have put together my thoughts on the planned zoning revisions for the North Richland Hills Town Center area. Please understand that I am just a homeowner with no training in city design or management. I can only draw from my common sense and experience. I have lived in HomeTown almost since the beginning, Dec. 2002. The master plan that was presented to me as a buyer is what the developer now refers to as his "marketing plan ". You can be sure that his "marketing plan" was presented as THE development plan to buyers. With that in mind I do not feel any obligation to now hold to what the developer "thinks" he was promised by the City of NRH. The economy has changed... the world has changed. It is time for the City of NRH to stand firm on how they want to develop the land known as Town Center. We should not work around the 2004 zoning plan but rather make a plan that will fit the reality of the economy and the future of our city. In the late 1990s and early 2000s North Hills Mall had not been torn down... there was no plan to develop what is now Blvd 26 ... Iittle to no commercial was along Mid- cities near Davis... Colleyville and South lake Town Center were just being developed. Now we have an over abundance of retail property both empty land and structures... Blvd 26 is being brightened... there is a strip center at Mid - cities and Davis along with several free standing office buildings.... Town Center is almost empty while the centers just to our north, within easy driving distance, are flourishing. We do not need so much retail space .... Even with an increase in population from higher density housing we will not need so much retail space! It will take years to fill all the empty space along just Blvd 26 even up into Colleyville there is a glut of empty big box stores! The city needs to face reality and plan accordingly. I do not fully understand what is meant by live /work structures. But to me it says businesses and they are being placed across from an elementary school. I cannot believe that would even be considered 1 The parking will definitely be an issue and likely cause the structures to remain empty. Then there is the issue of our youngest children being exposed to who knows what kinds of businesses? I do not even think townhouses should be built across from the school. Look at the cars and trucks now parked along the roads where we have townhouses.... we cannot have that across from the school. It would cause unnecessary traffic jams. The children would be more at risk of running into the street from between parked cars etc. It just makes no sense to me! I strongly believe that areas 2, 3a & 3b from your map should be 100% single family housing ... period. The apartments and more townhouses can be placed on the outlying areas. Please drive through the current townhouse area in HomeTown. It is evident that allowing 80% townhouses throughout these areas will cause property values to continue the downward trend that we are already experiencing. More than just the property fronting the lake should be single family. The developer is doing what developers do, I assume... he is trying to make the most money from the least investment. I already paid over the going per square foot rate for my house in 2002. 1 was aware and willing to pay for the "feel" of the neighborhood. Now the property values on my street have fallen back down to those levels due to the economic downturn. I don't care to be taken advantage of again by the developer of Town Center! I do not want to see high density that will inevitably lead to further reduced property values. I did not hear one thing in the informational meeting on July 27th that made me think that Town Center is going to grow in the "right" direction and HomeTown would remain an outstanding place to live. Please consider a lower density development plan. Sincerely, Patricia Hatcher 8616 Summer Tree Lane Home email; patch2849 @sbcglobal.net My name is Tim Shoop. My wife & I are residents of Hometown for seven years as of last month. We like many others were told when we bought our home that the east side of the lake would be a mirror image of the west side. If this was a sales pitch, it is so wide spread that I am sure that the developer had to know what was being said & didn't put a stop to it. That being said, it is obvious that the folks on the west side are very uncomfortable with the plans for the east side. I realize that you are in the middle on this process & want what is best for the city & Hometown but are limited by legal restrictions. The purpose of this email is to insure you that you have the support from the folks on the west side to do all that you can to limit the multiunit buildings on the east side. The high density in the Venue didn't seem to help the retail rentals in the area so how do we know that more of the same with improve retail in this economy in our future town center. Sometime the fastest way to get there is not always the best long term. As a suggestion, if our backs are to the wall, can we limit haw the development takes place? Owner occupied property will always be better maintained than rentals. I should remind you that what we are fighting for is a quicker buck for the developer vs how the city services can manage the volume of people that come in quickly in appartments & the kind of community Hometown will be 10 -15 years from now. Things will be ok early on but when the appartments get sold the second & third time is when the community value will degrade. Please keep up the fight for the mirror image. The west side is behind you. Tim Shoop 8624 Summer Tree Lane I am writing this to express concerns for the proposed zoning change for the Hometown area of N.R.H.'s. My husband and I live facing the lake and are very disturbed about the possibility of apartment and townhouses going into the east side of the lake. We paid a high premium for our lake lot 4 years ago and we know that this rezoning would not only rob us of our peaceful view it would also lower our property value. Also it would over load our now peaceful neighborhood with traffic as it become more populated. We bought in North Richland Hills Hometown because we believed the plan to keep this area quant and upscale, as it was laid out to us would hold true. Changing the zoning would not reflect the original plan. As much as we would regent having to leave home town we would need to sell our home and look outside of this area for the peaceful lifestyle we have now. I would like to encourage the zoning committee to hold to the plan that were in place when we bought our property, single family homes that mirror the streets currently in home town. Thank you for your time, Rita and Tom Hobbs 6124 Lakeway Mews N.R.H. 817 - 503 -9071 I would simply like to add my two cents worth to the comments at the recent council meeting, and mirror the comments that 880 apart ments are simply TOO MANY! Both for Hometown and for Walker Creek school. The traffic will be unbearable. We were promised, as homebuyers in the original Hometown development, that the east side would be much like the west side of the lakes: single family homes with a few apartments /townhomes. That appears to not be the case if the new plan is allowed to proceed. When talking about traffic, the comments are that it will be too heavy. This is especially true when you look at the size of the roads in the original Hometown on the east side of the lakes. The roads are extremely narrow and additional traffic simply means more chances to knock off someone's mirror on a car parked on the street or simply the unavoidable noise from additional traffic transiting the area to get to Davis Blvd. Perhaps the city tax dept. would like to lower the homeowners' taxes to accommodate the depreciated values we will suffer if the east side proceeds as it is now being described. I'm very sorry that the developers did not have adequate foresight to build The Venue compatible with the original development plans. But those of us who bought and "built" Hometown into the development it is today should not have to pay for their shortsightedness. Or maybe they intended all along to develop the east side and the Venue as it is proceeding, but simply suckered the rest of us into believing the original sales pitch. Either way, homeowners on the east side are being made to pay the price - and it is high and getting higher with every revision of the original plan. Ron Zodin 8116 Bridge Street NRH, Tx 76180 From: Carol Eckert [mailto:crl_eckert@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 8:10 PM To: Mayor Subject: hometown development I am a resident of Home Town and have been made aware of the discussion regarding the proposed development of the property on the east side of the lake. I live on the corner of Bridge St and Lake Way and I am, of course concerned about the additional traffic that will be generated by the proposal as well as the affect it will have on my property value. We who live along the lake paid high additional lot premiums to live here and enjoy the unobstructed views and use of the lake and trails and this is now being threatened. Additionally I question if an Environmental Impact study has been done to insure the protection of the wildlife who make their home in those wooded areas? Sincerely, Mrs. Carol Eckert 6001 Lake Way HomeTown, NRH TX Dear NRH Planning and Zoning Board, My family and I live in Hometown. We are very concerned about the developer's plans to build many hundreds more apartments than he originally told the residents and the city. If one does the math (assuming two cars per apartment), there would be more than a thousand addittonal cars in the vicinity of Walker Creek Elementary. This is unacceptable. I can accept 500 or so more units in the area, but more than that will most certainly lower our quality of life and the value of property in the area. In addition, I take exception to the argument that the apartment renters will help bring more commercial business into Hometown. I lived in apartments when I was a young adult, and I can tell you from experience that most apartment renters have very little disposable income. People who rent apartments are not the demographic that businesses are looking for. We love our neighborhood. Please help us preserve it. Thank you, Anne Swanson 6021 Winter Park Drive North Richland Hills, TX 76180 817.503.0580 (8 -11 -2010) Dear City of NRH, I have learned there is yet another P &Z meeting tonight regarding Hometown. It will not begin until 7:30pm after other business and will most likely run into lat evening - - -I have a 7 year old that must go to bed and so that is my obligation and priorty and so I am unable to attend. I also do not really feel that citizen input is really valued in these discussions and so I do not think I will be missing anything. I am not sure why the developer is wanting to build so many apartments and dwellings in such a small space other than to reap profits and move on. The city and the citizens both will be left to suffer the consequences of traffic, over loaded schools, and in a few years all the crime apartaments can bring. The city has other apartments and so you must be aware as they age management becomes less picky about who they rent to and problems begin to incur. I would like to suggest the minimal amount of apartments on the outside of Home town (no more than 400 total in addition to the Venue), a few town homes, and the rest single family homes- -with owners who will keep up their homes and take long term pride in the community as a whole. I am about to put my home on the market for sale because the community is angry and is talking about suing the developer and I really do not wish to be apart of any of this. Life is hard enough without having to continualy worry about these kinds of issues. The city continues to discuss the right of the devloper, but the people who bought into this community have invested on average about $300,000 per home not to mention about $7500 a year for property taxes -- -these folks will take on average 30 years of hard work to pay for their homes and I think we certainly deserve better from the entities we pay taxes to.. Thanks, Lydia Rambo 5217 Winter Park Drive NRH, Tx 75180 817 - 514 -9198 8 -19 -2010 Hello, Due to work schedules I have been unable to attend but have been following the discussions on our HOA website. I have a question that has not been brought up before I believe. Is it possible for the developer to lease or sell the property adjacent to Walker Creek to the BISD to develop parking for the elementary school? Regardless of whatever the final outcome is, now that school has started again and they have begun to have functions, the parking at the school is a problem. Does this need to be addressed to BISD? Regardless of how many "No Parking" signs or white poles are put up to prevent people from parking on the street or in the grass, they are doing it anyway. This has been an ongoing problem ever since the school has been there. It is obvious that the current parking capacity at Walker Creek is not sufficient and any furt her development of the surrounding property is just going to excaberate the situation. Thank you for your updates and I will continue to watch for additional information on your website. Regards. Darlene Hutzel 8 -27 -2010 I seem to have lost my completed Survey (again) in my computer. Because I cannot retrieve it anymore, I wish to forward you my'Principle Comment' I had included at the end of that Survey, which is as follows: I am specifically opposed to ANY apartments in the next (East) development for HomeTown. The reason being: I had friends living in the upscale community located on the north side of 1 -30 & west of the 820, known as Woodhaven, who the Community go "downhill" because of the inclusion of a large apartment complex. The apartment complex was a 4 - story high rise building, built about the same time Woodhaven single family dwellings were being sold and occupied.. Woodhaven had, and still has, its own private Country Club and Golf Course. The apartment complex was occupied by low income renters which became a haven for crime, vandalism, traffic problems, etc. continually overflowing into the homeowner's areas. The Homeowners Association, the City of Fort Worth, stood it as long as they could and finally (about 5 years ago) had the entire apartment building complex demolished /destroyed. That ground area is still vacant land in Woodhaven. I strongly recommend that North Richland Hills specifically prohibit the developer from building apartments in HomeTown, East. The City of NRH and those of us who are/will be homeowners in HomeTown would regret the day we even considered apartments in the continuing development. The Venue Complex is very well done, is 97% occupied and will continue to attract higher income families. I do support Single Family homes, Condos as are now in Hometown, and Duplex homes, but NEVER apartments in HomeTown - East. Please accept my Comment above, without the rest of the Survey which I am unable to retrieve and forward. (s)M. N. (Dan) Heth 8604 Passionvine St. NRH, TX 75180 (9 -3 -2010) Thank you for your response to my comments. I appreciate your update on my information, your points are all considered valid. However, it's difficult for me to accept the chance we would be taking -- to overload our community with apartments, which over time, become such a challenge to maintain value and quality to a Community such as ours. It is still apparent and worrisome tome that such a large number of apartments would, over time, overload our schools, businesses, Library, any parks we may develop, our NRH Police Force, Fire Department, Sanitary Department, etc. etc. I cannot visualize HomeTown and North Richland Hills being able to effectively manage an overpopulated and mixed community such as that being proposed. Respectfully, M. N. (Dan) Heth (9 -10 -2010) John, at last night's P &Z meeting you presented a slide that showed the "Home Owners" density plan for the proposed Hometown zoning. I believe in that slide you showed the residents would support an additional 550 multi- family units. I am not sure exactly where those numbers came from but to be accurate I believe the slides should be changed to reflect the results of the most recent survey of Hometown residents regarding the number of units they would support. As you can see from the survey results published (below) by Daniel Rusnak the maximum number of additional multi - family units supported by a majority of Hometown residents is 300 (townhomes + apartments), To recap, since you may not be aware of how the second survey came about. In the stakeholders meeting the results of the first survey were discussed and demonstrated that a very large majority of the Hometown residents were opposed to the high cap numbers of the proposed zoning. Later, members of the City Council and staff suggested that if we do a second survey we should determine more specifically how many units the residents would support. The questions and results below are the product of that suggestion. To be clear the only City Question that received a majority support was for a maximum of 300 additional multi - family units. Basically this number takes into consideration the fact that a large number of Hometown residents were influenced to buy homes in Hometown by a developer promoted vision that specified a maximum of 800 multi - family units in Hometown. Since the developer has already built out approximately 500 of that number on the west side of Walker Creek, the 300 would be in accordance to the developers original promise. I would appreciate it if you would change your slides and other City documentation to reflect this information. If you have questions please contact me. I am home most days. Thanks Gary Spradling 817- 431 -4566 (9 -17 -2010) From: Hometown North Richland Hills HOA [ mailto: Messenger@AssociationVoice.comj Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:06 PM To: 332gs @junk- emails. com Subject: Hometown North Richland Hills HDA - Discussion Group Post Notification Please do not reply to this message as it will be sent to an unmonitored email address. To Post a reply, please click on the "View Message" link within this email. A new message has been posted to the discussion group "A General Topic Forum for Community Members" in the topic "HomeTown Survey #2 - Results" by Daniel Rusnak As many of you know, a survey was conducted between 8/15 -8/17. Thank you to those who participated. The survey questions were created as a direct result of meetings with city leadership, the developers and select HomeTown residents and was implemented by concerned volunteers within the community. The result was 246 respondents (237 on Survey #1). The results were shared with the city and developers at the last public meeting, Thursday 8/19 at council chambers in front of the P &Z department. At this time, there is no update, per se. The P &Z committee, the city and the developers continue to discussions about the future development. Both the city and the developers have expressed thanks for the community's participation in these surveys. For those of you wanting to become more active in the solution process, the consistent recommendation from the city and developers is to continue showing up at all scheduled P &Z and city council meetings where a discussion about the development is scheduled. You can find the schedule here http: / /www.nrhtx.com /dept pz tcz.aspx. Here are the results of that survey. Note: There were some other questions asked on the survey but because this is a public forum, those results are not displayed. City Question: A development plan that includes 300 multifamily units (200 apartments + 100 townhomes) and 250 single - family homes is: 50% said good or very good. 21% said poor or very poor. City Question: A development plan that includes 600 multifamily units (400 apartments + 200 townhomes) and 200 single - family homes is: 12% said good or very good. 62% said poor or very poor. City Question: A development plan that includes 900 multifamily units (600 apartments + 300 townhomes) and 150 single - family homes is: 2% said good or very good. 91% said poor or very poor. City Question: A development plan that includes 1200 multifamily units (800 apartments + 400 townhomes) and 100 single - family homes is: 0% said good or very good. 97% said poor or very poor. (Note: This is most consistent with the current plan) The developer asked two questions about if you would feel comfortable letting your kids ride their bikes in a community with 'skinny' streets or wide streets like Bridge. Results inconclusive. Developer Question: Please indicate which of the following Town Center developments you have visited before: Southlake Town Square, Southlake 99% Legacy Town Center, Plano 30% West Village, Dallas 15% Addison Circle, Addison 21% Watters Creek, Allen 7% None of the Above 1% Developer Question: Which of the following Town Center developments fit your idea of a Town Center for HomeTown: Southlake Town Square, Southlake 63% Legacy Town Center, Plano 7% West Village, Dallas 4% Addison Circle, Addison 4% Watters Creek, Allen 4% None of the Above 34% Developer Question: Please indicate which types of shops and restaurants you would most like to see in HomeTown. (Top 5 answers) Casual dining restaurants 74% Flower shop 52% White table cloth restaurants 49% Coffee shop 47% Wine shop 47% The developers of HomeTown are considering the construction of one or more of the fallowing amenities on the east side. Please select up to three you feel are most important in a Town Center development. (Top 3 answers) Extensive tree planting on both sides of the lakes 64% Outdoor amphitheatre for concerts, festivals, community events 51% Community pool 41% Resident Question: Would you be willing to accept the #apartments (880), townhomes (400), and single family homes (91) in the proposed plan if additional amenities were made available to HomeTown residents? No 88% Resident Question: Would you still be in favor if access to the amenities reclured an increase in your HOA dues or the addition of membership fees to one or more of the amenities? No 67% Resident Question: Please review the following concerns residents have previously shared for the development east of the lakes. Please select only 3 that you believe are most concerning to you. Impact on Property Values 85% Impact of Traffic 67% Impact on crime 62% Best Regards, Daniel RI CANTEY MANGER LL1� ATTORNEYS WENDYK DAVIS C,MMY14ANUP. PLAZA DiRxF.: 317di77.2648 600 A'.6 "' STlua:r,. SuiTE300 BWL: 'rout Worm i, TI:xm 16T02 -3685 &I 7.877,23DO —111cm 214.978.41 99 TAX: 817.877 38107 October 7, 2010 W. Randy Shitiet (Chairperson) Mr. Bill Schopper (Vine- Chairperson) Mr. Don Bowen Mr, Mark Haynes Mr. Steven Cooper Mr. Mike Benton Ms. Dianna Madar Ms. Kathy Uppy (Ex- Officio) Mr. Mark Hindman, City Manages' Mr. John Pitstick, Planning &.ironing Director Mr. Eric Wilhite, Chief Plainer Ilt'fr. Mike Curtis, Managuig Dumtor of Development and Services Dear Sirs and Madams, I have been retained by a group of homeowners ( "Represented Homeowners ") in the Hometown coirununity to represent their interests with regard to pending negotiations between the City of NoLili Richland'. Hills (the "City") and property ownersldevelopers, Arcadia and H Dine town Urban Partners ( "Developers '). Setting aside, for now, my opinion on the merits of the Developers' pending litigation, I felt it was important to communicate on behalf of the Represented Homeowners regarding current negotiations that may be Accruing between the City and the Developers in art effort to resolve the issues that form the basis of that litigation. Having previously served as a city coumcihnember in the City of Fort Worth, I appreciate the complexities that city elected officials, board members and staff face in navigating between a developer's interests in maximizing development revenue potential and the interests of a residential community in preserving their dome values and their quality of life. These are difficult, but not lnsrinnountahle, issues to address, so long as all who are impacted have a seat and a voice at the negotiation table. It is my widerstanding that City staff and the Developers have begnu the fast part of this dialogue in an attempt to determine whether appropriate zoning designations can be agreed upon by all — the Developers, the City and the Hometown homeowners — so that pending litigation can be resolved and each interested party can move forward with assurance regarding the final phases of the Hometowu development. And while I Appreciate that this dialogue has begun DALLAS FORT WORTH • SOUTHLAKE 'rr nit MEHITAS LAYJ FIRMS NORLDWIDE October 7, 2010 Page 2 between the City and the Developers, T would ask that the City not proceed too far dawn a negotiated path absent input from the exi stin g residential community. This evening, the planning and zoning Gnmmission meets for three proposes: (1) to receive a repot regarding potential impact to the Walker Crack Elementary School based art proposed residential growth in the currently undeveloped Hometa%vn tracts, (2) to discuss the inclusion of design standards within the zoning ordinance, patticularly as that ordinance applies to the undeveloped tracts, and (3) to hear a proposed concept plan by the Developers on the undeveloped tracts that they own. As you receive information and discuss possible design standards ghat would impact the future development of Hometown, please understand that the Represented Homeowners iutend to consider, continent upon and be heard with regard to their position and perspective on any such proposals. Allier the workshop session this evening, we will work to develop a response to what has been presented. While your workshop this evening is limited to the three topic areas listed above, there will undoubtedly be other topics discussed between the City and the Developers, particularly with regard to density caps, corntnerciallretail concentrations, and allowable residential development categories. Given the importance of these issues and the impact that future development can and will have on. the properly values and quality of life of the existing residential community, I would urge the City to clearly communicate to the Developers that the conversations had in this regard must include the input of that residential community. Thank you for the opportunity to be heard at your workshop this evening. T appreciate and understand the difficulty of the task that you face. With all voices at the negotiating table, however, I am hopefll that mutually acceptable decisions on these issues can be reached. Respectfully, Wendy R. � s - 'AqW /sb cc: Mayer Oscar Trevino Mayor Pro Tern. Ken Sapp Councilperson John Lewis Councilperson Tom Lombard Councilperson Dr. Tim Barth Councilperson David Whitson Councilperson Scatt Tltnnage Councilperson Tim l4Telch Email responses after November 4, 2010 public hearing for Town Center revisions I am writing to you as a North Richland Hills property owner. Due to work obligations, I will not be able to attend the November 4, 2010 Public Hearing and consideration of a request from the City of North Richland Hills for changes to the Town Center Regulating Plan and the Town Center Zoning Ordinance for the eastern portion of Home Town generally located in between Boulevard 25 and Mid Cities Boulevard. It was just 4 years ago that NRH made the Money Magazine list of "100 Best Places to Live in the United States." Where we were once an attractive mix of good schools, affordable homes, low crime and outstanding amenities, we now stand on the brink of destruction of all that made NRH a great place to live and raise a family. The proposed high density housing development will permanently and adversely alter the physical and social landscape of NRH as we now know and love it. The increased population as presently proposed would increase traffic, decrease safety, increase crime, decrease property values, increase city scape and decrease open green areas. That it is even being considered as proposed in appalling. As a homeowner with great personal stake in this decision, I am asking that you please consider: An independent traffic analysis An updated economic development plan Real density caps that consider the impact on property values and quality of life for residents Please do not make recommendations to city council members unless and until they have received and evaluated the outlined information. Please don't destroy the reason we all moved here. Thank you, Gail Lowry 6213 Sherbert Dr. NRH, TX 76184 I am a current Hometown NRH resident and oppose the group who says they represent Hometown. They do not have the full support of the residences and try to bully the rest of us into compliance with their views and position. It has not been a secret as to the multi -use plan for Hometown and we (myself and 7 other homeowners) do support the city's effort to move forward the development. We do believe the current proposal (seen today on the website) is fair and will provide the community and city with the appropriate plan to complete Hometown and have a thriving community. We appreciate the opportunity to be heard and support of the city's current proposed plans. Note: we initially had the same opinion as them when the homes at the front were built, but they have provided us and the city a very nice addition and mix. I would like to see no more than a total of 520 apartments on the east side of Walker Creek. This would bring the total number apartments in Home Town to about 900. When we brought our home, we were told than the east side would mirror the west side as far as single family homes. We understood that a library, recreation center, and performing arts center was planned for the section facing Hwy. 26. We were also told about the Venue and the retail below those apartments. No other apartments or retail was mentioned. We would not have moved here had we known that over 1,300 apartments were proposed to be built in the area. I do not like the very small "cottages "or the number of the townhouses proposed. I, personally, feel that once the developer is allowed to turn the bottom retail units at the Venue (and others) into apartments, those units will never be used for retail. With so many retail spaces empty, why build more? How can we trust a developer who continually wants changes? Jaylon Buie Mr Pitstick, I am sure the Planning and Zoning Commission has requested the following items from the developers and outside independent vendors, and I would like to request copies of the documents to review. Please let me know how I can access the following information: Current Economic Feasibility Analysis Independent Traffic Analysis (not complete by the developer or other interested parties.) I would also like to request that you consider real density caps that take into account the impact on our property values and quality of life. It appears based on your current Town Center proposal that the city is prepared to allow natural gas drilling on the lake and near the school( indicated on your chart as P permitted use in the edge zone), and accept 2.5 -3 story single and multifamily structures near the school and lake. The average lot size in the edge zone are almost half the size of the single family detached lots currently in hometown and the minimum square footage for a detached single family home in the plan is 1750 sf again 50% less than the current single family homes in hometown. The 5 foot minimum setback at building side would mean just over 10 feet between houses. The general zone structures are 1000 -1400 square feet, with small lots which is red icuIous. This is way too much density near the lake and school. The overall density of the entire project is too high as we all have been telling you. At the very least return the developer to his original density caps that were on your city website and now have been removed. Again, I am unsure why the city is fighting a lawsuit from the developers when P &Z is giving in to all the developers demands. We will be at the meeting to insure you and the other members of the commission do not destroy the community. Thank you, Mary Jo Houtchens Thank you John for sending me the information on proposed revisions of the Town Center. I completely understand the plans and progress that was made to this point. I am concerned about the flow of traffic and most of all the parking. As it stands right now most of the time at the school if there should be a function the cars are parked everywhere on the grounds. Now if we take away that space where are they going to go! Plus with the additional homes more kids will be attending the school and just adding to the traffic congestion. Then we have the Ice House which for some reason people park everywhere for those events. I know you have taken steps to do no parking on the streets so they just park on the grounds and some day someone is going to get injured because you cannot see around all the cars and people walking everywhere for the events. The best is when the parents decide just to let kids off and not use the lot but just stop and park on the wrong side not caring if anyone can get thru. So I hope there are plans for all that congestion with additional cars being added to the mix. There really should be no parking on the street at all. That is my major concern and even with adding the additional roads it will not stop those issues. Thankyou Madeline Leamy Dear Mr. Pitstick, It is with great distress that we note the SAME proposition before our neighborhood, despite the unanimous rejection of that plan by the developers. Perhaps that is the way things are done in NRH, but we had expected some compromise. There is none that we see! At the basis of our great concern is the number of proposed apartment units. The justification for such a high has been obfuscated completely. So too, has the use of first floor units for family living purposes, vs the required commercial basis. We are asking the zoning board to reject this proposal again. And, we expect the city to defend this in court as is necessary. Our neighborhood should not bear the cost of defending our interests when the developer has made no effort to compromise. Thank you for this late notification (it is better than being totally blindsided). Sincerely, John & Sara Hoffmann 5800 Arbor Road, Hometown, NRH Dear Mr Pitstick, My main concern remains the impact on the elementary school. I cannot tell whether or not the "home /office" structures are still planned for the areas across the street from the school. If they are I feel strongly that the city is making a huge mistake. The traffic alone will create a hazard for the children. An independent traffic study should be made prior to final decisions by the city. Sincerely, Patricia Hatcher 8616 Summer Tree Lane Thanks for your communications keeping us up to date on this project. They are really helpful. I found the meeting last night very informative & look forward to a resolve that will be satisfactory to the community & city & also be profitable to the developer. I didn't write down the email address for comments but am confident that you will forward my two comments along to the appropriate people on P &Z. We are discussing the right things now but, to me, it is important that we build into this agreement controls, as best we can, for the years to come as well. One of the communities & city's interest is the property values. For this reason, I think it would be helpful to have for future meetings an exhibit showing the sections by type of property (rental or owner occupied). I realize that you can't control what is done with individual properties but we should know if the townhomes & mixed use are owner occupied or rentals by the developer. We all know that owner occupied provide a better chance of keeping the property values where we all hope they will be. I think we all know that there will be some appartments we just don't agree on the number. Once we come to agreement, I suggest that we consider setting some ratios on the timing of the construction of the apartments /rentals to owner occupied properties ( allow a certain number of apts to be constructed initially & target numbers for owner occupied properties must be sold to allow the next phase of apts to be constructed). If we do this, it will insure the commitment of the developer through out the process. If we don't, they will build the a pa rtm e nts/re nta I s & get their cash flow going & the owner occupied will move along at a much slower rate. It is all of our best interest to get the construction over & done & enjoy the finished project. As the attorney for the developer said, "if it was completed now, we would all be enjoying it instead of discussing the issues." Thanks to the city & P &Z for bringing the community into this process. Tim Shoop Dear Mr. Pitstick, Over the past year, we have attended several city meetings regarding the proposed development on the East side of our Hometown neighborhood. At the meeting last week, you referenced that each neighborhood like ours is unique and there is no set formula for determining what will be successful. I'm left wondering why we're spending so much time debating over what will work. Just look at our community as it is today, Mr. Pitstick. It is vibrant, filled with diverse homeowners who are active and committed to ensuring the NRH Hometown neighborhood stays that way. Why then, is the city allowing for even a moment to picture such a drastic departure from what is working today? Mirror what is on the West side. The density of apartments, those 'cottages' and the density of townhomes that the city is considering on the East side is absolutely inconsistent with what works and what flourishes on the West side. The traffic is already a nuisance. I live one house North of Bridge street. I hear loud cars zip down Bridge late at night, with their radios on full blast, turn left on Winter Park and turn right into the older neighborhood just North of Emerald Hills. This entrance into our neighborhood is unnecessary and creates more cut - through traffic than I believe the city ever expected. I hope you would consider blocking this entrance as an option once the results of your traffic study are complete. This could make a huge impact on what you can do on the East side. Please look at this. • Today I noticed a car near Walker Creek school with a sign 'Traffic Study' on the front windshield. I hope this study also covers a night when there is a hockey game at the ice rink. There is not enough parking near the ice rink, and people continue to drive over curbs to park in the mud. What will happen when you allow apartments or townhomes and eliminate any safe area for parking? • At last week's meeting, you mentioned the need for'fluidity' and the ability to change plans as needs change in the future. It would be okay to admit that a mistake was made when developing the Walker Creek school and making changes to accommodate parents dropping off their children, right? I believe we would all applaud and support changes to thoroughfares and space if it means a safer environment for children making their way to school. I hope an economic development plan is being updated and reviewed. Just how many apartment dwellers or townhome renters does the city of NRH feel they can attract? With the density caps set so unacceptably high, rent will plummet in an effort to attract renters, and then I will have the pleasure of living next door to these 'low rent' apartment complexes. Lower these density caps. I love my home and the Hometown neighborhood, but if the East side is developed the way that the city is proposing, I will eventually sell my home for a loss to someone who neither has the pride of ownership nor the ability to maintain the home, and then my neighbors will eventually do the same, and then you will be left with a neighborhood that rivals some of the more 'depressed' developments on the southern side of the city. Your decisions today have a huge effect on the future of NRH. I trust you will do you the job we need you to do. Mirror what is on the West side. It already works. Thank you, Catherine and David Long 6004 Frost Street NRH Hometown (11 -10 -2010) If you observe the traffic on Bridge Street at 3,15 cars are parked across the bridge away from the school because parents don't want to get in the current traffic. Imagine the traffic when that side is built up. Please put a stop to so many apartments which bring more transient families. Thank you, Vonnie Waiser 6220 Lake Way Mews (11 -15 -2010) I am writing to you to ask that you carefully consider what will be placed in the remaining area of Hometown. You hold the key to make the area a jewel of the city as Southlake has done with their town center. You need to consider how the density proposed in your plan will impact traffic, citizens and schools. I would hate to see a poorly planned development ruin the current neighborhood, city and community. Perhaps you need to use the items below to insure the development is a success. Look at the current occupancy rates in the Venue. Determine the reason vendors are expanding and moving into developments in Hurst instead of North Richland Hills. Make sure the following information and guidelines are followed in the proposed plan: 1. Revised economic impact study 2. Maintain the same density for single family and townhomes that is on the Westside of the lake -6 units per acre 3. Maintain the same density for apart ments that is in the rest of NRH- 12-15 units per acre 4. NO Flex Space 5. NO Cottages they are small, cheaply built, unattractive and would reduce all home values throughout the city. Thank you Mary Jo Houtchens (11 -15 -2010) Date: Friday, November 25, 2010, 10:14 AM > Hi Collette > There is not thru road from 125 to Mid Ciities in the new > development. Parker stops at Bridge and they turn right or > left. Right takes them near the Arena and to Hawk, turn Left > and you are at Mid Cities, Left takes them thru present > Hometown. Coming from Mid Cities they can turn either on > Cardinal which will take them to Icehouse by Arena and > either Hawk, or Bridge St. If they take Hawk off Midcities > it ends at the Library. We need to extend Parker to Mid > Cities, it is the only way to avoid more traffic coming thru present Hometown! If need be I will lead a petition drive to make sure it happens... thanks John Osborne > PLANNING TO SEND THIS, AS IS, TO THE P &Z IF I CAN > EVER GET THEIR E -MAIL ADDRESS. I WOULD INCLUDE ALL > THE E-MAIL TO ME FROM THE BELOW RESIDENTS. > IF YOU DO NOT WANT YOUR COMMUNICATIONS > FORWARDED PLEASE LET ME KNOW. > I think it would be great to forward this to anyone you > thought might give > reasonable attention to solving what issues we possibly > can. > If anyone else has any ideas, please share! Thanks > I am planning to send the following letter to P&Z and > wanted you to have a > look -see and make comments. I don't think we can win > anything unless > we come up with our own plan to try and dilute the impact > of the > new dwellings. At the meetings most of us seem highly > concerned > with traffic issues. > We could ask the Planning and Zoning Committee to please > consider the feasibility of > requiring the developer to provide and maintain an entry > gate for Hometown > Residents. It would be activated by magnetic entry > cards for only residents of > Hometown {1 for each driver }. Even though the gate was > installed only at the Bridge > Street Bridge, we would be able to avoid most > through traffic from non- residents. > To avoid being a "Gated Community" and to provide easy > access for guests, repairmen, a etc. we would leave the entries on Davis and Mid - Cities > open. If non - residents are > unable to cross the bridge they wouldn't enter from those > streets. a > The mechanics of the gate would require a card to open the > gate/s going in either direction. > Could the P & Z Committee please get a professional > evaluation of this possibility. > We are diligently trying to present solutions that are > favorable to the developer, the city, the a school district and the residents. We recognize that none > of the suggestions will be > perfect. If we can't get what we want we are going to > need to make some compromises. a. > Thank you each for your time and efforts in trying > to solving this issue. > Colette McGinley > FROM SAM AKINS: COLETTE --- THIS IS TRULY A GREAT > IDEA! WHICH I WISH THE COUNCIL AND P& Z > WOULD ADOPT, HOWEVER > --------------------------- - - - - -- -SINCE THE LAKE IS >A CITY OWNED AND MAINTAINED PARK AND MOST N.E . • TARRANT COUNTY CITIES EXCEPT SOUTHLAKE AND • COLLEYVILLE HAVE BEEN ALLERGIC TO • GATED "' > ENTRIES EXCEPT FOR A FEW WHICH WERE > GRANDFATHERED EARLY ON I AM NOT ENCOURAGED TO > THINK THEY WILL GO FOR IT BUT THE IDEA 3 SHOULD BE SUBMITTED AS IT IS GOOD EVIDENCE > OF A CITIZEN'S GENUINE CONCERN. I AM AWARE > OF RESIDENTS OF NRH THAT OPPOSED HOMETOWN > ORIGINALLY BECAUSE OUR TAXES WOULD GENERALLY NOT > BE USED COMPLETELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE > ENTIRE CITY LIKE THEIRS ARE, AND WOULD > EXPECT THEY WOULD RISE UP IN OPPOSITION, • BUT GO FOR ITHH! GREAT CREATIVE IDEAI! • SAM A WE WHO DO NOT LIVE ON BRIDGE, • WINTERPARK OR LAKEWAY MAY NOT BE AS AFFECTED > BY THE TRAFFIC BUT CERTAINLY SUPPORT THOSE OF > YOU WHO DO. MY MAJOR CONCERN CONTINUES TO > BE TOOOOOOO MANY APARTMENTS!!!!!! > RESPONSE FROM COLETTE: • This would NOT be a gated community, i.e. intrances • controlled. There are 1,000 reasons it should not be • i.e.we would have to be • assessed to repair streets etc. That's why I mentionedone • gate only as a traffic curtailment. I have heard from • others and JoAnn McMillion & Max think it would be wise to place another • gate on the South end of their street to deter traffic from • the houses, apts, assisted living center • etc. from that area. • FROM JOANNE MCMILLON: This might work. It would • surely cut down on traff ic. I am most concerned about the • school children. Bridge has gotten so busy in the last • couple of years, it is only going to get worse. Thanks for • you idea. I will pass this on. "An additional gate on the • south end of Winter Park would help stop constant • North /South Traffic" >JoAnne > Thank you Collette for your efforts. • This is John Osborne 8528 Bridge ST; 817 788= 0235. 1 have • spoken to the P &Z committee, missed the last meeting • due to an important engagement. i did send Beverly Hunt an • email with my ideas, Although your idea of a gate at the • Bridge would be great, I don't think it would work. Number • one when Hometowwn was in planning stage, I am sure the • residents of Emerald Hills Community had a voice in access • and this would be impossible to change. I also cannot thimk • of a plan that would restrict non Hometown residents from • having access to the school, library, community center and • shopping. Birdsville High covers a lot more than Hometown. • If it is possible, the answer is a windshiel pass, similiar • to the Toll Road Pass. • Another possibility to restrict traffic, is speed bumps, I • don't like them either, but in the right place they can be • effective, and reduce traffic, which will seek other • choices. • My thought is we need to have a main thouroghfare through • the new development, starting at Hwy 26 and ending at Mid • City. This would have to be Walker and go straight up to • Cardinal and the exsisting exit at Mid City, with a stop • light.this would require a minor curve, but is workable It • could go thru between the Arena and the planned apartment • building planned at Mid City. this would require moving the • Cardinal exit Beverly Hunt told me this was in the • original plan and we requested it be removed. I don't know • why we asked for the change, but it is a mistake. With a • direct entrance four Mid City and Hwy 26, drivers would not • come thru Hometown.With proper stop signs, we can reduce the • speed significantly at Walker Elementary. Regardless the • traffic is going to go by Walker Elementary. • I certainly want to be involved with a solution for this • problem and I am available to help.....John Osborne • FROM JENNIFER MATHEWS: Colette, you have a wonderful • idea. Can you please email the city at: nrhpi @nrhtx.com? • The next plannig and zoning meeting will be December 16. • I hope you can make it. > Jennifer Mathews Dear Sir, Please note that I am against the current proposed development near Walker Creek Elementary school. I would only support such a development if the following changes are made: 1. No commercial or live /work space across from Walker Creek Elementary School. We need to protect our students from traff ice and predators. Increase the number of single family homes. It is unacceptable that the developers are only proposing 91 single family homes. 3. Maintain the same density, for apartments that is in the rest of NRH -12 -16 units per acre. 4. NO Cottages -The developer wants Katrina style Cottages. 5. Ensure Walker Creek students are safe. Mary Baum 8520 Olmstead Terrace NRH, TX 76180 (12 -10 -2010) Also please keep the standard of homes upscale without so many apartments. Thank you! Vonnie Waiser MOT As a 30- year -old native Texan and U.S. Navy combat veteran, I take so much pride in the beautiful, serene environment of the unadulterated field surrounding Walker Creek Park. The whole area makes you feel like you're getting back to nature with its picturesque surroundings. As a Texan, I also take great pride in our wide open spaces. I am terribly saddened to see that some people of North Richland Hills want to get rid of the precious few wide open spaces that are left in the Mid Cities. After watching the construction of the Venue, that whole area now leaves me feeling sad and depressed with all the un- leased commercial suites and many vacant apartments. With NRH already having plenty of empty commercial space, why add more? As a new nurse practitioner, I am also concerned that, with wanting to add such a dense population, the area will not allow the kids of those future homes to play outside, leading to a likely increase in sedentary lifestyle among those future residents. We need our parks to remain as they are, to continue to encourage people of NRH to get outside and exercise with their families. The over -eager developers should instead work to revitalize the outdated and empty commercial spaces so prevalent along our streets already. So I ask you to please vote against the development of commercial buildings and residential apartments that we don't need in our beautiful city that we all love so much. I don't want our beautiful NRH to become just another asphalt city. Thank you for reading this email) Adrian Jane Raabe, RN, MSN, Graduate Adult Nurse Practitioner - -- On Mon, 12/13/10, SYLVIA BRANTLEY ebrantleybunch @sbcglobaLnet> wrote: From: SYLVIA BRANTLEY <brantleybunch @sbcglobal.net> Subject: New Development To: nrhoscar @sbcglobal.net Date: Monday, December 13, 2010, 4:18 PM Mayor Trevino, I have been a resident of NRH 7 years now. I love this community, but the news of more apartments being added to this city greatly disturbs me. It has been my experience that apartments lower property values and bring in the potential for more crime. If you need a good case study, try Euless and what has happened to that community and land mass for the last 15 years. A project of this magnitude would also increase the probability of predators being close to an Elementary School, or more singles that tend to party and not really care or pay attention to small children. The city has done a great job in my opinion of adding great additions, such as the new Library and now the new Recreation Center to the community. In addition, we have a great school system that makes this area very attractive to families. Apartments tend to draw in people that are not family oriented and I believe that it would be a detriment to our great community. I understand the developers need to maximize profits by piling up Apartments and collecting rent, however that is all they care about is the bottom line. This kind of thinking is killing this country and does not help foster the American Dream of living in a safe community where our children can ride a bike or play in a neighborhood with their friends in relative safety. Please do not allow this to happen in our community. Best Regards, Darren & Sylvia Brantley! Issues, short and sweet - 1. Maintain same density for single family and town homes that is on the west side of the lake -6 units per acre the ised economic impact study 2. Maintain the same density, for apartments that is in the rest of NRH- 12 -16 units per acre. 3. NO Flex Space 4. NO Cottages Our standard of living is in jeopardy without continuity throughout the whole of Home Town. Thank you for your consideration, J Briley (12 -14 -2010) Dear Planning and Zoning: I cannot make the meeting on Thursday. I have come to meetings before and written by email and I stunned that none of our input has been embraced sufficiently. And yet you want more input from us? Why? You haven't listened yeti So let me reiterate: I am mightily against the new plan that includes such high density numbers near Walker Creek Elementary and the Venue. You will, if you allow this developer friendly plan to go through, be ruining HomeTown, which is a nice area right now and in which I live. It is not what we were sold AT ALL under Larry Cunningham and the city's original vision of HomeTown and from the David Weekly and Arcadia people who sold us on HomeTown. At this point I am sorry we made our home here, due to all the stress and anxiety this threat has caused. Why allow more apartments per square mile than anywhere else in NRH? Why have so many! ?I I would be happy if that number was reduced by half or even by 4/5! Townhomes crammed in there on top of all this will be awful, and you are headed for major traff ic problems at the elementary school, where people already have to park in the mud and grass to attend events at the school, and at the hockey rink, where they also have huge parking issues. Increase the number of kids will all this misguided development and you are going to have a congestion nightmare. No cottages either, they are tiny and will surely be built to an inferior level to fit the pricing goal I have heard! We have done surveys. We have rallied and spoken up. Why are you not listening to the citizens of NRH - no one wants this development except the developers, who are trying to get in and get out and maximize their profits in a lousy market. Don't do it! Don't allow a crown jewel like HomeTown to become trampled by greed and bad planning. Go to court and fight them! Have some backbone! Sincerely, Victoria Barth 8400 Bridge Street NRH 817 -605 -8150 (12 -14 -2010) From: Judy Briley <jbbriley @att.net> Subject: HomeTown NRH - issues at hand To: jpitstick @nrhtx.com, nrhoscar @sbcglobal.net, nrhksapp @sbcglobal.net, jhlewis @sbcglobal.net, nrhlombard @sbcglobal.net, nrhtbarth @sbcglobal.net, wdwhitson @sbcglobal.net, nrhsturnage@sbcglobal.net, tim- welch @sbcglobal.net Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 11:58 AM Issues, short and sweet - 1. Maintain same density for single family and town homes that is on the west side of the lake -6 units per acre the ised economic impact study 2. Maintain the same density for apartments that is in the rest of NRH- 12 -16 units per acre. 3. NO Flex Space 4. NO Cottages Our standard of living is in jeopardy without continuity throughout the whole of Home Town. Thank you for your consideration, J Briley (12 -15 -2010) From: Cheri Leeth ccaltx1016 @sbcglobal.net> Subject: Proposed Development near Walker Creek Elementary To: nrhoscar @sbcglobal.net, nrhksapp @sbcglobal.net, jhlewis@sbcglobal.net, nrhlombard @sbcglobal.net, nrhtbarth @sbcglobal.net, wdwhitson@sbcglobal.net, nrhsturnage@sbcglobal.net, tim- welch @sbcglobal.net Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 3:01 PM I am a nearby resident in Fountain Ridge development and oppose the development as currently designed. We are asking for the following to help ease traffic, overcrowding and protect the students at Walker Creek: 1. No commercial or live /work space across from Walker Creek Elementary School. We need to protect our students from traffic and predators. 2. Increase the number of single family homes. It is unacceptable that the developers are only proposing 91 single family homes. 3. Maintain the same density, for apartments that is in the rest of NRH -12 -15 units per acre. 4. NO Cottages -The developer wants Katrina style Cottages. 5. Ensure Walker Creek students are safe. Cheri Leeth 8001 Creek View Dr N Richland Hills, TX 76180 (12 -15 -2010) Dear City Councilmembers, I live on Bridge street where I have already seen increased traffic on our street, especially late at night with speeding cars going down the street. I experienced theft of Christmas decorations, and witnessed vandalism and theft at Halloween. I am deeply concerned with the increased traffic and subsequent crime and mischief that will occur if numerous apartments are built and the denisity is not limited. We need to limit the density of building of apartments, commercial spaces, and townhomes as this will only increase traffic. We also need speed bumps put in to slow down the traff ic on Bridge St. I am shocked at the photos I have seen of "Katrina Cottages" that are being proposed. This not only will compromise the look and feel of Hometown, but continue to downgrade our property values in an already down economy. If the photos I am seeing are not realistic, please prove actual photos of what is being proposed. Either way, I am concerned about this, and lean toward being against the building of cottages. I know the new Recreation Center is a done deal, but that too will already bring increased traffic and parking problems to the area, that is already a problem over at the Brahamas center and at Walker Creek. Was the recent traffic study done at realistic times to assess the true impact? I do not see a need for mixed/office space that was proposed in this area when there are plenty of commercial spaces up and down 26 and in the Venue that have remained unleased and vacant for years. Especially the proposal I saw a while back that was to build mixed /office across the street from the school. I've seen a lot of information about a "Master Plan" that was developed in 1999. That was 11 years ago..... Why is the city focusing on dated plans that do not address the current needs of the community, the current economy, and the current residents of Hometown ?. I fear the threat of lawsuit from the developers is swaying the city to give in. Southlake is experiencing tremendous traffic, and although their Town Center looks lovely, there are increasing issues with teenagers hanging out late at night despite curfews, and congestion is such that I no longer go over to that area. It may have the reputation of being a high end area, but they are starting to see their own share or problems. I did not expect North Richland Hills to go the route of Southlake, or I would not have moved here. However, I do understand that a city must grow, but please make decisions for the good of the community and not for the financial good of developers. In conclusion I would support that we : Maintain the same density for single family and town homes, which I believe is 6 units per acre. Maintain the same density for apartments that is in the rest of NRH, which is 12 -16 units per acre. Definitley no flex space. Definitely no Cottages. Regards, Darlene Hutzel (12 -16 -2010) To NRH Planning & Zoning Commission & NRH City Council: I am writing in regards to the proposed development of land near the Library & NRH2O, The current plans concern me greatly as a citizen of North Richland Hills & I oppose further progress without real & substantial changes to that development. Our city will be devalued in unimaginable ways unless this plan is reassessed & altered accordingly & with total agreement with the residents of North Richland Hills, whom our elected officials are obligated to comply with our desires & concerns. The situation jeopardizes the safety & educational quality of our students, with a large focus upon the impact to Walker Creek Elementary. The plan endangers them with high automobile traffic as well as increased people traffic maximizing their exposure to potential predators, etc. Of great concern is the proposal for multi - family housing - on an IMMENSE scale. Why not Increase the number of single family homes instead? It is unacceptable that the developers are only proposing 91 single family homes. More single family homes contribute to property tax revenue for the city, however multi - family residences do not offer this revenue. These multi - family dwellings do nothing but increase population density with direct effect upon our educational system, etc. I hope these concerns are address properly at the Planning & Zoning meeting December 16 @ 7:00 PM. I am unfortunately unable to attend the meeting due to a physical disability, but I wanted to ensure my concerns were brought to the meeting & addressed accordingly. Thank you, Jean R. Abel 6350 Winter Park Drive #268 North Richland Hills, Texas 76180 On Wed, 12/15/10, mary brejot rm162349 @att.net> wrote: From: mary brejot rmlb2349 @att.neb Subject: The Future of Hometown To: nrhoscar @sbcglobal.net Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 8:35 PM Mayor Trevino, I am asking that the proposed development east of Hometown be required to have the same house, town horn e ratio as hometown and that there be no more than 12 -16 apartment units per acre. I moved here from a neighboring community where developers were allowed to build more apartments than were needed. Many complexes went into foreclosure and became crumbling weed infested ruins behind sagging chainlink fences. The impact on the area's longtime residents, mostly hardworking members of the middle class whose one big investment was their home, was devastating as property values plummeted and retailers moved elsewhere. It was heartbreaking to watch that happen. I believe that you and I both want what is best for the city. I hope that what you believe is best and what I believe is best is the same thing -- reasonable apartment density. Thank you for this opportunity to express my view. M. Brejot 8044 Mimosa Drive On Thu, 12/16/10, Lydia Rambo <lydiarambo@ hotmail.com> wrote: From: Lydia Rambo <lydiarambo @hotmail.com> Subject: Home Town To: ewilhite @nrhtx.com, nrhoscar @sbcglobal.net, jhlewis @sbcglobal.net, nrhlombard @sbcglobal.net, wdwhitson @sbcglobal.net, nrhturnage @sbcglobal.net, tim- welch @sbcglobal.net Cc: protecthometown @gmail.com Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 1:43 PM I know once again that there is another meeting regarding the Hometown Development scheduled for tonight. I feel strongly that having endless meetings, month after month at a time when families who have children simply cannot get to them is a strategy in itself to wear down resident protests. I cannot think of one resident that is in support of the developers plans and I cannot think of any reason beyond financial gain why the city would support this high density ghetto that is being proposed across the lake form our homes. If the developer wishes to buy my home back form me I will gladly walk away, but that is not going to happen. The developer is financlially motivated to load up as much garbage on that title piece of land, sell it, and then walk away. Your homeowners will be unhappy with the effects on property values, the denisty of housing, and it does not matter what traffic study you do - -- -this is going to add tremendously to the traffic in the area. Even if every home only had 1 automobile you cannot say it is not going to impact traffic - - -so spin it anyway you like - -- -this is what it is. I as a homeowner, who was told when I was looking in Hometown that the more expensive homes would be built on the other side of the lake and I could get a better price by buying into this neighborhood now, am feeling very duped, indeed. I am against the proposed project by the developer. Lydia Rambo From: Art Mcllwain [mailto :arthur.mcilwain @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:13 PM To: Mayor; City Council Cc: NRHPI; nrhoscar @sbcglobal.net Subject: Proposed rezoning in Hometown NRH Dear Mr. Honorable Mayor and Honorable members of City Council, The purpose of this message is to request that you not approve in its present form the rezoning application for Hometown NRH. The proposed density is far too great and should not exceed 12 units per acre. And the commercial /retail area should, for safety reasons for the children, be moved away from the 6irdviIIe school area to an area adjacent to the arena and/or the retail area on Grapevine highway and/or on Mid- cities Blvd. Even with these adjustments the resulting development will increase traffic in the school area and this should not be compounded by commercial and/or retail traffic. Thank you for your consideration to these matters. Sincerely, Arthur Mcllwain 6104 Roaring Springs Dr., NRH From: RBarnard @SCISAirSecurity.com [ mailto :RBarnard @SCISAirSecurity.com] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:23 PM To: John Pitstick Subject: Hometown Dear Mr. Pitstick, I am requesting your support as Director of Planning and Development to help maintain the integrity of the original vision for Hometown NRH. This means maintaining the same density of single family and town homes that currently exists on the west side of the lake in the development of the east side of Hometown. This also includes no Flex Space and no Cottages. My wife and I purchased our home in Hometown with clear understanding of the plans for the fully developed community. That plan, which was clearly communicated when we made our home purchase decision, was that the east side of the lake would be developed consistent with the west. I certainly hope you understand the concern of all Hometown residents. The facts are that failure to develop the east side of Hometown consistent with what was promised to Hometown residents will not only create a huge disappointment to a large number of NRH residents, it also has the potential of having a significant negative impact on the overall reputation of NRH. Thank you in advance for your support. Sincerely, Randy Barnard In all the meetings dealing with the new development plan, we haven't heard anything about NRH20. New development will totally surround NRH20. NRH20 already has the following issues on or near peak days in the summer:: 1 The parking lot is about 99% full 2 If the parking lot is full, I'm sure the park is near capacity? 3 Employees and/or guests park in the grass field behind NRH2O, is that field going to remain, be paved, or what? 4 If you add the proposed 1300 to 1500 dwelIings(aprox 2500 to 4000 people), NRH2D will surely be overcrowded, have no parking, and make it a generally unpleasant experience. Speaking of the overcrowded parking, why has the bike path that use to connect the Electric Trail to the front gate not been rebuilt. We use to have one but it was taken away during the last expansions and has not been replaced. There is also only one bike rack in the front. Why did we build that bicycle commuter station where we did and not in front of NRH2O ?? Please tell me how a family that wants to ride their bike to the park is supposed to get there safely ?? It would be nice if the City would have a small briefing at one of the next meetings on how NRH20 will be affected and what changes are planned to combat this since it is right in the heart of this development. David Byczek 8608 Olmstead Terrace 817 - 905 -7289 (12 -16 -2010) Dear Mr.Pitstick, I know once again that there is another meeting regarding the Hometown Development scheduled for tonight. I feel strongly that having endless meetings, month after month at a time when families who have children simply cannot get to them is a strategy in itself to wear down resident protests. I cannot think of one resident that is in support of the developers plans and I cannot think of any reason beyond financial gain why the city would support this high density ghetto that is being proposed across the lake form our homes. If the developer wishes to buy my home back form me I will gladly walk away, but that is not going to happen. The developer is financlially motivated to load up as much garbage on that litle piece of land, sell it, and then walk away. Your homeowners will be unhappy with the effects on property values, the den isty of housing and it does not matter what traffic study you do - -- -this is going to add tremendously to the traffic in the area. Even if every home only had 1 automobile - - -so spin it any way you like - -- -this is what it is. I as a homeowner, who was told when I was looking in Hometown that the more expensive homes would be built on the other side of the lake and I could get a better price by buying into this neighborhood now, am feeling very duped, indeed. I am against the proposed project by the developer. Lydia Rambo 6217 Winter Park Drive North Richland Hills, Tx 76180 817 - 514 -9198 (12 -16 -2010) I have attended most every meeting concerning Home Town, but tonight I cannot attend. I would like to let you know by email that these are the items I would like to see maintained in our community. Thanks so very much. 1. Maintain same density for single family and town homes that is on the West side of the lake - -6 units per acre, the isd economic impact study Maintain the same density for apartments that is in the rest of NRH- -12 -16 units per acre. 3. NO Flex Space 4. NO Cottages Gale Ammons 8128 Bridge St. NRH 76180 (12 -16 -2010) I am for maintaining the same density for single family and town homes on the east side of the lake that is on the west side of the lake - - - -6 units per acre. I think that we should maintain the same density for apartments that is in the rest of NRH ------ 12 -16 units per acre. The retail areas of the apartments should be not turned into apartments. They will never be returned to retail, in my opinion. The cottages proposed are too small and should not be allowed. Patio homes like those on the westside --- same size or larger would be acceptable. Jaylon Buie (12 -16 -2010) HOMETOWN EAST DEVELOPMENT The original guide for living, presented to new Residents of Hometown promised many great amenities and most of these has come true. However the promise of not experiencing congestion, frustration and pollution, will be dealt a death blow, if the Hometown East Development is completed as proposed. In the vicinity of Hometown we have three schools, Tarrant County College, Birdsville High School, Walker Elementary, and in addition Birdsville sports and Arts Stadium. We have major retailers, Krogers, Kohls, Home Depot, Lowes, and many supplementary retail locations. This is very convenient and beneficial. We have H2O Water Park, NyTex Hockey & Sports Arena, the new Library, the under construction NRH Recreation Center, Franklin Park Retirement Home and proposed Tarrant Arts Centre. Worthy additions to the City of N.R.H. But all of these bring substantial, congestion, frustration and pollution to the Hometown Community. Maw new development plans, which are going to break the camels back. The defining word here is Density)! This Hometown disaster plan includes a Total of 1658 Residences) With an average of 1 % cars per residence, this is 2,487 additional vehicles in the Hometown extension. Promise of less congestion, less frustration, less pollution, with our property values disappears. By the way, where are we going to park 2,487 vehicles? This does not include Venue Apartments. Now let's talk about the key word here DENSITY! Presently N.R.H. has an approved occupancy rate of 15 residences per acre. The total acreage of the new Hometown East Development is 87 acres, this is 19 residences per acre and 22 apart ments per acre. You are proposing not to change the approved occupancy rate in N.R.H., only for Hometown. WHY? This can be answered with a threatened law suit by the developers! The N.R.H. law exists, there is no reason to violate it and N.R.H., needs to protect the interests of the present Hometown Community and the rest of NRH. Setting this precedence will set an opportunity for developers to object to these restrictions and threaten to sue if their demands are not met. What needs to change? We are begging you for a Density rate which does not exceed 15 units per acre. This can be accomplished by reducing the townhomes, eliminating cottages and flex space. Building single family homes similar to those in the present Hometown is the answer. Presently the majority of townhomes near Bridge St and Mid Cities are leased or rented, not resident owned. The 523 townhomes & cottages proposed are excessive. Home ownership, creates pride and maintenance. Please help us to maintain our property values and lifestyle. Hometown is asking you: P LEASE I PLEASE! Do the right thing. Respectfully John Osborne 8528 Bridge St; N Richland Hills 817 788 -0236 H 817 845 -3314 M bojohometown@yahoo.com On Jan 20, 2011, at 1:03 PM, "Sherry Conaway" <penguin44 @att.net> wrote: Dear Mayor Trevino, Please listen to the people of NRH and help stop the overpopulation of our city with dense apartment complexes and narrow roads. Also, any new houses built should have adequate driveways for visitor and resident parking and wide streets so that people who live in these areas and their visitors do not have to dodge traff ic and parked cars like they do in the Hometown area. Anyone who lives in Hometown and regularly deals with narrow alleys and no parking can tell you how miserable it is. I hope you will vote no to the new zoning of NRH. Thank you, Sherry Connaway 6104 Pebble Creek Drive NRH TX Gentlemen, I regret that I am not able to attend this evening's P & Z meeting this evening due to conflicting schedule. However, I wish to submit my inputs -- for the Record. * The developers proposed plan to build 620 new apartments (3 - 4 stories) on the land bordering Blvd 26 and Emerald Hills is totally unacceptable. The impacts on NRH HomeTown include: 1) density is way beyond 12 -16 units per acre, 2) overcrowding Walker Elementary School would be unmanageable, 3) the (unacceptable) higher demand on energy & water resources and waste collection, 4) vehicle traff ic to /from school, library, commercial markets, traffic congestion due to the narrower streets each/aII will be abominable, 5) vehicle traff ic and pedestrian traff ic will place an unrealistic demand on the NRH Police Dept and the Fire Dept. * Large apartment complexes have experienced a high amount of crime, vandalism and gangs; and will lower the property values of homes in the HomeTown community, as had been demonstrated in the Northeast Fort Worth Woodhaven Community. * The plan for only 91 single family homes is disgraceful, with only 5% of the new development is reserved for public/open spaces, when real estate is being consumed by large apartment complexes is totally unacceptable for this HomeTown Community. RECOMMEND: 1) Continue building a Community, more representative of the existing HomeTown. 2) Eliminate construction of ALL apartments, unless they were constructed in the same design and not more than the number of those apartments in the Venue. 3) Require a professional street and traffic study for the entire new development. 4) Developers be required to coordinate any/all street and traffic design with the NRH Police and Fire Departments. 5) Increase the areas (number & size) of public/open areas. Submitted by: M. N. (Dan) Heth 8604 Passionvine St. On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Ray Biringanine <ray.biringanine @sbcjzlobal.net> wrote: Dear Mayor, This proposed new development between the library and NRH2O is not good news to me. The increase of population density would be a call for increase in crime and the decrease of our property value is not good news. Sincerely, Ray Biringanine NRH My husband and I moved here 3 1/2 years ago because of the "dirty unkept feeling" in Irving. I was born and raised in Irving and my husband lived there for at least a total of 15 years after he moved to Texas from Ohio. When we drive through our old neighborhood, it's run down, and there are several people living in one house (truly more than one family per home). It was beginning to be that wayjust before we moved. We searched for a nice, clean and customer service oriented place to live as well as a feeling of safety and security. We found it here in NRH. We feel that if the city allows a lot of apart ments that are multi storied into the area, we will eventually end up like Irving. Too many people for the amount of streets, shops, schools, teachers, doctors, and the list goes on and on. We are asking that should you allow apartments to come into the NRH area, please make sure that they are single or no more than two stories. We really need more homes or duplexes instead of apartments. Shopping would bring in more revenue for the city and that location would be perfect for shopping and/or educational and recreational purposes. Thank you. David and Betty Hammonds 8641 Wishing Tree Lane NRH, 76182 817- 577 -0970 TALMADG-E N. BUIE 817.514.0414 Home M621 Nichols Way lalbuie alto ].cofi5 817.734.7008 Cell North Richland IIills, Texas 76180 January 24, 2011 John Pitstick Director of Planning and Development City of North Richland Hills 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 75180 Subject: Land development of TownCenter Dear John: The subject development is extremely important to all citizens of North Richland Hills and as it is currently planned, if it has a current plan, it will have an adverse impact on not only file citizen of HomeTown, but the city as a whole. I have the original plans that were first presented to the mayor and city council by Arcadia and there is considerable difference in the original proposal and the current proposal relative to apartment density. The original two sheet proposal shows a detailed layout and on one of the sheets there is a written narrative that reads... "Although the community includes more than 800 multi- family apartments, the range of available apartment type varies greatly .." Logic tells you that this statement means more than 800 but less than 900 ... maybe 899. Today we have 193 units in the Franklin Park Apartments and 189 living units the Venue. When you deduct these numbers from 899 you get 517 remaining apartment units for future development. This is based on the Arcadia proposal presented to the City of North Richland Hills. To me it is a written agreement and should be abided by the City as well as the developer. Also, the density of any apartments should be a primary concern. History has proven that when you put a large number of people in crowded conditions; bad things happen. The attached layout created by Arcadia gives the impression that there are a number of lots for single - family housing, however, the written narrative of the document is almost comical. This last proposal I saw was that this area is almost totally apartments. The attached document shows, in my opinion, a large number of single family lots. However, the written narrative basically says that the developer can do as he pleases. I don't think that was the understanding of the city council that received the original proposal. Thank you for everything you do for our city. Please give this issue your careful consideration and hold Arcadia to their written word. SincereLy,�� Talmadge N. Buie John Osborne statement at January 20, 2011 Planning & Zoning meeting HOMETOWN EAST DEVELOPMENT Thanks for this opportunity to address the Planning & Zoning Commission. This has been a very long process, which I believe will be concluded in the near future. The residents m Hometown West still have major concerns about the Density of Hometown. East and have made our views known many times in past Planning & Zoning meetings. We have however, seen very little change, or compromise. Now is the time for the Planning & Zoning commission and soon for our City Council to take a stand and move forward to lessen our concerns. Traffic, crime, children safety and reduced property values. 1. Our wish list would ask for substantially reduced DENSITY. 2. Increase the number of single family homes. It is unacceptable that developers are proposing only 94 single family homes. 3. No cottages, unless they are mixed with other single family homes, as they are in Hometown West. Absolutely none on the lake. 4. No Commercial or live/work space across from Walker Creek Elementary School. We need to protect our students from traffic and predators. Business Townhomes here will also drive away home buyers and reduce our property values. Now how do we accomplish this? 1. First do not allow the developer any flex space. The units in the lower Level of the apartment buildings, will become apartments faster then we can turn our heads, This would also include all work/live townhomes. Planning & Zoning is well aware there is more retail space available, then there is demand. 2. No three level townhomes, unless they are live /work. Three levels Townhouses will only increase the density and reduce the quality of the Resident. 3. Make all of Zones 3A & 3B single family homes, with homes on Bridge St protecting our school children. Townhomes on Cardinal would be acceptable. Hello Mr. Pitstick, Unfortunately, I am unable to attend tonights meeting, but did want to let you know my concerns in the areas of Crime and Traffic. I understand that the City is about to make a settlement or a compromise agreement with the developers. I feel this is still not ideal, but realize that this is going to happen one way or another. The issues I want to bring to your attention regarding Crime and Traffic are these: I live on Bridge Street near the "Bridge" and the lakes, and the speeding through this street as a through way has definitely increased in the last in comparison to the last 4 years I have lived here. Can speed bumps be installed to slow down the speeding? Also for the first time in 4 years, I had vandalism and petty theft of Christmas decorations this past Christmas season. It is my understanding that from the police reports and postings on our HQA website, that there have also been an increase of petty theft and mischief and vandalism among my neighbors. It is also my understanding that this "element" is coming from outside areas and other neighborhoods. An example would be placing saran wrap across light poles to "stop" a car without seeing what this is at night. Very dangerous... petty, maybe but dangerous. I have personally seen more teenagers late at night hanging out at the lakes, and those who go fish there often leave trash. My dog barks more late at night at activity in the alley. I do not go out and look because I am alone at night, but I have heard voices and have noticed that more, and it is very concerning. I have to ask if this "outside element" is coming from the increased activity at the Brahmas center? The recreation center, increased apartments, will only bring more. And of course there is the traffic issue. I saw someone doing a study at Walker Creek on a very "quiet" morning on my way to work. I am not sure as I have not gotten a chance to see the results, but were you able to get a realistic study of the traffic impact? My overall feeling is that, with especially the vandalism that occu red last Christmas, and what I have witnessed down at the lakes, that adding this type of density will only increase this problem. Hometown has just not felt the same in the last year, and so I am very concerned. These are my concerns and I would appreciate it if you do take these under consideration to limit the inevitable development that is going to come to Hometown to a minimum. I will add that I have no issue with the residential units that will be added to the first floor of the Venue to replace the unused commercial spaces. At this time, other than difficulty in traffic around Krogers, I have not seen too many problems from this. However, apartments next to the NRH2O, is going to be very problematic. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Please continue to keep us informed on this situation. Regards, Darlene Hutzel 2 -17 -11 Hi John, Thank you for the notificaiton. However, I work full time and attend school and will be unable to attend any of these sessions. However, I have previously emailed you regarding my concerns, to keep the apartment number limited, keep them at a higher rent and therefore quality that will be conducive to the neighborhood, as well as address the issues of crime (mischief and vandalism) and the traffic flaw especially on Bridge St. I wonder what if installing speed bumps on Bridge would be an option to slow down the speeders and possibly deter the amount of cut through traffic. I also would like to know how this will impact the parking at the Brahmas center. It is an eyesore to see all the parking in the grass that overflow to the high school. I have seen some near misses of kids running between cars across the street on Hawk and around towards Walker Creek. As you also know, I have previously expressed my concern about parking and traffic at the school during pick up and drop off times as well as when there are school events. If you will pass along these concerns, I'd greatly appreciate it. If I have any other questions, I will email you. Thank you. Darlene Hutzel 2 -27 -11 Thank you for the update, but I am sorry to say I will be out of town on business. I wanted to voice my concerns again to the parking and street issue by the Ice Rink. I have no idea what is going on there this weekend but cars are parked everywhere and is very dangerous to make your way out on to Hawk with all the cars parked on the street. One of these days some on will get hurt and then maybe something will be done with that issue. And now with the plans for apartments to occupy part of that area will only make it more congested. I did listen to part of the last meeting and the issue of the traffic signals will be addressed as the construction and occupation takes place. I have to tell you with all that goes on there now between the ice rink and the baseball diamonds, someone is not looking at what I am seeing when trying to drive out in that direction. I go out of my way to avoid the whole area, it is not worth having an accident. Sorry to vent but that situation there is very bad, you should see how many cars are parked on the surrounding grounds so there is no visual view to drive the street. Thank you in advance I will look forward to hearing what the results of the meetings are. Madeline Leamy National Sales Manager Braza 817 - 498 -5403 2 -27 -11 Hello John, I just want to thank you for having these meetings and attending the one last night with Tim Barth. I for one appreciate all the city is doing to maintain the integrity of HomeTown. Sincerely, Patty Hatcher CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning and Development Presented by: Mike Curtis Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. C.2 Subject: ZC 2010 -05 Public Hearing and Consideration of Amending the Thoroughfare Plan within the Home Town North Richland Hills Addition - Ordinance No. 3134 Summary: As a result of changes to the Town Center zoning revisions and regulating plan an amended Thoroughfare Plan within the Home Town North Richland Hills Addition is being brought forward for consideration and approval. General Description: A series of public meetings have been held over the past 10 months to review and consider changes to the Town Center zoning district including the regulating plan which affects the city's thoroughfare standards. Section g of the Town Center Development Standards includes unique street and thoroughfares for the Home Town district that provide for wider sidewalks and on street parking. Several new street types were added to the standards in an effort to provide an effective mixed use pedestrian friendly environment for the Home Town area. An updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was also undertaken by Kimley Horn and Associates that indicated no significant decrease in levels of traffic service for the Horne Town area. A new thoroughfare map is provided that provides an interface with the new regulating plan. For the most part the proposed Thoroughfare Plan includes similar street types and sections that were approved with the original Thoroughfare Plan for Home Town however; there are two (2) significant differences. The two differences are associated with the minimum "on street" parking widths and street widths. The original Thoroughfare Plan included minimum residential two -way street widths of 24 feet. The proposed plan has increased the minimum widths of residential two -way streets to 27 feet wide (3 feet wider than what was previously approved). The minimum "on street" parking width was increased from 8 feet to a minimum of 7.5 feet and as much as 8 feet wide (depending on the street section). Recommendation: Approval of Ordinance No. 3134 including the 2011 Home Town Thoroughfare Plan. (9) THOROUGHFARE TYPES. All pavement widths are measured from "face of curb" to "face of curb ". At final site plan approval the City shall designate no parking areas with required improved bump -outs or chokers to establish fire fighting staging areas as needed. Final tree species approved by DRC with final site plan approval. Avenue Commercial Streets HW: Highway RR: Rural ,,�• g s $. �� Road i15' 4' 12' 14' 12'8' 151 f ilf ]Y 27 ,r ,5 i j�' ug ,7 ,G 'E7 Y s` i RD: Road t , LA: Lane , p DR: Drive S, z BV: Boulevard f ' AV: Avenue e� ST: Street r "" CS:•; 1 Commercial Street AL: Alley PT: Path 94'iri PS: Passage BP: Bike Path bk =Bike Avenues are appropriate as Lane app- roaches to civic Commercial streets are appropriate for commercial buildings at 34 = buildings. In residential the Neighborhood Center. Trees are confined by individual Pavement neighborhoods, avenues have Width a median that may be planted planters, creating a sidewalk of maximum width, with areas accommodating street furniture. Clear trunks and high canopies 80 = Right -of- naturalistically to become a are necessary to avoid interference with shopfronts, signage and Way Width greenway. AV = T -fare awnings. Tvpe AV -84 -40 CS -68 -38 CS -86 -56 CS -98-58 Movement Free Movement Seed Movement Slow Movement Slow Movement Vehicular 30 MPH 30 MPH 20 MPH 20 MPH Design Seed Traffic Flow Two was Two was Two was Two ways Parking Lanes Striped both sides Striped both sides Diagonal parking Diagonal parking both sides both sides Curb Radius 15 feet To be determined To be determined To be determined R.O.W. Width 84 feet 68 feet 86 feet 98 feet minimum Pavement 20 and 20 feet 38 feet 56 feet 58 feet Width Sidewalk 6 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Width minimum Planter Width 8 ft wide planters & 14 ft w 4 feet 4 feet 4 feet Planter Type Continuous Individual wl Tree Well Individual wl Tree Individual wl Tree Well Well Planter Staggered Allee 30' on Allee 30' on Center Allee 30' on Center Allee 30' on Center Pattern ICenter HW: Mghway 7Z 0 W 79 RR: Rural oil —1 Road i I ir 2Z ZZ � 0' T V 2z $13' RD: Road T r LA: Lane E DR: Drive /f LEK BV: Boulevard V-0 AV: Avenue ST: Street CS: c IS, 9. Commercial IN Street AIL: Alley- PT: Path PS: Passage CE BP: Bike Path bk =Bike Lane 34 = Pavement Width Commercial streets are appropriate for commercial buildings at the Neighborhood Center. 80 = Right-of- Trees are confined by individual planters, creating a sidewalk of maximum width, with areas Way Width accommodating street ftu-niture. Clear trunks and high canopies are necessary to avoid AV = interference with shopfronts, signage and awnings. Thoroughfare Type CS-72-47 CS-81-56 CS-66-38 CS-75-47 Movement Slow Movement Slow Movement Slow Movement Slow Movement Vehicular 20 MPH 20 MPH 20 MPH 20 MPH Design Speed Traffic Flow Two was Two was Two was Two ways Parking Lanes Diagonal one side 1 Diagonal parking both Parallel parking both Diagonal one side Parallel one side sides sides Parallel one side Curb Radius To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined R.O.W. Width 72 feet 81 feet 66 feet 75 feet Pavement Width 47 feet 56 feet 38 feet 47 feet Sidewalk Width 6 feet min. one side/ 15' 15 feet & 10 feet 6 feet min one side/ 6 feet min. one side/ (ininitnum) other side 15' other side 15' other side Planter Width 4 feet 5 feet 7 feet 7 feet Planter Type Tree Well Bldg Tree well or continuous Tree well or Tree Well Bldg side/Planter Park side Planter continuous Planter side/Planter Park side Planter Pattern Allee 30 feet o.c. Allee 30 feet o.c. approx Allee 30 feet o.c. Allee 30 feet o.c. approx approx approx Residential Streets 54' HW: Highway gq n4.5' s ,s a 4.51 RR: Rural Road $ RD: Read "'' s 22' LA: Lane DR: Drive BV: Boulevard AV: Avenue ST: Street CS: Commercial N i s Street AL: Alley a i r a I PT: Path i t 3 PS: Passage; i BP: Bike Path i bk =Bike Lane 34= Pavement Width Streets are appropriate for residential buildings at the Neighborhood 80= 11ight -of -Way Center and General. A single species of tree should be planted in Width steady alignment in continuous planting strips. A vertical canopy is AV= Thoroughfare necessary to avoid building facades at shallow frontage setbacks. Type ST -64 -38 ST -60 -31 Movement Free Movement Slow Movement Vehicular Design 30 MPH 20 MPH Speed Traffic Flow Two Ways Two Ways Parking Lanes Both Sides Both Sides Curb Radius 15 feet 10 feet R.O.W. Width 64 feet 60 feet Pavement Width 38 feet 31 feet Sidewalk Width 6 feet 6 feet Planter Width 7 feet 8.5 feet Planter Type Continuous Continuous Planter Pattern JAUee 30 feet o.c. 1AUee 30 feet o.c. Roads 42' so. HW: Highway ----+ RR Rural Road i1' 8'72' i1' •-4 --� 17 -5 T.5 12 75 11.5 RD: Read , r LA: Lane r DR: Drivel° rr BV: Boulevard AV: Avenue �y ST: Street CS: Commercial r Street AL: Alley Y l PT: Path M PS: Passage "i �t i ; BP: Bike Path bk =Bike Lane Roads are relatively rural, appropriate in the Neighborhood 34--Pavement General and Edge. Since the frontage usually includes a Width substantial setback, the tree canopy may be quite wide. The 80= Right -of -Way rural aspect may be supported by the provision of alternating Width tree species in imperfect alignment. AV= Thoroughfa re TvDe RD -42 -20 RD -50 -27 T- ype Small Road Residential Street Movement Yield Movement Free Movement Vehicular Design 15 MPH 15 MPH Speed Traffic Flow One way Two Ways Parking Lanes Allowed one side One Side/No parking posted on opposite side Curb Type Raised Raised Curb Radius To be determined To be determined R.H.W. Width 42 feet 50 feet Pavement Width 20 feet 27 feet Sidewalk Width 6 feet 6 feet Planter Width 17 feet 5.5 feet Planter Type Icontinuous Continuous Planting Pattern IClusters 30' o.c. Alley 30 feet o.c. SERVICE PASSAGE AND PATH HW: Highway 22 RR: Rural Road xi' - RD: Read�,� Yt LA: Laney DR: Drive t BV: Boulevard f err' a AV: Avenue o a ST: Street CS: Commercial j Street d 1 AL: Alley: PT: Path PS: Passage BP: Bike Path < &{ xr 7MMI F, P mum Alleys provide Lanes Lanes service Passages provide Bicycle paths are bk =Bike Lane service areas, service the the rear of pedestrian shortcuts available for 34 =Pavement parking access, rear of buildings through long blocks bicycle use, Width and utility buildings usually and connect rear connecting to the 80 = Right -of -Way easements in usually houses in the parking areas with general network Width the rear of more houses in Neighborhood street frontages. of streets and AV = Thoroughfare urban buildings. the Center and Passages are not roads while Type They are paved Neighborho Core. They required to be, but providing access from building od General are urban in may be roofed over, to recreational face to building and Edge. character with lined by shopfronts, destinations. face, with They are a 12 ft strip of or landscaped drainage by rural in paving at the where appropriate. inverted crown. character center. Passages are also with a 12 ft those walkways strip of shown on the paving at the Regulating Plan center. that separate the buildings in the Center and Core Zones. AL -30 LA-1 5 LA -20 -15 PS -18-6 BP -18-8 Slow Movement Slow Slow Movement Pedestrian only Bicycle & Movement Movement Pedestrian only Vehicular Design 5 MPH 5 MPH 5 MPH NIA NIA Speed Traffic Flow Two way Two way Two way NIA NIA Parking Lanes No parking No parking No parking NIA NIA Curb Radius To be To be To be NIA NIA determined determined determined R.Q.W. Width 30 feet 15 feet 20 feet 18 feet 18 feet Pavement Width 30 ft concrete, 12 feet min 15 feet NIA 8 feet (minimum) 20 ft clear concrete striped for fire access N RH ORDINANCE NO. 3134 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, AMENDING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN WITHIN THE HOMETOWN NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ADDITION. WHEREAS, the City Council has received recommendations concerning amendments to street classifications within Hometown North Richland Hills Addition; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: Section 1: THAT the Thoroughfare Plan of the City of North Richland Hills is hereby amended within Hometown North Richland Hills Addition as reflected on the map attached hereto. 0 ► I1l11 i 64- -lexel 0 b1' -Al I ►1413 PASSED AND APPROVED this 28th day of March, 2011. Is] I wigs] M►IQ:10:1NIs]:1W- 1►1I1:III16i M_ Oscar Trevino, Mayor -A 0 0 *3 6 Patricia Hutson, City Secretary f_1 U a:16] ►1 =1 B1_h't 119119191 N dj I :1:1911 1 X0_141 CA George A. Staples, City Attorney 1_1 » :161►1 =1 B1_h't 11OI0161 ►10 =1 ►16 John Pitstick, Planning & Development Director fq FtH 2011 HOME TOWN REGULATING & THOROUGHFARE PLAN Reg dWgR.Wo M=h S. aln CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Presented by: Subject: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Items to follow do not require a public hearing. No items for this category. Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. D.0 Department: City Secretary Presented by: Subject: PUBLIC WORKS No items for this category. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. E.0 Department: City Secretary Presented by: Subject: GENERAL ITEMS No items for this category. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. F.0 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Presented by: Subject: EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. G.0 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Presented by: Agenda No. G.1 Subject: Action on Any Item Discussed in Executive Session Listed on Work Session Agenda CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Presented by: Subject: INFORMATION AND REPORTS Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. H.0 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Presented by: Tim Barth Subject: Announcements - Councilman Barth Announcements Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. H.1 The 5th Annual Generation Next Fine Art Exhibit will be on display in the lobby of the North Richland Hills Public Library from March 31st through April 8th. Stop by to see artwork from area high schools students and faculty. Please call 817 - 427 -6814 for more information. Join fellow residents of North Richland Hills in the Race for the Cure on Saturday, April 9th in Fort Worth. Mayor Trevino has accepted a challenge from the Mayor of Hurst to see which community can register the most runners and walkers in the event. To sign up, visit the website komentarrant.org. Please remember to select Team NRH when registering. Kudos Korner Every Council Meeting, we spotlight our employees for the great things they do. Tim Sibley, Public Library — A note was received from a Library patron thanking Tim for his professionalism and service. She was impressed with how promptly he helped her locate and copied the information she needed. Department: City Secretary Presented by: Subject: Adjournment CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Council Meeting Date: 3 -28 -2011 Agenda No. H.2